CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Á

1110

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

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

The Chair

Á

1115

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave (Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Government of Australia, Delegation from the Government of Australia)

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1130

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1135

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1140

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1145

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Á

1150

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Á

1155

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Â

1200

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Le président

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Â

1205

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

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

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Â

1210

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

Â

1215

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

Â

1235

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

The Hon. Gary Hardgrave

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 047

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues, and welcome back to Ottawa from our respective places across the country as we heard witnesses on our proposed new citizenship bill, Bill C-18.

    It's my pleasure this morning to welcome on your behalf the Minister for Citizenship of Australia, the Honourable Gary Hardgrave.

    Welcome to Canada on behalf of the committee. Welcome to our Parliament and to our committee, and thank you for taking the opportunity to talk to us about what Australia is doing.

    I can tell you that as the committee travelled around the world when we were reviewing our immigration bill, we had the great pleasure of meeting a number of your administrative people, who filled us in as to some of the good things Australia is doing with regard to immigration. I want to congratulate you and your department for sharing some of that information. Canada and Australia obviously have an awful lot in common. We were essentially born of the same sort of--

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

    The Chair: Miracle, you're right. Thank you, Madeleine.

    We have become two miracles in the world. In fact, I believe we're both leading the world in so many ways and so many things, especially relating to welcoming people to our respective countries, integrating them, settling them into our countries, and then getting them to become full citizens. I hope that we can continue to learn from one another and build on the great relationship we have between our two countries.

    I know that the high commissioner is here--Tony, welcome--as well as Peter Vardos and Kate. Some of us had an opportunity last night to share some good Canadian food--as opposed to Australian.

    Minister, what we'd like you to do, if you have an opening statement.... But let me ask you this right from the beginning. This is on the record; it's being recorded. I can tell you that there are certain things you may want to say on the record, and there may be something you don't want to. If there is something you'd rather not have on the record and you want us to go in camera, then you can tell us towards the end part of the meeting and we can do that. We just need, from a technical standpoint, two or three minutes to change the system.

    It's up to you as to how you proceed, but I thought I would let you know in advance that if there are certain things you might want to talk about off the record, that will be perfectly fine too.

    So welcome, and I'm looking forward to having this exchange of views. I would hope that we can keep it fairly informal. Again, we will probably have an awful lot of questions of you as we're reviewing our new citizenship bill after 26 or 27 years. It has served our country very well, and we want to make sure that the new act serves our country for the next 25 or 27 years. Believe me, we've heard hundreds of witnesses who have a lot of opinions as to what citizenship is.

    I can tell you that I was most impressed--and I'm sure you might want to talk about this also--with the great value people place on citizenship, to the highest level of rights and privilege. It's about identity, it's about who we are as a people. When a nation confers citizenship on a person, it is perhaps the greatest gift and right a nation can bestow. It is to be held and treasured, and I think most of the people who talked about it held it in that esteem.

    We're into a very big issue as to how we can deny, revoke, or annul citizenship in certain cases. We're trying to change our system, and therefore I'm looking forward to the exchange of views we can have.

    Welcome. I'm looking forward to your comments and to the exchange.

Á  (1115)  

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave (Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Government of Australia, Delegation from the Government of Australia): Mr. Chairman and members, colleagues, thank you for the opportunity.

    This is a unique circumstance in a number of ways, because I cannot think that it's a common occurrence for an Australian government minister to appear before a committee. I'm appearing before a committee in another country in an informal but very formal sense, a unique set of circumstances indeed.

    The Chair: We're blazing the trail again, Minister.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Absolutely. And can I say, and genuinely so, that Canada and Australia enjoy a bit of friendly competition but, at the same time, a great deal of collaboration in the area of citizenship policy. The terminology of “multiculturalism” was a Canadian term, one Australia has adopted and adapted, very much so. We make Australian multiculturalism the basis of our conduct of society. People have come from all around the world to participate in our country, bringing all of their cultures and traditions, their religious beliefs, and in many cases their traditional dress and other conduct.

    It is important when you have this diverse range of people in a society that you do have things in common so as to share a common destiny. We believe citizenship is the glue that binds our multicultural society together. It is important to have other key national identifiers such as the flag and, in our country, the use of the English language, but given that there are some two hundred languages spoken in Australia today, counting the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander languages, the first nations languages, it is important to have one language so everyone can speak to each other. It is important to challenge people to be who they are,but to be so for Australia, to contribute all they are in as many possible ways. Citizenship in that regard is a key aspect of our society.

    In a lot of ways, just as with Canada, there has perhaps not been as much of a focus until recent years on the values of Australian citizenship. Our citizenship act is a 1948 act of Parliament. Prior to that, as was Canada, we were citizens of Great Britain in the dominions, in the antipodes. Since February 1949 there has been the concept of Australian citizenship.

    We have recently, in the last couple of years, celebrated 50 years of Australian citizenship, and it was a very happy occasion. Something like 4.5 million people have become Australian citizens over that time. In this calendar year there will be something in the order of 82,000 new members of the Australian family, and we are actively promoting Australian citizenship as that great unifier.

    But for many people who make up our migration program these days, it is also that last point of sanctuary they were seeking in the long process of migration. It is the final step, the confirmation of their decision to travel, to come to Australia; citizenship says they now belong. Our slogan associated with Australian citizenship is “a sense of belonging”.

    We offer, obviously, opportunity to take this out, and again, as in Canada, it is in a public ceremony that conferral of Australian citizenship takes place. I was privileged yesterday to attend a Canadian citizenship ceremony with Citizenship Judge Suzanne Pinel, who, I'm sure all members would agree, is a very vivacious and passionate advocate for Canadian citizenship. Again, it is part of what we try to do.

    There are not enough countries around the world that have this public process of conferral of citizenship, countries that make it possible in the first place but then have a public ceremony.

    I've come here after leaving Australia a week or 10 days ago. I went to Kenya, to the Kakuma Refugee Camp in northern Kenya, where it was approximately 60º warmer than it is today in Ottawa; it was about 40º Celsius. To see people who have come from southern Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and other parts of central Africa to find some prospect of sanctuary there, to know that some of them are on their way to Canada and some of them are on their way to Australia, to see that there is pre-embarkation work done by the Canadian authorities, in fact done by an international organization for migration on behalf of Canada, shows that Canada is constantly looking for new ways to actually ensure a good settlement outcome for people who come from even the harshest of circumstances to this country. We are learning a little from that. We gathered in that visit to Kakuma the importance of doing work early in the process of settling people who are most definitely humanitarian entrants to this country, and the value we could have in Australia.

