CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 27, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

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

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes (Policy and Legal Advisor, Hellenic Canadian Congress)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen (Director of the Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada)

Á

1120

Á

1125

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1140

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

The Chair

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

Á

1145

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Bill Janzen

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

The Chair

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

Á

1150

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Â

1200

Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

Â

1210

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Mr. Bill Janzen

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.)

The Chair

Â

1220

Mr. John O'Reilly

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Mr. Bill Janzen

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose (Executive Director, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada)

Â

1225

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

Â

1235

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Â

1240

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Anu Bose

Â

1245

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Anu Bose

Ms. Libby Davies

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Â

1250

Dr. Anu Bose

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 048

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

    We are resuming our review of Bill C-18, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.

    We have three witnesses today. Two are here, and we're waiting for the other one to arrive.

    To our witnesses, thank you very much for being with us. Thank you for the input you provided to the committee on the Immigration Act and for the hard work you do on behalf of your communities.

    Perhaps you could take about seven minutes or so to summarize what's in your brief.

    Unfortunately, the Hellenic brief is only in English. Madeleine has usually been very good about allowing that to be tabled.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): No, I don't feel like it today.

    The Chair: It's okay as long as you don't refer to the brief during your summarization, and as well we may not ask any questions on it. We'll get it translated. We'd like you to summarize your issues and recommendations, and then I'm sure we'll have some questions on your presentation.

    Nicholas, kalé spera.

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes (Policy and Legal Advisor, Hellenic Canadian Congress): Kalé spera. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My name is Nicholas Katsepontes. I'm here on behalf of the Hellenic Canadian Congress. We are the largest group in Canada representing the social, political, and economic interests of Canadians of Hellenic descent.

    We have taken a very keen interest in the Citizenship Act, this particular act, and the act that died on the order paper previously, Bill C-16. We made a submission on that to the Senate. We were happy to see that a lot of the suggestions and comments we made in regard to it were adopted, or noted, or the concerns certainly raised and addressed, within the context of the current proposed legislation.

    My brief—and I apologize for the lateness of it; I brought it today. Normally I would submit it in advance and allow for translation, and henceforth we'll have to get it in the process earlier. My brief addresses more technical or detailed issues, but I think for us the major issue is almost a philosophical one. That is, what is citizenship, and how are we going to define what it is to be a Canadian?

    The new bill speaks and uses terminology such as “values”, “principles of a democratic society”—things of this nature—but I think we have to step back and almost ask ourselves what those are, because we are essentially putting forward a piece of legislation that is going to give authority to the minister, set standards, and essentially allow for a judgment call as to who we think should have citizenship, be denied it, and have it taken away.

    I suggest to you that none of us would disagree that war criminals, terrorists, people who made gross misrepresentations and committed fraud to obtain Canadian citizenship are not worthy of it. But for us in our community, a great majority of whom are naturalized Canadians and have acquired it by choice as opposed to birth, it's a precious commodity, and we have concerns with a piece of legislation that gives the state authority to take it away. We all value it tremendously, and if it is of such great importance and value to us as Canadians, I think we have to have legislation that reflects that there is going to be a very high bar set before we deprive someone of it.

    As I've noted, there is certainly no doubt that there are people who have made their way into Canada and obtained citizenship who are not worthy of it. I've noted the groups we would have no issue with.

    But when one looks at the process that's set forward in this act, there are denials of natural justice and of fundamental principles in terms of access to the court. There are provisions that provide the minister, I would suggest, excessive discretion to initiate processes to deny someone their citizenship, and these are things that are of concern to us.

    The issue of the day now.... As we know, we have a mindset now where we're concerned with terrorism; there are refugee issues that are emerging. When we pass legislation, we also have to think, what are going to be the consequences of its implementation, and how is it going to be viewed 20 years from now? This act is going to be around for a long time, and we need something that's going to have the foresight and vision to look into our future needs as well.

    Our concern is that a piece of legislation might be passed that some day could be utilized by the minister or his department in a way that was not intended today. In giving these powers now to the minister and his department, how do we know how they're going to be utilized 20 years from now or 15 years from now?

    The way to safeguard against that, I would suggest to you, is to allow the utmost access to courts and principles of procedural justice, because if we're going to take away or deny people this most cherished right, we had better allow them every opportunity to defend against the actions of the state.

    I know I'm probably a little bit over my time. I will stop. I submit my brief for your consideration, and certainly I would be happy to address any questions you have. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: I'm interested in some of your recommendations, so if you need a few more minutes to cover off how you would deal with it, we would appreciate it.

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: My brief deals with a number of recommendations. The one area that I think would be beneficial...and legislation can be very useful from the perspective of defining what it is you're talking about. We use terms in the legislation, such terms that I think we all know the definition of, “broad” or “misrepresentation”. “A lie is a lie is a lie”--there's an intention underlying that. I don't think we need to debate what that is or have that defined.

    However, there are terms such as “material misrepresentation” or “material concealment”. Let me give you a very practical consideration. A lot of people in our community, maybe even to this day, after being here for 30 years, do not have a very good facility in the English language. You may have people who came over here who even under the Greek educational system were barely able to read. Correspondingly, their ability to comprehend the English language may be somewhat deficient, even after being here for 30 years. They may be functional on a day-to-day basis, but getting them to deal with legal issues and forms and things of that nature can be another matter.

    The term “material concealment” doesn't address what the intention of the person may have been. He may have not raised something 5, 10 or 15 years ago when he applied for citizenship, because he didn't think it was relevant or had any significance. But when you look at the wording of this legislation, that could be interpreted--and again, by whom and how; there's no definition--as a material concealment. So what was the intention of the person? Maybe it was not to mislead; they simply didn't think of raising it.

    Therefore, that's a term that causes me some concern, “material concealment”, and how that term would be interpreted--or “material circumstances”. It may also be that we need a more elaborate definition of “false representation”, “use of fraud” or “concealment of material facts”. That is specific wording in the act.

    We look at what I call the very “supernatural power” that will be provided to the minister and the cabinet to deny citizenship for “flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. That's certainly an improvement on the sort of terminology that was in the previous bill, but again, what does it mean? I think you have to ask yourselves, what does that mean to us as a nation, to you as legislators, and how do we define that?

    In our brief we set forth some of the basic things we think you have to take into consideration when you look at these terms. They include things such as freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of mobility, multiculturalism as a defining force in shaping the Canadian identity, respect and adherence to democratic principles and ideals, respect and adherence to the highest standards and principles of human rights and promotion of the same, respect for the rule of law, respect and adherence to the standards of international law.

    We submit to you that this is maybe one view of what those principles and values may be. The irony is that the section that refers to that and incorporates it in the act is actually also denying people access to the courts to assert why they should get Canadian citizenship. If that's the standard the cabinet is ultimately going to use to say they don't think you're worthy of Canadian citizenship, how is the cabinet to determine where that bar is set, what is flagrant and serious disregard? Flagrant and serious disregard of what?

    I think these are weighty matters that have to be defined and understood before you give someone the power to say they're going to deny you this. You need to have an underlying rationale and definition to understand that. So that's another term that I think needs to be debated and understood and defined, because you're setting an ability for cabinet to deny citizenship based ultimately on what they think is a flagrant disregard. Maybe it's something all Canadians should decide, not cabinet alone.

