CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 24, 1999

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I would like to call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to order, and I would like to welcome our witnesses. As you may know, we are studying Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

I note that we have a lot of students here from the Forum for Young Canadians, and before I welcome the witnesses formally, may I note to the students that this side is the government side and that side is the opposition.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): The best side is here.

The Chair: Of course that statement is immediately debatable.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Don't take that. Come on, speak up.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm very tired, but I'm ready to fight with you, Mr. Mahoney.

The Chair: On that note, you can see the collegiality and seriousness as well.

We would now like to welcome Ms. Willa Marcus, legal counsel, and Elspeth Ross, from the Adoption Council of Canada. Please proceed with your opening remarks.

Ms. Willa Marcus (Legal Counsel, Adoption Council of Canada): Thank you.

[Translation]

My name is Willa Marcus and I represent the Adoption Council of Canada. I will speak on behalf of this organization and my remarks will be mainly in English.

[English]

The Adoption Council of Canada regroups the parties to adoption, that is, adopted persons, adoptive parents, and birth parents who place children for adoption. It's an integral part of the adoption community and the adoption movement. I don't think most people are even aware that there is an adoption movement in Canada, but you'll become more aware of it now and in the future.

• 1540

I'm going to address my comments principally to clause 8 of Bill C-63, and I want to start by giving you our idea of the connection between adoption and human rights, an idea that has recently been recognized by the courts and is really the basis for our views on this clause. I wish I could tell you it singing and dancing because I know that would help keep everybody awake, but unfortunately I can't, so I'll just move on ahead.

In our view, there's a direct link between human rights and adoption. In a nutshell, our view is that the prevailing view of family is that it is an endless chain of bearing a child and raising that child, and all relations formed by an adoption deviate necessarily from that norm and therefore face disadvantages because of it. This applies to those related through adoption and not through blood, as well as those related through blood and separated by adoption.

The focus here, of course, is the relationship between the adoptive parent and the adoptive child. That's a relationship—I want to give the context and I will do it briefly and move right onto the Citizenship Act—that has not enjoyed full legal status, and in some ways still doesn't.

I'll give you a couple of examples that show the adoptive relationship has not been considered a relationship that truly belongs to the family unit. In laws related to succession—in other words, where there is no will—adopted children did not inherit from their adoptive parents. While that changed about 50 years ago, adopted children did not inherit from their extended family. So the adoptive parents could pass on rights to their non-adopted children that they could not pass on to their adopted children. In fact, that only changed after the Second World War, and in some provinces it only changed in the last 10 years.

Another example that shows the view that adoption did not create a full family relationship is the laws on marriage. Until very recently, it was legal for an adoptive father to marry his adoptive daughter. Of course, historically, there have been laws on prohibition of marriage based on blood and on affinity. In other words, included in this long list that goes back hundreds of years, you couldn't marry your in-laws. Obviously, that wasn't just the issue of the gene pool, but also the issue of what social relations should be within the family, and yet adoption wasn't included in that set of relations. In fact that law only changed with an act of the Senate in 1991.

Now I'm going to move on to the Citizenship Act, because in fact when you see the background, that the adoptive relationship wasn't accorded full membership in the family unit, it should come as no surprise that, as an extension, the Citizenship Act didn't accord adopted children full membership and didn't permit adoptive parents to pass on the rights of citizenship in the way that non-adoptive parents could pass them on.

I'd now like to move to what will be changed in the new act, because the new act does go a long way to providing equality for adopted children and adoptive parents. As I said, this has been the subject of a court case, and the courts have chosen to look at this from a human rights perspective.

The new act will eliminate the barriers that adopted children and their parents faced in terms of becoming Canadians. Non-adopted children—and I needn't remind you of this—are citizens automatically. In other words, if a Canadian man or woman goes overseas and has a child, the child is a Canadian citizen. That has not been the case in adoption, and so the child has been treated as an immigrant and has had to go through the immigrant procedures. That's had an impact in several types of situations. One is if the Canadians were living overseas permanently, the child had no access to citizenship in a way that a non-adopted child would.

• 1545

This in fact was the case of Mrs. Shirley McKenna in Ireland, who had several children, some of them adopted and some of them not. In 1978 she went to the embassy in Dublin to pick up the passports for all her children to come on a trip to Canada and was told “Here are the ones for the ones who were born to you, but the other ones aren't citizens.” Since that moment of revelation in the Dublin embassy, she has been fighting to get her children citizenship. Of course, they should be awarded citizenship, and she should be awarded a prize for having undertaken this fight for over 20 years. But this obviously will be changed under this act.

The other major element that will be changed is the medical exam. For a non-adopted child, the child, no matter the medical condition, has the right to come to Canada, because all citizens do. In the case of an adoption, the child was forced to go through a medical exam.

So, for example, if you had a Canadian couple resident in the United States with two children, one adopted and one not adopted, and one of them came down with cancer and their families said “Come back to Canada, the situation is better here; we'll be able to help you”, if it was the non-adopted child there would be no problem, and if it was the adopted child, the family potentially couldn't come back to Canada. This also affected inter-country adoptions.

Your first reaction might be, why are we going to allow these children into Canada? First of all, Canadians adopting overseas, like Canadians giving birth everywhere, want their children to be healthy, and the way the procedure has worked, unfortunately, is that overseas these medical examinations have taken place after the adoption was finalized in the foreign jurisdiction, after the parents had a legal and emotional bond with the child, so it became nothing but a hoop for the parents to go through.

But there's another issue too, and it is the basic human rights issue. Even if the children do not enjoy perfect health, they are the children of Canadians, and the children of Canadians should be allowed, and must be allowed, to come to Canada, because they too must be regarded as Canadians.

[Translation]

We agree that equality between adopted and natural children does not necessarily mean they should be treated the same way. The law always needs to provide controls; in fact, it already does.

This criteria already exists in the Immigration Act regulations. Now they can also be found in the Citizenship Act. We agree that children's interests are paramount, but so are those of natural and adoptive parents. The adoption process has to be lawful and help foster a real bond between parents and children, and it must be in keeping with the Immigration Act.

[English]

So we agree with those criteria.

There are, however, some changes that we propose, and I'm getting to the heart of our comments.

• 1550

The first one is, after having gone to all this trouble of telling you to take it out of the Immigration Act and put it under the Citizenship Act, and applauding you for doing it, we now are coming back and saying there might be some operational reasons to keep the immigration officials involved in the verification measures. That's the only measure left for the overseas officials. But we do know they have experience in doing this. Unless you're considering investing a great deal of money in training the citizenship officers, we suggest there might be a value in keeping these functions in some ways as they have been handled in the past while the law would change. This is really an operational issue.

Along the same lines, we would also like to see an appeal procedure. An appeal procedure would be in relationship to the verification measures. We believe that the Immigration Appeal Board can be a forum for these appeals, even though this would be under the Citizenship Act and not under the Immigration Act. Again, that's an operational matter.

There are also two other areas that aren't operational. We'd like to see changes in the draft itself. Right now it says “was adopted by a citizen after the coming into force of this section”. We think this is highly problematic.

[Translation]

This may solve future problems, but it does not address past adoptions. It might possibly not be constitutional, and may lead to legal action under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[English]

If it was a human rights issue to change the law to eliminate or reduce discrimination, then the discrimination really has to be eliminated for all adopted children and not just adopted children as of July 1, 1999, or whenever this law comes into effect.

On this point I would briefly like to tell you about the Benner case, which we believe applies very much to this situation. Benner was a man who was born to a Canadian woman in the United States before 1977. It was only in 1977 that Canadian mothers got the right to transmit citizenship to their children. Before that it was only Canadian fathers who could transmit the citizenship outside Canada. So when the law was changed in 1977, all children born to Canadian mothers and fathers as of the date of the law automatically became citizens. But for those who had been born to Canadian mothers outside Canada before the law, the conditions were different. They were entitled to citizenship, but they also had to pass medical and security tests.

Benner had a problem because he had a criminal record. You could say that Benner wasn't exactly an ideal citizen. In fact, there's good reason to think, reading the case, that he was probably going to reoffend. The court took the position, and this is the Supreme Court, that you still couldn't discriminate on that basis. This guy might be a you-know-what, but he was our you-know-what and he was a Canadian citizen. If the child born after 1977 by a Canadian woman, with the same record, could come in, so could Benner. They said you can't have these different criteria. If it was a question of discrimination towards women, which was the reason Benner wouldn't have had the citizenship right automatically, then you couldn't just fix the problem as of 1977 and leave all the other people with the unfixed problem.

• 1555

We believe the same thing holds for the adoptions, and we strongly believe that this really is an invitation to more litigation. Now, we were involved in the McKenna litigation, and we think it turned out very well for us, but we still would prefer not to be going back to court. That's the first issue.

The second issue along the same lines is the age limit. In paragraph 8(a), the application for citizenship is granted to a person who is a minor at the time of application. We think the age limit shouldn't be in there, that the age limit should be 28, in line with clause 14, which I'll come to at the end. I know the first response, understandably, will be, yes, but adoptions of children over 18 raise eyebrows. I agree the vast majority of adoptions of a child over 18, where the citizenship is then immediately being sought, are likely to be adoptions of convenience. Certainly, it's an unusual situation. But in fact, in such a situation, the alarm bells go off so strongly that it's easy to apply the criteria of whether this is a genuine parent-child relationship.

On the other hand, we do believe there are legitimate adoptions that take place of children over 18, and we believe these children should not be denied the benefits of parental transmission of citizenship from Canadian citizens. We're thinking in particular of foster children. The system in Canada, which I'll describe to you in a moment, is like the system in the United States, and the United States is surely the residence of more expatriate Canadians than any other country.

In Canada, children are placed in foster homes until they're 18. So a child could be placed in a home and live there between age 12 and 18, integrate into the family, and the status of the child would not really be a subject of discussion. Then all of a sudden—not so suddenly—the child turns 18. But what happens suddenly is that the foster system is no longer in effect. The system just assumes the child is an adult. What we have found is that situations like that are often the catalyst for an adoption to take place. So really you have a genuine parent-child relationship that was created before the adoption.

Now the number of people this is going to affect over a decade I would say would be very, very small. However, we consider that foster children are among the most vulnerable children, and we see no reason for those children, when they become adopted, to be denied the benefits of Canadian citizenship, where if they had been born to Canadians they wouldn't be denied it. If they had had the privilege of being born and living with their Canadian non-adoptive parents, or the privilege of being adopted before they were 18 by the Canadians, they would get the citizenship. So for us it's a matter of equity in the law.

I would also like to turn briefly to another issue, and that is the issue of the provinces and the territories. As someone in the ACC said, I knew this country was rife with federal-provincial disputes, but I never thought we were actually going to see this when we were talking about this issue. It seems I'm still looking for an issue where the federal-provincial conflict doesn't come up in some way or another. The bill gives the provinces quite a lot of leeway.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You'll let us know if you find that.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I have found it. I'll tell you at the end.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh perfect.

The Chair: Ms. Marcus, if I may just remind you, you may want to wind up to allow for questions and answers.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Okay. We are very concerned that the provinces not reproduce the discrimination that has been eliminated on the federal level. I'm talking somewhat vaguely now, but we are aware that these operational issues are now being discussed, and we hope the federal government will emphasize the human rights issues involved and not encourage the provinces to reproduce a downloaded sort of discrimination.

