CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 14, 1999

• 1535

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I'll convene this meeting. I realize there is no quorum at this point. We are missing one member from the opposition, but I thought in the interest of hearing the witnesses I would like to seek the unanimous consent of those present that we proceed to the hearing of witnesses. Do I have unanimous consent to proceed with our video conference?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Good. On that note, we would like to welcome the group from the Independent Immigration Aid Association in British Columbia. Can you hear us?

Mr. Alan Hackett (Director, Independent Immigration Aid Association): Yes, we can. Can you hear us?

The Chair: Yes, we can too.

We are now in consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, which is an order of reference from the House of Commons dated March 1, 1999.

Before I start, let us introduce ourselves. I am the chair of the committee, Rey Pagtakhan.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): There's a terrible noise of some frog that is behind the microphone here. It's really awful.

The Chair: Can a technician please help us? There are some technical problems.

Can you hear me?

Mr. Alan Hackett: Yes, we can hear now.

The Chair: Thank you.

We have here the members of the committee present. With me are Mr. Patrick Martin, from the New Democratic Party; Ms. Raymonde Folco, Ms. Sophia Leung, Ms. Jean Augustine, and Mr. Andrew Telegdi, from the government side; and Mr. Réal Ménard, from the opposition. In fact we just have the formal quorum, as anticipated.

Mr. Hackett, when you make your opening remarks and the other members participate in the questions and answers later on, please tell them to identify themselves so that it will be properly recorded by the translators. Thank you.

You may proceed, Mr. Hackett.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Thank you. With me are Mr. Robert Davis, Mr. Jack Volrich, and Mr. Quentin Walker.

To the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, thank you for the opportunity to appear at this time to express our observations regarding Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. It's particularly helpful to be able to take advantage of the benefits of technology through use of the video-conferencing facility you have provided for us, thereby saving time and money. We appreciate this greatly.

I might say a word about our group, the Independent Immigration Aid Association, which was founded about 12 years ago.

The Chair: One minute please. Is translation on?

• 1540

They have solved the problem. You may proceed, Mr. Hackett.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Thank you, sir.

I would like to mention one or two things about our group. As I said, it was founded 12 years ago. Our goal is to encourage immigrants' independent chapters, provided they will benefit the Canadian economy and society. We provide information and assistance without charge to such persons and we make ourselves available on a voluntary basis to those desiring to come here from anywhere in the world. Over time we have assisted many hundreds of people in immigration matters.

With regard to Bill C-63, while we found Bill C-63 contains much with which we agree, we'd like to bring forward some observations regarding its content that give us cause for concern. Before detailing these, however, we think the point should be made that we had rather expected the broader matter of immigration policy to be brought forward in legislated form first. After debate and passage of that legislation, the citizenship bill could be more readily structured to tie in with an immigration bill. There might be measures that when using an immigration bill as the foundation would need to be added to the citizenship bill or altered or deleted.

In this connection, we also note that recommendation one of Not Just Numbers proposed amalgamation of immigration and citizenship in the one bill, while refugee protection would be incorporated into a second bill. That recommendation appears to have been rejected.

In reviewing Bill C-63, we highlighted the following parts as worthy of comment.

On clause 4, we question the appropriateness of granting citizenship to anyone born in Canada without regard to the citizenship status of that individual's parents. Such a law is open, we believe, to widespread abuse.

It is stated that no records are kept of babies born in Canada of parents with no proven citizenship status. Therefore, past abuse of the law is unprovable. However, we note that many references are made in the media to known incidents where women have entered Canada simply to have their children born here.

There should be protection on the part of the Canadian population from having to accept this. These newly created immigrants were not selected by legal process, probably represent a cost to the taxpayer, and by virtue of family class provisions could later be eligible to bring in a large number of relatives who might not otherwise qualify.

There could be additional circumstances under which children of non-status parents are born on Canadian soil also. Whatever these might be, we would prefer children so born in Canada to be required to take the citizenship of their parents.