Á  (1115)  

    One final recommendation and concern we have is the proposed new administration of the Citizenship Act. We're getting away from the citizenship court to this sort of administrative process that comes more under the auspices of the department. What we liked about the citizenship court was that it had an air and an operation of independence. You had citizenship judges who were appointed for a term, much like other judges, and who could function independently to some extent of what the policy direction of the government of the day was. I think we have to maintain that somehow.

    We have a concern about getting into a situation where citizenship commissioners may be exercising or carrying out an agenda of a government or a policy direction. Is that what we want as a determining factor in assessing who should get citizenship? The maintenance of the citizenship court and the independence we believe it creates and maintains is, I think, fundamental to having an objective assessment of how one deals with citizenship applications.

    That is something that survives from the previous legislation, and we have concerns with that as to how it may operate. Again, you can look at the legislation now and say it looks innocent and it looks fine, but how is this going to function 10 or 15 years down the road when governments change? Many of you may not be around this table or around at all. There will be new people sitting here, interpreting this legislation and applying it, and a new government is going to be utilizing it.

    Those are some of the more important recommendations we've set forth. At this point, again, I'll thank you for your time and your patience.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Nick, for your past interventions on Bill C-16, but more importantly as we debate Bill C-18. We appreciate your insight, the fine work the Hellenic community does in Canada, and your contributions to our country.

    Bill Janzen represents the Mennonite Central Committee Canada. Welcome, Bill.

    Mr. Bill Janzen (Director of the Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and thank you to all members for your work in scrutinizing this bill closely and making sure it is as good as it can humanly be.

    I sympathize fully with the views of my colleague here, but one thing is different, namely that he began his remarks by saying he was addressing things at a philosophical level. My main point is at the other end of the spectrum. It has to do with the implementation and it has to do with the administration, for there are in one section so many administrative problems that we are asking that the section be either deleted or changed.

    The issue has to do with one category of people, those born outside Canada to Canadian parents. There are quite a few Mennonites like that, but there are also many others like that, and our organization has been working with them. Canada, like most countries, allows people who are born abroad of Canadian parents to claim Canadian citizenship, but not indefinitely. You cannot go on for three, four, or five generations and still claim Canadian citizenship without doing something about it if you're simply born abroad generation after generation.

    The key question is, what is the legal mechanism for restricting the means whereby people who are born abroad can be Canadian citizens? Bill C-18 has two provisions that deal with that issue. One is subclause 5(3). Subclause 5(3) says very simply that eligibility for Canadian citizenship ends with the second generation and the counting begins with people born under the current act, that is, 1977. Under the current act, a person born outside Canada of a Canadian parent is eligible for Canadian citizenship, and so is that person's child, but not the third generation. They simply have to become permanent residents like anybody from anywhere in the world.

    I want to emphasize that we are not challenging that clause. It will be a new section in Canadian citizenship law. There has never been a provision like that in citizenship law, not in the 1977 act, not in the 1947 act, nor in the 1914 imperial Naturalization Act. This is a new provision. We're not challenging that one.

    There is a supplementary provision, clause 14, that also affects the means whereby people who are born abroad can be Canadian citizens. This one, to use a somewhat crude term, could be called a clawback provision, one whereby people who already have certificates of Canadian citizenship and are Canadian citizens will cease to be Canadian citizens at age 28 unless they take certain steps before turning age 28. We would not even quarrel with the intent of this clause; we would not quarrel with what it says, if it were implementable. There are so many problems with its implementation that we want to ask that this be reconsidered.

    Let me explain. This one would affect people who are born under the current act, just one category of people and not nearly all the categories. This means that for certain people born under the current act, starting in 1977, when they turn 28 they will cease to be Canadian citizens.

    Now, if there were a clear way of identifying those people, we would not argue. For example, if there were a little phrase on their certificates of citizenship saying the holder of this certificate ceases to be a Canadian citizen at age 28, or something like that, then there would be clarity as to who this section applied to. People would look at their certificates and they would see those words printed there. It would be implementable. It would not be completely fair, and there are various questions about that, but we could live with that. We would not be challenging that.

Á  (1120)  

    But there isn't clarity. There are no words like that. The certificates people such as this have, certificates of Canadian citizenship, appear in every way exactly the way certificates issued to other people who are not subject to loss appear. There's no distinction on that, so this will create enormous confusion about who is indeed subject to loss.

    If citizenship officials had in 1977 adopted this practice of putting a little phrase like that on those certificates, then there would be clarity. I'm quite sure that many officials regret that they didn't do that, but for various reasons the officials of that time didn't do that, so there is an administrative problem.

    It's given that there is nothing like that on the certificates. It is almost impossible for the people themselves to be sure whether they are subject to loss. It is also almost impossible for Canadian officials to be sure unless they go into the citizenship office archives, check the files, and study them closely; then a citizenship official can discover who is subject to loss and who is not. Otherwise, there's no computer system that says a certain person with this name born on that date is subject to loss.

    Let me illustrate a little bit how this might work, what the problems are. Suppose you are in this category of people who are born outside Canada and you are in the category where you are subject to loss. You live outside Canada, maybe in the United States or somewhere else, and you simply proceed with life. Then, at age 28, 29, or whatever, you want to come back to Canada and visit grandparents or something. You come to the border and you present your certificate of Canadian citizenship. In your mind you believe it's valid, and there is no reason the border official should question its validity. There is no computer system, and it would be almost impossible to set up a computer system to identify them, so the person is simply allowed into Canada and life goes on. Everybody is entirely law-abiding otherwise.

    The question is, why have a section in the law that cannot really be implemented? These people can be identified only if somebody goes into the bowels of the citizenship offices in Sydney, Nova Scotia, to study the file carefully and identify them.

    Here's a second illustration. I am sure that right now in a number of cities of the world Canadian embassies are giving alerts, warnings, and cautions to Canadian citizens. I lived in Cairo, Egypt, for two years in the mid-1990s, and every once in a while there would be extra concern about foreigners. The Canadian embassy would let all of us know and say, be very careful where you go and try to stay inside if you don't have to go out; we're preparing some emergency plans if things get really tight, and so on.

    A Canadian embassy will assume that a person who is carrying a certificate of Canadian citizenship is in fact a Canadian citizen, and the people will assume they are Canadian citizens if they have those certificates. The Canadian embassy will be preparing contingency plans for these people, yet some of them will in fact have ceased to be Canadian citizens at age 28, but nobody will know it. It's very difficult to identify who those people are.

    Here is a third illustration. Suppose someone did come to Canada at age one. They were born outside and they are in this category of being subject to loss, but they came to Canada at age one with their parents. They lived here just like Canadian-born people and continued with life. Then somehow, maybe at age 30, 40, or 50, something happens. Their files are checked and it's discovered that, hey, they ceased to be Canadian citizens at age 28.

Á  (1125)  

    They've been living in Canada all this time. Maybe they're prominent people. They start letter-writing campaigns to members of Parliament and ministers and say: “What's going on here? I've lived in Canada since age one and I'm being told I'm not a Canadian citizen. I've paid taxes; I've contributed here and there.” It doesn't quite make sense.

    Consider another illustration. Consider a person who came to Canada at age one and is in this category, and then at age 21 goes outside Canada—maybe for graduate school or something like that—and stays outside Canada maybe for five years and comes back to Canada at age 26. According to clause 14, a person has to make an application for retention before age 28, and in the 1,095 days—the three years—before that time must have been in Canada.

    This person came back to Canada only at age 26, so there's no way that person can meet the time requirement. The person comes back into Canada at age 26, and on the day that person crosses the border his or her certificate is 100% valid. But it is entirely inevitable that this person will cease to be a Canadian citizen at age 28, and there is no remedy for it.