Á  (1120)  

    But as I said, at the end of this process of passage to the new land, having settlement services upon arrival, assisting them to learn a language that they may not have had before coming here...and in our country, dealing with torture and trauma counselling is an extensive investment by us as well.

    Our adult migrant English program we believe, without being overly boastful, to be the world's best practice. It has a professional curriculum. There's a constant check on the quality. The standards, and so forth, that are involved right across our very sparse country can be comparable, no matter whether it's the biggest city or the smallest town. But at the end of it, citizenship is the end game. It is the great result, and it's more than just a passport.

    As an outsider visiting, I can say that Canada's emphasis on that sense of being involved in the community and not giving away citizenship purely because they've served some time on paper, that they've actually been part of the community, is also first rate.

    So to look at the end of it, in your opening comments, Mr. Chairman, you talked about the integrity of citizenship and dealing with matters such as whether or not there is a point that people reach where their conduct actually is not becoming to somebody who is a Canadian citizen, that they are not working in the best interests of a nation that gives people ample opportunity through the ballot box to change things.

    In Australia we are having a similar discussion, although in a very preliminary sense, and I suppose I'm very hesitant to get too much on the record in this country, from a courtesy point of view, compared to talking about it broadly in Australia. But talking to British authorities, as I did last week, about some of the way they have dealt with deprivation of U.K. citizenship, and indeed, knowing what you're doing with Bill C-18 here and some of the widespread public discussions that are taking place, Australia can learn from that as well.

    So with your indulgence, I'd like a little bit of a two-way street on this, because I'd like to discover a bit about what you've actually been discovering from the Canadian citizenry, who I'm sure, like Australians, value highly the commodity of citizenship because of the promotion, because of the way so many have come to this country and become citizens.

    It's not something you want to give away. Citizenship is not something that should be easily acquired. There should be standards and tests, and there are in our country as there are in yours. But equally, as I said, it is a critical factor in national unity.

    Something in the order of 22% or 23% of Australians were born overseas; and here, 18% of Canadians. We have a population of 20 million; you have a population of 32 million or 33 million. And 43% of the Australian population were either born overseas or had at least one parent born overseas. So like this country, people who make up a substantial part of our citizenry are new in their experience.

    Maintaining the integrity of citizenship and saying to those who aren't prepared to be full contributors in the sense of the tradition of the way you contribute that the way you contradict or rather are critical of the way the processes are undertaken is through the ballot box, as I said, and not by any other means--I guess these are important debates to have.

    So whether I can give you answers to the many questions you're seeking is perhaps debatable, because I have as many questions myself. But having said that, I'm delighted to be here. You gave me the opportunity to make some opening remarks, and I thank you for that. I hope the snapshot I've given you is reasonable as far as Australian citizenship is concerned.

    In closing, the comparisons, to me, are very reassuring. It's not just the wide, sparse open spaces of both of our countries and the distances, and the way the population centres are concentrated in one part and that the provincial outposts are as well represented in Parliament as suburban street corners, as indeed it is here as in my country, but in the area of citizenship policy, we are promoting citizenship as you are promoting citizenship, using similar ideas. But then again, I think there are some great ideas here, that we are doing reaffirmation, giving the Australian-born the opportunity to stand with Australians by choice. The comparisons are very favourable and very reassuring for me, as an Australian government minister.

Á  (1125)  

    The one last point I'll make, which you may find of slight interest, is that I'm the first minister ever in the history of Australia to have “citizenship” in my title, which in itself is perhaps a confirmation of our awakening to the importance of national unity as the rest of the world goes somewhat crazy. Finding what brings us together has been a critical aspect of our conduct as a nation over the last few years.

    Thank you very much, colleagues, for allowing me to be here today.

    The Chair: Thank you, Minister, and let the discussions begin.

    I should tell you that our committee also, at the same time as we were travelling on Bill C-18, was dialoguing with various people and other governments with regard to our settlement programs and our so-called provincial nominee agreements, which are the partnerships we have with our provinces regarding immigration. We've just started this great debate in our country on whether we ought to engage in a national identity card.

    We're going to talk about citizenship, but as far as I'm concerned, if there are other issues my colleagues want to talk to you about, or that you may want to talk to us about, everything is on the table. We don't want to lose the opportunity every time we have a minister from a sister country like Australia. We'll take full advantage of you, if you don't mind.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: If the phone rings, I'll have somebody from the Australian Parliament wanting you to ask a question of me for them.

    The Chair: I have my cell phone on. The only thing I can say is that I'm sure we will probably want to continue these great discussions, but I'll tell you what: we're coming to Australia next. How's that?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Excellent.

    The Chair: Let's begin. Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Minister. It's a real pleasure to have you here. I wish we had some more fun time so that you could demonstrate your DJ skills, but it's all work here, as you probably know, in Canada; it's very serious.

    One of the biggest problems we have here is recognition of foreign credentials. Part of that is exacerbated by the fact that our system has provincial and federal areas of jurisdiction, which I believe yours does as well. “Never the twain shall meet” is not quite true, but it's certainly difficult. I understand Australia has a very good system for ensuring that foreign credentials are recognized, or that there is a protocol whereby an applicant can ensure that credentials are in fact recognized. It may be very helpful to us if you were to take us briefly through what you do to get this problem settled.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I'm not going to satisfy 100% your optimism that we have a good system, because I think we have some equally patchy results because of the states--when I say “state”, I mean provincial government in your scheme of things--which are in fact responsible for testing the credentials of these people. The way our constitution works, these sorts of matters are handled generally by different state governments, so from state to state there can be a variety of outcomes. I am very frustrated about that because the key path to good settlement outcomes is getting a job, and we have deliberately in our migration program over the last five or six years focused in on people with skills, bringing abilities we need so there are not jobs taken and so there are jobs created by people who come to the country.

    Likewise, the focus of 65% or thereabouts of our migration program is on people with skills. One of the skills we want them to bring with them is an English language ability of some description. That being said, if people have outstanding skills in areas we desperately need and they don't have the language skills, we are prepared to invest in them, to train them up if we can.

    Of course, the rest of the migration program is a family reunion and humanitarian program that is second only to Canada's in a per capita sense.

    The recognition of credentials is a critical aspect of getting a job and getting a good settlement outcome. It is not so much a problem for those with skills who come, so it comes down to those who are in the other parts of the program, because generally, if they're bringing a skill, somebody has a job for them and there's already recognition of that skill, that ability. That's why they've actually been able to come through the migration program.

    So we're down to a very small group of our entrants. They tend to be the humanitarian entrants, some 12,000 a year who are having a lot of those troubles, and the family reunion people, who've come through the other parts of the program. I am putting a lot of pressure on our state governments to deal with these matters quickly.

