CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 17, 2003

·

1300

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.))

·

1305

Mr. Tarlochan Binning (Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Port Alberni)

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

·

1310

·

1315

·

1320

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

·

1325

Mr. Louis Plamondon

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

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

·

1330

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

·

1335

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

·

1340

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Tarlochan Binning

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila ( As Individual)

·

1345

·

1350

·

1355

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Matti Anttila

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila

¸

1400

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

¸

1405

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

Mr. Matti Anttila

¸

1410

The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 038

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1300)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)) Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're off and running again.

    It's nice to have Mr. Tarlochan Binning in front of us, who will speak to us on Bill C-18. We'll probably have a couple of questions for you afterwards, so please proceed.

·  (1305)  

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning (Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Port Alberni): Thank you very much, first of all, for allowing me to be here. I sincerely apologize for not having sent this in earlier so our friend Mr. Plamondon could have it translated for him and he could understand it. I really apologize. I know how hard it is to second-guess the other language.

    I'll tell you upfront that I'm not a public speaker. This is not my first language and I'm going to have a little bit of difficulty pronouncing, so please bear with me.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Don't feel bad. For most of us, as members of Parliament, public speaking wasn't our first issue either.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you.

    I'd like to begin by applauding the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for refining the Citizenship Act of 1977. The purported objectives of reasserting the rights and freedoms of Canadians, reinforcing the responsibilities associated with being Canadian, and underlining the importance of a strong commitment to Canada are noble and long overdue.

    The proposed changes for adopted persons, where an adopted person can acquire citizenship without becoming a permanent resident; compliance with the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act, with equal treatment of married couples and common-law partners; as well as commitment to Canadian values--these are all steps in the right direction. However, there are a number of clauses in the bill that I take issue with, and I welcome the opportunity to provide comments on them.

    In particular, I will be concerned with the proposed provisions relating to citizenship revocation outlined in clause 17 of Bill C-18. Clause 17 outlines a new revocation process that is judicial in nature, although in some cases the proposed process would occur in secret, with no right of appeal. In fact, in some cases the accused will not even be permitted to view the evidence against him or be present when it's being evaluated.

    There are three elements to clause 17. The first element relates to cases of misrepresentation. In cases of misrepresentation, the Federal Court Trial Division will make their finding and an appeal will be allowed. However, in cases where the judge deems that the information that will be used against the accused is dangerous to national security or the safety of any person, as outlined in paragraph 17(4)(e), the judge will view and deliberate on the information in private, and his decision will be final, with no right of appeal. More importantly, these clauses apply only to naturalized citizens and not to those who are Canadian-born.

    In short, my contention with clause 17 boils down to four main issues. Number one, the creation of a subclass of citizens is discriminatory, offensive, and quite possibly in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Number two, its administration as outlined in the bill violates the principles of fundamental justice guaranteed in section 7 of the charter.

    Number three, there are several policy gaps—questions unanswered—that need to be resolved before such a provision should be passed.

    Number four, there should be studies done to determine whether certain groups in Canada will be affected more than others. I will deal with each one of these in turn and then proceed to offer recommendations.

    Concerning a two-tiered system of citizenship, by its very nature the process of citizenship revocation is unfair. It only applies to naturalized citizens, creating a two-tiered system of citizenship. If foreign-born citizens should have the protection of the bill of rights, when does a citizen become a full-blown citizen? When can he feel this is his home? If Bill C-18 passes in its present form, he can never feel at home in Canada.

    One of the primary functions of Citizenship and Immigration, especially on the citizenship side, is to promote successful integration of newcomers to Canada. How would a policy of selective citizenship revocation further that objective? Those of us who have left third world countries to avoid crime and corruption and to enjoy the safety and security of Canada would feel quite misled when our adopted nation decides to send us to a country we no longer consider home.

    In contrast, refugees enjoy the full protection of the Charter of Rights. It seems short-sighted if more protections and rights are afforded to refugees than to long-standing citizens.

    As to due process and principles of fundamental justice, in the process outlined in subclause 17(4), paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (j), the presiding judge must not divulge information, even to the accused or his counsel, that he deems could be injurious to national security. He may accept information that would not be permissible in normal court proceedings and may deal with all the matters expeditiously, ignoring established rules or protocols of court proceedings.