    Another illustration.... Well, maybe that's enough about the illustrations. One other way of describing this problem, and this is something we as an organization have tried to do now because we have a number of Mennonite communities who are affected, is to suppose that—and this could happen in any American city—you go to a community hall and invite all the people who are Canadian citizens—and there's hardly an American city where there are not several hundred Canadian citizens—and you tell them, “Some of you are subject to loss, and if you are in the category of people who are subject to loss, then you should take these steps if you want to retain Canadian citizenship, and if you don't take those steps, at age 28 you will cease to be Canadian citizens.”

    Suppose that's what you want to do, and you study the laws very carefully and you advertise this meeting in some community hall. You have 200 people coming up and they're all carrying certificates of Canadian citizenship, and you want to explain it. Let me give you just one illustration of the complications.

    Let's say in that room there is a woman called Elizabeth. She was born in Canada. She moved to the United States in 1970. There she met an American man called George. They develop a relationship and they have a baby—let's say in 1972. Let's call that little baby Jennifer. According to the law, little Jennifer.... There were two ways whereby a person, before 1977, was eligible for Canadian citizenship. One was if they were born of a Canadian father and in wedlock, or of a Canadian mother and out of wedlock. Well, Elizabeth and George actually were not married, so legally Jennifer was born out of wedlock.

    Being a good mother, Elizabeth registers little Jennifer, and Jennifer becomes a Canadian citizen; she has a certificate of Canadian citizenship. She does that in good time, before the 1977 Citizenship Act comes into force. She does it very soon after birth; everything is fine. Now, little Jennifer grows up—she's born in 1974—and let's say in 1995 she has a little boy. Let's call him Jonathan. Jonathan grows up and Jonathan is not subject to loss. Why? Because his mother was registered before the 1977 act came into force.

    Let me change the facts just a little bit. Let's say that Elizabeth was a little bit busy with many things and didn't get around to registering little Jennifer right away, so she doesn't do it until after the 1977 act comes into force. But she does it. Little Jennifer now is five years old and needs to go to school. She wants to have a certificate of Canadian citizenship; everything is fine. So Jennifer was born in 1974, but she gets her Canadian citizenship in 1977, 1978, or sometime there, and proceeds to have a little baby in 1995, Jonathan. But now Jonathan is subject to loss and he will lose citizenship at age 28. Why? Because Jennifer was registered after the 1977 act came into force.

Á  (1130)  

    Now let's take a third variation on that same story. Let's say that Elizabeth and George were married. That meant Jennifer was born in wedlock. Well, according to the law before 1977, little Jennifer was not eligible for Canadian citizenship, because there were only two ways you could eligible for Canadian citizenship: you're born out of wedlock of a Canadian mother or in wedlock of a Canadian father. Well, in 1977, when the Canadian government brought in the current act, they said this is an injustice we ought to correct. So the Canadian government said it would introduce a section that has some retroactive power, and that is section 5 of the current act, in paragraph (2)(b).

    Jennifer could not have been registered because she was born in wedlock. Now after 1977 there's a way that little Jennifer can obtain Canadian citizenship, but it is not called registration; this is called a grant of citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(b) of the current act. Then she proceeds with life and in 1995 has a little baby called Jonathan, and so on. Now Jonathan is not subject to loss because his mother received a grant of Canadian citizenship. Neither is Jonathan's son.

    You're trying to explain this to this community hall full of 200 people who all carry Canadian citizenship.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Good luck.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Exactly.

    They tell you, “You gotta be nuts. This isn't reasonable. Canada's a civilized country. It does not have laws that are so complicated and so unreasonable. There must be a clear rationale.” That is what has been happening to our workers as we've been trying to work with the current provisions.

    We would ask.... There are several options. We believe clause 14 could be deleted—simply deleted—because there is this subsection 5(3) in the current act. That is a new provision: it makes a very firm stop sign to this whole matter of Canadians born abroad being eligible for Canadian citizenship. It puts a stop to it. It doesn't give them citizenship and then say they will lose it at age 28. It simply says in generation three you can't get it. That, in terms of enforceability, is much easier. We are not challenging subsection 5(3). We think that in terms of the public policy purpose of this thing, subsection 5(3) does accomplish the public policy purpose.

    If clause 14 cannot be deleted, then we would have two alternatives. One is that it be made applicable only to people born after the proposed act comes into force or, minimally, that it be made applicable only to people who receive their certificates of citizenship after the current law comes into force, because then the officials can put these very simple words right on the certificates: “This certificate ceases to be valid when the holder thereof turns 28.” Some of these other problems would still be there, but at least there would be clarity. People would be clear about where they stand, and you could live with it. You could live with the other problems.

    Thank you very much. There are other issues that we have raised, but this is our main one. We would be very grateful—we believe it would not only be helpful to those people, but to the Canadian government: it would help the citizenship officials enormously—if this thing were changed.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Bill.

    It's obvious that you spent an awful lot of time and practice thinking about Jennifer and Elizabeth and Jonathan and all of those who might exist out there.

    You're right. We've heard some pretty wild horror stories already in our travels about Canadians born outside this country and how in fact they fell through the cracks and find that they're stateless, in a sense, which has really been bothersome to the committee. So I think you've given us another dimension as it relates to subsection 5(3) and clause 14.

    I thank you very much, and I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: I'm sorry I took more time.

    The Chair: No, as you said, it's pretty complicated, and sometimes the intent of legislation, when you start putting words to it, can get a lot more complicated. Hopefully, we can simplify it so it's clear to everybody.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Thank you.

    The Chair: Lynne, did you have any questions?

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

    I can't stay for a second round, so I will ask as many questions as possible on some of the concerns I have about the act.

    The scenario you had given was very interesting, because no one had really addressed clause 14 to that depth. So it's good that you did. I'm assuming you have the recommendations written out so that we can put that into some sort of motion. I can't believe how complicated that was.

    I want to start with where you talked about having access to courts, and I know what clauses you're talking about, I suppose, with revocation in particular. Many of the witnesses have asked to have those sections deleted. So I would welcome your comments on having clauses 16, 17, and 18 deleted--which are revocation, annulment, and denial. Do you have any recommendations if they can't be deleted, such as a statute of limitations?

    Regarding residency and attachment, I'd like to hear what your comments are on that.

    I'm very glad, Nicholas, you addressed citizenship judges. We haven't heard enough about how important it is to have citizenship judges. That was really important today, that you had mentioned that, so I thank you for that.

    If you have any comments, Bill, on that as well....

    Those are just a couple of questions on which I'd like to have comments from you before I go.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: I'll address the residency one first, because it just sort of popped into my mind.

    One issue we have, and I think it's a reality of the age we live in, is that we're a far more global society. There's a movement of people. As well, I think when you look at a lot of the ethnic communities in Canada, our feet are in Canada.

    My parents emigrated from Greece. I was born and raised here, as were my siblings. My parents still have either elderly parents or aunts or uncles in Greece, and there's just the human dimension. There's a need to be back in Greece to address estate and family matters. You take that and multiply it by 5 million people, or however many people of ethnic extraction there are, and every story is different. Then there are complications to that scenario and all kinds of versions of that and issues that arise there.

    I think it raises the question in our community that there's no doubt there's an attachment to Canada, but can you still have an attachment and not have residency as defined in legislation in terms of three years, 1,091 days, or whatever it is?