• 1600

I would actually like to address one final point, and that is the Y2K problem in the Citizenship Act. This problem is slightly outside adoption, but it's something we became aware of because of the struggle to get recognition for adopted children living abroad with Canadian adoptive parents. That is clause 14, where a person...and this applies to adopted and non-adopted, so adoption is just a peripheral issue here.

If you're born to a Canadian outside Canada, you are a citizen, but you lose that citizenship at the age of 28. Now, this was in the act in the 1977 version, and nobody ever came to complain, because it is a time bomb that will go off only in 2005, since you had to be born as of 1977. But we think it's really going to be very problematic.

You've now changed it somewhat. In the past, as long as you had your kids before age 28, you could continue passing Canadian citizenship on for generation after generation, even if you yourself lost it at age 28. You've cut that out now—the second generation and third generation—but you've created this other really inelegant scheme whereby all these people are citizens and then they cease to be citizens, and I'll just draw your attention to one small part of it. It says you have to have resided in Canada for three years during the five years before applying; that is, you have to apply to retain the citizenship before age 28.

So supposing you're age 27 and you come to live in Canada as a Canadian citizen because you were born to a Canadian citizen or adopted by one. At age 28 you have been in Canada for 365 days. So what's your status? You're no longer a citizen under this. What are you? You're not an immigrant. So you have no status.

No other country settles the problem of generational parental transmission this way. I can tell you how the Americans and the British do it, but I suspect I've used up my time. I just want to bring to your attention that if you don't fix it now, you're just going to leave it to the next rewrite of the law.

That summarizes my comments, except to say that stubby beer bottles were never the subject of a federal-provincial dispute, and they were good anywhere in the country.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, you have the floor.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps you could just expand on your last point about how the other countries do it. You're the second witness who's appeared before us who has mentioned this issue of the age and the problems it could create. Could you just go back and finish? You were about to tell how the other countries handle the age 28 extinguishing the citizenship.

Ms. Willa Marcus: There seem to be two methods in the legislation we looked at, because we were looking at the adoption issue. The first is the American approach and then there's the British/Australian approach.

The American approach is based on parental transmission of citizenship based on the citizenship of the parent and the parent's physical presence in the United States. For example, if an American is living in Canada and gives birth to a child in Canada, if that American lived in the United States for five years before the age of 14, he or she can pass on the citizenship. Actually the grandparent could also pass on the citizenship. So it's somewhat flexible. It will go down one or two generations. But of course if the child is then raised in Canada and doesn't spend five years in the United States before turning 14, while the child is American, he or she can't pass it on to his or her children.

The British and American model is the concept of citizenship by descent. Basically the first generation outside of Britain or Australia become citizens by descent. That means that you are a citizen, but you can't pass it on. In both those cases, the citizenship for life is dependent on the parent. In the Canadian law, the citizenship is based on the actions of the child. It's actually a very sensible thing, because what we're saying is if you want the citizenship, do something to assert it. I think it creates more problems than it solves, because the whole issue of passing citizenship from one generation to another is an issue in itself.

• 1605

Mr. Grant McNally: What would you say would be the answer to that? If you were to rewrite this clause or make an amendment, how would you solve this problem?

Ms. Willa Marcus: I would actually give the citizenship to the second generation and then stop it for the third.

Mr. Grant McNally: That would be closer to the Australian or British approach.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Or the American approach. In both cases, once you get the citizenship, you do have it for life. With regard to this business of people having citizenship and then losing it, just think of the people who are overseas. They perceive themselves to be Canadian, and all of a sudden they're not Canadian. You've never had the problem, because if you were born in 1977 when this started, you're still not 28. But, believe me, it's the Y2K-plus-five problem in the bill, and I think it has to be solved. You can always leave it to the next rewriting of the act.

What you can't do is leave the adoption stuff to the next rewriting. We do want the amendments I spoke about, because we do think they support the issue of equity and that they are reasonable. For example, not having the age limit on the adoption doesn't mean we're going to get all these adoptions of 25-year-olds. When 25-year-olds are adopted, as I said, the alarm bells will go off right away to say that the adoption was to get the citizenship. You would have to prove that there was a genuine parent-child relationship. So I don't think we're creating this back door way to get Canadian citizenship. We are ensuring the equitable treatment of adopted children.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you suggesting applying clause 14 to clause 8, that is, applying the requirements in clause 14 to adoptive parents? Do you mean to take away paragraph 8(a), which is that the child is a minor at the time of application, and to apply what is outlined in clause 14 to the adoptive parent-child relationship?

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes. There would be no age limit, but there would be a natural age limit if you attained 14 because you have to assert it before you're 28. The adopted child or the non-adopted child would become Canadian but would lose the citizenship at 28. So they would be treated equitably.

As a second point, I think this business of losing it at 28 is a global problem. It has nothing to do with adoption, but I bring it up because we want paragraph 8(a) out.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you think paragraph 8(a) should be removed.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I haven't worked on exactly what it should say. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Grant McNally: You can maybe do that later on.

I'd like to ask you a question about a different topic you mentioned. You said you'd like to see an appeal procedure in the Citizenship Act with regard to adoption. Do you have some specifics about what you'd like to see with regard to the actual procedure?

Ms. Willa Marcus: I understand that the Canadian Bar Association is of the same view, and that would be their immigration law section. As I said, after we've gone to all this trouble to tell you to put all this under the Citizenship Act, we're saying there might be some things in the immigration procedure operationally that might be worth retaining, and we think the Immigration Appeal Board can have jurisdiction over this. Of course, it does have jurisdiction now because the verification issues plus what we call the discriminatory criteria come under its purview. We're getting rid of the discriminatory criteria and we're putting the verification issues under the Citizenship Act. But we say that especially because it's now the same department, operationally the Immigration Appeal Board remains a forum for appeals on this matter. We don't want to move forward and then move backwards. Right now there is an appeal procedure. So if you manage to get into the incredible mess where you've adopted a child overseas and you can't come back to Canada with your child, you don't actually have to go to court; you can go to the Immigration Appeal Board. In those situations, yes, it's a frightful mess.

• 1610

Mr. Grant McNally: You're saying you can do that now.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes, because it's under the Immigration Act.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you saying that you don't think that's going to be the case after this legislation is implemented?

Ms. Willa Marcus: These measures are now under the Citizenship Act, and, as I understand it, the Immigration Appeal Board is, as it sounds, an administrative tribunal in relationship mainly to the Immigration Act. With the whole issue related to refugees over the years and the different tribunals that have been created and recreated and redefined, that has changed, and we say that there's no reason the verification issues related to this part of the bill, the paragraph 8 issues, can't remain as a sort of—I don't know how to put it—odd addition to the Immigration Appeal Board.

I know the CBA has also raised this with you. I have discussed it with them, and I understand our position is the same on this. They are actually quite expert on the immigration issues. But we do believe Parliament can do this, in other words, put all of this under the Citizenship Act but retain the same appeal procedure.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I feel you are generally happy with the bill, since it places natural and adoptive children, as well as natural and adoptive parents on a more equal footing.

However, you seem to have two or three reservations. I don't want to get into federal-provincial squabbles, but adoption is after all a provincial jurisdiction. I don't know if you have any members in Quebec. I would believe so.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Of course, the situation is different in Quebec.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Quebec has the most international adoptions, followed by British Columbia and Ontario. For the adoption process to be finalized in Quebec, it must be approved by a tribunal, specifically the Youth Court. There used to be a problem because even if a foreign jurisdiction deemed the adoption legitimate, it still had to be approved by the Court.

I know the federal government is negotiating with officials and I don't see any reason why there won't be an agreement.

That being said, you raised an issue which the Government of Quebec has already highlighted, the medical exam. It exists to protect the child, the parents and society.

I understand you are in favour of having a medical exam, as it exists right now.

Ms. Willa Marcus: No. That's not what I said. But go on.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you clarify your position for me, since it wasn't clear.

Ms. Willa Marcus: All right. I said we support measures to ensure that an adoption is legitimate. As for the medical exam, we have to put it in the current context.

We have an immigration system, and, in the case of an adoption, parents are supposed to receive medical information as soon as possible. But that's not how it happens.

In our opinion, Canada should develop a policy—by this I don't mean a law—to encourage the exchange of medical information as soon as possible in order to protect both parents and children.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Actually, Ms. Marcus, the process is stricter than what you're describing. Children must formally undergo a medical exam. If they do not, the adoption cannot be finalized.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you agree with my interpretation?

• 1615

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes: we agree that information is required.

Let me give you an example. China is the country of origin of many, in fact, most of the children adopted in Quebec, I believe.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We have the figures if you would like to see them.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I think Russia is in second place.

The children are in orphanages far from Beijing. However, the doctors are located in Beijing. So it happens that the parents make their choice and become attached to certain children.

Some might wonder what it means to become attached to an adopted child. We really have to go beyond the traditional ideas about families. Parents become attached to the children and are eager to adopt them quickly. They are their legal children. The adoption has been finalized as far as China is concerned, even though that is not true of Quebec. As far as the Chinese are concerned, the child has been adopted.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm trying to understand. The difference between the new legislation and the current practice has to do with responsibility for the medical test. At the moment, they are the responsibility of the Canadian government through its network abroad. If this is no longer the responsibility of the Canadian government, whose is it? The provinces are not in a position to assume this responsibility. That is where the problem lies.

What is your position in this matter? You recognize that a medical opinion is required about the child's health, but who should assume this responsibility? How do you think this will be done under the bill we are studying?

Ms. Willa Marcus: The test was not the one done for immigration purposes. It was carried out after the final adoption and provided very little real information, but was nevertheless a criterion for the eligibility of the child. It was a requirement for eligibility.

As far as we are concerned, the issue is not prohibiting the child to enter Canada, but rather to provide for an exchange of information. The network of doctors approved by Canada are not necessarily the ones who should be doing the test.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. Marcus, I know that at the moment the medical test is the one required for immigration purposes, and it is more demanding than what should be required for adoption purposes.

Ms. Willa Marcus: No. In fact, on the one hand, it is more official, because the result may mean that the child of a Canadian cannot enter Canada. The child is located very far from Beijing, and the adoption is carried out in an emotional and legal way. The parents go to Beijing, where the child takes the medical test. The medical test does not deal with really essential matters such as the development of the child.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is fundamental.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes. We don't want a more stringent test. We think that the test should not be a criterion for eligibility.

There are two aspects to that. It should not be a criterion for eligibility because it is not a criterion in the case of non- adopted children of Canadians abroad.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but this is not a valid comparison because the children of natural parents in Canada have access to a whole range of services and parents have a legal responsibility to care for their children.

The need for medical information, which may be judged unsatisfactory in the current situation, stems from the fact that there is a public health responsibility.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I don't agree 100%.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's all right. We will get along anyway.

Ms. Willa Marcus: For example—

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's not what you say to me.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: Exactly, and you are my friend.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Oh, really?

• 1620

[Translation]

Ms. Willa Marcus: For example, a Canadian woman may leave Canada and go to China.

There are some Canadian women who are necessarily in good health who may return to their country of origin or go to live in China. They can drink and do anything at all during their pregnancy because the baby is Canadian. Actually, the newborn is Canadian even if the Canadian father is no longer present.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You mean he has taken off?

Ms. Willa Marcus: That's correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand the point you are making.

Ms. Willa Marcus: But that does mean that we think there is no medical issue.