    At the minister's request, the judge may be provided with any other information the minister may deem appropriate. All of the information and evidence would be examined in private, without the presence of the accused or his counsel. The evidence that leads to the judge's ruling may be provided to the accused in summary format, with information considered injurious to national security omitted. Finally, the judge's decision will be final, with no right of appeal.

    I ask you, what about this process is just, in keeping with due process, and in keeping with the principles of fundamental justice? A fair and just process would be transparent, consistent, and as a minimum would allow an appeal. The appeal process is a fundamental component of our justice system.

    Turning to policy gaps and questions unanswered, how will this program be administered? In cases where the minister has a discretion, will the extent or the nature of the minister's discretion be clearly defined? How about the cases where the accused's Canadian children's best interest is to remain in Canada? Will this be considered? If so, to what extent? In cases where national security is at stake and allegations are enough, what will constitute legitimate information?

    If a country with a poor human rights record and perhaps a hidden agenda, such as Iraq, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc., were to provide information, would this be taken at face value? What if a country like Iraq were to request that a naturalized Canadian citizen be returned to face execution? Would this be acceptable?

    Who will be the main target of this policy? On the face of it, it would seem it would be primarily applied to visible minorities. Having researched this extensively, I have found that no analysis has been done to determine whether visible minorities would be affected more than other groups by this policy. At the very least, research should be done in this area to determine whether this policy will affect one group over another.

·  (1310)  

    In addition, has the responsible government department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, undertaken studies to determine whether the creation of a lower class of citizens could serve as a legal precedent for further discrimination in other matters? As far as I can tell, no research or analysis has been done in this area.

    Where will we send those who have their citizenship revoked? Will it be back to countries with poor human rights records that are corrupt and poorly administered; to countries that they have never returned to in years, where they have no friends or means of support, away from their families? This seems to fly in the face of one of Citizenship and Immigration's primary objectives of family reunification.

    What happens when a country that we wish to send our second-class citizens to will not accept them? Will they then be stateless like the Palestinians? What will be done in these situations? Are we to give a blank cheque to our judicial system to figure out such matters for themselves? It seems that a number of policy gaps need to be addressed before we can even consider instituting these provisions.

    On recommendations, ideally the clauses on revocations should done away with. Not only do they create a fundamental distinction between those citizens born in Canada and those who are naturalized, but they also go against one of the purported objectives of the bill itself, increasing the value of Canadian citizenship.

    If anything, such provisions lower the value of citizenship. Why bother to become a citizen if it can be taken away one day by a judge who the accused never sees, using evidence that the accused is not permitted to see, whose eventual decision will be final with no right of appeal? In addition, what will the source of this secret evidence be? Will it be countries that are human rights violators, corrupt, arguably illegitimate, and with their own hidden agendas? At a bare minimum, the rules of evidence should apply in these cases.

    If this law were to pass, one would have to wonder if it would then warrant discrimination on these grounds in other areas. For example, perhaps Canadian-born citizens would be given preference over foreign-born citizens in federal government hiring, an area where the federal government itself has noted that visible minorities are seriously underrepresented.

    How far would this inequity be permitted to carry? Which group would this policy affect more than any other? Visible minorities. After the unfortunate and tragic events of September 11, visible minorities have forfeited more of their civil liberties than any other group. For example, shortly after September 11 the media reported that the Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration directed immigration officers to apply racial profiling at our borders.

    If a distinction between Canadian-born and naturalized citizens were to be made, then as a minimum there should be studies conducted to determine which group, if any, it would affect more than others. Good governance demands that policy analysis be complete, differential impacts be considered, and policies be equitably applied.

    It is my contention that such a study will conclude that visible minorities will be affected more than any other group. Can the Canadian government tell us conclusively this is not the case at this time? If they find that visible minorities are more affected than any other group, can the government explicitly state why this is acceptable?

    Furthermore, an extensive publicly acceptable study should be undertaken to determine whether the distinction between naturalized and Canadian-born citizens proposed in this bill would lead to further discrimination if it were to be used as legal precedent in other cases.

    Finally, given the fundamental inequity of a two-tiered system of citizenship, it is doubtful whether such a distinction would survive a charter challenge. Equity is a cornerstone of our charter rights. It is inconceivable to me that the charter would allow that a second class of citizens could live in fear of being displaced in the nation they had adopted as their own.

·  (1315)  

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

·  (1320)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much for the presentation.

    Lynne, would you like to start?