    The one other area that is of concern to me, though, is with the professional bodies using their structures to arbitrate whether or not they'll quickly recognize someone with a medical skill, someone with a dental skill, or someone with whatever skill simply because they want to have a hand in arbitrating how many people should in fact be in that profession. There is a certain amount of those limits.

    We, however, try as best we can to assist people before they actually come by getting their skills pre-recognized so they're able to go into a job. We make use of a thing called the skill matching database to try to help regional centres identify people with abilities and skills they need so we can slip them straight into a job.

    I have similar frustrations, but our ambition is to try, as a major part of the migration program, to bring people with skills and abilities that are recognized.

Á  (1130)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What percentage of the people coming to Australia would have their skills or credentials recognized before they came, and how many would have to go through a process afterwards?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: About 65% of the program is on a skilled migration approach, the presumption being that people with abilities we need--in other words, credentials we recognize--would form about 65% of the program.

    That leaves 35%, some of whom have no immediate ambition to use any of their experience in Australia because they're coming in under whatever part of the migration program. A family reunion matter could involve a spouse or nominated spouse entrant, somebody who comes as a partner or an intended partner of somebody, or somebody who comes as a parent. It becomes a smaller group of people who aren't being recognized. But the aim is to try to get a job outcome for somebody who wants a job rather than a welfare outcome.

    Ten years ago, sixty-odd per cent of people migrating to Australia were getting a welfare outcome. These days, sixty-odd per cent of people arriving in Australia are getting a job outcome, with jobs that then create further jobs. They're not taking existing jobs from Australians, they're actually creating and growing industries in a way that creates further jobs.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I understand that the government has moved to what is called a cost recovery model in the immigration sector, something some critics say has eroded the family class immigrant, and also that a bond fee is being charged and that this has increased substantially from about $7,000 to about $30,000. I wonder if you could tell us why these measures were undertaken and what in your view have been the pros and the cons.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Well, there was a credibility factor associated with all migrants, one that was under some great questioning by the broad Australian community. We didn't want Australians who were established to think anybody migrating to Australia was detracting from their standard of living and coming to take rather than to give. We wanted to increase the standing of all migrants. By having this strong emphasis on skilled migration, we have indeed been able to offset the cost to society of the other 45% of the program, if you like.

    There's a very strong and definite cost in the areas of torture and trauma counselling, adult migrant English programs, and all these other aspects of people who don't fit into the 65% with skills.

    Yes, for some people in some of the areas of family reunion, the parents area in particular, there's a lot of emotion, and understandably so. We offered migrants, people who were selling all they had in their old country to come to live in the new country, the opportunity to purchase--indeed, insisted that they purchase--health insurance to look after any health-related costs. This plus the fact that they were not going to claim any social security benefits as well meant that they were self-sustaining.

    If the ambition was to come and live with a family member, the requirement was to actually purchase a health insurance scheme that handled all of your costs of health insurance. A $5,000 insurance premium over five years, which is one of the requirements, returned potentially a ten- and twentyfold return if they ever had to make a claim on that insurance. We said to people, take out insurance, make a guarantee of any cost of living costs, do not be a drain on the Australian people, and you're able to qualify for one aspect of the parents stream.

    That being said, we've also preserved 500 places where there aren't such onerous requirements that are placed on people. We have a balance in there where we're able to say to some who have the capacity to pay, you can come providing you do all of this; for others, we have the capacity to say that society will afford a certain number of places each year for others who come through.

Á  (1135)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I just have a comment, Mr. Chairman. Professor Trebilcock of the University of Toronto was in Australia for some time studying this insurance system, and he heartily recommends it. It might be interesting for the committee to have Dr. Trebilcock come at some point and talk about it. It's a novel concept.

    The Chair: We're talking settlement issues there.

    Sarkis, ask short questions if you could.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Welcome to sunny Ottawa, Minister. The temperature is cold, but our hearts are very, very warm, especially towards Australians of liberal political persuasion.

    I have a four-part question, and you can take your time answering. First of all, do you have a copy of your citizenship oath for new Australian immigrants? When they do it, do they refer to the Queen or Australia? That's my first question.

    Shall I go on, or do you want to answer them one by one?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I don't mind.

    We say it's all about Australia and its people. In fact, I have a copy of it all here, which is very handy. The only option in the oath is whether or not someone wishes to subscribe under God or otherwise. We give people the option to do that, so there are two oaths. The pledge reads: “From this time forward, under God,”--the option--“I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.”

    It's all about Australia and its people, and Her Majesty the Queen of Australia is quite happy with the words.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: My colleague John here will be quite happy with your statement too.

    I noticed also that you had a plebiscite a few years ago to make a republic. It's about that, my next question. After that, Canada's Liberal Party here in our platform put a 1% ratio for the population vis-à-vis new Canadians. I understand your population is about 20 million. Would you have a similar ratio for newcomers, or how do you handle that influx of newcomers?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: We in fact have not had a ratio as such; this is on a migration matter. We have had a series of consultations in public to talk about the shape and size of the migration program. As I said to your colleague earlier, there was a credibility factor in that a lot of people in Australia, it seemed, were questioning migration and what the value of migration was. Like Canada, Australia is a migration nation, a nation that has been built on the back of people migrating to it.

    One of the things that were critical for us was that every person who did migrate to Australia have a standing as a positive new addition, not a negative. So we have a migration program this year of between 105,000 and 110,000 people. It'll be somewhere around 105,000.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Is it 25%?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I suppose you could put a percentage on it. We don't have a planning level that says a certain percentage of the population shall be new immigrants this year. We are looking at it from the point of view of having a sustainable way to maintain the system, with a very strong emphasis on people with skills. In fact, raising the skill requirements higher hasn't detracted people from wanting to come.

    When I was talking to your minister, Denis Coderre, yesterday he made the point that Australia and Canada are competitors for the same pool of skilled people. There's just no doubt about that. By raising the skill levels, we are still attracting people who want to come.

    This is a good thing for my country. We are getting people with strong abilities to contribute to Australia. So 105,000 people.... We lose about 35,000 people each year who migrate out of Australia and say they're not coming back. So the impact is a net gain of about--

    The Chair: That's because they're coming to Canada.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: A lot of them do. I held a citizen reaffirmation ceremony at the High Commission yesterday. There were about 50 Australian Canadians there.

    The Chair: They're good hockey players and soccer players.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Are they any good, Mr. Chair? We try, but at the end of it there might be a few more cricket players coming if Canada keeps doing as well as they've done in the World Cup to date.

    We are out there trying to attract the brightest and the best. For the credibility of all who migrate to Australia, this is a very good thing to do.