On subclause 6(1), this does provide appropriate guidelines for approving a citizenship application. However, to paragraph 6(1)(b) should be added, we feel, a requirement that proof of meeting the residency requirements—

The Chair: May I just interrupt you for a second? I would like to interrupt the proceedings at this point because we are not able to simultaneously translate it, and the committee has a policy to proceed with the simultaneous translation right away. So I would like to hold the meeting at this point, with the indulgence of the witnesses out there.

• 1545

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, for your information, mine was working into French. I wanted to test it and I was getting accurate French translation from what was being said on television. Maybe Mr. Ménard should be moved to another location.

The Chair: Could we check it again? That's a good point. I should have done that.

You may proceed now, please, and we will see if the system is working now.

Mr. Alan Hackett: I'll start again with subclause 6(1). This does provide appropriate guidelines for approving a citizenship application. However, to paragraph 6(1)(b) should be added, we feel, a requirement that proof of meeting the residency requirement be certified through a system of monitoring and tabulation of the applicant's activities in Canada as well as travel time in and out of Canada. We would also favour a rule extending required time in Canada to four and a half years out of five. We believe that citizenship applicants should demonstrate an honest intent to acquire citizenship to fulfil their desire to live in Canada, and not for some other purpose. Indications are that pieces of the residency requirement have been too liberally dealt with.

Additionally, to paragraph 6(1)(c) we feel should be added a requirement for language certification through an approved testing organization. Testing is currently fragmented. Not Just Numbers recommended strongly that the accreditation process should be coordinated through a clearing house and embodied in legislation.

We endorse the inclusion of paragraph 6(1)(d) regarding knowledge of Canada as a citizenship requirement, because the concept of citizenship is more complex now and it is important for existing citizens to know that new citizens will take their part responsibly.

Paragraph 8(b) makes it easier for adoptees to become citizens. The minister, through paragraphs 43(f) and 43(j) pertaining to regulations, really determines eligibility. The minister can therefore unilaterally determine if the requirements of all of paragraph 8(b) have been met and may define who is the spouse and what constitutes the relationship of parent and child for purposes of the act. This is exceedingly wide latitude to bestow on the minister, as the most incredibly bizarre rulings could result therefrom, the only limitation being one's imagination.

The definition of “spouse” and “family” should, we feel, be defined in legislation after debate. What has been the accepted definition of “family” in Canada should be maintained and should not be altered or abandoned without full debate. We should not jettison the most important traditional aspects of our culture by allowing major change to be brought about by ministerial dictate.

On ministerial granted citizenship in special cases, clause 9, we would prefer the number of citizenships granted under this clause to be limited in some way.

In part 5, clause 31, the creation of citizenship commissioners as a new designation replaces citizenship judges. The powers of the citizenship commissioners do not appear to be weighty, as the commissioners are required to give effect to directions of the minister only. The criteria for their appointment is described as needing to have demonstrated understanding of the values of good citizenship and be recognized for valuable civic contributions. No apparent expertise is required, so it will be interesting to see who will receive these lucrative appointments. This proposal seems to be nothing more than an opportunity to dispense patronage and promote government immigration policies and multiculturalism.

Clause 43 deals with regulations. With regard to regulations that may be made by Governor in Council to implement this act, we have commented elsewhere that the minister may unilaterally make decisions of great enormity, such as defining the family, and there may be unanticipated decisions of equal importance left to ministerial discretion. For example, paragraph 43(p) allows any regulation necessary to carry out the purposes and provisions of this act. We find this of no little concern.

• 1550

In summary, we wish to say that practically all the people with whom we've come into contact through our membership, through our correspondence and meetings have strongly expressed their concerns that the granting of citizenship must be done only within a tighter system. Citizenship must be merited, not made easily attainable through a porously structured system and thereby devalued.

We advocate first of all that as much as possible the system for granting citizenship be incorporated into legislation after a full parliamentary debate, most preferably in conjunction with a nationwide referendum.