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I just have one question. It's not even up for debate, but I'm curious. When I read your presentation, you asked, when does a citizen become a full-blown citizen; when can he feel this is his home? I'm wondering what you think of dual citizenship—whether when they want to become a Canadian and have the protection of the bill of rights and want the Canadian charter to protect them and never want to lose that citizenship—if they, in fact, should just be that, a Canadian citizen, and not retain a dual citizenship. You can never have it revoked, because you could never become stateless; we have signed an international treaty saying we're not allowed to make anybody stateless. If you were just a Canadian, would that help with some of your concerns about revoking? I just want to know what you think of that.

    It was brought up to me at another committee, actually. The people asked—because you brought up Iraq—how can you pledge allegiance to two countries? It's that sort of thing; that's why I brought it up. I just wanted to know what you thought.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: At this moment, I don't think the Government of Canada has a treaty with the Government of India for dual citizenship. For me—I can't speak for anybody else—this is my country. This is my home, and I would never consider going back home to India.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So you're happy with having one citizenship and not—

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: I am happy here, and I wouldn't even dream of asking anybody to.... I don't want to be a dual citizen of anything. I'm a Canadian. I want to stay here. I want to be a part of Canada.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I think a lot of people have the very same concerns as you. In fact, I'd be very surprised if these clauses stay in that easily, because there's lots of concern, just as you outlined in your presentation so well.

    I'd like to thank you for your presentation.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): My question parallels the one asked earlier by my colleague.

    When I had a discussion with immigration officers in Hong Kong, one of them had prepared a report showing that, among those accepted here as refugees--in a sample of a hundred or so--, 70 % went back to their country of origin to get a visa allowing them to visit. If these people had been true refugees, they would not have wanted to go back there. However, when the head office in Toronto received her report, she was told that there was not enough money to investigate such cases and to drop it. So I suppose it is true that we give citizenship to people who have lied and pretended to be refugees, when they were not.

    Could we not, since they have cheated the system, take back their Canadian citizenship? I am wondering. Would this be possible?

[English]

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: That's a very interesting question. This was not a part of my presentation, but I will deal with it.

    How to determine if the refugees are genuine or not is the first step. But obviously when we determine that a certain person is a refugee, we allow him to stay here. I think, if I'm not wrong, it takes three years to get citizenship. By this time, it is our duty to find out if they're genuine or not. If they're not, that can be dealt with. But after three years, if we fail to determine it, then part of the blame lies with ourselves.

    I'm not putting myself out of the government. I'm part of it too, because we vote and we select the MPs who make the laws. So if we're feeling bad, then we're partly responsible for it.

    But once a person gets citizenship, he lets go of the other country and he is then our problem. We cannot dump a citizen on somebody else once he's given the piece of paper saying, okay, you're a citizen. How can we tell somebody, okay, you're a citizen, and the next day come up with something else saying, you're out? A citizen is a citizen, and this is the only view I will take.

    As I said on dual citizenship or a two-tiered system, what do we do if we say we're going to deport somebody and take his citizenship away? If this sort of system doesn't work, then what do we do and what is the next step? Do we kill the person and get rid of him? How far are we going to go? This is the wrong way to go.

    There is enough in Canadian law to deal with all the matters that are there. I think this is coming out after the tragic events of September 11. But we are going too far and dealing with it in the wrong way. Let's deal with it in our court system, which works pretty well. We still make mistakes in the court system, but at least it's the best in the world. Let's stay with it.

·  (1325)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would tend to have the same reasoning. Instead of chasing around for false refugees after giving them the Canadian citizenship, it would be better to have a more stringent approach or to conduct better investigations before giving out the citizenship.

    I think we are stuck with a very difficult problem here. I would go with the Charter and give them the benefit of the doubt or look the other way. After all, their numbers are very small.

    Still, there are 100,000 Chinese with a Canadian passport living in China. Some must have cheated. There are 50,000 Lebanese living with a Canadian passport in Lebanon. Those are the numbers that I have. I did not look into other countries.

    Therefore, we have been very permissive. Do we remain so? That which has maybe given Quebec and Canada such grandeur were their permissivity, their great generosity. That is one of our great qualities.

    If we are to change the law, however, we must ponder this issue. I am in complete agreement with you. We could have rejected their request for Canadian citizenship. Now that they have it, they enjoy the same rights as Canadians who were born here. I do not know what more imaginative means could be used, before giving out citizenship, to get to the truth.

    Thank you for coming here. What you have told us has been most interesting, Mr. Binning.

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Merci, Louis.