    The Chair: Two quick questions, Sarkis, please.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Before I go to my last point, how many years is your waiting period to become a citizen?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: It's a two-year permanent residency, and permanent residency is a visa category. So if you migrate to Australia, you become a permanent resident, if you're a refugee, basically from the day you arrive. You're regarded as a part of Australia. If you're a spouse, you have to come for two years and confirm that the relationship is still going, and then you become a permanent resident after two years. So it can be up to four years after you've arrived.

    But it's two years, and for 12 months of those two years you need to actually reside in Australia--or for two years out of five years. Those are the sorts of formulas that are applied.

    We do understand that some people will travel in the interest of Australia and contribute in a business sense or investment sense to Australia, even though they may not actually physically be there. But the hard and fast general rule is at least 12 months of residency in the first two years of being there.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: On my final question, Mr. Minister, of course we all condemned--and you shared your sorrow about it--the bombing in Bali that killed so many innocent Australians.

    I noticed in your presentation here that 76% of Australians are Christians. I suppose 24% are other religions. We've heard many horror stories about Muslims being antagonized, harassed, or arrested for no reason in the States. They arrested thousands of people and nobody has been charged, basically. I experienced some difficulties there because I'm Christian but I was born in a Muslim country.

    I wonder if you can relate the relationship between Christians and religious minorities after September 11 or after the Bali incident.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: That's an excellent question. I appreciate the chance to answer it.

    I've often made the point that Australia may be 75% Christian, but the next biggest group in our census has no religious belief. That is also true in the U.K. Something like 14% of Australians say they have no belief at all. The group that comes after that a long way down the track are people such as Muslims. There are 280,000 Muslims out of 20 million people in Australia. Similar numbers of people are Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Jews. So while it's a predominantly Christian nation, every church leader in Australia laments the fact that they don't see them in the pews on Sunday. There's no doubt about that.

    We've worked very hard. This is very rhetorical, but we're all practising politicians and understand the need to keep the message constant, but it's something we live and breathe. It's critical that Australians turn to each other and not on each other; that we don't allow things happening outside our borders to create a circumstance where a sense of disrespect is being offered based on religion, ethnic origin, and length of time in the country.

    Indeed, somebody a few months ago raised the question of dress and suggested that Muslim women should not dress in certain ways. My response was that we don't have fashion police. We don't have a sign at the border of Australia saying you must now dress a certain way. Perhaps there should be on-the-spot fines for fashion sense for some people. But in the end, it is critical to me that the things that unite are always stronger than the things that can divide us.

    We've been under tremendous pressure because of Bali. Straight after September 11, I think a lot of Australians acted badly. It was a shock, raw emotion, and certain people were being vilified. I'm not saying things are all perfect now, but most Australians most days of the week and most minutes of each day treat most other Australians well. There have been examples, as in other parts of the world, where Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques have been targeted with graffiti and things like that. But again, these are isolated incidents.

    I always think it is important to balance, not to highlight the things we do wrong but rather build up the things we do right. We've been very proactive, particularly since September 11, in this business of encouraging dialogue between religious communities.

    When I'm back in Sydney in a week or two I'll help launch something that's been going on very quietly over the last 12 months, where the leaders of the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities have been visiting each other's places of worship. I've had rabbis say, “I'd never been to a mosque before, but I have now”. I've had imams say, “I'd never been to a synagogue before, but I have now”. This is not universal. This doesn't represent everybody, but there's enough of it to know there's a lot of proactivity building.

    Our Prime Minister has been very strongly saying that if, God forbid, something happens with Iraq, it will not be a war against the people of Iraq or Islam, it will be about a regime change. So we've been working very hard.

    September 11 was horrendous and the volume of people who were killed was just obscene. But the Bali event had proportionately a greater impact on Australia than September 11 had on America. We lost 80 or 90 young people, and for the population of our country that had just an enormous impact. Everybody knows somebody who knew somebody. It was quite stunning how many people were impacted upon by it.

    Those in the Muslim community have gone out of their way to show themselves to be part of Australia. They have collected money at mosques to give to appeals for the Bali victims. They have stood very loudly and constantly on the side of being part of Australia. It's not universal, but it's very close to it, that it is not inconsistent to be a good Australian and a good Muslim.

    So it's a very important part of the work we do. As the Minister for Citizenship, which I read as national unity, and Multicultural Affairs, which is about individual respect, what you're not reading about in the papers is my measure of success. So we work very hard at it.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: One of our other great unifiers in this country, and uniquely so, is our second official language, French.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral : Hello Mr. Minister, Mr. the Ambassador, Kate and Peter.

    I would have regretted not giving you the opportunity to experience our excellent interpreter services, here at the commons. It’s the second reason. The first one is that I am much comfortable speaking in French than in English. And since I like my questions to be well understood, I use the services of our professionals.

    You have already responded to questions on immigration. For my part, I will focus on citizenship issues. First, I wish to congratulate you on being the first Minister heading a Department called Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. You will surely be in gold letters in the Australian Parliament, congratulations.

    As you are aware, we are working on a Citizenship Bill in Canada. For many months already, we have heard from citizens and from groups that have shared their worries with us. I would like to relate some of their comments, and ask you how you answer such concerns in your country.

    First of all, you have responded to Mr. Sarkis that the minimal prerequisite to obtain the citizenship was a two year residence. Here, it has been three years for some time now. It used to be five years but we know it can be much longer in other countries. I therefore congratulate you on such a short period.

    The Citizenship Bill that we are working on specifies a probation period of five years. I am wondering if you have such a probation measure that in effect suspends citizenship. If so, I would like to know in which cases the citizenship can be revoked or temporarily suspended? That is my first question.

    My second question concerns the process of complete revocation of citizenship. It’s an important question. Several people have shared their worries about notably certain provisions in the Bill where we take away any appeal procedure in some cases. Such appeal procedure is fundamentally part of our constitutional state. I imagine it is similar in your country : every citizen accused of something is fully entitled to an appeal.

    These are my two questions. Afterwards, if the Chair gives me a chance I will ask a third one.

Á  (1150)  

[English]

    The Chair: Try me.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's fine.

[English]

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I'll answer the first two. Madame, thank you for those questions.

    Australia's Citizenship Act is applying a 1940s logic to the area of deprivation. Under one section, the question of whether somebody has knowingly misled or has been proved to have misled us in the application to citizenship is the only basis on which someone can lose their citizenship. And then there's another that suggests that if they fight with a foreign power in a war against Australia, they would lose their citizenship as well. So there are essentially two ways.

    The provision of being on the side of a foreign power at the time of war has not resulted in anyone losing their citizenship in the last 50 years.