    I foresee in the future, and as we get into the aging process within our own community, a need for people to have a fluidity to travel internationally. I don't think we even understand fully the implications of that within our own community, because it's almost like a need for a dual place of residence in terms of addressing some of these family issues. I think with subsequent generations it's going to fizzle out, but we're still at a stage where we have that first generation that still has that family connection to the old country, and that means there are commitments and needs that have to be addressed.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Would you consider or think being tied to the income tax gives you a possibility to attach residency, an attachment of residency using the income tax instead of 1,000 days out of five years?

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: De facto, now, I think that's what we have, because a lot of people govern their actions by the income tax rules.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It's not in our act, though, or regulations.

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: No, and the question is--

    The Chair: The judge takes it into account.

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: Certainly. And how do you link the two in terms of those two pieces of legislation? That's something, perhaps, one has to give some thought to. Maybe there has to be some mirror provisions or some linkages there, but that's the test I think people are governed by right now--I'm going to satisfy the income tax provisions to avoid either double taxation issues or being taxed in one place and not the other. So purely from a tax perspective, not even introducing the citizenship dimensions, it's a complicated issue that I think will need to be studied a bit more. We're only starting to understand the full implications of it in our own community, but it's central. It makes one realize that residency is not as clear cut and as defined as you would like it to be.

    On the access to the courts issue, my background is as a lawyer. I practised in Halifax initially and probably dealt with most of the immigration cases where people were falling out of shipping containers from Romania on the Halifax waterfront. You know, the one thing that we've always valued in our system is allowing the person to have their day in court, even those people who have come here under false pretences and have had no valid claim to refugee status or, in this instance, citizenship.

    The inherent contradiction I see is that in this legislation we're saying we stand for all these fundamental values of justice and principles of due process and fairness, while at the same time saying that when it comes to something as critical as citizenship, we're going to deny you access or greatly limit your access to the courts. That's a contradiction that unsettles me and doesn't make me very comfortable.

    When we look at lot of the history of what's given rise to this legislation, we have the issue of wanting to deal with war criminals who are here in our country. There's an aging process there where there are groups in this country who want it addressed quickly, because these people are dying off and there's a sense of justice and propriety to dealing with it as quickly as possible.

    We have the added dimension since September 11 of people who are a threat to global democracy and the principles we all stand for, and we want to get at them.

    Those are the issues of the day. What are they five years from now? I don't know. It seems to me the one thing you can put in place in legislation that's going to stand the test of time and address these issues that change, be it terrorism, Nazi war criminals, whatever, is going to be access to the courts. It allows somebody the utmost in due process because that's the fundamental principle of our system.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Bill, do you have an answer to Lynne's question, the same one that Nick was addressing in terms of access to the courts, access to justice?

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Or would it be better to delete the three sections that are causing citizenship to be revoked because of the...? For example, once you become a citizen, you should just become a citizen. You should never have citizenship on probation. It has been suggested at almost every meeting that there should not be those sections, and I just wondered if we should delete them.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: I'm very glad the committee is considering that question. I am very sympathetic to what my colleague has said and the arguments advanced on the whole matter of discretionary power and reliance on the courts and so on, as well as the other question of how residency is defined.

    I must say, though, that when I prepared for this, I felt I could only ask for certain things; I couldn't ask for everything.

    As a result, we've concentrated on what for us would make the biggest difference. I want to be respectful of the general claim of Canadian society that there be a more cultured connection between holding Canadian citizenship and being a resident in Canada. That is why we are not objecting to subclause 5(3); that is a new way of enforcing that, so I don't want to categorically speak against that idea.

    I don't have as many detailed proposals on those issues as some of the other witnesses you've heard--

    The Chair: Perhaps you would like to submit them at any time soon. We're not about to start clause-by-clause study for a little while yet.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Thank you.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: What I'm asking about is a statute of limitations, especially on revocation. Is that something that would be better because of war criminals? Since they're being judged under balance of probabilities instead of beyond a reasonable doubt, I wondered.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Those we would strongly support, precisely that--the whole matter of balance of probabilities versus beyond a reasonable doubt and a statute of limitations. Those are crucial issues.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's what I wanted to hear.

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: This is where we have an issue too. We have no problem with going after those specific groups--war criminals, terrorists, etc. But when you have a general wording to this legislation that at some point could be expanded to incorporate other groups, that's where we have people in our community saying, hey, my son was born here and he has one kind of citizenship; I'm naturalized and I have a different status of citizenship.

    Our concern is that as the process of the implementation of this legislation unfolds, we're creating double standards of citizenship. I think that's something we have to be very conscious of and careful about.

    The Chair: Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Janzen, thank you very much for clarifying yet once again the ridiculous nature of someone who is a Canadian being able to lose Canadian citizenship on Canadian soil. I'm hoping that at some point you can get through to the department. You were here before and you worked hard on this before. It's much appreciated. I think you're getting through to the committee, so that's important, very important.

    Recently we had the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism here--actually a couple of days ago--from Australia, and he basically said don't try to do through the back door what you cannot do through the front door.

    One concern I have is regarding this whole cavalier attitude in terms of loss of citizenship. I'm not sure if you heard from the lost Canadians. These are actually Canadians born on Canadian soil who end up losing their citizenship because of what their parents might have done. They're at www.lostcanadian.com.

    I think the Hellenic Congress is once again very articulate.

    The question I have for both of you, and I think this would solve a lot of problems.... Quite frankly, it would be good to get rid of clauses 16, 17, and 18 because they tend to devalue citizenship. If you look at clause 17, it talks about taking it away from terrorists, taking it away from human rights abusers, and taking it away from organized criminals. Well, I certainly hope the sanctions that are applied against terrorists, organized criminals, and human rights abusers are not taking their citizenship away, throwing them out of the country, because that's not going to make us safe as a community. If we have somebody who is a terrorist--let's suppose we had Osama bin Laden in our midst--well, taking away his citizenship and tossing him out of the country is not going to make anybody safer. Putting Mr. bin Laden in jail and keeping him there is going to keep a lot of folks safer--Canadians and non-Canadians.

    The question I have is should we just take citizenship and give it the protection of the Charter of Rights to make citizenship by choice--naturalization--a meaningful process instead of having a process where you can lose it without even knowing it, where you can lose it without having due process before the courts. I think what that does is it cheapens it.

    This is something we heard going across the western tour. The number of people we're dealing with is so minuscule that at the very least, if we're going to have revocation, it should be written in that it be done by the due process of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7, because we believe that citizenship is of such importance that you cannot easily take it away. That's my question.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: I think it's the million-dollar question, and it boils down to this concept of right versus privilege of citizenship. It seems with this bill we're going more toward privilege as opposed to right.

    What we have to think about carefully and recognize as Canadians is that we're a country that at least in the post-war period had this huge influx of immigration. We welcomed these people with open arms. We said, “We're going to make you Canadians. You're going to pay taxes. You're going to do all these wonderful things.” You look around this table, and just looking at our names you get a sense of what the flavour of our country is and has become.

    We're sort of saying now, “Okay, we're changing the rules a bit as to what citizenship means and how you keep it.” That's a bit of an unsettling concept, and it leaves me with concern for those older members of my community who maybe, for whatever reason, never got citizenship and want to get it; they came here and filled out applications and never knew what they meant and what they put in them. You're going to have people who all of a sudden are sitting there saying, “I'm a Canadian citizen, but God, what did I put in that application 15 years ago?” I don't think any citizen should be put in the position where they have almost a fear of what the state could do to them concerning something as fundamental as citizenship.