We think there is not enough real information and that the information does not arrive early enough in the process. But that is not the same as the situation in which an immigration officer can rule on whether or not you can enter Canada with your children. We completely disagree with that. We need a policy designed to apply some pressure to the countries in which the adoptions take place. Increasingly, this is being done officially. In the case of China and Russia, we agree that some standards are required, but we think it is more a question of policy than one of law when a decision is made that children who are not in good health cannot enter Canada.

In fact the Trempe Report says that the medical test should be cancelled for all immigrant children, and adopted children would be only a small percentage of this group.

I don't think Parliament decided to do this, but the report says that all these children ultimately come into Canada in any case. There are several procedures, such as the ministerial exemption, and so on, but these children nevertheless come into Canada.

That is our experience. We know that in some cases, the parents who adopted the children were not able to bring them into Canada. Such cases are very rare. However, there are many cases in which the medical test—

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Marcus, I think I will dispense with the examples at this point.

Mr. McKay—and I think he will share his time.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to go through paragraphs 8(a) and (b) with you to see whether I can gain some clarification on your testimony.

I take it that in 8(a), which says “is a minor at the time of the application”, your objection is to the use of the word “minor”.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes.

Mr. John McKay: Would you just simply delete that as a criterion as to whether a child can be adopted, or anybody can adopt, really?

Ms. Willa Marcus: The criterion isn't whether you can adopt a child; it's whether you can get—

Mr. John McKay: Get citizenship, yes.

Ms. Willa Marcus: —citizenship for the child. And yes, we would say that the age criteria for adopted and non-adopted children should be the same. As I said, it's actually 28 because of clause 14.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, clause 14 picks out age 28, as does clause 11, which states “less than 28 years of age”.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes, and that applies to all children.

Mr. John McKay: So your argument is for symmetry in the legislation. If you're going to pick an age, again, is your preference to pick 28, or is your preference to delete it entirely?

Ms. Willa Marcus: Our issue is one of equity and equality. If you want to retain 28 for non-adopted children, that's fine. As long as you treat them all equally, we are happy. We think this age-of-28 business is going to create problems, never mind the adoption issue.

Mr. John McKay: So what would be the equity argument to reduce it to minor all the way across the board on the other issues, then?

Ms. Willa Marcus: We believe Parliament is within its rights to pass such a law, as long as you treat it.... I don't think Parliament is required to accord Canadian citizenship to the children born abroad to Canadian citizens. Our position is that what you can't do is give it to the biological children, the non-adopted children, but not give it to the adopted children. So, yes, I agree.

Mr. John McKay: In fairness, just so I understand your position, your objection is more in the inequity of the treatment, rather than whether it's a minor, whether it's 28 or whether it's any person whatsoever.

• 1625

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes, and as I said, we did—

Mr. John McKay: Okay, because we can talk about a 40-year-old here, in theory, if we could—

Ms. Willa Marcus: A 40-year-old being adopted at the time of the application?

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Ms. Willa Marcus: With respect, what are the chances that a 40-year-old would be able to pass and create the genuine relationship of parents and children?

Mr. John McKay: Having done this business for about two years now, I'm completely and totally convinced of the creativity of Canadians to convince me of virtually anything.

Ms. Willa Marcus: That's why you have your officers, I would think. Believe me, they're not as easily convinced. Trust me.

Mr. John McKay: Going to the discretionary element here, I believe we have or are about to receive representations that say we should delete subparagraph 8(b)(ii), “create a genuine relationship of parent and child”, the essential argument being that Immigration Canada, or whoever is doing the citizenship stuff, is either not qualified or should not have any right to decide on the genuineness of a relationship between a parent and child.

Ms. Willa Marcus: The criteria that are set out here are the criteria that actually have been enforced under the Immigration Act as regulation since 1993. Subparagraph 8(b)(ii) in particular was put in because of the issue of adoptions of convenience.

Mr. John McKay: Exactly.

Ms. Willa Marcus: These were put in in 1993, and my understanding—and certainly the department will be able to tell you this—is that they have worked fairly well.

Mr. John McKay: I don't dispute that, but I take it that you think it is still a good idea that the department still retains some discretion to decide as to whether this is a genuine relationship of parent and child.

Ms. Willa Marcus: In the same way, on a par with saying that the department retains the discretion to decide whether the birth certificate presented is in fact a genuine birth certificate.... Obviously, it's not the same. It's the difference between steps and a ramp to get into a building. A ramp is a more complicated thing than the steps, but they are both verification issues. If there is a verification issue, then someone has to verify. If you have to verify, then you do have to have some discretion to be able to say there's no rule in the book that tells you this, but this isn't a real birth certificate.

Mr. John McKay: We're about to or we already have received representations that we should delete subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) entirely, and that if it's an adoption in the country of origin, it's adoption in the country of origin, and Immigration Canada shouldn't make any inquiries beyond that. What would your reaction be to that?

Ms. Willa Marcus: We've lived with the law as it is now, and I'm really hesitant to speak on this because we are in fact happy with these criteria. This is not something we are able to comment on, but we respect the possibility that there might be some sections of the.... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this applies more to Canadians who are going back to their own country of origin and are adopting there.

Mr. John McKay: I don't know that.

Ms. Willa Marcus: That's generally the situation in which it arises.

Mr. John McKay: You may actually be more knowledgeable than we are on that point.

Let me ask you another question. Would your testimony change if we changed “and” to “or”?

Ms. Willa Marcus: Where?

Mr. John McKay: What if it said:

(ii) created a genuine relationship of parent and child; and/or

(iii) was not intended to circumvent

Ms. Willa Marcus: In some ways, subparagraph (ii) is already subsumed with “in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place”. I don't know of a jurisdiction where you can have an adoption in which at least the presiding court—whatever quality that court is—believes it's a genuine—

• 1630

Mr. John McKay: I'll suggest one right off the top: Thailand. Particularly with children who have medical difficulties, the Thais are more than happy to accommodate the foreign adoptions.

Ms. Willa Marcus: And you're suggesting that this is being used as a way to...? Who's adopting them?

Mr. John McKay: Canadians.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Do you mean not with the intention of creating a genuine parent-child relationship?

Mr. John McKay: No, I wouldn't argue that. The point is that for the Thais—and I'm not saying this as a general statement—there are some real difficulties with some of their children, and they're more than happy to facilitate the most loosely described adoptions one can imagine.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I note that what you did put in this law, which in fact is something I noted our concern about, is that the adoption had to take place in accordance with the jurisdiction in which the citizen lived. So that really encompasses everything.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, but in this particular instance it says “in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen”. In some respects that's a twofold test, and I suppose that somewhat alleviates the concern.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes. In some ways subparagraphs 8(b)(ii) and (iii) are redundant once you have subparagraph 8(b)(i). I'm not suggesting eliminating them. What I'm saying is that eliminating them still won't get you through (i).

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I'm quite hesitant to comment because I'm not sure what issue we're addressing here. If we're addressing the issue of children who are not in perfect health coming to Canada, we do believe it's an equity issue. If you're addressing the issue of adoptions taking place where you think this is just an attempt by the country of origin to sort of pawn off children on unsuspecting Canadians, that's something else. That's certainly not—

Mr. John McKay: We do have to look at the darker side, shall we say. Is that fair?

The Chair: At this point there are a couple of minutes remaining, and perhaps you would like to pass to Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Perhaps I can help, because maybe I'm thinking of this a little bit differently. I have other questions, but to follow up on that question, what some folks are saying to us is that once their adoption is recognized—let's say it's in China—Canada should have nothing more to say about the legality of that adoption in terms of whether or not we grant citizenship to that child who has been adopted by a Canadian citizen. The people Mr. McKay is referring to who are going to come to us and say strike these are saying you can't use a subjective issue such as “created a genuine relationship of a parent and child”. My relationship with my children is my relationship with my children, and I don't want some official telling me that it is or is not what it is. So strike that out, and the second one in a similar fashion.

If you had the situation, to use China as the example, of a Canadian adopting a Chinese child in China where for some reason the Chinese authorities were saying the adoption isn't appropriate, would it make sense to have the and/or scenario here, where Canadian officials could then say that notwithstanding the fact that there may be a dispute with the foreign nation in determining the validity of the adoption, if we determine that there is indeed a genuine relationship between a parent and child, we'll grant that citizenship?

Ms. Willa Marcus: No, I really disagree with that, with respect. If for some reason a foreign jurisdiction believes an adoption hasn't taken place under their laws, I think we have to...except in very unusual circumstances. I think if an adoption hasn't taken place.... Is the child born or not? Is the child adopted or not? Otherwise, we're talking about the removal of children in a way that is very.... Children move with their parents. They don't move if they're not their parents. But that's a different issue from the other one—

• 1635

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, it's not. I don't think it is, because the other side of that issue is that the adoption is legitimate, and in addition to that we are looking for a genuine relationship of parent and child. So it becomes subjective in the minds of the people making that decision. In other words, there's more than one determining factor here.

Ms. Willa Marcus: May I ask who is making the representation?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I've been told by Mr. McKay that it's another group, but I haven't heard it first-hand.

Ms. Willa Marcus: We have emphasized having an appeal procedure. You call it subjective. I would call it an officer of the Canadian government exercising discretion in a reasonable fashion, which they would have to do.

But you do raise an issue. I do think that once we agree that an adoption is taking place under a foreign jurisdiction and that it is not an adoption of convenience, you're very hard-pressed to start asking your immigration or citizenship officials to start ruling on things such as the best interest of the child. The best interest of the child is like national security. It's very easy to say we all approve of it, but what the best interest of a child is.... You can't have an overseas officer saying “Well, it's not good for this child to go with those parents. Actually, I know people who would be better for this child.” I think once you have a foreign adoption that is not an adoption of convenience, you have almost a rebuttable presumption that it is intended to create a genuine parent-child relationship.

The Chair: You have time for one last question, Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So you support this staying as is.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I'm very reluctant to be backed into a corner about a position. I haven't heard the full nature—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not trying to do that, but you are a credible spokesperson and an important group with regard to this issue. It would just help us to know that you either are or are not supportive of that when we hear from others. If you're uncomfortable with that, don't worry about it.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I would certainly be willing to see what the arguments were and to communicate with you. But I am concerned about—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Am I out of time?

The Chair: You have time for one last question, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You raised the issue about the fellow—I forget the name of the individual—who had a criminal record, and the retroactivity.

Ms. Willa Marcus: His name is Benner.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We hear all the time complaints from my good friends across the way that the minister is continually allowing criminals into Canada. In fact, Mr. Benoit circulated an ad out of some magazine that was entitled something like “Criminals Welcome in Canada”.

It poses a problem, and we have to deal with perception as well as reality. In a case where an individual must apply for citizenship under the terms, should the minister have any discretion and be able to turn that down, notwithstanding the information you gave regarding Mr. Benner, or should that just be automatic and there should be no option?

Ms. Willa Marcus: I can tell you that in this case the minister did turn him down. The object of disdain for some members of Parliament, that is, the Supreme Court of Canada, decided that Benner had to be let in. The view of the Supreme Court was that the issue wasn't whether or not Mr. Benner was a criminal; the issue was whether or not Mr. Benner was a Canadian. He could go to jail, as some Canadians do. You can be a Canadian overseas and have a criminal record up your arm and you still are allowed to come back to Canada because Canadians are always allowed to come to Canada. So the issue is whether or not Mr. Benner is a Canadian, not whether or not he's a criminal.