    On five occasions in the last 40 years, someone has lost their citizenship for being found to have made a misleading or fraudulent statement about their character--and it is purely character--that after becoming a permanent resident and applying for citizenship, they were found to have perhaps broken the law in such a way that they appeared before the court and received a penalty.

    So it has been a very rare event that someone would lose their Australian citizenship after gaining their citizenship--a very rare event. Some hand it back. They decide they want to go and do something else and they give it away.

    Having said that, there was also a third way in which somebody could lose their Australian citizenship, which is now no longer part of the laws of our country. Section 17 of the 1948 act was repealed last year, royal assent given on April 4. Section 17 said that should an Australian seek the citizenship of another country, they would lose their Australian citizenship.

    We were 20 years or more behind Canada--I think it might be 40 years, but we were a long way behind Canada--20 or more years behind New Zealand, 20 or more years behind the United States, and 50 years behind the United Kingdom in the repeal of this. So since April last year Australian citizens have been able to be citizens of another country and maintain their Australian citizenship.

    There is only one group of Australians who cannot be citizens of another country, and that's people like me who are members of the federal Parliament. People who are members of a state Parliament can be, but members of a federal Parliament cannot be.

    On the question of actually revoking someone's citizenship, that there might be a certain type of conduct that is deemed not in the interest of Australia, this is a debate I think we will have to have, given that debates are happening everywhere else. In parliamentary democracies as diverse as Kenya, the United Kingdom, and indeed Canada, these discussions are taking place.

    Kenya is looking at this. I was in Kenya this time last week. The United Kingdom has made changes in the last few months, and I guess the Canadian debate is on a similar path to the U.K. debate. The suggestion is that it's not so much being found guilty with a particular penalty that should trigger someone losing their citizenship--an additional penalty because of their conduct--but that there might well be some information that cannot be put before a court that someone has conducted themselves in a way that is very much not in the interests of the state--a terrorist-like activity or being involved with a terrorist group.

    The only key point that I would make--and it's perhaps wrong for me to make it when I'm in somebody else's country--is that it's critical to me that someone who is a citizen by birth must be treated exactly the same way as someone who's a citizen by choice. I asked the British government about this last week, because that was the point they came to. The response I can share with you is that if a U.K.-born citizen lost their citizenship as a result of some type of conduct that was deemed so bad, so contrary to the interest of the way the nation organized itself, it was a minor issue in comparison to the critical issue that a citizen by birth and a citizen by choice must be treated the same.

    Those are very strong words, but that's what they said to me.

Á  (1155)  

    I would think, though, that any attempt to take someone's citizenship from them must never be done lightly. It must never be done because it would appear to be a political whim. It must always have in it some sort of safeguard and protection that ensures there is strong reason to act.

    So I don't believe I can give you a way forward, but I can make the observation based on the critical importance that all who are citizens are equally treated before the law. That to my mind is an absolutely critical aspect of the way any of these sorts of measures are discussed.

    The Chair: Minister, just to be clear, what the British were saying is that you could lose your citizenship even if you were born in Britain, which is rather remarkable. And that's what I will ask. By birth, you could lose your citizenship there. It's what they were discussing, to put everybody on an equal basis--

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: That's right.

    The Chair: --which is what this committee wants to ensure. So you could lose your citizenship even if you were born in the country. But where would you send them back to, if the next process would be--

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Maybe I should--

    The Chair: I think you touched on it last night when you talked about statelessness, that there is an additional caveat there in terms of statelessness.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Well, there is. And Australia and the U.K.--the U.K. with some qualification--are signatories to the United Nations convention on statelessness. I understand Canada is not a signatory to it, but Canada has, like all good parliamentary democracies believing in human rights, maintained the tenets of that. So you don't need to be signed up to act in an appropriate way. And what that convention says is that you shall not, by withdrawal of somebody's citizenship, render them without a place to go.

    I guess that in itself means that if you are not a dual nationality, if you're not a dual citizen, you maintain your citizenship. But again, that is, by the British measure, of minor importance in comparison to the critical fact that citizens by birth or by choice must be treated the same.

    It's more of a report on what the British are doing, but it is interesting to note that the Kenyans are looking at exactly the same matter for the same reason. A lot of it is, I guess, built on the post-September 11 environment. I suspect it's a debate Australia also must have.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Madeleine, the third question.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: First, I would just like to comment quickly. In this debate, it appears to me that we should beware of making hasty decisions because we are still under shock. Furthermore, with the war in Iraq near, the current climate of fear and apprehension has been maintained. In general, such a climate is never conducive to good decision making.

    My ultimate question concerns a recent issue. Last fall, our Minister suggested we engage in an important debate on the National Identification Card. I know that all the Commonwealth countries are very much opposed to the Identification Card. I was wondering if Australia is considering a national identification card in response to the tension, in light of September 11 and of the events in Bali. Are you discussing this issue?

    Le président: Good question.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have always good question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I think the observation of making deliberate decisions in a responsible way is very real and true. I admire the way this Parliament does involve the public in broad public policy discussions before decisions are made. Ultimately, though, governments have to make decisions and hope Parliament supports them on the floor of the legislature.

    We had a debate on a national identity card in Australia in the 1980s. The card was called the “Australia Card”. In 1980s technology, the plan was to give everyone a universal number. There was no plan to make it a photo ID. I suspect if there were a debate on this issue happening today it would certainly be about biometrics and photos and so forth. It's not a debate that comes up for discussion in Australia as such.

    It was interesting, again, to compare it to the U.K.'s discussion on a similar matter. When I was talking to them last week, we centred on the idea that there should be options of different types of cards, not just one card; in other words, a card that would suit your purpose as a licensed driver but would have a biometric on it, a card that would suit your purpose of accessing national health but would have a biometric on it. If for some reason or other you weren't in either of those categories, there would be another card you could get.

    I can't speak on behalf of the Australian government on this--even though I probably am because I'm here--but I'll make the point that from an individual freedom point of view, I think it is probably more appealing to know an individual would be able to opt for a card that has personal relevance.

    Again, then, the whole question of protocols comes in, the need to ensure that privacy is protected, so that one officer at, let's say, the motor registry area doesn't know about your tax return or your health needs and all of those things when you go to get your driver's licence. But I understand that computer systems as much as databases can establish protocols to prevent such connections.

    So 20 years later, George Orwell has been found to not be quite right with 1984; but then, aspects of Orwell were always correct, so this is a debate. We are not embarking on a similar discussion in Australia, but again I suspect that the United States' demands and requirements for greater security for people travelling to and from it and ensuring that we play our part as a responsible country in the whole area of advanced passenger processing will continue to grow pressures on us. Where that takes us, I'm not certain. I am probably speculating more than I should on where it could be.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: When this committee finally gets to the United States to talk to our counterparts about some of these issues, we'll let you know what they say.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I'd appreciate that.