Secondly, we advocate that a comprehensive annual report to Parliament be rendered by the minister, which would include all pertinent information regarding the citizenship system—i.e., the number of certificates granted in each province under each category, the number of applications rejected, an analysis of the effectiveness of the system, etc. The presentation of an annual report of this type, not just numbers, was recommended. We feel strongly that this recommendation should be implemented. It is of vital importance to structure our system of citizenship law so that it will be categorized by transparency and accountability.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the remarks I have put together. I would like to ask one of our directors, Mr. Jack Volrich, to say one or two things, because he would like to elaborate a little bit on this. He's had a great amount of experience in this field.

The Chair: Just before you proceed, may I just interrupt very quickly? I have noted that one member of the committee has left, and I do not know if he is returning, but we are still having problems with simultaneous translation. I know we have members here from the francophone community and I would like to be assured that we can proceed without the ability to do simultaneous translation, which is due to a technical problem in the Vancouver area with our set-up today.

Do I get a feeling from the committee members that we can proceed even if there is a difficulty in having simultaneous translation? Seeing unanimous consent, we will proceed.

Please proceed.

Mr. Jack Volrich (Director, Independent Immigration Aid Association): Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Volrich and I'm a member of this particular committee and the director of this organization. I would just like to add a few comments to those that have been made by Mr. Hackett, particularly in regard to clauses 4 and 6 of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Hackett has commented on the abuses that arise and that have taken place in regard to children being born in Canada and parents coming here for that purpose alone. But there is another anomaly in this whole situation that I should like to bring to your attention, and that is an anomaly that has to do with families.

The example I wish to present to you is in the fact that there are a great many people who apply for permanent residence in Canada. They may apply from within Canada on humanitarian or compassionate grounds, or they may apply from outside of Canada. Also, there are a great many people who come to Canada, as you know, who are refugee claimants, and very often they will come here with their families and have children born in Canada.

• 1555

The situation I wish to bring out here is in the fact that a great many—perhaps not a great many, but many—of those persons who make applications for permanent residence in Canada, including refugee claimants, may be refused their application for permanent residence. A refugee claimant, for instance, may be refused acknowledgement as being a refugee. Therefore there are a great many persons who, in one way or another, are refused applications for permanent residence in Canada, and yet their child becomes a Canadian citizen. I want to suggest to you that this leads to an anomaly of what citizenship is all about, because if we're concerned about the importance of citizenship, the value and the intent of what citizenship is all about, then it is not consistent with what is intended to be established in clause 4.

The second point on which I'd like to comment is the matter of residency, which Mr. Hackett has also discussed with you. In the minister's news release, I noted that he indicated that residency was intended to be physical residence in Canada within the five-year period preceding the application for citizenship. I have not been able to find anywhere in the bill itself, unless it's somewhere where I haven't seen it, the words “physical residence.” As far as I can see, “physical residence” is not stated, yet it is referred to by the minister.

I suggest that if there is to be some clarification of that matter, and if it is really intended that the three years out of five should be actual physical presence in Canada, that should be stated very clearly, because if it isn't stated very clearly, there are going to be and continue to be many ways that “residence” can be interpreted, as it has been over the past several years—or misinterpreted. I think that is a matter to which you should give some consideration so that it may be given clarification.

The third question I would like to raise with you is why should it be three years out of five? Why should we not maintain the three out of four years? That is the rule that has been with us for a great many years.

In reading the minister's explanation of that, he says the aim of this change is “to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship...and demonstrate their attachment to our country”. I really question the validity of that statement. I suggest that the real reason it's now proposed to be three out of five years is, quite frankly, to accommodate some business people. Quite frankly, that change does nothing at all to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship nor to demonstrate any attachment to our country.

I suggest that the value of Canadian citizenship and attachment to Canada is best demonstrated by longer residence in Canada, and not shorter residence. So I suggest and request that perhaps that provision in the new act should be given further consideration.

Thanks very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Volrich.