If you want to apply those criteria to every child of a Canadian overseas, then you're treating everybody equitably. I think Parliament probably would have the right to do that. I think you would have a lot of opposition to it because there's a longstanding tradition of parental transmission of citizenship. But I think you could do it if you did it to everybody.

• 1640

The Chair: I will interrupt at this point.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

I have a very short question relating to clause 14. Under that clause we would have the possibility of somebody coming back to the country, coming to Canada as a 27-year-old Canadian citizen, and when that person turns 28 they would lose their citizenship. Now if we don't do what you would like to see done, which is to extend it to the whole generation, if we put in a proviso, something to the effect that you cannot have your citizenship extinguished while you are on Canadian soil, then I guess we wouldn't have this situation arise.

Ms. Willa Marcus: I should say the major focus of my comments is the adoption issues, and I raised that because it came to our attention when we were studying them. As a favour to you, in a sense, I just wanted to point out the problems that are...the Y2K problem. I think the example I gave wouldn't arise under what you're suggesting. But it just seems very difficult to have, in an a priori way, a bunch of people losing their citizenship after they have it. It just is a very inelegant thing to do. It seems to me to be a way to create a lot of problems. Someone has citizenship and then they don't have citizenship, without having been stripped of it for some reason, like having lied on the application form or something. It's just not.... There's something wrong with it in terms of elegance. I just see it as a problem, that's all.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Okay. Let me ask you something else on the Benner case, because one of the views you take is that we should not differentiate between native-born and adopted children. But I guess in some cases we have differentiation on the basis of citizenship and how you acquire your citizenship. We have situations where somebody can come into the country, say a family of four with two minor children, and the parents at some point in time get their citizenship while the children don't. Now the children get into trouble. They are liable for removal from the country. Or you could have the situation where somebody comes in, is granted citizenship, and for various reasons that citizenship can be revoked. I mentioned that just to show that there are different types of citizenships in existence, if you will.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes. I think that's a really important point, and if I may say, I think it raises the human rights issues that we are addressing. Benner wasn't adopted, as you know. Benner's issue was that he was born to a Canadian woman before Canadian women could transmit the citizenship. So to take care of the retroactivity problem, you didn't get the citizenship automatically, but you got it if you could pass through some thresholds, which if you were born after February 14, 1977, you didn't have to pass through. The court said this is an equality issue, because we're dealing with discrimination against women—Mrs. Benner—which falls onto the child. So what the court said was that you can differentiate, but you can't differentiate on a discriminatory basis that is not allowed under law. Discrimination on the basis of gender is not allowed under Canadian law.

In the McKenna case, what the court said was that discrimination on the basis of being adopted is essentially a ground similar to that type of grounds. So you can't discriminate on the basis of being adopted. There are a lot of other areas in which you can discriminate. For example, we have immigration laws, and we say we're going to let A immigrate, but we're not going to let B. That's what the law is. It discriminates.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Willa Marcus: The thing is, you can't do it on a ground that's prohibited.

The Chair: I think the five minutes is up, and the chair would like to pose one question. How do you view the requirement that the adoption must conform to the laws where the adoption takes place and to the laws of the country of residence of the adopting parents? Do you have any position on that requirement?

• 1645

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes, it actually relates to the third comment on the sheet we've given out, and it is that Canada, the federal-provincial—

The Chair: What is your position?

Ms. Willa Marcus: Our position is that we are very anxious that the human rights issues not be downloaded onto the provinces.

The Chair: What then will be your recommendation? Do you agree with removing part of it, or removing both parts of it, or what?

Ms. Willa Marcus: I'm sorry, do we agree—

The Chair: Do you remove part of the requirement that it conform with the laws of the country of residence of the adopting parents and the country where the adoption is taking place?

Ms. Willa Marcus: We do think you could remove the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen and still provide the protection. We wouldn't remove “to create a genuine parent-child relationship”.

The Chair: No, that's not the issue I'm asking about. You are then agreeing with the Canadian Bar Association?

Ms. Willa Marcus: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think we have extended your time because of the extreme interest of the membership, and we thank you for your presentation and we would like to excuse you at this point.

Thank you again on behalf of the committee.

I would like to invite, as soon as the desk is cleared, the next set of witnesses, please.

Ms. Willa Marcus: Thank you very much for listening.

The Chair: The next set of witnesses is from the Canadian Citizenship Federation. We have with us Mr. Eric Teed and Ms. Diana Togneri, and we welcome you to our committee. As you may know, we had planned on a 45-minute appearance of the witnesses, with 10 minutes for presentation and the remainder for questions and answers. We extended the questioning, at the discretion of the chair, because of the extreme interest. We would like to limit it to 45 minutes with a 10-minute presentation, but if there is an extreme interest, then of course the chair will take some latitude, with the consent of the committee.

Who would like to start the presentation? Ms. Togneri.

Ms. Diana Togneri (Past President, Canadian Citizenship Federation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

I think you'll find that because over the years we've had the opportunity to present to you, this is a final go for us and we won't be perhaps as contentious, although I think that, if I may comment, the previous presenter had some extremely good points.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and we appreciate your invitation to do so. My name is Diana Togneri. I'm from Hudson, Quebec, and my colleague, Mr. Teed, is from Saint John, New Brunswick.

The history of the Canadian Citizenship Federation is well documented in previous submissions to various committees. As indicated in our letter of March 9, 1999—I believe the paper reads May—a copy of which I think you have before you, our concerns over the past 50 years have included the legislation and processes by which people coming to Canada permanently do become Canadian citizens. We are indeed very gratified to note that government has always given serious consideration to our recommendations and that some have even found their way into the current legislation and now into the proposed Bill C-63.

• 1650

On the whole, the Canadian Citizenship Federation believes this bill is a great improvement, and we are pleased to note in particular—and I don't want to go into any discussion about this—the amending of part II, sections 7 and 8(a) and (b) dealing with citizens born outside of Canada, and limiting the right to citizenship to that generation and further limiting it to certain conditions.

We believe it is an improvement. Yes, there are problems obviously, but we believe it is an improvement so that there is some guarding against generations of Canadians being born outside the country and never having any contact with it whatsoever, which is eminently possible under the 1977 act.

Second, we are also pleased to note the clarification and changes to residency requirements; third, the clarification and changes to the prohibitions relating to criminal activities both in Canada and abroad; and fourth, the review and appeal process changes and the institution of the same. We can only comment that we hope it works for applicants as well as for the department, and it is not just cost-effective on one hand and is ineffective on the other.

On the cautionary side, we have some concerns about, one, the lack of a short preamble; two, discretionary powers; three, the oath; and four, language and knowledge requirements.

In regard to the lack of a short preamble, the Canadian Citizenship Federation regrets the absence of a preamble to Bill C-63. The 1976 Immigration Act, if I recall, has a preamble that expresses a Canadian philosophy about immigration and the objectives of the legislation to follow.

In this case it would be advisable not to focus on symbolic values but on our tradition in law, order, and democracy that supports our citizenship and the generosity and compassion of spirit that expresses it. A preamble would be the coming together, if you will, of those who are Canadians by birthright, by choice, and those who are now or in the future going to apply to become citizens.

Two, discretionary powers. The Canadian Citizenship Federation has consistently supported the current provisions of the act. However, we are concerned about the use of the discretionary power—it would appear under subsection 5(4) of the current legislation—to effect an amnesty to clear up an administrative backlog under the guise of imposing cruel and unusual hardship to those affected. It has been done in the past, and there may be problems with that.

This provision can become an effective target for special interest groups, and more and more in the kind of society in which we live. As it remains in Bill C-63, we would suggest possibly that the new act could avoid the possibility altogether, perhaps by some other means, perhaps by setting some limits.

The oath. Clause 5, on page 3 in Bill C-63, infers that there is a requirement to take the oath, and clause 33, on page 17, assumes the taking of the oath in a ceremony. However, nowhere is it really spelled out that the oath is a requirement, that the oath must be taken, and it could appear in an area where the language and knowledge requirements are. This needs to be rectified, and exceptions could still apply.

New citizens are engaging in a legal commitment to Canada that all citizens have. The expression in the proposed oath of “our democratic values” we believe might be dangerous without proper definition. What about other political and social regimes from which applicants come, which all profess democracy and democratic values, yet those are not our Canadian values necessarily? At the very least, the expression should be “defend our Canadian democratic values”.

We note that allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II has been retained in the proposed oath, but how does removing “heirs and successors”, or another term for the continuity of succession on the death of the Queen, reflect contemporary Canadian values? And does this strengthen the loyalty to Canada? Canada's political system is still a constitutional monarchy. When we as a society agree to change that constitutional provision, then the oath should reflect this.

• 1655

These points with respect to the oath were made during our presentation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in 1994. It's perhaps more that we need an explanation that is satisfactory.

In terms of the four language and knowledge requirements, again in 1994, during a previous presentation to the standing committee, the Canadian Citizenship Federation made the following statement:

Adequate language knowledge should mean the ability to use one of Canada's official languages in order to communicate at a level that would allow the person to function, for her/himself in the community.

We believe this interpretation should prevail at all times, and we do have difficulty understanding how this is possible in a written or multiple guess test.

The Canadian Citizenship Federation also believes strongly that adequate knowledge of Canada must show some basic understanding of the type of political system and its structure in Canada, the right to vote or not to vote without discrimination, and some idea of Canada's political geography and historical base. Anything less would have the effect of restricting a person from the full exercise of rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship in our Canadian community.

Cynical though it may be, personal experience has shown me that even in a one-on-one personal hearing there are applicants whose basic understanding of the above is practically non-existent and expressed purely by rote. At least in a hearing, the opportunity to inform and instruct is available even in a timeframe of ten to fifteen minutes normally.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude, we would like to draw your attention to a couple of non-legislative approaches, if we may, to the reinforcement or enhancement of citizenship. We have argued at length for program initiatives through budgetary allocations within the department for the development and promotion of Canadian citizenship.

Last year the Canadian Citizenship Federation presented a report to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage on greater participation in Citizenship and Heritage Week. A major part of the report included a lesson plan developed by an educator in the Ontario elementary school system designed to determine what students in grade 4 through grade 8 know about their Canadian heritage, what they know about being responsible citizens, and what would appeal to them in celebrating Citizenship and Heritage Week.

The lesson plan subsequently was distributed to provincial ministers of education with the recommendation that it be considered for inclusion in the elementary school system curricula for each province.

The response from provincial ministers and/or their ministries has been very encouraging and positive. In some cases provinces have agreed to distribute the lesson plan to their elementary school teachers and in others the lesson plan has been referred to their social studies consultants for evaluation and potential inclusion in teachers' study guides. Yet the federal departments to date have shown no interest, although we believe the module would be suitable for adoption in all provinces without exception.

Secondly, we have implored the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and its predecessors for years to continue programs for the expanded use of proofs of Canadian citizenship. This is a proof of Canadian citizenship.

If I may just add a personal note here, I am sick and tired of being told by Canadians that this is only for immigrants. I have said this in this committee before, and it absolutely sends shivers up and down my spine, but this is what we hear. I would be interested to know how many of you carry them. Did you come from somewhere else? Do you carry them?