    The Chair: Andrew.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Minister, just so you know, the chair plays in a band and is always looking for a booking, especially in the winter months down in Australia.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Okay.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's called the True Grit Band.

    The Chair: And we just made Gary an honorary member.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I think the whole world should be in a band.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, when we were in a refugee camp in Austria, one of the places we were looking at was Australia; but we decided it was too close to China, so we came to Canada. Given the politics of the time, we were worried about going from the frying pan into the fire and being too close to China.

    Your title is Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Yes.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You don't do the immigration portfolio?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I'm one of the two ministers who administer the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. My senior colleague is the Minister for Immigration. We have shared responsibilities, but we divest one part to each other.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: We didn't always have citizenship and immigration together. I wonder if there isn't a lot to be said for that, because there are competing interests.

    When you look at immigration here, it's almost like the pairing of community service programs and prisons. The prisons always seem to dominate, whereas community service programs are somewhat different. Their function is to keep people out of prison as much as possible. There's that tension about which institutional mentality wins.

    You mentioned your two-year residency requirement. I think you said a person had to have been present 365 days.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: It's twelve months, yes.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay. That is one-third of what we're making a requirement, which is up to six years.

    The other thing you mentioned is you have a probationary period for a spouse. Is that a two-year probation and then two years of residence?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: That's correct.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That's four years. That's interesting. I think in this country it takes sometimes over a year to get to that.

    You mentioned--

    The Chair: I heard it was something about mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law. That's likely, but let's stay political.

    Okay.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: In terms of revocation, you mentioned that this was the mentality of the 1940s and you're looking to update. Of course, the whole process is very rare. I commend you on your attitude on this.

    You wanted feedback on what we've been gathering. I can only speak for the western tour we undertook from Toronto out to Victoria. There was an incredible discomfort from the multicultural community with what the government was proposing in terms of revocation--making it even worse than it is now.

    I think in terms of putting citizens on an equal footing it is very important. That's the big picture, because it's what most people deal with. The numbers are huge; it's at 22% in your country. And of course you have the relatives included as well, which drives the figures up greatly.

    So I'll be interested to see what you eventually come up with. This committee will be coming with a report to you.

    The Chair: Do you have a question?

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I did have a question, yes. I had a lot of questions.

    How did you come to the conclusion that the number one public interest you have is to make sure citizens are treated on an equal footing?

  (1210)  

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: How did I come to that conclusion?

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How did your government come to it?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I think it's just a critical principle of what citizenship represents. I cannot look someone who has become a citizen in the last 12 months in the eye and say, you're now a full and equal partner in Australia today and tomorrow, then actually participate in legislating that they be treated differently in the sense that they could lose their citizenship at some stage down the track if we found they were involved in an activity we thought by law was sufficiently bad for us to take their citizenship from them. I could not actively do that. I would prefer--and this is just a debate we no doubt have to have--and would in fact demand that we say that people are to be treated equally whether they're citizens by birth or citizens by choice.

    However, if somebody has a second nationality, for whatever reason--it may be a sentimental attachment, it may be something they've sought--and if that somebody has sought a nationality of another country just because that other country was prepared to give it to them, they do have an advantage over somebody who has one nationality. But it doesn't put into question their loyalty to this country, and maybe the committee research people can find whoever it was who said this and let me know.

    Someone once said that you should not fear someone who has a commitment to two countries as much as you should fear someone who has a commitment to no country. I would suspect that in parts of this world at the moment there are those who care nothing about national borders or indeed the way a society has organized itself in a way that brings about good human rights records, good conduct, and respect for the individuals in it. They're the real problem in the world, not people from countries, but people who don't see borders.

    It is never a case for me that we should question the loyalty of someone who is a dual citizen, and so nothing in any legislation should treat them differently, to my mind. Indeed, somebody who has taken out citizenship should not be treated differently from those who were born to that citizenship. However, if something in their conduct suggests that they are guilty of an offence or whatever, the path the British have indeed gone down, they have this residual power where a minister can put a case--I guess Bill C-18 is looking there--or two ministers can put a case to a judge and a decision can be made without someone actually being found guilty yet perhaps losing their citizenship.

    But I think that's actually about the integrity of the citizenship of the country. That actually says that there are values and there are rights, but then there's also some responsibility. If by your conduct you've shown yourself not really wanting to live up to the ideals of being a citizen, to make change through the ballot box and all of these sorts of things, then we'll oblige you. And if you have the citizenship of another country, well, we'll oblige you; you can lose this one and you can keep that one. But if for some reason you don't have the citizenship of another country, you're kind of stuck with that person, aren't you?

    I would have thought that in the case of, say, someone involved in terrorist activity, the last thing they're going to be thinking about or even concerned about is the fact that they're going to lose their citizenship.

    I think the other thing you don't want to do, as I understand the Americans have done, is create a circumstance where you end up with a backdoor prosecution for someone involved in some particular activity, such as war crimes or something. If you can't get them on that, you'll get them on this. You always have to be very careful that you don't create a penalty for them for an offence that's not actually connected to their conduct as a citizen, if you see what I mean.

    The Chair: Minister, before we go to the next one, we'll allow you to ask a question or two of us, and I'll determine who can best answer it. It's a non-partisan committee, so we'll leave it to the chair to determine.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: It's about the reaction to this bill and this proposal. A colleague here suggested that the multicultural community might be feeling very concerned about what this means, and I guess it's probably because they think they've gained citizenship by grant and therefore it's something that can be taken from them. Perhaps they're not as settled about their attachment to Canada as you'd like them to be. Maybe they don't feel as comfortable. But where is this at? Where is the stage of this? This is really still in the discovery stage as a bill, isn't it?

    The Chair: I'll defer to some other members later, but I think most witnesses who have appeared before the committee have talked glowingly of citizenship and of the privilege and the right that comes with it and have said that there should only be one class of citizenship, whether by birth or by choice. I think it's because there are two new provisions in this particular bill, the denial provision and the annulment provision, that do not exist in our present legislation.

    On the revocation side it presently exists. We may have used it 10 times, but it is essentially based on a political system where cabinet can take away that citizenship. Now, Bill C-18 tries to correct that by essentially allowing revocation to be dealt with by the courts, this with all the due process that comes with it. There is still a debate as to whether or not that due process is there, the appeal measures, and what bar one uses to revoke that citizenship. Is it the balance of probabilities, is it beyond a reasonable doubt, and should it be a criminal-based system, putting the bar that high to take away something people really treasure?