    Again, the way to remedy it is maybe to provide some very clear definitions of who it is we want to get rid of—the war criminals, and people of this nature. We're putting forward this legislation and these clauses—16, 17, and 18—to deal with this tiny element of society, but at the same time creating legislation that impacts everybody.

    I think at least those sections have to be given some very careful consideration and maybe some further definition.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Mr. Janzen.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Thank you.

    If my memory is correct, when the effort to pursue war criminals began with the Deschênes commission in the mid-1980s, the government attempted to set up a system so that there would be trials in Canada under established Canadian law, and if people were convicted they would be convicted like other citizens of Canada who are criminals.

    I think if that process had survived, some of these concerns would then have been accommodated, and I think in your illustration, Mr. Telegdi, if Osama bin Laden were in Canada, the way to protect against terrorism isn't to simply deport him; there could be a way of dealing with such a person in Canada that would result in much greater safety and protection than there would be under the charter.

    I do not know precisely what it was that derailed that effort to deal with such people under Canadian criminal courts, but I'm quite sure there was something that derailed that process and resulted in resorting to simply deporting people or revoking citizenship. There might be a way of revisiting that other option and dealing with people like that in a more effective and a more Canadian way.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: What the present situation has done is instead of proving somebody is a war criminal or instead of proving somebody is a human rights abuser, they get tarred with that brush. What we essentially end up doing is asking, did you tell the truth or did you lie on a question that might or might not have been asked 50 years ago? That's the way this thing works. You just have a balance of probabilities, and there's absolutely no appeal.

    Who are we dealing with? A 93-year-old Alzheimer's case who, if he were charged with murder, would not be tried because he's unfit to stand trial. It just doesn't make any sense, because there's no proof ever as to what's supposed to have triggered this. There's never any proof that they're war criminals, and I'm sure there will never be any proof that they're terrorists or organized criminals.

    My God, I hope we have a much better defence against these kinds of people than clause 17, which basically takes their citizenship away and tosses them out of the country. It would be like saying to bank robbers who come to visit Canada, if you come to Canada and rob a bank and we catch you, heck, we're going to take your visitor's visa away and send you out of the country. That's essentially what you're saying, and no, that's not what you want to do. If you come to Canada and you try to rob a bank or anything else, we'll stick you in jail. Otherwise, people will be buying one-way tickets to Canada, knowing that the government will pay to send them out of the country, and there's no penalty. It's just ridiculous.

    This whole thing has caused concern in terms of citizenship, and that's why I'm asking this question. If we're going to have revocation, should it be guaranteed by the charter under section 7 if we're going to have it, just as Clifford Olsen's rights are guaranteed by section 7 of the charter and Paul Bernardo's rights are guaranteed by section 7 of the charter? Surely to God, for people whose citizenship is at stake, they should have section 7 of the charter as well. That's the question.

    The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

    Before I make my comments, I would like to briefly return to the notion of residency. In the bill that is before us, there is an obligation of residency, but to have access to health insurance, notably in Québec, there is also an obligation of residency. I would imagine that somehow, there are things that go with the rights and privileges we have. That's one thing.

    My comment is the following. It is clear that C-18 requires that the committee meet a major challenge, that of determining whether all Canadian citizens are equal. It's not simple, Are they equal? Secondly, when citizenship is to be taken away from someone, the only ones who can lose it are ultimately those who have acquired it through a naturalization process. I exclude those who lost it without knowing it, even if they were born here. It is clear that the treatment is not the same.

    You also mentioned Mr. Katsepontes, and quite appropriately so, that values needed to be defined. Currently, in this beautiful and great country that is Canada, there is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder if the fact that this charter exists and applies to any person on the Canadian territory should not involve a sort of uniform application of the law and justice. Should not the right of appeal be maintained for any person who is likely to lose their citizenship? What disturbs us a great deal in the bill that is before us is this loss of the right of appeal, notably in sections 17 and 18. It's very disturbing. There are many witnesses who are also concerned about this. Let's say that from the start, I have a problem when the right of appeal is suspended. I'm not a lawyer, but I think this goes against common sense.

    I hope amendments will be brought forward, and I hope the government will accept them, because it's all there. The committee does a good job, but we know that despite the work we do as seriously as possible, our amendments are not always accepted by the government.

    Do you agree with me that our biggest challenge is to demonstrate that this bill is just and equitable for all those who are Canadian citizens?

  (1200)  

[English]

    Mr. Nicholas Katsepontes: As a lawyer, and looking at it from the perspective of my profession, I wonder if this legislation would survive a charter challenge if it were passed. That's a road we may end up going down. If we have the foresight and if the committee, the legislators, and the government have the ability to anticipate that and do their job properly, we can avoid going down that road. We can avoid the effort of passing the legislation only to have a court slap you on the wrist and say, you didn't do it right because of the charter.

    I think you are right. We have the charter as a statement of some very fundamental principles we've all adopted and believe in as Canadians, and that should be almost the umbrella under which this legislation exists.

    It comes back to what I said earlier, that I have a problem with the inconsistency of what we're saying we stand for as a nation and the way we're wording this legislation. To put it bluntly, no, I do not think we should deny access to the courts or deny the right of appeal just because that may draw out and make lengthy the determination of what we do with an individual concerning their citizenship.

    The Chair: With all due respect, I should point out that justice department lawyers have indicated to at least the administration that this particular bill would meet the test of the charter. We'll bring in the administration and ask them to defend that position because it's been raised. The whole question of whether it's charter-proof would be an interesting exercise for us to go through. I think this raises a fundamental question as to whether or not it really does meet the test of the charter, and we'll follow up on that particular question.

    Bill, do you have any particular comments with regard to Madeleine's...?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Bill Janzen: You will probably have noticed that the title of our submission includes two words, “functionality” and “fairness”. We agree that there is a question of fairness and that those elements need to be corrected.

    The other element is functionality: does it work, can it be implemented in a reasonable way, and is it an effective way of achieving a good public policy purpose? If there were clarity regarding the situations we deal with, we would be a little bit less concerned about the question of fairness. If people clearly knew where they stood, then that would go a long way toward addressing our concerns. At present they don't, and that lack of clarity makes the question of fairness more serious.

    If there were a way--and there is a way. Simply, if you start now and say all certificates of citizenship will have these words written right on the face, that little thing will make things clear. Then people can act as they are legally allowed to act and they can take advantage of it. But with so much unclarity it becomes difficult.

    So we have the two elements, functionality and fairness.

    The Chair: What this committee is doing at the present time is trying to make sure that the legislation, which is about principles, hopefully meets the test of fairness and equality and so on and so forth. This committee also has a lot of experience making sure the regulations, which in fact speak to your functionality issue of how to implement good legislation, are made as good as we can possibly get them. The next step is making sure the regulations actually reflect the views in the legislation and are practical, understandable, and fair in terms of implementation. That's something we'll also consider.

    Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Thank you very much.

    First of all, I would like to thank both of you for coming today. I think you've both given very humane and clear examples of what some of the problems are with this bill.

    Like some of my colleagues here, I think there is a very big question as to whether or not this bill fundamentally violates what I think most Canadians understand to be principles of fairness and equality.

    What I find rather surprising is that we would have a bill that would allow situations to arise where people legitimately believe they are a Canadian citizen, and then, without any knowledge, that is somehow revoked, which is the situation you are referring to, Bill.

    I don't know how that could be upheld under the charter at all. I just don't know how these provisions would stack up. It seems to me that they would clearly violate the charter. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, and if it does goes through, I'm sure that will all happen.