People who were born in Canada think they don't need that; it's only for immigrants. There used to be programs, because I've personally carried them out extensively, that encouraged Canadian citizens by birth to obtain these cards. They're an extremely good form of identification. It's now gotten to the point where this is a prohibitive cost. I think it's $80 to to get a Canadian citizenship card.

• 1700

By the way, this is the legal proof of citizenship; it's not the document that comes in the big envelope. Because it is prohibitively expensive, commissioners, as they are to be termed, or judges cannot even recommend that they be obtained.

There are all kinds of programs. They can be very successful. They've been done very successfully in schools, service organizations, and what have you.

In addition, it must be said that the person applying for Canadian citizenship today, at a cost of $200 or so, may find the price a severe deterrent. In this context, while we all want to make citizenship more meaningful for all of us, just the cost alone is reducing the application to an administrative function, with only a monetary value.

If you want to talk about our citizenship meaning something, talk about achieving it, not just paying for it. Although this does not come within the context of the act you are trying to write, we believe this is an extremely important consideration.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, before you submit Bill C-63, ask yourselves what is fair, what is compassionate, and what is merely convenient.

Thank you. I will pass to my colleague Mr. Teed, who has a number of comments to make. He won't be very long because he has to catch an airplane back to Saint John.

Mr. Eric Teed (Vice-President, Atlantic Region, Canadian Citizenship Federation): Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some small observations. There are three classes of Canadian citizens in Canada. There are citizens who are born here, there are citizens who become citizens through application, and there are people like me who are citizens by statute. I was created a citizen by statute; I wasn't born in Canada at the time. So there are three classes, and my class is gradually being phased out over time.

First, we fully approve of the termination of perpetual citizenship by blood—I'll use that term. There are two forms of citizenship: one is through birth in a country and the other is through blood. The idea that, in perpetuity, you could retain citizenship because your grandfather and your great-grandfather were citizens is being terminated, and I think that is sound and sensible.

The next problem is the question of minors. In clause 6 you say the age of 18; in clause 8 you say a minor. A minor is basically defined by provincial law. It used to be age 21. I think the provinces have all changed it, and I believe it's now 19. But it could be changed tomorrow by the provinces. So what is your definition of minor? I would suggest, if you're going to use that in paragraph 8(a), you put in an age. In my part of the country 19 is the legal age. Below age 19 you're a minor, yet you can vote at age 18 by federal law, even though you are a minor. Support stops at age 16, except under certain circumstances, and they all vary. So that is one suggestion: put an age, define whatever it is, and don't use the word “minor”.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What age?

Mr. Eric Teed: Age 18 is fine.

A voice: Age 28.

Mr. Eric Teed: No, that's an adult.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That's an adult in anybody's language.

The Chair: Mr. Teed, just to avoid any further discussion on that, the term “minor” is defined in the bill itself on page 2 as “a person who is less than 18 years of age”. So your observation is correct that there ought to be a definition. In fact, it has been defined in the bill itself.

Mr. Eric Teed: Then in clause 6, it says:

6.(1) The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who

(a) is at least 18 years of age;

Why don't you say “who is not a minor”? You would solve the problem.

The Chair: It's a matter of definition.

Mr. Eric Teed: In one case you're using an age; in another case you're using a term. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.

The other problem we deal with are adoptions. I certainly support the concept of an adopted child being granted citizenship, but there are two things there. One is the international adoption, where a Canadian citizen living in Canada goes to another country under this new arrangement, picks up a child, adopts it there, and brings it back here.

The other one is where a Canadian citizen is living in another country. Say I'm a second-generation Canadian living in France and I adopt a child in France. That's not an international adoption, as we know it. If that child is adopted, by French law, and that's my country of residence at the time, that child can be taken out of the country, period, subject to application. There are no criteria of where you apply. Can I apply in France for my child before I come here? I presume, as I read this, I can. I don't see anything wrong with that.

• 1705

Immigration doesn't come into it, and health doesn't come into it for that type of person. This is about the fact that you must meet health criteria. If you are a Canadian citizen, you can come in. If you are adopted in a country because that is the country of residence of your parent, I presume you can apply or your parent can apply to get citizenship. As I read clause 8, you will get it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I read. There are really two types of foreign adoption.

The second one is the country of residence. I don't know what that means. Residence can be temporary, or does it mean permanent residence or domicile? I can go over there and sit there for a month and say that's my country of residence, if that's what is meant; I don't know. If it means permanent residence—and somewhere in the act I saw permanent—maybe it should say permanent residence.

A voice: Doesn't it say where you're ordinarily a resident?

Mr. Eric Teed: This one says “the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen”. I'm a Canadian, I go over there and I reside. I buy a house or villa and I stay there for two months.

The Chair: It's a good observation.

Mr. Eric Teed: That's a question.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr. Eric Teed: I take clause 8 to mean the child being adopted. Certainly adults can be adopted under special circumstances, at least they can in Canada, but I don't take that as the intent of clause 8. You're talking about a minor being adopted and coming here with a problem.

You have a problem in clause 14 relating to the loss of citizenship, and I think it was illustrated. Basically you're saying the person must have come to Canada at age 25 because he has to have been here for three years before he's 28. If he comes here at age 26, he can't apply.

Assuming he has somehow applied and lost his citizenship, there is a vacuum there. He's not here as an immigrant; he's here as a citizen who suddenly becomes stateless, which is a rather unusual position. So that needs some clarification. It may be that you can freeze time as of the date of application. If he applies before he's 28 and gets the three years in, fine. If he doesn't apply, he loses it.

Basically, you're saying he must be age 25 or younger when he comes to Canada to start his residence, because he has to be here three years before age 28. I don't quite know the answer there, but I would think he should have his presence in Canada for a minimum of three years. If you put in a presence in Canada of three years and that he must apply before he's 28, that would cover it. If he doesn't have his residence in Canada, he's out. Again, he would presumably have to leave the country because he isn't an immigrant.

We have to remember there's a distinction. A Canadian does not need to be an immigrant. He can come in and go out; you can't stop him. Maybe that needs a little bit of tie-up, for what it's worth.

The other question I raise, and it's nowhere in the act, is other citizenship. At one time, to be Canadian you had to renounce any other citizenship. I agree, some countries would not allow you to renounce—once a citizen always a citizen, but you could renounce insofar as you were concerned.

Now a Canadian can pick up ten citizenships. If he is born of Canadian parents living in Germany in an airplane flying over Russia and it is an American airplane, by American law, if he happens to be born on the plane, he is American; by Russian law, because he is born over Russia, he is Russian; by Canadian law, because his father is Canadian, he is Canadian. You have this mix-up. It's rather interesting. That's by the laws of the country, but it is of concern to me that we still allow immigrants or Canadians to have multiple citizenships.

I can go to another country, apply for citizenship and keep my own. There's nothing in here that says I will lose it. I have great difficulty with that. For citizenship to mean something in this country, if you're a citizen, you're a citizen. The Americans, as I understand it, say “If you pick up another citizenship, you lose ours”. If you're coming down to America to become an American, you have to renounce.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That isn't the case anymore, though.

Mr. Eric Teed: It isn't? I guess they lost that one. I'm sorry.

The Chair: Okay, at this point I will ask the members to pose their questions.

Mr. McNally.

• 1710

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take too much time, because I know we have another witness who wants to speak as well.

If I could just focus in on your comments about discretionary powers, as you listed here under item 2, you state that you are “concerned about the use of the discretionary power to effect an `amnesty”', currently subsection 5(4) under the current act. Where do you see the changes in that?

Ms. Diana Togneri: It seems to be pretty much the same. I am concerned about that because it's always been a potential problem, and was regarded as such by the former department under which citizenship came previously.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are there particular clauses—

Ms. Diana Togneri: And it has been used. It certainly has been used extensively for groups of people. My point is only that we live in a society where increasingly we are governed by interest groups and by a great deal more public information, which has its good and bad sides. It seems to us that there should be some guard there, that's all.

I remember being told when I was in function that it was a very difficult area and to stay away from it and try to avoid it as much as possible—and I'm not necessarily talking about duties, but even discussing it. This was many years ago, so we don't need to worry about it today, but I see it reappearing here and obviously nobody has found a way to deal with it.

It's not to say there shouldn't be perhaps some amnesties, but it has to be really quite used—

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. In which parts of this particular bill do you see problems with discretionary power? Which particular clauses should we focus in on, in your opinion?

Ms. Diana Togneri: Well, I would like to say here that there seems to be awfully wide discretionary powers to the minister, and maybe increased ones. I'm speaking in a very general way here. We didn't have much time to do this, and Mr. Teed lives a long way away from me.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Ms. Diana Togneri: So I'm afraid that—

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're suggesting to us that we should take a look at this whole discretionary powers issue as it's intertwined into the entire bill?

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes, I would. As I was remarking to somebody earlier, this is a very small little bill and it produces an enormous number of complexities that we don't see when we just look at it.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you saying that you believe this bill gives the minister more discretionary power than she presently has?

Ms. Diana Togneri: I do.

Mr. Grant McNally: You think it gives her more discretionary power.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Have you had a chance to look at it long enough to...?

Mr. Eric Teed: No, I'm sorry.

Ms. Diana Togneri: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thanks. I don't have any further questions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McNally.

Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you for appearing before us this afternoon. I hope you have a safe passage back home.

I want to ask about one specific clause, the clause around the oath. You objected to the proposed oath to defend our democratic values. You consider that to be dangerous.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Possibly.

Ms. Jean Augustine: What do you see as the danger in that reference?

Ms. Diana Togneri: I'm not approaching it from the specific. But my point is, and perhaps I've not been clear enough, that a great many Canadians come from very different political regimes, very different societies. Their whole cultural base is different. Three to five years is.... When that person comes to this country and spends his time adapting to just life in this country, that's a big change already. They bring with them the baggage they've always had—the baggage of previous philosophies, previous values, and all the rest of it. There are countries around this world, as I'm sure you know, where the terms “democratic” or “democratic values” or “democracy” appear at every second word in anything they put out, but they're not what we understand in this country.

So I'm just saying that possibly we should specifically say.... We're also dealing with people who have limited language capacity, limited knowledge, and limited understanding sometimes, and perhaps a certain amount of spelling out would not hurt.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Do you think we'll ever get a definition that will be able to define democratic values in such a way that would satisfy everybody?

Ms. Diana Togneri: I think we're trying to at least pull it together by saying “our Canadian democratic values”, because somebody else's interpretation from somewhere else may be very different. After all, we are in the business of making Canadian citizens.

• 1715

Mr. Eric Teed: Could I just put in one thing there? I notice “to respect our country's rights and freedoms”. Why doesn't the person put “my country's rights and freedoms” and then put “Canadian democratic values”? I don't know what “our” means. You start out with “I pledge my loyalty to Canada and respect our country”—

The Chair: Mr. Teed, if I could just interrupt, just for your information, in the proposed one it in fact stipulates “our democratic values”.

Mr. Eric Teed: I know, but that's why I say why don't we put “Canadian democratic values”? It's the same problem with “our country”. We start out with “I swear”, and it becomes a plural instead of the individual. It should be “I swear to pledge my loyalty”, etc., “and respect my country”, because he has then become a Canadian.

Ms. Diana Togneri: And “my country Canada”.

The Chair: But if I can just quickly interrupt, it's not our country...in other words, he's part of the greater whole.

Mr. Eric Teed: No, it's my country.

The Chair: Okay, Jean, please proceed with your questions.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

Mr. Eric Teed: The same thing applies to democratic values.