    The denial is new, the annulment is new, and the revocation is to be changed, but how much better can we do it?

    With regard to probationary citizenship, which Madeleine asked about, it is essentially about situations where, after you've achieved your three years here in this country, we find out that for some reason you misrepresented your application way back when. There are a lot of Canadians, as you might know, who don't take out citizenship for whatever reason. But suppose somebody did apply, but 20 or 30 years ago they may have answered a question, and now for some reason it is found out that there was some misrepresentation. The administration would like to be able after five years--maybe now that we've found out from your country something we hadn't known about your criminal record, you name it--to say, we're going to reserve the right to take your citizenship away. This probationary citizenship is something relatively new under this bill too, and we've been hearing about that.

    The other thing, as my colleague John Bryden will probably tell you, is that the oath perhaps ought to express the values this country believes in, in much the same way as we heard when you read out your oath. We're also looking at that.

    We're also looking at the residency requirements, which we're trying to make much better. We've engaged a debate as to whether or not it should be a physical presence of three years, that is, 1,095 days. A lot of witnesses have talked to us about people having to travel for work, for family, or for this, saying the attachment to one's country does not essentially have to be through a physical presence. In fact, it could be that you have family, you have real estate, you're paying your taxes, and a whole bunch of things, but not necessarily physical presence.

    Within a very small capsule, those are the issues we're all discussing.

    Also, with regard to that ceremony you attended, it was interesting what you were saying last night as to who does your ceremonies and how they're done. We have a quasi-judicial system now that essentially lets an independent judge make a judgment as to whether or not a person has the necessary language skills and knowledge of Canada and has fulfilled the residency requirements. It's a human-based system in the sense that there needs to be an interview because there's always an exception to an objective criterion, such as your presence for 12 months or 1,095 days in this country. Our judges do play a very active role in dealing with people, because there's always an exception.

    Our new bill, Bill C-18, essentially says let the judges become commissioners. Let them do the ceremonies and the marketing, but let the administration determine whether or not a person qualifies to become a citizen on the basis of language, knowledge, and residency requirements. Some of us are a little uncomfortable about administrators doing that as opposed to independent people, which has been our system for the past thirty or forty years.

  (1215)  

    That's it in a nutshell. If some of my colleagues want to add something, be my guest, but those are all the issues we've heard thus far--at least those I can recall.

    Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: There is one other issue. The act now would provide that an applicant could be denied citizenship for demonstrating “a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. Those values are nowhere defined, or even listed, and there is a question about whether this “disregard” would be a disregard in the mind or a disregard that has been demonstrated by some action or activity or association. There are many people who feel that this is, first, a very vague, troublingly vague provision, and secondly, inappropriate because the certainty and the definition is completely lacking. So that's another issue.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I am sure John has a question.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to get to John, but I've asked the minister if he has a question of us, because it's supposed to be a two-way learning experience. As I understand it, he has some questions of us too.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's ok.

[English]

    The Chair: Is there anything further on those two points?

    Minister, do you have another question?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I just would be interested in knowing the reaction to the bill on this question of conviction or some sort of implied matter that's dealt with, the mechanism of involving the judiciary, and so forth. Has there been an offer made to the community to comment on whether a conviction-based revocation approach is of greater credibility in their mind, that somebody has breached a particular type of law, something that really stands out, rather than simply that two ministers referred it to a judge?

    I don't want undervalue that no minister is going to suggest to a judge that they act on somebody's citizenship without very good reason, I would have thought, but has there been any reaction from the community about that?

    The Chair: Part of the function of our committee, similar to your system, is that after second reading it comes to the committee, and we have done extensive consultation.

    I should tell you, this is the third time a bill has been introduced and passed Parliament on citizenship. For election purposes or whatever, it has never gotten through the Senate and final approval. So this is the third kick at the can, so to speak.

    I can tell you, as to the reaction so far, I would be kind in saying it was negative. So far, it has been very poor and very negative in a lot of aspects. So this committee is going to have a lot of work to do in looking at the clause-by-clause of the bill, putting forward a persuasive case as to why the government and the minister ought to change certain provisions of this.

    We're still in the middle of the debate. In fact, we continue next week, and perhaps thereafter. Once we've heard all the witnesses, then it's our job to do the parliamentary stuff and give some good advice to the minister, or amend the bill and see whether the government accepts it or not. Those will be interesting times.

    But in answer to your question, it has been very negative.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Okay, thank you.

    Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just on that first point, we've been dealing with this since 1998. When we were dealing with Bill C-16, I was parliamentary secretary, and I could not believe we could have a system revoking citizenship where the big question is, did you or did you not tell the truth in a question asked 50 years ago, that might or might not have been asked 50 years ago, and then have that as a basis for revocation of citizenship.

    The Senate, which is actually a Liberal Senate, went against the government in terms of not releasing the bill out of committee because they were so troubled by this particular question. So I like your comments when you said you don't want to do by the back door what you cannot do by the front door. Unfortunately, that's where we are caught up. We're trying to do by the back door what we cannot do by the front door. That's why there is a huge concern among various...well, actually, pretty well all the communities right across the country, because they see it as devaluing the citizenship. So you're taking right track in Australia.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Any others comments or questions?

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I have a comment.

    When I was a young man travelling around the world, everyone knew who Australians were and everyone knew the Canadians. These were nationalities that everyone recognized. However, in the case of the Canadians, then and even now, Canadians are uncertain of who they are in their own country.

    I've been with this committee since 1995, as we've tried to develop policy, and there is a theme that lurks behind it that is probably a little different from that in Australia. We have both the advantages and the disadvantages of being next door to a huge cultural giant that is very similar to us in language, with the exception of the French language, but certainly in the English language, and very similar in many other ways. And that has led to what I think has been a search.

    I wouldn't quite characterize the committee's work in the way Joe did. While I think there has been negative feedback on some of the things we've tried to do, one thing for certain is that Canadians want to continue to discover themselves through this particular piece of legislation, which is why it's such a struggle for us.

    The Chair: I like the way you said that. That was very nice.

    Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Joe.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: We ran an Australian citizenship project over the last couple years called Citizen 2030, where young people were asked to comment about the sort of Australia they wanted by the year 2030. They were going to be the ministers at that stage. These were last years at high school, 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds. And one chap said, “All I know is, Australia's identity is no longer typified by a backyard barbecue.” And I think it's a fair comment. It is, for many Australians, still very much an Australian activity.

    One of the great advantages we have in our cultural diversity, as you have here, is this enormous range of possibilities. Your restaurants are almost the front line of the exposure of what multiculturalism represents. We all have to eat. And the fact that you have such a great cross-section of the food of the world actually in your neighbourhood and your suburbs is, for many people, just the touchstones they need.