    Mr. Binning, do you want to comment?

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Please, if I may.

    These statistics are the sort of thing I feel we get beaten with every day. I don't know if they're true or not. Even if they are true, there are bad apples everywhere. It doesn't matter where you go, you can find them in any race or group. But this does not give us a licence to paint everyone with the same brush.

    Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live, and let's keep it that way. Sure, we should be generous. Why not? We have all kinds of people up here, and we have done pretty well up to now, which means that the system and the Charter of Rights work. Let's not fool or tinker with it, because everybody needs it—including you, my friend.

    Thank you very much.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you.

    Andrew.

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

    That was an interesting statistic you mentioned. I just thought of the Kosovars. A number of years ago they had to apply as refugees, and now they can go back home. So they can go back with visas. It is the same with people going to Serbia, Croatia, and Albania. This change happened with quickly.

    I left Hungary in 1957 as a refugee, and the first time I went back was in 1994, because I would not go back while the communists still ruled the country. I guess I could have gone back in 1990.

    But these things change, and at the end of the day if we have Canadian citizens.... You mentioned China. Well, take the whole experiment of Hong Kong. Everybody wanted to get to Canada because they weren't sure what was going to happen. But at the end of the day, when I think about it, if there is a Canadian living in Hong Kong, does that hurt Canada or is it good for Canada? If we have people all over the world with Canadian citizenship, it's only an asset, because they have some ties to the country, and hopefully those ties will go on to the benefit of their country and our country.

    I want to thank you for your very strong endorsement of the charter. I think one of the problems with the Citizenship Act and the revocation provision is that it was written in another time. It was written back in 1977; it predated the charter. We really have an opportunity now to make the legislation right, make it much more effective, and have the human rights basis founded upon the charter, which is really what is equal amongst all of Canadians. Whether you're born abroad or you're born here, it's the application of the charter. Essentially, that is what I hear Mr. Binning saying.

    Mr. Binning, when I came in 1957, I remember we used to be terrified. We came from a terrifying place. Every time we saw somebody from our community, Hungarians, get in trouble with the law, it really bothered us, because we took it personally. We said it reflected badly on us. I want to thank you for making that point, because nobody's perfect. We all have our bad apples, as I think you'd put it, and I think it's important that we treat each other with respect and afford the Charter of Rights to everybody.

    One of the witnesses we had before talked about mental health. Let me just put it to you. You can take a refugee out of a refugee camp; you can take him out and put him in another country. But you can never ever take the refugee out of the refugee, because it's a very emotional kind of thing.

    I know many people in India who were deported from Pakistan when there was the break-up of India and were sent someplace else, to another state in India. Then they come to Canada and hear the possibility that their citizenship is not first-class; it's second-class or third-class. That's deeply hurtful, and I think it's important for Canadian-born people to really understand that, because we adopted this country—and that's what Mr. Binning said: we adopted this country.

    Thank you very much.

·  (1330)  

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I just wanted to ask you, because you brought up adoption and brought up the fact.... I agree with you. I think citizenship should probably not be up for review after you've received it. I think it should be brought to the immigration level. It's there that all the screening should be done, and if they fall through the cracks, they fall through the cracks.

    But I want to ask you about adoption, because you're circumventing immigration, period. It is known that there are many adoptions of convenience, much as there are marriages of convenience. I wanted to know what you think of that, because it clearly circumvents immigration, which wouldn't be fair to the children or to the parents that are childless. I wanted to hear your comments on that.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you very much for the question. These questions, when they are asked, I know from experience—all these questions are based on “this is wrong with it” or “that's wrong with it”: marriages of convenience, or adoption, and matters like that.

    I said there are bad apples. We have to rule out the bad apples. If there's a problem with the system, fix it—at the immigration level. Don't paint everybody or everything the same way. This is what's being done. I know; I'm on the receiving end. I see it every time.

    A person can, if he wants to visit Canada, come from any other country. I'm from India. I know what's happening there. You go up there, and you're systematically denied visitor visas because some people abuse them. If people are abusing them, fix the problem. Don't shut the door on people who want to come to do business here or do whatever they want. It's the same thing with adoptees. If there's a problem, fix the problem. Fix the system.

    When we go to our elected MPs about the problems, they come to us with statistics. They shove it back down our throats. This is not our problem.

·  (1335)  

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: But you really wouldn't be able to fix it if you got in on citizenship, because you would not have had the process of sponsorship. Plus, on the other side, you'd have no level of appeal, either. If you were a citizen and they decided to revoke your citizenship, you wouldn't be able to appeal it.