Ms. Jean Augustine: You also said in the document you presented to us, “At the very least, the expression should be `defend our Canadian democratic values'.” We have Canadians who have concerns about the definition of the meaning of “defend”. For example, the Mennonite Central Committee object to the word “defend” because they are conscientious objectors. “Defend” connotes the idea of physically, militarily, some type of action that is outside the realm of someone who is a conscientious objector. So if we're looking for words that, as Canadians, we can live with, I'm not too sure that what you are proposing here, the expression “defend”, would be a satisfactory term.

Ms. Diana Togneri: The word “defend” is in the proposal, but it just shows you that in the context of many Canadians, “defend” doesn't necessarily mean to take up arms.

Mr. Eric Teed: It would be just as easy to take it out and say, “I swear to respect my country's rights and freedoms, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties”. That covers it. I don't know why that word “defend” was put in there. Somebody has put it in, and frankly, I don't understand why. It opens up problems.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Okay, but as I read this, it seems to me you're supporting that. You're saying, “At the very least, the expression should be `defend our Canadian democratic values'.”

Mr. Eric Teed: If you're going to leave that phrase in, you should put “Canadian”. It would be better if you struck it out.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That's perfectly all right. One tries, in trying to make suggestions to you, not to go into a whole lot of wholesale changes or simply take a different road for the simple sake of taking a different road. I presume, and we all presume—because we've talked about this a lot—that those who have written this oath have done so with a fair amount of study and consideration. I would be very glad to have an answer as to why “heirs and successors” just as a term, an expression, or a legal term, if you like, is removed, because what happens if the Queen drops dead tomorrow?

The Chair: On that note, I would just like to call to your attention—the staff has called this to my attention—that section 35 of the Interpretation Act that now exists in Canada states that:

35.(1) In every enactment...“Her Majesty”, “His Majesty”, “the Queen”, “the King” or “the Crown” means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Her other Realms and Territories and Head of the Commonwealth.

Thus, upon her death, the reference to Queen Elizabeth would automatically be read as a reference to the succeeding monarch. So in a sense it answers your concern.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes, it does. It does indeed answer my concern, and I can accept that for you and me. I don't know, again.... People with other values and coming from other societies really don't have a very clear picture of all of this.

• 1720

For people like you and Mr. Teed and me, and perhaps these gentlemen, perhaps it's of some interest, but to the person in the street perhaps it's not. They really don't understand that. I know I've had to explain it many times, that really and truly it's a system of government, a social system, a political system that we adhere to. It's not clearly understood, and I'm sure you hear it everyday yourselves: do away with this, do away with that, do away with the Senate, do away with the Queen. Fine.

The Chair: Do you support the bill?

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Diana Togneri: But that's hard.

Ms. Jean Augustine: That was my next question: is there support in your organization for the direction of the bill, and do you see this satisfying what you have as the goals of Canadian citizenship?

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes, we think it's an improvement. I refer back to my points of support and my points of question, where we have still some questions. And maybe Mr. Teed has others. Do you have any?

Mr. Eric Teed: No. I think the two main ones are the termination of the blood succession of citizenship irrespective of residence in Canada. That is sound. And the adoption provision I think is sound. It may need some adjusting, but the idea that an adopted child would become a citizen without going through this rigmarole is certainly sound.

The others are, to a degree, a matter of semantics, I suppose, or adjusting over the period. But it's improving.

Ms. Diana Togneri: We're really very pleased.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'll pass to my colleague.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I want to thank you both for your fine presentations. I'm interested in a couple of questions.

On page 1 you mentioned the clarification of residency requirements. We do suggest three years of physical residency in this country. Now, there are other groups who have presented some concerns and who feel there are many reasons, perhaps for professional purposes or business reasons, that a permanent resident may have to leave the country from time to time. The three years perhaps can be a hardship. I'd like to know your position.

Ms. Diana Togneri: You go first.

Mr. Eric Teed: Well, at one time you had to have five years of residency in Canada, and this organization supported the concept of reducing it to three. But by three we meant you had to be here. Now, if a person says “I can't be here for three years because my business takes me somewhere else”, then is he really interested in becoming Canadian or is this a matter of convenience? Now, how can he adjust to the country? It takes some time.

That's the only problem. He's saying, “Oh, I have a better job somewhere else; that's where I'm working.” Well, is that what you want? Or do you want people who are going to be here and grow up with the country? That's why I say I think three years of residency is sound. There has to be some tie-in.

Ms. Diana Togneri: I can tell you again from personal experience, Ms. Leung, that it became very difficult, because of some of the decisions that came down through the Federal Court...and it seemed that the area became broader and broader. It was really a pain in the neck, frankly, because we had cases where there were actually.... In one notable case there were 32 days of physical residence in Canada. Well, the motivation may have been very strong—it was a young person and everything else—but what does that say about Canadian nationality, Canadian feeling, if you like?

So we feel that on the whole this is a good move. We're trying to look at it from a general perspective. Many of us in this federation have worked with the former act, and as I say, when the definitions of residency became broader and broader, and the exceptions grew greater and greater, it became a farce. And if you make it a farce to the numbers of people who apply, then it no longer has value.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Second, in your paper you mentioned your concerns about language and the knowledge requirements. Now, we talk about “adequate knowledge” of language—

Ms. Diana Togneri: Very difficult.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes. This is where I think we'll have a little bit of discussion, around this difficulty. Also for good reasons, perhaps due to age, there is a lot of consideration for new Canadians.

• 1725

Ms. Diana Togneri: That's already taken care of both in the old act, in the current legislation, and in the proposal. It reads “under compassionate grounds”.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I welcome that. Actually, you mentioned that they should have knowledge about the political system because—

Ms. Diana Togneri: It can be very basic, but there has to be some understanding.

Can I just tell you a personal story? I'm sure everybody's getting tired, our time is up, and Mr. Teed has to catch a plane.

I was sitting at my desk one day—this is twenty years ago—and there was a lady in front of me who was having difficulty, not so much with the language but very much with some idea of Canada. Her perceptions were very difficult to come by. I turned to a picture on the wall and said, “Do you know who that is?” Now, I'm sure you know who it was, but she said, “Is that your mother?” I really don't need to say anything else.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: There is a resemblance.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Diana Togneri: She has beautiful skin, so I'll take that as a compliment.

The thing is, this kind of thing happens a lot. When I talk about what I put down there in very short form, what I really mean is that you should be able to function in the community: ask a policeman for help; call the hospital; call 911; go to the drugstore and buy what you need and what you want and perhaps get something from the pharmacist that tells you not to take too many pills. That's what I mean by functioning in the community.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

As we know, there are a lot of entrepreneurial people. There may be a lack of common sense or knowledge, the ability to even identify a picture. In the meantime, if we strictly put on a lot of limitations or requirements, I think maybe a Bill Gates wouldn't pass some of the tests. This is where I think we welcome a lot of business category people or entrepreneurs. They could hire a dozen people to work for them without having them pass all the requirements sometime.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That may be true, but if they are in the entrepreneurial class of immigrants, the chances are that they have a sufficient amount of education to be able to learn what is required in a very short space of time; whereas if you have somebody who has very limited schooling, their ability to understand and take in these notions and ideas is very limited. So it evens out, and I would say to you, tough. We're in the business of making Canadians in this country, not just making exceptions for those who find it convenient.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

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

Actually, you'll be happy to know that the first thing I saw of Canada I saw when I was in a refugee camp in Austria. It was the Queen riding her horse. That was 42 years ago, and that has very much stayed with me.

I was just counting up—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Who did you think it was?

The Chair: Did you think all Canadians rode horses, then?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, I thought it was rather neat, the idea of riding horses.

Anyway, since then we've had a whole bunch of prime ministers, nine different ones during that period of time.

One of the things I want to touch on is what was raised by my colleague just a minute ago. We have had the situation in Canada in which you have had the migrations from Europe—let's say, Italy. I have some colleagues who have questioned me on the bill on this. What you had was the parents coming over with the kids, and soon enough the grandparents came to look after the kids. The grandparents very much operated within the “Little Italy”, if you will, and never, ever learned English and probably never would. They would see their kids become Canadian citizens, they would see their grandkids become Canadian citizens, and believe it or not, these people are Canadian citizens. They're very much Canadian.

Ms. Diana Togneri: In their hearts, yes. I would agree with that.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: They have a great attachment to Canada, so surely you would agree that those people should be able to die as Canadian citizens.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Absolutely, and there are provisions in the legislation for that, and they are useful. But that does not refer to the same thing as creating amnesties because of a backlog.

• 1730

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The last question I have is about being physically present in the country for three out of the five years. Let's say you have an international businessperson who comes to the country. He comes with his family, but the person himself travels abroad a great deal. His family is here, he pays taxes here, his kids are going to school here. Would it matter to you if it was a three-year presence out of five years or six years, as long as they had the three-year presence?

Ms. Diana Togneri: No, not at all. What really bothers me is the 32 days of residence in three years.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: So as long as you get the physical presence of three years in the country, it doesn't—

Ms. Diana Togneri: No, because when the current legislation was written, that was determined to be enough time to adapt. But the person who is a businessperson needs time to adapt too. What about all the people who achieve Canadian citizenship but then buzz off and don't come back? We know that happens, don't we?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I was here for five years when I got mine, by the way.

Mr. Eric Teed: It used to be five, yes.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes, it used to be five. That was my husband's centennial project.

The Chair: You have the floor.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I guess we're running a little bit late, but there were a couple of things I thought were kind of cute in all this here. In terms of your initial comment about the identification card, I looked up my birth certificate and was astounded to find out I've been spelling my name wrong for 51 years.

The Chair: There's a little plus there, you know.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's actually a “ph” on my birth certificate. It's amazing.

The Chair: Are you sure you're you?

Mr. Grant McNally: Maphoney, is it?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Grant McNally: I couldn't resist that one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not sure what your point was. You know how you prove you are a Canadian citizen, eh? It's if you can say “Roll up the rim to win!” That's all you need. You don't need a card or anything.

Ms. Diana Togneri: No, you don't need anything else.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's your plan about that card?

Ms. Diana Togneri: Well, during the years when I worked at Canadian Citizenship Court, I engaged myself on a number of programs to encourage school children to apply and to use it. We would send out clerks from Canadian Citizenship Court and they would take applications. The parents would get involved in this, and sometimes they wanted them too. It's a very good form of identification.

I presume that when you go abroad today there are fewer circumstances in which a passport is removed by the hotel in question and is sent to the gendarmerie or whatever. But it does happen still, so it's very nice to think you still have some form of identification while they're keeping it for three or four days or whatever.

I have found it convenient. It has a number. I am on microfilm with the department. They know everything they need to know about me. The date on it shows when the picture was taken, so it could go on for the rest of your life if you like. It's always nice, because you look an awful lot younger. It also has your signature, it has your legal name, and it has the name that you usually use, so that there can be differences. So there are conveniences, but at $80 a pop it's pretty expensive to engage in programs with the Lions Club or Rotary or Kinsmen and ask them if they would like to carry this, like all Canadians. As I said, I'm sick and tired of being told it's only for immigrants.

Mr. Eric Teed: Can I just give an example? A number of years ago we promoted the citizenship card as a matter of pride in being a citizen. I took it into a bank and was asked for identification. The bank said it had no authority to accept the card.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That's right.