    So I think Australians are going through a similar debate about what the Australian identity is.

    Some of the best football players who keep coming forward are the children of immigrants. We have a very loudly proud Lebanese Muslim who is one of the highest paid rugby league players in Australia, Hazem el Masri. He's now a Canadian star. That's terrific, isn't it? These are people who are, just by their own involvement in Australia, getting immersed, being who they are, being loud and proud about their heritage, and getting on with it.

    I think it's great that at least our societies sustain themselves, that the evolution continues.

    The Chair: John has a question. With regards to your oath, you made a comment that Her Majesty didn't have a problem with your oath.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I haven't run it by her recently.

    The Chair: Okay. How long ago did you change your oath? And did the fact that it has no reference to Her Majesty raise an awful lot of debate?

    It's been proposed in this committee that either we keep it there or eliminate it. We haven't heard a lot about that, to be fair. A few people have indicated that the reference to the monarch ought not to be there.

    I was wondering what your experience was.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I personally have no difficulty with reference to the Queen of Australia in any of our conduct. I must say, though, that for all practical purposes she does not participate in Australian decision-making or royal assent processes any more than she would here.

    The constitutional discussion we had a few years ago, which looked at the idea of Australia breaking off the monarch as the ultimate head of state and replacing Her Majesty and her heirs and successors with something else, produced a no vote. Australians said, we're not sure about the something else. Everything else we have had to date has served us very well. Why do we want to change this? I voted against it for exactly the same reasons.

    It was in 1984 that the citizenship act was changed again, and out of that came this new set of words. They were reviewed by an Australian Citizenship Council, which was chaired by a former governor general, Sir Nian Stephen. There has been confirmation that the words sum it up well without overqualifying what it means.

    In recent times a number of people have tried to have a go at refashioning these words and spelling out what our laws are. I'm a bit of a believer that a bill of rights with an overcodified set of rights actually limits your rights. My view of it is that if you say “whose laws I will uphold and obey”, there is no need for you to talk about laws that guarantee equality between the sexes and do this and do that. If you go into too much detail, you tend to exclude things. You miss something.

    This pledge is very simple and straightforward. It's very much symbolic, but it nevertheless states the intention. It says “I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people”, to the country and all of the people in it. The phrase “whose democratic beliefs I share” underscores the importance of parliamentary democracy, and that change comes through the ballot box, not by any other means. That is the system by which we conduct ourselves.

    It goes on to say “whose rights and liberties I respect”. That means human rights and the way we offer a sense of respect to each other and the fact that people are able to move and communicate freely and to freely express views that confirm or contradict the government of the day and to have a range of opinions.

    The message that is constantly being hammered, especially at new Australians from regimes where these things don't exist, is that you have to get used to the idea that your view may have a contrary view and you may see something in the media that is contrary to your view being expressed by somebody else. Some people come from countries where they read something in the paper or hear it on the radio and they think, that's the government's view. So we've actually had to show people that we have a pluralistic society.

    It continues: “whose laws I will uphold and obey”. The laws are never set in cement. They're always open to challenge. High courts are marvellous at creating a new set of interpretations of laws at any given hour of any given day. I think those words quite adequately maintain a sense of free interpretation but also set out a very broad set of responsibilities that people have to uphold.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: That could lead into John's question. So here's Johnny.

    Mr. John Bryden: Do you condone extrajudicial killing? Do you think the state is entitled to kill people without recourse to the rule of law if it feels that this is necessary for the security of the state?

    The Chair: I didn't know that was part of the citizenship bill. Did I miss a clause, John?

    Mr. John Bryden: Let me help you a little bit, Minister. The reason for the question is this. There are certain laws that are absolute charter laws. Human rights laws are absolute. The difficulty I had with the argument you just presented was the fact that the laws of a state can be changed, as we saw in the Myanmar republic and with the rise of the Nazis. We have seen many examples throughout history. The Nuremberg trial is a classic example, where the defence was that “we obeyed the law”. Surely, in an oath or any other pledge, one would want to guarantee that the laws one is referring to are the fundamental laws of human rights that might be cited in your charter.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Australia doesn't have laws on its books that allow state-sanctioned executions. There is no death penalty operating in Australia. That has been the law of the land for probably the last 40 years. I'll defer to Peter, but I think it was probably in 1967 in Melbourne. It was Ronald Ryan, wasn't it? That was the last time somebody was hung for an offence, so that was a long time ago.

    It has since been outlawed as an approach. It is official government policy that we don't participate in that and always seek to defend Australians who are in circumstances that bring about a penalty such as that in other jurisdictions. We've always argued to bring them home to face penalty in Australia rather than face the death penalty elsewhere.

  (1235)  

    Mr. John Bryden: Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Israel and the United States, both of which are democracies, have charters of rights and so on, and from time to time have engaged in extrajudicial killing.

    I don't want to engage you in a debate, but I would have thought, following on Ms. Ablonczy's remark, that perhaps there was something to be said for attaching the oath of citizenship to the constitution of Australia, New Zealand, or Canada in the sense that it contains the basic laws of human rights and rule of law. Is there some merit in that, if you want to come back to your oath again?

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: I've been asked to see citizenship laws sort of immersed within the Constitution, but the Constitution as a document in Australia is difficult to change. It has served us for 100 years plus. We have six states and must have a simple majority in at least four to make any changes to the Constitution, so it's not a regular thing.

    As a nation we have shown a capacity to engage in a very strong human rights record and have delivered on that for our citizens. Occasionally people from the outside looking in make complaints and comparisons on some aspects, particularly to do with our first Australians. But I believe as a nation we have done exceedingly well and will continue to do well in this regard.

    No one would question our advocacy for and record on human rights, not just in our own country but in other places. On jurisdictions involving other countries I really won't comment, because I have no personal responsibility for them. I'm not going to have a discussion about it here. I think that would be unfair.

    The Chair: Minister, I want to thank you so much for this exchange of views and for giving us some insights into your own citizenship act and how it has helped. You've indicated that Canada and Australia share an awful lot of common values and common things. I think we have shown the world in our own respective ways, especially on our multicultural policies, how people from different countries with different languages and religions can come together and be as one people. I congratulate you and look forward to having this discussion again.

    High Commissioner, it's always nice to see you. Peter and Kate, thank you so much. I know you have to go because you have other appointments.

    Again, thank you so much.

    The Hon. Gary Hardgrave: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, politicians.

    The Chair: Colleagues, don't go anywhere. I need you for a few minutes to quickly discuss future business.

    We are adjourned.