    I'm asking you if adoption should go through sponsorship and through the provinces, which is where it's at right now--adoptions are taken care of at the provincial level, but Immigration is also involved with sponsorship--instead of circumventing all that and allowing them to become citizens just because of an adoption or because parents are going to adopt.

    This is in the best interest of the child, too. It's not just for adoptions of convenience. It's also in the best interest of the child to make sure the adoption is bona fide, that it isn't going to be something that also hurts other adoptions or paints everybody in the same picture, because this is a problem.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: I understand there are problems. In anything to do with immigration, there are a lot of people who obviously want to come here, and there are going to be some cheaters. There are going to be some people who take advantage of our generosity.

    When I say fix it, I mean we can deal with the problem before that person gets citizenship. And in the case of persons we adopt, I'm pretty sure we can find a way to determine it beforehand, before we allow it. Take our time, do whatever we have to do. If it takes three months, four months, five months, do it. Do the study before we get into that problem.

    Once we're there, once we decide, okay, this is it, then that should be final. There has to be a final somewhere. We just can't carry on and on. That's what I'm getting at. I hope it's clear.

    Thank you.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you, Mr. Binning.

    As you probably have heard, we're also taking information on a Canadian identity card. Right now it's very much in the embryo of planning stages. It's something the minister is looking at and he wants to get a feeling from Canadians in general about what they think of this type of card.

    Basically, it's an identity card with biometrics, probably. It could be fingerprints, eye scans, photos, a combination of things to try to solve some of the problems we've been having of people cheating, falsifying cards, to say, okay, this person in front of me is really this person.

    I wonder if you have any thoughts on that.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: At this moment, I don't like it, because I know it's going to be abused. There should be studies done. We should refine it, fine-tune it, and then we'll know what sort of information's on there, other than the person's name and whatever we'd put on any piece of paper. And then that's it, and there's a guarantee it can't fall into the wrong hands.

    Also, I'm afraid these sorts of things could lead to racial profiling and stuff like that, which I am dead against. It's very, very wrong. It's not Canadian. I don't know where it comes from.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Okay. I appreciate that. If you think of any other things, if you have any comments, no problem, please drop a note to us. We'd appreciate any other information. Maybe you could talk to your group and see what they think of it, too. They might have something to add.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you very much. Could I just add one more thing?

    As I was trying to determine where Bill C-18 came from, everything pointed to it coming out of the bureaucrat thing. What I want to say is, as Ms. Sheila Copps said the other day, the face of Canada is changing. If the face of Canada is changing, let's get some minorities into the place where these decisions are made, so we don't have to deal with this sort of thing the way we're doing now. I'm sure if some minority kids or young persons were sitting in where they were writing these things, they wouldn't be in. This is pure--I don't want to say the word--garbage. It has nothing to do with the justice system. It has everything to do with racial hatred. That's what it seems like to me.

    How far is the government going to go?

·  (1340)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): I think that's why we're sitting here.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you.

    That could have been hard, but I just had to say it, and I'm glad I did. If I hurt anybody by saying the wrong things, please forgive me. I didn't mean to.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Not at all. Thank you very much for your frank feelings on it.

    Mr. Tarlochan Binning: Thank you.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Mr. Anttila. First of all, welcome to the committee hearing.

    You don't have a written submission? Okay. The floor is yours.

    Mr. Matti Anttila ( As Individual): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

    I hope to give you a perspective that might be a little bit different. It's my own perspective based on being an immigrant from Finland and coming here at the age of seven, being brought to Vancouver by my family. It comes from the experiences I've had of a lifetime in Canada--most of the time in Canada--and also as a student of history, economics, and money. I was a financial planner for 15 years, and at that time I was a keen student of money, economics, and the cycles of economics. I think there are some lessons to be learned from the financial arena for the political arena.

    What I see occurring in our country today--and I say “our country”, as this is my country--is that we may very well be going into Canada's darkest hour, and Bill C-18 is just another indication of that. Within each of us, we have the impulses for good and evil, the whole spectrum of good and evil from one end of the spectrum, such as a Mother Teresa, to the other end, a Saddam Hussein or an Adolf Hitler. What I sense and feel occurring now is that our fascist tendencies are being triggered and supported.