Mr. Eric Teed: Our group wrote to the banks in Canada and said, good Lord, here we have an authentic citizenship card with a photograph on it and the banks won't accept it. You had to have a driver's licence or something else. That's been changed, fortunately, but it should be universal that we say, look, there it is.

Ms. Diana Togneri: As a matter of fact, if it is accepted in banks today, it's in large part due to some of our efforts. I'm sure you know yourself that you're asked for your social insurance number many times when it is absolutely not necessary to give it.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We looked at this in Public Accounts. Maybe there could be a way of combining some cards. We should look at that possibility, because aside from credit cards, we all have wallets full of—

Ms. Diana Togneri: Stuff.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —stuff, yes.

On the issue of the oath, you surprised me with your acquiescence to the elimination of defending our democratic principles, or whatever the exact wording is.

When the Mennonites came before us, I understood their concerns. They were very eloquent and sincere about it. I think it was they who made a suggestion to change the word “defend” to “uphold”, which takes out any connotation of military action. I don't know if it's nitpicking or not. I happen to think those of us in this profession, if you will, defend our democratic principles every day, sometimes 24 hours a day.

• 1735

Ms. Diana Togneri: Absolutely.

The Chair: Yesterday, it was.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was ridiculous. I don't know what kind of defence that was.

In any event, I think if you talk about educating people in schools and the use of an ID card and things like that, it's important to pass on to our children and their children that this is the most democratic country in the world and that it's important that we uphold those traditions. They're better than an oath.

Mr. Eric Teed: Mr. Chairman, I might just say that the problem is democracy means many things to many people. We have it in the Canadian Constitution, under section 1, which talks about our democratic principles and our democratic country. But nobody knows what that means until the Supreme Court of Canada decides what it means for today, but the court might change it for tomorrow. That's the problem. It changes.

I've met people who argue that we do not have a democracy; we have an elected dictator. The more you think about it, you're partly right. The only benefit is that you can change him if you can get enough people to do it. But the democratic principle is based on the intelligent vote of adults who participated. Now we can't even get 50% out to vote sometimes. That's one of the problems of political democracy.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would object to the fact that you suggest we have an elected dictator. I think that's absolute, utter nonsense.

Mr. Eric Teed: I said somebody mentioned that to me.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, well, that would be someone on the opposite side, and someone who might mention that on a regular basis.

Whether you talk about your parliamentary procedures, whether you have a Senate or any of that, those are sort of side bars. I think what democracy would ultimately mean to everyone is freedom.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Absolutely.

Mr. Eric Teed: I buy that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If you don't want to use the word “defend” because of the military connotations, why would you not want to put something like the word “uphold” in the oath when it comes to our democratic principles?

Mr. Eric Teed: That would be all right.

Ms. Diana Togneri: That's all right. Again, please understand that we are not in any way coming here to try to nitpick with this, because we do feel it's a great improvement. We have been known to appear before you and before a couple of Senate committees before this, so we're looking to support rather than not to support.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I appreciate that.

Ms. Diana Togneri: You are the ones who are hearing everybody and you are hearing some opposite views. We suggest that perhaps you might want to take it out. We suggest that you can leave it as it is, and it still does. But I personally feel that to add “Canadian” to it perhaps clarifies a few things in my mind. It's a very difficult thing to do, really.

Mr. Eric Teed: I like “uphold” better than “defend”, frankly.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do as well.

Mr. Eric Teed: That has more meaning to me.

Ms. Diana Togneri: It's more inclusive, yes. But I know I could sit down at my desk at home and spend days thinking about it, writing about it, and finding bits and pieces to deal with.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's the Canadian way.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Yes, that's the Canadian way, eh?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Eh? Roll up the rim to win.

The Chair: You alluded to requirements and ceremony with respect to the oath. You are wondering whether it is in fact a requirement or not. My reading of clause 5, which you alluded to, does indicate that it is a requirement.

Ms. Diana Togneri: To me, it's by inference more than it is anything else. Again, I don't profess to have the professional ability to take issue, but to me, in those two places that I mentioned in which it is referred to, it's sort of passed over lightly. I felt it should just appear that it is understood by the individuals applying that they must take the oath.

The Chair: Yes, that it is a requirement.

Let me go to the commissioner of citizenship. How do you see this being developed? Do you have any—

Ms. Diana Togneri: I would like to see some discretionary powers there again. The only discretionary powers before were in respect of language, knowledge, and making recommendations to the minister for compassionate acceptance or compassionate approval. I would like to see those restored, because I personally believe the personal interview is very beneficial. There's an amazing amount you can achieve through that.

• 1740

The Chair: Mr. Teed.

Mr. Eric Teed: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem between clauses 5 and 6. Clause 6 says “The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship”. So all these requirements are filled, and they grant citizenship. But he does not acquire citizenship until he's been granted citizenship and takes an oath. So he can get the certificate and think he's a citizen, but if the oath isn't administered, he isn't. I'd be happier to have some clarification saying that a person acquires citizenship upon taking the oath. There has to be a tie-in, because the two don't connect.

The Chair: Thank you for your observation.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Justice has some thoughts on that, because that has been a problem—whether or not citizenship actually starts when the grant is issued or when the oath happens. That's partly why I feel the oath has to have some more importance added to it.

The Chair: Good observation.

Any more questions from the committee? If not, we would like to thank you both, on behalf of the committee, for your very useful submission. Thank you, again.

Mr. Eric Teed: Thank you for putting up with us.

Ms. Diana Togneri: Thank you for having us.

The Chair: I would now like to call the Canadian Family Action Coalition.

Mr. Stock, thank you for your patience. We welcome you to the committee. We'll proceed with you, and you may start your opening statement as soon as you have taken a gulp from your glass of water.

Mr. Peter Stock (National Affairs Director, Canadian Family Action Coalition): Thank you very much.

I do appreciate the committee members who are able to stay this late too. It's obviously getting very close to dinner time, so I'll make this brief.

The Chair: Just spread the gospel to all of Canada that MPs work hard.

Mr. Peter Stock: Oh, I know that, yes.

The Chair: Proceed, please, Mr. Stock.

Mr. Peter Stock: Okay. There are two issue areas we really want to address today. They're very specific. The first, actually, was addressed to some extent by the previous witnesses, and that is the oath.

Our position would be that it's not worded as well as it could be. There are some verbs and nouns and other things that are used or omitted that we believe could be there that would improve the oath and make it something that's worthwhile for citizens to use to understand what exactly they're committing to.

In looking at it, the first thing that struck us in the oath, the way it's proposed, is that we're pledging loyalty and allegiance to Canada—real estate, a geographic area—but not necessarily to the institution of the Government of Canada. What we are proposing there is that the words “the Dominion of Canada” be added so it is clear that we're talking about the institution that is sovereign in this country. And then, of course, to “Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada”, as the previous witness said, we would add “to her heirs and successors” as well. I understand it is a given, but for the purposes of the people who are making that oath, they'll understand that once one queen has passed on, there will be a successor, and that this pledge, this oath, counts toward allegiance to that new king or queen, whoever that may be.

To give greater clarification on why one is pledging allegiance to Her Majesty, we proposed the words “to its sovereign” or “to my sovereign” preceding the words “Her Majesty Elizabeth”. It's making it clear that we're not pledging allegiance to a person, but rather to an institution, and that is the monarchy itself.

Then in the second paragraph—I've been listening to this debate about the word “defend” versus “uphold”, and so on, and maybe “uphold” is a superior example—the word that we noticed there that we had a bit of a problem with is the word “respect”, which is a somewhat passive word. Certainly we respect our country. We wouldn't have come here in the first place, as immigrants, if we didn't. But the words “defend” or “uphold” might be more appropriate in that context too. Certainly, our soldiers went overseas to “defend” or “uphold” our freedoms, not just to “respect” them. So an active word in that context is appropriate.

Finally, the last change we would propose is that rather than using “democratic values”, which is a subjective term—“value” is a subjective term—we propose the word “ideals”, which is a very definitive term. There are certain ideals that we strive for in this country. I would suggest we probably never achieve them, but we do our best to. So we're shooting for an ideal. A value changes over time. An ideal is something permanent, an objective or something we can have vision for.

• 1745

I'm not going to get into the question of split loyalties, dual citizenship, and so on, mainly because of time. To address that in an oath is a difficult thing. You've either got to be negative and say I renounce my allegiance to my former country, or say in some more specific way I pledge my complete loyalty and allegiance, or something along those lines. I think the question of dual citizenship and so on, in this context, is a very big issue area to get into, but I think it's something the committee and Parliament may want to consider over time.

Now the second area I want to get into relates a little more specifically to the interests of our organization in promoting and defending family, and that is paragraph 43(i). It's one of those discretionary clauses that says the governor in council may make regulations, etc., and this one states: “defining who is a spouse for the purposes of this Act”.

In our view, the only reason to change the Citizenship Act in this regard is because the minister desires to redefine “spouse” outside of the existing Canadian law to include unmarried persons who want to immigrate as family members. We see this raising three problems.

The first is obviously that there is a greater potential for abuse of the system. I'm not sure how much greater. It obviously depends on the process one goes through when immigrating. There's no legal requirement to be married. Anybody can claim to be a spouse, and therefore you can be bringing undesirables into the country potentially, or existing Canadian citizens can be going abroad for perhaps a monetary purpose to bring in a so-called spouse who might not be a spouse. Now I realize the Immigration Act deals with those questions to some extent, but I think we're expanding the possibility for abuse when we allow for that possibility.

The second, and this is far more important in our view, is that expanding the definition of “spouse” to include, according to the immigration minister in her white paper, common law and same sex couples will delay legitimate spousal reunification. So married couples who are split up by reason of separate dates for immigration and coming to Canada are going to find that the immigration of their spouse and their reunification is delayed that much longer because the queue has just gotten that much longer when you've expanded the number of people who can immigrate. We see that as an attack on family when we're saying these other relationships, which aren't legal or married, are now going to be considered as such. So that's a problem for us.

And third, we question particularly—and we'll talk about common law first—whether it's in the best interest of Canadian society to endorse or promote these relationships, which, in the case of common law, are statistically proven to be less stable than married relationships. If the intended spouse is a true, and as the immigration minister uses the term, life partner, then is it so much of a burden to require that the spouse or the spouses demonstrate a minimum level of commitment by getting a legal marriage in their country of origin? That's not a big requirement. I mean, in Canada it's $50 or $100 for a licence, depending on which province you're in, and you've got that legal status.

We really feel that's a perfectly reasonable minimum legal requirement to impose for the protection of our nation and society, and also because once these people get to Canada, legal marriage imposes certain obligations, especially on the Canadian spouse, to support the partner. They don't come here and then suddenly become wards of the state or a burden to the state. In fact the minister herself has indicated that there are some very real problems in administering this. She admits that in the white paper. There are problems with what she calls transparency and inconsistency, and we believe those would continue under that system.

Now the goal of our public policy is to try to attain certain ideals, so why would we settle for second best? Why would we settle for relationships that step outside of what is, as we know from statistical data, to be the very best model for family? And we're talking here about family.

• 1750

The second and more, I suppose, hot-button or controversial topic there is same sex couples. I just raise a few key questions that go to the heart of that proposal. That is to say, on what objective basis does the government propose to endorse homosexual partnerships as equivalent to married? What demonstrable and compelling interest does Canadian society have in endorsing these relationships? What, specifically, will homosexual relationships contribute to society that make them worthy of this particular public recognition?