For the information of the group, with respect to physical residence, I would point out that in paragraph 2(2)(c), on page 2 of the bill, “a person resides, for a given day, in Canada if the person, during the day, is physically present in Canada”. I hope that answers one concern you raised earlier in your presentation.

Now I will proceed with the questions and answers from the group. Mr. Benoit.

• 1600

Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this actually happened to me yesterday at a different committee as well, but do those of us who were on time and listened to the whole presentation and were waiting patiently to ask questions of the presenters not get some recognition or some points in the order in which we're allowed to ask questions, by virtue of the fact that some of us were actually here?

It makes me wonder how relevant it can be for somebody who didn't hear any of the presentation whatsoever to be getting the first opportunity to question the witnesses.

The Chair: I think it's a good point of order, and I will rule that Mr. Martin has the floor.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

An hon. member: You didn't expect that, did you?

Mr. Pat Martin: No. That's a first.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sirs, for your brief and your presentation.

I have a couple of comments. First, I'm interested to know more of what your reservations are about the definition of “family.” Is it your position that the act shouldn't recognize same-sex marriages? I would ask that question first.

Mr. Alan Hackett: I don't think we as a group have a particular comment about that, but we would like to see the matter debated in Parliament, because we know it is a matter of some controversy at the present time. What would be happening by the enactment of this legislation would be that the minister could put forward whatever definition she came up with in regard to that. We feel that this is a troubling problem for many Canadians, to decide whether same-sex families really are families or not, and it should be clearly debated in the House and embodied in the legislation if it's going to be accepted.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, sir.

The other issue I'd like to raise is that Mr. Volrich pointed out or cited cases of what he calls abuses, when children are born in this country to people who aren't Canadian citizens and actually end up getting their citizenship granted by virtue of the fact that they were born here.

I don't understand why that is a problem. To cite that as a problem, you would have to be coming from the premise that we don't want those children to be Canadians, and ergo, that we don't want any more new Canadians. This seems to be a point of view that's almost anti-immigration. Many of us believe we should be welcoming many, many more new Canadians to this country every year, and this is one way in which we are growing our population, by granting the citizenship in that manner.

Is it your clear position that children born in this country to non-Canadians should not be granted Canadian citizenship?

Mr. Jack Volrich: Basically, I think we're saying that the children should essentially have the citizenship of their parents.

My comments were not in any way intended to discourage immigration—far from it. The point made was if the parents are going to be refused admission to Canada as permanent residents, if the parents cannot possibly become Canadian citizens, then what is the point of the children being given Canadian citizenship?

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Volrich, I wonder if we could find out how often that actually happens or how much of a problem that is. I'd be interested in knowing that. Perhaps our research staff could look into that.

Mr. Jack Volrich: I don't know whether you would call it a problem. I described it as an anomaly, which I think it is. You may say, well, what harm is there? Perhaps there isn't any harm, but I think whenever you have legislation, you want it to have some meaning and you want to have some rationale behind what you are doing. I would submit that the—

Mr. Pat Martin: I think it would be wrong to shape policy by anomalies rather than by whatever the norm is.

My last comment, if I have one more moment, is that you made the point that you thought the period of time of physical residency should be longer. I view this as yet another barrier, yet another obstacle that new Canadians would have to overcome to finally be granted their residency or their landed status. What is your rationale for recommending that it be even more difficult to get to be a new Canadian?

• 1605

Mr. Jack Volrich: Are you referring to the requirement of three out of five?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes. I believe the recommendation from you was even more stringent.

Mr. Jack Volrich: The provision of three years residency out of four has been with us for a long time. Why should it be changed? Is there any good reason why it should be changed to three out of five? Why not three out of six to make it easier? Why not three out ten to make it easier?

It's a question of the extent to which you value citizenship and the meaning of citizenship. I'm suggesting that there's no real reason that the three out of four provision, which we've had for a great many years, should be changed. I'm suggesting that maintaining that would be a more reasonable provision, rather than the new one that is intended.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, I'll give the floor to you.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Good afternoon, gentlemen. It's very good to see you here this afternoon.