    It's a mania, and from the financial arena, the study of markets, for investors arguably the single most important piece of work is a book that was written in the 1800s, called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I would argue that the lessons from this book for investors also apply as lessons in the political arena. And I'll draw some comparisons.

    I believe it was in the 1500s when Holland had a tulip mania, where tulips became fashionable to the point of ludicrous prices being paid for tulips. They set up a tulip exchange much like a stock exchange. And at one point before the mania collapsed, people were paying the price of a house for one single tulip bulb. Madness, some might say. But, you know, it's just human nature to get involved in these manias, and human nature doesn't change.

    Again, from the financial arena a more recent example would be the era of 1979 to 1981, when interest rates went very high, gold shot up to over $900 an ounce, and real estate went through the roof. Interest rates--here we had very intelligent, solid, two-feet-on-the-floor bankers lending money at 22% mortgage rates, fully expecting interest rates to continue going up and fully expecting real estate to continue going up. Was the banker stupid? Not at all, and this is the point. There is no connection between intelligence and the ability to fall into mania. In other words, an intelligent person is not immune from manias.

    You may have heard the story in which Jean Chrétien, the world's smartest man, a priest, and a hippie are the sole occupants of an airplane. There are only four parachutes and the plane is going down. The pilot comes out of the cockpit and says, “The plane is going down. Save yourselves.” He grabs a parachute and jumps out. Jean Chrétien says, “I am the Prime Minister of Canada, I owe it to my country to save myself.” He grabs a parachute and jumps out. The world's smartest man says, “I'm the world's smartest man and I owe it to the world to save myself”, and he grabs a parachute and jumps out. The priest says to the hippie, “My son, I've had a good life, and if the Lord is calling me, I'm willing to go. You take the last parachute.” And the hippie says, “No sweat, man, we're both safe. The world's smartest man just grabbed my knapsack.”

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Matti Anttila: Why do we laugh at this story? We laugh at it because on some level we understand that the world's smartest man, or the world's smartest person, can still have a blind spot, if you will. And this is the point. There is no immunity that intelligence gives to be free of mania.

    What I see happening today, which Bill C-18 is a testimony to, is a headlong rush into giving up our freedoms for supposed security. Since the tragedy of September 11 in the United States, in New York, legislation has been passed on both sides of our border, with the U.S. to supposedly shore up our security against future terrorist attacks. But the price to be paid for that in legislation both in the U.S. and Canada has been a lessening of our freedoms.

·  (1345)  

    The difficulty with Bill C-18, as I see it, is that it lacks accountability. Normally in the course of events, if a crime is committed, one gets taken to court and one can have representation, make arguments, and present evidence in a public court, and the judiciary is separate from the government and supposedly not influenced by the government. What we have with Bill C-18 is that it's giving the power to strip citizenship to the minister, which means the bureaucracy, bureaucrats.

    I would draw your attention to a saying: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you give this power to bureaucrats, the question you must ask yourself, and the government must ask itself, is by giving this power to bureaucrats to strip citizenship from individuals who are not born in this country, behind closed doors, without representation from the individual and with no right of appeal, at some point in the future will that mean that some bureaucrat or bureaucrats will abuse that power? In a heartbeat. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    That's why the intention was always to have the checks and the balances. That's why the judiciary is separate from the government, for that reason, to have the checks and the balances, to have the accountability.

    If there were two minor changes made to Bill C-18, it might be an acceptable bill. One minor change that could be made would be to make the minister and his staff involved in the stripping of citizenship personally liable. In other words, if a citizen has citizenship stripped from them, they should be able to take the minister to court and hold him personally liable. That would at least produce some accountability to the bill.

    The other saying that I would draw your attention to is, if we don't learn the lessons of history, we're doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. I heard Mr. Telegdi make reference to Hungary and the Hungarian revolution; it occurred in 1956, and he came in 1957. There are lessons to be learned from those kinds of situations.

    The second amendment, or change, I would suggest to Bill C-18 would be to require all MPs and senators to take university-level world history and Canadian history courses and pass them before being eligible to become MPs, thereby hoping that these lessons of history are not lost and that we would not be doomed to continue cycle after cycle to repeat those mistakes. History is replete with the same mistakes being made by the next generation. Perhaps a requirement of intensive world and Canadian history might do something to ameliorate future mistakes that have already been made by previous generations.