    I want to come back to where, in your brief--you actually didn't touch on this in your remarks--clearly we understand the problems you're raising in terms of clause 14 under the proposed bill. But you do talk about the existing situation under the current bill, in section 8. It's a similar provision, although you are only required to reside in Canada for a year.

    Then you go on to say it hasn't received much attention. So I would like you to go through that, because it sounds like the principle of what you're opposed to already exists, but nobody has really done much about it.

    From people you work with...I'm actually curious to know how many people it might affect, if you have any knowledge of that. People who work for the Mennonite Central Committee abroad for years are presumably some of the people who would be subject to this, but it sounds like you are saying that under the existing provisions you really haven't had a concern about it, that it just hasn't been an issue.

    I'm just curious if you could speak about that some more, because the principle of what you're opposed to is actually in the current act, if I'm not mistaken.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Thank you. That's a very good question. Your observation about the fact that the principle of what we are challenging is in the current act is correct. Section 8 in the current act is slightly different, but the essential principle is the same as what is in clause 14 of the proposed bill.

    So what we have under the existing act, and this doesn't really change, is that people who were born under the existing act--that is, from 1977 until now--one category of those people, will lose their citizenship at age 28. We've been working with hundreds of people like that, and they have asked us what they should do. We have asked citizenship officials and they have said, “We're not quite sure what to do with section 8; we think maybe it will be removed when there is a new piece of legislation that comes in, and let's not worry about it too much.” That has been, more or less, the answer for the last 20 years. We've asked it quite a few times.

    In one sense, it wasn't entirely crucial, because from 1977, if you count 28 years, that's 2005. So no one has yet actually lost citizenship under section 8. That's why it hasn't been biting in that way.

    What we have been doing in the last two years especially is going to citizenship officials and saying, “But we must do something about this; this section 8 is in the current law and people are asking us about this.” So we have been working with citizenship officials, and we have been getting some clarity about how section 8 might apply, and we've been doing guidelines, and so on. But we've also experienced all these problems that I talked about before. Section 8 is very difficult to implement.

    We have been saying to people, look, you are going to lose if you don't do something before you turn age 28, and some of you are going to turn age 28 in a few years. Then they say, “Which categories of people will be affected that way?” We start to explain that, and it's tough.

    The Chair: We'll definitely ask the administration for a lot of clarity now that you've brought it to our attention.

    Go ahead, Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies: I would like to follow up on that point because I think it raises a really interesting question, and that is that the problem has always been there but it hasn't actually manifested itself because we've been in this sort of time lag. Rather than addressing the problem, this new legislation is actually aggravating it, making it maybe ten times worse.

    The Chair: Do you know what, Libby? You're absolutely right. Bill C-18 isn't going to fix this problem.

    Ms. Libby Davies: No, it's actually going to make it worse.

    The Chair: Yes, and that's why I said that while the existing law doesn't work, Bill C-18 doesn't fix it and might even make it worse.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Yes, it's just curious, and it seems as if the Mennonite Central Committee is one of the few groups that actually deals with this.

    I get the impression that the officials have told you, yes, we can see the writing on the wall and we can see that this is suddenly going to be a big problem. They left the impression that it was going to be changed, but obviously it's gone in a completely different direction. If this goes through now, the problem will be greatly aggravated. I'm just curious, because you were left with the impression that it would somehow be deleted or that the regulations would change.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: There is no doubt that there are many citizenship officials, the ones who do the work with the files, who are hoping that it will be deleted because it would relieve them of an enormous, very complicated situation.

    Now, I'm sure that when officials come to you, you will ask them the question, why clause 14? I should also make the distinction that this is not so much a revocation as simply a loss. A revocation under these other sections requires a particular decision on the part of the government. These will simply lose their citizenship.

    One might ask, what is the broad public policy purpose? I think the broad public policy purpose is to have a way so people cannot live outside of Canada generation after generation after generation and be Canadian citizens.

    Now, section 8 of the existing act was one way of dealing with that--not a very good way, but it was a modest way of eventually addressing that. Bill C-18 has subclause 5(3) in it. It is a much more clean-cut section, much easier to administer, and a much more effective way of accomplishing that public policy purpose. It is not in the existing legislation; there's nothing like that. Bill C-18 has that in there, so now it makes this, what is section 8 in the existing legislation and what is clause 14 in the proposed bill, much less necessary. For that reason we think the public policy purpose could be accomplished simply with subclause 5(3), and we can do away with something that is almost unimplementable.

    The officials will probably say that if we take out clause 14, that will be a delay for one category of people who would otherwise lose citizenship. It would mean that they can remain citizens for a number more years. They will say the whole purpose is to have tighter control over who is a citizen and who isn't.

    If there were clarity, I wouldn't argue against that objective. The problem is, there simply isn't clarity because the certificates are not identified. Why have a section in the law that in the reading of the law says the government will have a little more control over who exactly is a citizen if you cannot implement it? It just creates enormous trouble for implementation, so the public policy purpose will not be served.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: There was one more who was supposed to be with us, but unfortunately her car broke down, so we have to get to Anu Bose, the executive director of the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada.

    John.

    Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses for coming.

    I'm a new member, having just been appointed to this committee. I know there are some variances I was trying to get my head around. I have had an emerging Mennonite community in my area over the last five years, people coming mainly from the United States but some from the Kitchener, Ontario, area.

    Some have children born only in Canada, but some have both children born in Canada and others born in the U.S. I have families where the daughter is American and the son is Canadian, and they've asked me some questions I will obviously refer on to your organization now. I have a family with two American parents living in Canada, one of the children born in the United States and the other born in Canada, and they're asking me how they straighten this out. How do they get Canadian citizenship? How does one of their children who's a U.S. citizen living in Canada become a Canadian citizen?

    When they offered me the job on the immigration committee, I thought it was a great idea because I would be able to ask this. I didn't think I'd have an expert witness in front of me so quickly, so I wasn't entirely prepared for this.

    Incidentally, Joe, if you're ever up in the area, remember that they do have a great bakeshop. It's in the Fenelon Falls area of central Ontario.

    So what do I tell them? Where do they go, a family of two U.S. citizens living in Canada with a U.S. three-year-old and a Canadian one-year-old, both within the same family? Where do I send them? What do I tell them? What will this bill do to help them?

    The Chair: You ask this even though you're an accountant and tax adviser?

  (1220)  

    Mr. John O'Reilly: Well, immigration in my area is not a big concern. We do a couple of thousand passports a year but maybe one or two immigration cases. Now I have about four or five in front of me, and I have to get up to speed on this, so obviously you're going to give me some expert advice.

    The Chair: We get four or five a day in London, Montreal, Kitchener, or Vancouver.

    Go ahead, Bill.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: After those very warm words, I wish I could give a very generous response. I will say that if you do refer them to me, I will do my best to resolve that satisfactorily.

    I must say that if the parents were born in the United States, if their ancestry is American--third, fourth generation or whatever--then they will not be affected by clause 14. Whether clause 14 is in here or whether it's not, they will not be affected by it.

    Clause 14 affects people who are of Canadian background. Let's say a family was Canadian a generation or two ago and then moved to the United States; then the question of clause 14 affects them. Then it would become crucial, then it would have a bearing, and I would be very pleased to respond.

    If people have no Canadian ancestry, then they come via the permanent resident, landed immigrant, or refugee avenue or whatever. Our submission is not speaking to that whole area. We're speaking to those who were born outside but who have a Canadian background. If these people do fall within that category, I will be very pleased to try to respond.