My first question has to do with a little bit of a follow-up on the residency requirements. I've had a lot of people express opinions on this. Some have said they favour the requirement. In fact I'd say a vast majority of people I've talked to, including people in new immigrant communities, have said they like the concept, but they're very concerned with the practical application and how the department is going to determine how many days out of a five-year period people actually have been in the country.

When you think about it, in the last two years I think I've probably been to five different countries, and I've never had my passport stamped unless I've specifically asked for a stamp. One of those countries was Romania, incidentally, where you would think there would be some care taken to stamp passports of people coming in and leaving, but in fact I had to request and insist on a stamp. In other places they wouldn't give a stamp even when I requested one.

Taking that into consideration and looking at the practical application of how the departmental officials are going to determine the number of days that people have actually been in the country.... Look at the Canada-U.S. border, where you drive over the border with nothing to indicate that you've ever done so. So there's a statement, which I think a lot of people support, a general concept of requiring residency three years out of five. But then you look at the practical application and understand that the onus—the minister has said this—will be put on the individual applying for citizenship to prove that they've been in Canada in fact three years out of the five.

I just wonder if any of you gentlemen would have some comments on what that might do in terms of making things very difficult for people who travel a lot and do a lot of business, in particular.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Well, I may say that obviously the best way to determine the length of time a person has been away is through the stamps on passports, but a lot of times those stamps are not there. We've had many situations take place where persons are not able to prove the time they've been in Canada, so they have all sorts of devices they use to try to prove that.

Certainly I think it's absolutely right that the onus should be on the individuals themselves to be able to provide satisfactory proof and confirmation of the length of their stays in Canada. I've come across many situations where people have not been able to prove that and don't have the stamps on their passports to prove it and they then have other ways to try to prove it, some valid and some not. Sometimes they have to resort to their own affidavits. Well, that's not a very good system right now of being able to prove what they have to.

Therefore, I think that the matter does require some tightening up. There's no question about that. The onus most certainly should be on the individual to provide some satisfactory proof, which is very often not done under the present situation. But that does not really affect my point that I don't see why the three years out of four should not be maintained. I really don't think that affects the subject we've just been talking about, which is how to prove these matters and how not to prove them.

• 1610

Mr. Leon Benoit: I've had many people also express a concern that under the current system there's been a lot of leniency. In fact people have been granted special consideration when clearly they haven't been a resident the required amount of time. Under this new system, I think the theory is good, that at least you will actually require that people have been a resident of the country for a three-year period. But again, the practical application.... Your comment that the onus should be put on the individual applying for citizenship I think is fair, but the other side of that picture is that surely the roles should be such that it's a reasonable request to put on an individual. In the legislation there is no indication of how this will be handled. I guess it's the practical application of this that concerns me.

Mr. Jack Volrich: Allow me to say that the reason there has been so much uncertainty in this whole field I think arises out of what's called the Thurlow decision, which indicated that the provisions of the act should be given a liberal interpretation. That policy, that statement of principle, has been applied by the Federal Court and the Supreme Court of Canada on many occasions. That's why it's allowed so many other ways in which people can deal with this whole matter of residency.

I would suggest, quite frankly, that in order that there should be more sense to the whole system and more definitude to the length of time a person's been here, it should not be a liberal interpretation. I think we should get away from that liberal interpretation and come down to some very specific rules and regulations that are going to set it all out so that you can't circumvent all the regulations, the way it is now.

The Chair: Ms. Augustine.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, welcome to the committee with your remarks.

I'd like to know a bit more about your organization. Are you non-profit? You offer assistance in immigration matters. Do you charge for that assistance, or is it something you do freely? Could you speak a bit more about your organization?

Did I understand you to indicate to us that you had some concerns around the policy of multiculturalism? How is that reflected in some of the remarks you made around a whole series of issues?