    As we continue moving into this post-September 11 world, with all of the changes that have already occurred and that are coming, what I see that we as Canadians, including but not limited to the MPs and senators, need now more than ever is humility, honesty, and courage. We need humility to admit that we, as individuals, don't know everything, and therefore to undertake the study of history and to learn the lessons of history. And I need honesty with myself to draw the right conclusions from that history, no matter what the consequences, no matter how painful those conclusions might be.

·  (1350)  

    I was talking with a friend last night about a researcher in the arena of nutrition who for 30 years had believed that high carbohydrates were the way to go. They did some long-term experiments and discovered that it wasn't true. He had to go through a lot of soul-searching after 30 years of believing something to change his mind, but he had the hard data to draw on. So this honesty is very difficult for those of us who have lived for a while on this planet if we have to change our mind about something we've believed for a long time.

    Third is courage. Once we've gone through that process of learning, we need the courage to stand alone, if necessary, and speak our truth as we see it. We need the courage, regardless of the consequences to our career, our pocketbooks, our investment portfolios, to speak the truth as we see it and let the chips fall the way they may.

    In conclusion, I draw your attention to a quote from Reverend Martin Niemoller, a German priest, in 1945 following the experiences of War World II that he experienced from the German side. He said:

In Germany they first came for the Communistsand I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then came for they trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.They came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    I thank you for the time.

·  (1355)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much. It was very interesting. Certainly, it's a little different angle from what we've heard from many of other witnesses.

    Lynne, would you like to start?

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, I have a couple of comments.

    First of all, I think it is a good idea to make the minister and the staff personally liable, because I think that would work in a lot of areas, perhaps in our parole boards and our immigration boards. Perhaps all of that would be a lot more interesting and a lot more accountable.

    However, I would imagine our Prime Minister probably knows his history really well and his problem probably isn't knowledge of history; it's probably that he has too much power, which goes to your original statement, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That can be absolutely correct.

    So I thought your comments were all very interesting. You said what two things you'd do to Bill C-18 to make changes. Is there anything else you have? Do you have any other comments on Bill C-18 other than the two about having everybody have a good history lesson and making the minister personally liable? Is there anything else you'd like to say about the bill as far as the oath goes or as far as the citizenship commissioners and judges are concerned?

    There's been a transfer of power there, where there won't be judges any more; there will be just commissioners. Have you studied the bill in that area at all, or as far as the citizenship goes, do you have any concerns or thoughts on that?

    Mr. Matti Anttila: No, I haven't studied that area of the bill, and the focus of what I've been looking at is this ability of the bill to strip citizenship behind closed doors without representation from the citizen and without right of appeal.

    By way of example, I was born in Finland, and I received my Canadian citizenship when I was underage, when my parents went for the citizenship. So technically and theoretically, the bill would allow a bureaucrat to strip my citizenship away. If that were to happen, then I guess they'd ship me back to Finland, and if that were to happen, then I would just go with the flow. I'm one of the fortunate ones in that I can speak the language a little bit, and I have some relatives there. I'd probably get set up, and I would survive and I would thrive.

    In my family, my mother just turned 91 last month. She's bedridden and has to be fed and taken care of. Technically, a bureaucrat could strip her citizenship under the provisions of the bill. So I see that lack of accountability as being a major problem with the bill.

    Another thing that I understand this bill may address is the Canadian ID card. Is that correct?

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, I guess--

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): It wouldn't have anything to do with this bill. It is just something the minister is floating out there at this point to try to get some ideas and try to get Canadians' feeling on it.

    Mr. Matti Anttila: I see.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): But we'd love to have your comments on it.

    Mr. Matti Anttila: The Canadian ID card is another example of this headlong rush toward fascism, this mania that is gripping the country right now, with the fear that has come post-9/11. Our country has worked very well without one.

    Anytime we see more surveillance and control, it shifts the balance from what government was intended to be. Government was intended to be a servant of the people. More and more that is changing, if it hasn't already shifted dramatically to where the government is the master over the top of the people and the people are the servants to the government. Witness our level of taxation in Canada, with the Fraser Institute now putting tax freedom day sometime in July, I believe, which means that the average Canadian is working more than half the time for the government, for taxes. That's worse than medieval feudalism, where it was 50%. Anytime we have these kinds of incursions, to me it's just another example of that shift occurring from the government serving the people to the people serving the government.