    As I indicated, when we're asked to look in a fairly detailed way at a family situation to see who was born in wedlock or out of wedlock, born before 1977 or after 1977, it's really quite intricate.

    I would be very pleased, Mr. O'Reilly, to work with you. If I can be of any help, I would love to.

    The Chair: I'd offer my services, but Bill, you look like or sound like the kind of guy who loves to do family trees.

    Let's hope that in Andrew's case of bin Laden being here--God forbid that should happen--and he has kids born outside our country...that would complicate the situation really well, wouldn't it, Andrew?

    Thank you very much, both Nicholas and Bill, for your great insight and for the recommendations you have given us.

    There's only thing I might add. I don't want you to answer it now, but as you know, we are conducting a national consultation on a national ID card. I wouldn't mind if you could make your submissions known to us through our clerk as to what you think of the idea.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Bill Janzen: Yes. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Colleagues, while we wait for Anu to be with us--she'll make her presentation for five or seven minutes, obviously from a very important group in Canada, and she's been with us many times--I just want to let you know that the House has given its approval for our trip to Washington to talk to our counterparts with regard to an awful lot of mutual issues that this committee has been very interested in for a very long time--from immigration to border security to passports to citizenship to a national ID card. But you will know that the approval has only been granted to six members to travel. For Madeleine and Libby obviously or for the Conservatives, that might not be a problem. I just want to let you know that's going to happen the week of March 24 for three or four days. If you could, start looking at your calendars and make sure you can confirm with Bill the travel arrangements you need and so on.

    An hon. member: How many days?

    The Chair: It will be a maximum of about three days. We'll be back...Monday through Thursday.

    Now we will ask Anu to come up.

    Anu, welcome back to the committee.

    Dr. Anu Bose (Executive Director, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: I know you've given us some great information and insight into our Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We want to thank you very much for your past interventions with regard to citizenship. Three times at it now, so we're determined to get it right.

    Dr. Anu Bose: Thank you very much, Mr. Fontana.

    The Chair: So welcome, then.

    Dr. Anu Bose: You will take the lumps.

    The Chair: And respect the rights, yes.

    Dr. Anu Bose: First of all, an apology. We got our car stuck in a snowbank. Stephanie Ruta, who is our law intern, had to leave because she has a big date with the CAA, who are coming to get her out.

    The Chair: One of the things about being Canadian in Canada, of course.

    Dr. Anu Bose: Yes.

[Translation]

    The National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada is a non-profit organization that is non-partisan and non-sectarian. Its goal is to provide equality for immigrant and visible minority women in Canada, in a bilingual situation.

    We thank the members of the permanent committee for the opportunity they gave us to appear before them on Bill C-18, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.

[English]

    NOIVMWC is no stranger to this committee, as the chair has just indicated. We seem to turn up like a dirty shirt whenever the words “citizenship” or “immigration” are mentioned.

    We are encouraged to see that Bill C-18 is an improvement on Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, which were introduced in the 36th Parliament, but the NOIVMWC constituency has not viewed it as the breath of fresh air Mr. Coderre promised it would be. To some of us it's more akin to a blast of subarctic air, coming as it does in the wake of the anti-terrorism, immigration, and refugee legislation.

    Our submission today will be confined to a general remark on the principle of equality of all citizens, which I think you have thoroughly discussed with the two gentlemen who appeared before me. In particular, we will touch upon the residence requirements for permanent residents seeking citizenship, the revocation of citizenship, the annulment of citizenship, and the refusal of citizenship by cabinet decision.

    We welcome the clarity in clause 12 of the principle of equal rights and obligations of all citizens, regardless of the manner in which that citizenship was acquired, yet we find the bill does not seem to fully reflect the principle that all citizens are equal. That seems to conflict with section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    An example is the right to pass citizenship on to one's children. A second-generation Canadian citizen born outside of Canada, who may have come here a few months after his or her birth, would not be able to pass on his or her citizenship to his or her child or children. In fact, such a child or children might even be made stateless--a very parlous situation in the present climate. Yet a citizen of Canada who was born here or who acquired citizenship would face no such restrictions on her mobility, since the child or the children would be born Canadian.

    We are very concerned--and I think Mr. Telegdi has already raised this--about the spectre of a two-tiered citizenship emerging in this land. So we support the Canadian Council for Refugee's recommendation that a clause be added indicating that a person is a Canadian citizen if born outside of Canada to a person whose application to retain citizenship under section 14 was accepted.

    The previous speakers spoke at great length on the residence requirements for permanent residents seeking citizenship. We too are very concerned at the lack of flexibility when assessing residency. Both the current act and the proposed legislation require permanent residents to have three years of residence in Canada in order to be eligible for citizenship. The proposed legislation requires that this be defined as “physical presence”, and the flexibility granted in the interpretation of the term under the current act is removed.

    This will restrict the freedom of movement of a certain group of persons. Moreover, such a provision will discriminate against women, who in this era of globalization may have to either seek work abroad or accompany a Canadian spouse abroad while he works for a multinational concern. It will affect women with immediate family in Canada who are accepted for study at universities abroad, or who may be employed in overseas subsidiaries of Canadian firms.

    We recommend that clause 14 be deleted. If that is not possible, we endorse the position of the Canadian Bar Association and ask for a more flexible interpretation of the term “residency” for the purposes of acquiring citizenship. Hopefully it will be addressed in the regulations when they are brought forward.

    We are also extremely distressed over the expanded provisions in the new legislation for the revocation and annulment of citizenship. These are very serious penalties that a state can apply against its citizens and should not be taken lightly.

    On the revocation of citizenship, we refer to clause 17, which we believe is modelled on a similar provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would allow a Federal Court judge to revoke citizenship without the person being allowed to view the evidence against him or her. The right to appeal or judicial review is also restricted to “factual and legal finding of misrepresentation” in the present legislation.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Anu, for your intervention and submission on behalf of the group. It's very valued. We look forward to asking you some questions.

    Why don't we start with Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

    Madam, I would like to say that I appreciated the few French words you spoke at the beginning of your presentation.

    Your first recommendation is about a provision that would be added in section 14. However, the second recommendation suggests that section 14 be deleted. I assume you wish that section 14 be deleted and that, if it cannot be, you suggest adding a provision to somewhat clarify the scope of that section.

    Is that what you mean?

    Dr. Anu Bose: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, I can say that I am bilingual, but because I have lived almost all my life in England, I have problems expressing myself in French, especially on these somewhat technical issues.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think you are underestimating yourself, Madam, but speak in the language you are most comfortable in.

    There are a certain number of things you suggested which will certainly be studied and proposed as amendments. Therefore, I will not go back on them. However, I would like to talk to you about the opinion you expressed, that sections 21, 22 and 28 be deleted.

    I would like to tell you that we will do our best to have them deleted, but knowing that our wishes are not always met, I will ask you whether you consider that it would be an improvement if the bill included a clear definition of “serious disregard.”

    Dr. Anu Bose: Yes, that would certainly be an improvement.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Okay. According to you, who would be the best people to define the term “serious disregard“? Personally, I don't know. If someone pulls a face at me, it's serious disregard, but it's so elastic. Who would have the credibility to define what it means?

    Dr. Anu Bose: I will try to answer you in English, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

[English]

    I suppose this should be enshrined in the regulations and that your committee, the bar association, and groups like ourselves should be asked to come forward with some definitions, which can then be put into the regulations. But the issue of definition is always very fraught--

    The Chair: The offer is out there for you, Anu, to provide us with your insight on it. That would be great.