Mr. Alan Hackett: We did point out that our organization is staffed by volunteers presently and that we do our work without charge. Over a period of 12 years we have dealt with a large number of immigrants or would-be immigrants or applicants coming to Canada. Mr. Volrich has had considerable experience with this, for one, among our group; there have been others, as well.

At the present time we're a rather small group, but we intend to keep up our work and to continue to assist immigrants by providing them with information and assistance.

I hope that will answer your question. Mr. Volrich could perhaps add to that a little bit, because he's had considerable experience and considerable contact with a number of applicants over time.

Mr. Jack Volrich: The essence of our organization, the objective, is to provide advice and assistance freely to any persons who wish to apply to come to Canada in the independent category, from whatever part of the world they live in.

Ms. Jean Augustine: May I ask you to turn to the second page of the brief we have? In section three there are some objections to the citizenship commissioners. What are you precisely suggesting there?

• 1615

Mr. Alan Hackett: I don't think we were unhappy with the citizenship judges that existed before. We believe they fulfilled a more important role than that expected of these newly designated citizenship commissioners. We're led to believe that the citizenship judges actually did a considerable amount of interviewing citizenship applicants and assisted them in a number of ways.

We look upon the appointment of the citizenship commissioners as being almost a group of people that would go out around the country promoting whatever the government's policy might be with regard to immigration, and it doesn't seem like a necessary adjunct to the system. Whereas in the past the citizenship judges actually did a prescribed job and carried it out and were well accepted by the people of Canada, I'm not so sure that the same thing would be felt about the citizenship commissioners.

Mr. Jack Volrich: If I may just add to what Mr. Hackett has said, in the proposed legislation one of the duties of a citizenship commissioner is “to preside at citizenship ceremonies”. Well, various other persons can do that very effectively; they did for many, many years.

A second duty of a citizenship commissioner is “to promote active citizenship in the community”. I have to confess, I haven't the slightest idea what in the world that means, “to promote active citizenship in the community”. Is there a certain person now that's going to be appointed to do that? It seems to me that is not very persuasive in terms of the need now to go to this business of citizenship commissioners to replace the citizenship judges that we have had in the past.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass the few minutes left to my colleagues.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

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

I'm curious. Say an independent immigrant comes to you. What do you do?

Mr. Alan Hackett: A person comes to us? Well, it depends on what their problem is, of course.

I may just mention that in the past few years there has been a great deal of information that is provided to prospective immigrants by Canada Immigration; there's no question about that. There are brochures, and there is information that is given. But I can tell you that a few years ago that wasn't the case. There are many people from many parts of the world who were interested in coming to Canada, and they didn't know where to get any information. You could not go to one of our embassies and get much information or particular assistance. Therefore we prepared brochures and various items of information. So whoever would call us by telephone, letter, and so on, we'd find out what their problem was and then we would write to them, send them a brochure so that they would be informed as to what it's all about, what the procedures are, and so on.

To a large extent, what we were doing for a great many years is now being done much more effectively by Canada Immigration than it was previously. We were filling the gap for a great many years for so many people in various parts of the world who did not have very much information at all about how to come into Canada.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How many people would you deal with in a month or a year?

Mr. Jack Volrich: In the past two years there have been not too many people because of the fact that information is given quite effectively by Immigration Canada. I would say that for several years there were some hundreds each year.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, let me thank you for the good words you have on Immigration Canada in providing information.

• 1620

I think I share some of the concerns Mr. Martin has. When I read your brief, it seemed to be against numerous things, but it really hasn't gone into analysis of it. Did you try to communicate with anybody in the department or at the minister's office or something? For instance, the citizenship commissioner—I don't think you have an idea as to what that is, as to what they might do.

As Mr. Benoit said, the new proposal for three years out of five is a lot stricter than three years out of four in terms of the number of years one has to be present. Did you have any dialogue with anybody about that at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?