I want to point out here that we're not talking about homosexual individuals who may come to Canada, may make individual contributions that are very worthy, and may be great immigrants. We're talking here about the relationship that is allowing them to get to Canada as a so-called spouse. What is it about that relationship that makes the relationship worthy of government endorsement? There's a world of difference between tolerating private relationships—which we do currently in Canada—and giving public and legal endorsement to them. That's what this act potentially proposes.

These are key and fundamental questions about how our society is to be ordered. Definitions of “spouse” and therefore “marriage” or “equivalent to married” status should be made by Parliament, in our view, not behind the closed doors of cabinet. If the government believes there is a compelling interest or that there is an objective basis to propose changes to the definition of “spouse”, it should bring that before Parliament and we should have a full and open debate on it. We don't have a problem with having that debate; we just believe it should be done in Parliament, not in cabinet.

That's my presentation. I really thank you for your patience tonight, and I will be happy with any questions.

The Chair: Just before I give the floor to Mr. McNally, are you aware that regulations are published in the Canada Gazette before they are implemented? Publication of this information is to ensure that there is adequate input from the Canadian public. You are submitting that this is not good enough and you would like an actual presentation of the issue before the Parliament.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, absolutely, I am. The reason I suggest that is that we're not just talking about administrative details here, we're not talking about some gentle housekeeping; we're talking about fundamental questions of social policy. How do we order our society? How do we structure it? This is the first piece of legislation, in my mind, that will potentially move towards a redefinition of “marriage” and “family” as we have known them in this country since Confederation and before.

The Chair: But you know that the provision, the authority, is being sought only for the purposes of this act. When the act refers to “spouse”, to my recollection, that's only in subclause 6(2), as well as in subclause 19(2).

I will leave the floor to Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would ask a question of Mr. Stock.

I believe the chair said adequate input from Canadians was put into the development of regulations. Would you agree with that comment?

Mr. Peter Stock: I have never seen that myself, but I haven't been here as long as you, sir. I've only been on the Hill for six years, but I don't know that there's a lot of interest given to scrutiny of regulations by the general public, nor is there an adequate opportunity for public input on something that is so fundamental and profound.

We're talking here about a profound change. We're not just talking here about changing the fee structure from $50 to $60; we're talking about redefining “family”. This is perhaps one of the most important policy questions that Parliament will ever debate. To say that we're going to leave it to simply regulatory changes and a cabinet decision preceding that is not appropriate in our view. If you want to redefine “family” or if you want to redefine “spouse” and “marriage”, let's have some comprehensive legislation that deals with the question.

Here's the problem. Let's say this works its way through regulations and there is a subsequent amendment to the Immigration Act to take into account this redefinition, a so-called same sex spouse is able to legally immigrate to Canada, and then that relationship breaks up. Where are the support obligations for the Canadian to support the immigrant partner? If the relationship breaks up, this person basically becomes a ward of the state. He doesn't have marital status in any other legislation, any other federal or provincial law, unless he sues for it, and we have to have the courts decide it, of course. But again, that's not the best solution. We want to see Parliament deal with it. This is a question that our highest court, Parliament, must deal with. That would be my answer.

• 1755

Mr. Grant McNally: I wonder, because the spouse isn't mentioned too many times, as the chair pointed out, just in those two or three different areas, clause 19, clause 43—

The Chair: There are two that I can see, subclause 6(2) and subclause 19(2).

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. Anyway, we'll be figuring all that out, where exactly it is.

What indications are there to you or the group you represent that “spouse” might be redefined in this way? Is there anything the minister has said that would make you think that?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Grant McNally: Some people might say you're just jumping to conclusions.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, they could suggest that, but the minister has stated quite clearly in the white paper...obviously white papers don't automatically become law; there has to be a debate on the Immigration Act too. But she is proposing quite clearly and says right here:

The definition of spouse is used both to determine who may be sponsored in the family class and who may accompany the principal applicant in other categories. The current definition includes only legally married spouses of the opposite sex. However, common-law and same-sex relationships have been recognized through administrative guidelines since 1994.

On proposed policy directions, she says

The recognition of common-law and same-sex relationships through regulatory changes would eliminate the recourse to discretionary administrative guidelines.

In other words—

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're saying the minister's comment is what has given rise to your concern.

Mr. Peter Stock: Exactly.

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you then saying also that it's your belief that this will be done through a regulatory process, without a full and open debate by elected members of the House, who represent the Canadian public, and that's a concern to you?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, that's exactly my concern, and for that reason—

Mr. Grant McNally: What is your specific concern with that process?

Mr. Peter Stock: We strongly believe this issue needs to be debated by Parliament itself, not behind closed doors in cabinet and then onto its scrutiny of regulations committee.

Yes, these things are voted on ultimately by Parliament. I recognize how the process works. But that doesn't allow for the kind of public input that such a momentous and profound question requires. If we're going to redefine marriage and family, this is something every Canadian needs to have an opportunity to speak out on.

Let's have comprehensive legislation if that's the direction in which the government would like to go, but let's not nibble around the edges, as we have been doing, and assign a few small benefits here and ignore a court decision there and pass a few regulations here and there. That's inappropriate.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're suggesting a full and open debate on this entire issue of definition of spouse, and you're suggesting it's your belief that this is a step on the way to, did you say, redefining marriage?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, exactly.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have one last question. I wonder if you could elaborate, because I wasn't quite sure I was fully following you when you were talking about tolerating a relationship versus, I think your words were, public and legal recognition.

Mr. Peter Stock: That's right.

Mr. Grant McNally: Could you expand a little bit on that and how you see those differences?

Mr. Peter Stock: When Mr. Trudeau decriminalized sodomy in 1968, consenting relationships between male homosexuals became permissible. Female homosexuality wasn't a particularly prevalent public relationship at that time either. So over the last 30 years, mostly my lifetime, those relationships have become more prevalent in society, and certainly there is tolerance for those relationships in society. Some of us have neighbours who happen to be two men who live together and that's what they prefer to do. It's neither legal nor illegal; it's tolerated. Canadians tolerate that on a private level, some more than others, obviously.

But when we talk about extending benefits, when we talk about recognizing those relationships as, in the words of the minister, spouses or as life partners, and Ralph Klein is talking about registered domestic partnerships—a number of terms are being used, but they all involve public recognition and endorsement and legal status being assigned to those relationships.

Again, we believe there needs to be a debate about that in the full Parliament. It's not something we can squeak by as tiny amendments to various acts and work our way through them.

The Chair: Are there any questions from the government side?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not only Ralph Klein is talking about registered domestic partnerships; Ian McClelland is a deputy speaker in our House, and a member of the Reform party has put out a very thoughtful paper on that issue, and I've heard the examples that go further than simply same sex benefits. Two senior citizens, for example, may decide they want to depend upon one another, so they register as a domestic partnership. One might have benefits, and once that registered partnership was recognized as a unit—I don't know if the word “family” would apply—they would have access to those benefits.

• 1800

I wonder if the issue is not more under the terminology of whether or not you pay a multiple premium or a single premium. Frankly, whether you have a sexual relationship with the person you've registered with in a domestic partnership is irrelevant, if you follow that. It's nobody's business. As Trudeau also said, we should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.

So I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that. This is a new idea. It's rather interesting that it's coming out of the province of Alberta. It's the last place you would really expect it to come from—

Mr. Peter Stock: That's right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —given Stockwell Day and some of his history around this issue.

I was in the Ontario legislature the first time we had to deal with the rather difficult issue of same sex benefits, and the building was literally occupied. The security people wore rubber gloves and there was screaming and yelling. It was awful. They weren't happy with the way we voted; they weren't happy with the way I voted.

But this is the first time I've seen some really thoughtful ideas around this idea of maybe “defamilyizing” the overall issue and simply making it a domestic partnership. Does that make sense?

Mr. Peter Stock: We have to ask ourselves, when we're developing public policy, what objective basis we should use for defining who is and who isn't a family member. Currently—and this extends beyond marriage to the common law relationships—we use the appropriated model of the biological family. We have failed to deviate from that for some very good reasons. It's a unit within society that is worth supporting for a number of reasons, the most important of which, of course, is raising the next generation of children. Parents provide a service to society at a far smaller cost than society could provide it if it had to do so itself. So we have traditionally recognized those family units for the value they provide.

If we're going to step outside that objective basis for defining family, we have to determine what objective basis we're going to use. This is where we run into the problem. I can't think of one, and I have debated this issue with many people who are pushing this other point of view, and they can't offer you one either. If we're going to remove the objective basis we have now for family and try to move to a new definition, any other definition you can propose will be completely arbitrary, and by that I mean—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry to interrupt you, but you're assuming the term “registered domestic partnership” would replace family in defining relationships. I don't think Ian's paper or Klein and his people are suggesting that. Are they not saying there could be a parallel track? The family definition would stay intact and you would look at a way of dealing with these other relationships?

Mr. Peter Stock: There are two questions there. One is sort of the semantics of what you call something, whether you call it a registered domestic partnership, a marriage, a family, or whatever. Then there's the more practical application of what benefits you extend, and so on.

But any distinctions one makes that step outside the biological family become completely arbitrary. What I mean by that is if two men are able to register their partnership, get married or call themselves spouses—whatever the case may be in legal terms—what is to prevent three men from suggesting they should also have the rights to that same legal status? Any distinction is going to be purely arbitrary, so why shouldn't three men be able to call themselves a partnership and get married? How can the state refuse to give them benefits once they have removed the objective basis for the benefits in the first place?

So the name “domestic partnerships” is just semantics; we have to look at the objective basis and the reason for it. What is this relationship contributing to society?

• 1805

I think anybody who's demanding new benefits needs to demonstrate that the relationship is contributing something to society that makes it worthy of those benefits.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I suppose you could argue that there are a lot of families who don't contribute a damn thing to society too.

Mr. Peter Stock: You might be able to do that, but you see, they'd be the exception that proves the rule and we have to base public policy on, once again, ideals and on an objective basis.

The Chair: So your concern, if I may pursue this one, is that having a designation based on gender could be extended to an interpretation invoking number.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes. My position is that currently the definition of family, spouse, etc., is biological in nature. It is the—

The Chair: Is it found in any law now?

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes, it is.

The Chair: And your submission is to retain that definition unless changed by Parliament?

Mr. Peter Stock: That's right, yes. Once you remove the biological basis for making distinction, any distinction after that point becomes arbitrary. Where do you draw the line and on what basis do you draw it? You—

The Chair: I alluded to those two sections, and we may not have time now to examine them in greater detail. Of course, the committee would welcome a written submission from you. And challenge yourself. If the definition of a spouse, whether in a manner that you deem it ought be or in a manner that others may deem it ought to be—and perhaps the two definitions could be reconciled. You're asking for a definition of the term, whatever it is.

Mr. Peter Stock: Yes.

The Chair: Then knowing whatever definition it is, if it is only applied to the two provisions in the bill itself, or if you can find another section there, please let us know and give us your analysis.

In the interest of time, I don't think we can proceed at this time.

Mr. Peter Stock: Sure. Thank you, sir.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any more questions?

I thank you on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Peter Stock: Thank you.

The Chair: We will meet tomorrow morning in room 308, West Block. We will resume hearings at 9 a.m.

The meeting is adjourned.