  (1240)  

    Dr. Anu Bose: I will certainly go back to my constituency and to my young legal beagle there and come back with something for you. We are already preparing to come forward with something on the ID card. Should we just attach it to that?

    The Chair: Sure.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It had been required that the regulations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be presented to the committee. I think this was a first. It may be done again with C-18 and be required that it be included in the legislation. In the event that it would not be accepted, that the government would decide to publish the regulations without submitting them to the committee, would it not be wiser that the definition of “serious disregard“ be included in the legislation? Regulations can change. The legislation can remain in place for a long time, but the regulations can change.

    I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion, the important things should be in the legislation. I think that nothing prevents us from adding a provision that would define in an acceptable way what is meant by “serious disregard.”

    Dr. Anu Bose: Certainly, Madam.

[English]

    I would very much like to see a clearly defined list, because there are so many ambiguities in this bill that is in front of us. We put our trust in you, our parliamentarians.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: How heavy!

[English]

    The Chair: The weight is very heavy, even more so for the government members.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's why I'm working here with pleasure.

    The Chair: I know.

    Libby.

    Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you very much for coming today. I'm also new to the committee, so I'm playing catch-up a bit in terms of the history of this bill and its newest form.

    I have a couple of questions. In terms of clauses 21, 22, and 28, as I understand it, your preference is that they be deleted?

    Dr. Anu Bose: Yes.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So you think there should not be a definition in terms of how an annulment could take place, on what grounds. On principle, you feel it shouldn't even be in the bill, because it does then create this sort of two-tiered situation.

    Dr. Anu Bose: Ms. Davies, it does indeed.

    Certainly, we would like a better definition. Our problem with a lot of the bill--and I'm not a lawyer--is that the definitions are not very clear; there is a lot of murkiness in the wording. But also, more than just the wording, there are some very important principles that have been put in jeopardy by this bill.

    Ms. Libby Davies: One of the concerns I have--and you mentioned this actually--is we've seen very far-reaching legislation that's already been approved by the federal government in terms of security measures. Now we're seeing it creep into citizenship legislation.

    I don't know whether you've been able to look at it from this point of view, but it seems to me there are far-reaching, adequate provisions in other legislation that has already been approved that deal with security issues and acts of terrorism or contributing to terrorism. So why is it necessary now to open up the floodgates and have it completely take over this bill as well?

    I don't know whether you've been able to examine it from that larger context of other pieces of legislation that have already been approved and that I know many groups, probably including your own, had grave reservations about.

    Dr. Anu Bose: It is very interesting that you should ask that, Ms. Davies. As principal researcher, I have just been given $100,000 through the Status of Women and Justice to look at this particular question and how it plays out in the visible minority and immigrant communities. So if you come back to me in six months' time, I might be able to give you what I consider a reasoned answer and not something off the top of my head.

    We seem to find that every piece of legislation coming forward is informed by the anti-terrorism legislation. It is almost like the Holy Ghost brooding over us.

  (1245)  

    Ms. Libby Davies: If you're doing that research, and presumably this is funded by the federal government--

    Dr. Anu Bose: Yes, it is, indeed.

    Ms. Libby Davies: So obviously the question exists, did the government go completely overboard on it, and how does it impact on other spheres of life? And now here we are, poised to embark on yet another piece of legislation that comes in like a tidal wave.

    But it seems to me the other part of that--and this was raised by some groups in Vancouver--is whether or not this bill is subject to any sort of gender analysis. Maybe that's partly what you're going to look at in terms of your review of the other security or anti-terrorism legislation.

    Have you also looked at this bill, as much as you can, given that it hasn't been around for too long, from the point of view of gender analysis?

    Dr. Anu Bose: Yes, we have. I think I talked about this passing on of citizenship. Actually, I personally have never really...maybe it's my British training--we don't look at gender analysis as much as we look at the public policy point of view of it not serving certain people, say from the visible minority or immigrant community. But this money, this allocation, will certainly give me a chance to look at all legislation through another lens--that of gender.

    Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism legislation, I think affected men and women equally. This affects men and women equally. Women's options are fewer, especially since it restricts mobility even more for women. It cuts off opportunities more for women. But apart from that, I would say this impacts very heavily on people of colour and people from immigrant backgrounds. And that is what concerns us, what exercises us, especially since we have a chair who himself comes from an immigrant background.

    The Chair: Yes, and from a place that is much warmer these days. I have fond memories of Italy.

    Dr. Anu Bose: We would be very happy, Mr. Chairman, to send to Mr. Dolin and to your clerk the research design, once its ready, so Mr. Dolin and you may comment on it, should you so choose.

    The Chair: We may or may not comment. We want your information. We want your insights.

    Dr. Anu Bose: Certainly, I will send the design to you.

    The Chair: Sure. I believe Andrew had a question for you.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just to be clear, a lot of people are saying this will create two classes of citizens. We already have that. This is a 1977 bill, and the treatment of minorities, or immigrants to Canada, has not always been the best. I think ultimately this resulted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    When I look at the bill, for me it doesn't reflect the charter, which in some ways was to answer the history, be it what happened to the Acadians, the Chinese, the colour barrier in immigration--what have you. Since we're working on the Citizenship Act, it should embody the spirit of the charter, and certainly it should have the protection of the charter. We have a chance of getting this right.

    Do you agree that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as is stated in section 7, should be in the bill as a guiding principle?

    Dr. Anu Bose: Absolutely. More than the gender or the immigrant lens, the charter lens is the most important one you can look through when considering any piece of legislation coming forward, given the anti-terrorism legislation.

    And thank you and your office for making it possible for us to come. You raised the alarm and we came.

    The Chair: Yes, we wanted to make sure, because there are a number of issues this committee is looking at. Some of our members--especially ones from this committee--are very passionate about immigration and citizenship, as I am.

    This committee has done some very good work in the past three or four years. We continually want to ensure that we do a very fine job and improve on it where we can. Of course, this is the third time on this one, and we've heard from a lot of people across the country. I find the value they put on citizenship remarkable, absolutely incredible; therefore, we face the bar and the test of making sure there is one class of citizen.

    Anu, you talked about your heritage in England. I should note that when we had the Minister of Citizenship for Australia here, he told us the British in fact are talking about this issue of citizenship too. They also want to create one class of citizen. You can come at it in so many different ways--by birth or by choice. They're discussing a provision wherein you could even lose your citizenship by birth, if you had achieved it that way, as long as you didn't cause a person to become stateless by doing that.

    Now it seems like a convoluted way of getting around some of the stuff involved with ensuring equality. I think we're going to try to be a little more innovative than that. We're determined to make sure there is one class of citizen here. I'm sure we can use all of our ingenious capacity to ensure this happens.

    Thank you so much, Anu, again, for your past contributions, the hard work you do for us, for our country, and the group you represent. We look forward to your submissions on the national ID, and the amendment definitions you're going to forward to us.

  (1250)  

    Dr. Anu Bose: Thank you so much. Merci.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    By the way, colleagues, when we get back here on March 18 we have some pretty heavy-duty shooters coming to our committee. Judge Salhany, a well-known Superior Court judge, will talk a bit about the law and certain provisions of Bill C-18. As well, we'll have the Privacy Commissioner--of Canada, this time; we've heard the provincial ones as we've travelled. That's on March 18.

    On March 20, of course, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be with us as we talk about supplementary estimates.

    Ms. Libby Davies: When might we start clause-by-clause?

    The Chair: Some time in April.

    Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.