Mr. Alan Hackett: No. We've read the information from Immigration Canada, and not just numbers, and listened to speakers, and we've done a little further analysis in which we have enlarged on that summary that you have in your hands, and we can make that available to you in written form quite easily. But are you suggesting that we would have come up with different conclusions had we spoken to Immigration and Citizenship Canada before writing this brief?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I guess I'm just suggesting that it might have been useful to have had some dialogue.

To take one example, citizenship commissioners, a big part of what we see in citizenship commissioners is to go and promote among new Canadians or new immigrants who will become Canadians, as well as Canadian citizens at large, the whole meaning of citizenship as it entails the history of this country, as it entails the laws of this country, to people who don't know it. I tend to see it as very proactive, taking a very proactive stance, so I see it as kind of a good thing.

Mr. Alan Hackett: We favoured the previous system because the judges not only did promote, but they would often come face to face with the applicants and help them in their work and their preparation to become Canadian citizens and inform them of the values of it, but they had the right to rule on certain things.

The commissioners seem to be operations people, primarily, and I guess we thought the promotion of immigration and citizenship in Canada and elsewhere might be done by other means. There are always government people going out and doing these things; the minister is constantly promoting it, and members of Parliament, and so on. We felt that it was a situation where people might be appointed to do this type of thing, who may take one person from one group or one person from another group so that everybody is satisfied, and it would be just public relations and that's all. We felt it was a distinct departure from the system that existed previously.

The Chair: Mr. Steve Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you very much.

A number of my questions have already been asked. In regard to your comment on the oath of citizenship, you're saying that there's no opportunity for public input. Can you be more specific and tell us what it is you're concerned about and what suggestions you might have for change?

Mr. Alan Hackett: We looked at that, and we didn't comment on it today because we thought we were a little short of time to do it, but the main thing is that we wondered how it was constructed. We came around to the thought that perhaps before promulgating an oath of that nature, it should have had some input from different groups or people, qualified people, with their ideas of what were the most important things about Canadian citizenship. Some of this input might have evolved a possibly better oath than we have.

We're not saying that oath is particularly deficient, but you will recall when the flag was changed, it was open for many, many suggestions, which kept on coming in for quite some time. Something like that type of open discussion regarding the making of an oath we felt might have been done.

• 1625

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But you don't have a specific—

Mr. Alan Hackett: It's quite possible that when the oath is seen by people they might not like it and might complain about not having had the right to provide some input into it. While that's not a very serious problem, it's one of the things we felt should be mentioned.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm a little puzzled, because that's what these hearings are about, an opportunity for public input. If you don't like the oath, we'd like to know why. We'd like to have your suggestions. So maybe you could give that some thought and submit it to us if you're not prepared to do so today.

Mr. Alan Hackett: We'd be very glad to do that. Sir, would it be possible to tell us how the oath was put together in the first place? Who was involved in doing it?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's a bit of an academic question. The oath is in front of you. You've made a suggestion that you're not happy with public input or the lack thereof. This is public input. We're talking to you from the wonderful city of Vancouver today and here from Ottawa. We're looking for your input.

In any event, you mentioned that you provide your services for free. How are you funded?

Mr. Alan Hackett: We're funded only by our members who make their contributions.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And who would they be?

Mr. Jack Volrich: We don't have any government funding of any kind. It is private contributions. I can assure you that we have assisted and given free advice and information to a great many people from many parts of the world who would otherwise not have gotten any kind of information from any other source.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I think that's terrific. You're to be commended. I'm trying to understand your organization more. I know the significance of immigration in Vancouver and the greater Vancouver area, so I'm just asking to get a handle on who your membership would be. Is it the corporate sector? What's the cost to join your organization, if I wanted to join or some of my good friends in Vancouver wanted to join?

Mr. Jack Volrich: The cost for membership I think is in the order of $15 or $20 at the present time. But also we have been assisted by contributions from individuals who are interested in immigration. They make contributions and receive tax credits. But that's about all. It's privately funded. We do not have any governmental funding of any kind.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You just said you give a tax credit, so that's government funding. Do you give tax credits for—

Mr. Jack Volrich: Ours is a charitable organization.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So there is government funding in the sense that you provide a tax receipt.