    Also, I would make note of the permanent immigration card, which my wife and I happened to catch in an ad in a newspaper but have seen very little publicity on. For those who are not yet citizens, there is a requirement to take out a permanent residence card or a permanent immigration card prior to the end of this year, I believe. If they do not do that and they leave the country and try to get back in, they are going to have very great difficulty getting back in without that card. The publicity on that has been very small. We saw one ad. We happened to catch it. We certainly have not seen any television ads or news reports on it. So it's another example.

¸  (1400)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): There was a lot of publicity. In fact, believe it or not, I received letters in my riding saying, why are you putting so much publicity on this? It was mostly in newspapers. We saw full-page ads. I had complaints from my constituents that there was too much of it. Perhaps it depends on which end we're looking at.

    Mr. Matti Anttila: Perhaps which end of the country we're in, too.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Exactly.

    We'll now go to Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, that's an interesting look at the issues we're dealing with.

    I used to wonder how a country like Canada had the Asian exclusion act, the Chinese head tax, the internment of tens of thousands of different ethnic origins, what we did to the Japanese Canadians, the policy for the Jews, the turning away of the S.S. St. Louis and the Komagata Maru.

    I could never really get a true grip on that until we had 9/11. Everybody on our continent was shaken up. I'm sure we all remember where we were when the towers were hit or when we found out about it. Then we got caught up in this huge paranoia, and it's going to take awhile to get out of it.

    But we had legislation such as Bill C-36, which I think history will judge to be bad. We had a situation like Bill C-18. It is worse than the previously proposed bill, which I consider quite fraudulent in terms of human rights and civil liberties. I do know that when Pierre Trudeau brought in the charter, the communities in this country that felt maybe they were not totally Canadian really embraced it. That's really the reason why.

    I lived in a country where you were paranoid, where you had to be careful what your neighbour said, where people were denounced. That's not a very pretty kind of country to live in.

    We can never take our freedoms and democracy for granted, and I thank you for bringing that perspective to this. I think that's important, particularly for those who have never experienced it. Those of us who have experienced it have a responsibility to let our colleagues know and let people know how very fortunate we are to live in one of the best liberal--small l--democracies in the world. I don't want to be accused of being partisan on this. It's really worth cherishing, because countries that don't have it are not very nice places to live.

    Thank you.

¸  (1405)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Do you want to comment?

    Mr. Matti Anttila: I understand the comment and concur with it. The thought that comes up is that certainly no country is perfect, and Mr. Telegdi has drawn some examples of our blemishes and imperfections in the past.

    The study of history is so important; for example, the internment of the Japanese, the treatment of the natives, the turning back of the ship you were talking about. I've heard of all of these things, but they make very little impact on a visceral emotional level because I didn't live them. Maybe that's the problem. I don't know.

    We certainly also have instances of individuals, not just groups, being targeted with unfair treatment. So in the midst of all of that, if we entrench in procedure--which Bill C-18 does--the ability of a bureaucrat to strip citizenship from a citizen, we simply give more impetus to that process. We almost sanctify it by putting it in there. It gives the unelected bureaucrat the power to do something that was never intended.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Thank you very much, Mr. Anttila.

    You talked all the way through about history, cycles, and so on, and you just finished up by talking about bureaucrats. I think part of our problem as politicians is that we live through a cycle whether we want to or not. We don't have enough guts to get out of the cycle, because our cycle is from one election to another. Unfortunately, the minute we're elected, we start looking to the next one and trying to fit that time in there with things that are going to get us elected the next time. We very much lack the vision to be able to look further ahead. Some have lost in the next election because they've looked ahead. That's very unfortunate, but it's the way our system is set up.

    Mr. Matti Anttila: I could make a comment on that. That's a very important point you make. I recognize that. That cycle has certainly been talked about in the media as being a problem.

    If we look at the great statesmen of history, people like Abraham Lincoln and so on, and in our history John A. Macdonald, we see that those who had the guts to stick to their vision may or may not have been popular with the people, but in the long term they effected change that was for the betterment of the entire country and perhaps the world because they stuck to their guns. They had the courage to stick to that long-term vision.

    I guess it's a balancing act. How does a politician find that balance between getting re-elected the next time and speaking the truth? It's a sad commentary on the system if what I'm hearing is that truth has to take second place to getting re-elected.

    What a different world we would have if we found a way, and systemized it, to support individuals and encourage them to have that long-term vision. But as Winston Churchill once said, democracy is not perfect, just the way everything else is out there.

¸  (1410)  

    The Acting Chair (Mr. David Price): Again, thank you very much.

    I declare this meeting adjourned until tomorrow.