Mr. Jack Volrich: In that sense, yes, of course.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Then my question really is could you tell me a bit about how big your budget is, since we're dealing with taxpayers' money, and what level of service you provide to the immigrant community?

I'm not trying to be obstreperous or difficult; I'm trying to understand basically what it is you're doing on behalf of the immigrants in western Canada.

Mr. Jack Volrich: I can only repeat that our basic aim and objective is to give advice and assistance in whatever form may be appropriate to what they ask of us. But if you wish any sort of financial information or that sort of thing we'd be pleased to send something to you.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Our budget is very small. At the present time it's under $10,000 a year, and our workers are contributing their time and so on. In past years it very well could have been larger than that, but that's about the extent of it at the present time. We receive no government grants or anything like that. It's strictly contributions.

The Chair: We have two minutes left beyond extension, and Mr. Benoit and Ms. Folco still would like to pose questions.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chair, my questions have already been asked by other members of the panel.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, you have one question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, thank you.

Gentlemen, I think your point on the role of the citizenship commissioner who will still be collecting a hefty salary just to go out to promote good citizenship is basically what's laid out. I think your point that there isn't enough in the legislation to really understand what their job would be is excellent.

• 1630

I think the criticism from the member saying you should talk to departmental officials about it shows the different way I view legislation. I believe it should be comprehensive enough to clearly demonstrate what the intent is and what rules the immigration department—in this case the citizenship department—will act under. That member thinks you can leave it vague, and if you get the word from a departmental official, then that should be good enough. I don't think that is good enough for legislation.

I think your questions are completely legitimate. An NDP member said earlier that you shouldn't shape policy on anomalies. I think that also demonstrates that it's important to have in legislation enough detail that you can deal with any situation that should arise.

I guess there's a real difference in the way the NDP and the government consider what should be dealt with in legislation. I believe this legislation is, as you've indicated, so loose that it's hard to determine what the intent really is. In fact, the regulation will determine that. So I think your statement is very valid.

The Chair: Mr. Hackett, would you have any comment to that? We're going beyond time now.

Mr. Alan Hackett: No, we don't have any further comment.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you all. As you may know, in light of this video conferencing, we have to be more careful with our time. But I realize the tardiness with which we started was not your fault at all. You were there well in time. Unfortunately, we were not able to gather on time here. So on that note, may I thank you all again on behalf of the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Alan Hackett: Thank you for the opportunity, sir.

The Chair: We would like to invite the next set of witnesses, from SUCCESS. Is our contact in Vancouver hearing me?

I'm optimistic, Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): That's the kind of group I've belonged to.

An hon. member: Now, don't say anything partisan.

The Chair: Do we have our contact in Vancouver working on the next set of witnesses? There they are.

• 1635

Please proceed, Mr. Wan and Ms. Tao, with your opening remarks.

Mr. Wilfred Wan (Chair, SUCCESS): Thank you. On behalf of SUCCESS we would like to thank the parliamentary standing committee for allowing us to make this presentation.

We'd like to talk a little bit about SUCCESS, which is a non-profit social service agency. For 36 years we have been trying to build bridges between new immigrants and Canadians. We have a wide range of services and programs in settlement, employment, language training, and health and community development services for women, seniors, families, and youth, among others.

We have an annual budget of $9.2 million, 50% of which is funded by the Government of Canada, 40% from fundraising in the community, and 10% from our cost-recovered programs. We have 10 offices in Vancouver, a staff of 200, volunteers of 7,000, and every year we service more than 230,000 clients.

In addition to serving Canadians of Chinese descent, we are increasingly serving multicultural clientele, especially in our airport office and in our suburban offices. We do this in more than a dozen languages. It is with this wealth of experience, serving the needs of immigrants, that we respond to the changes in the proposed Citizenship Act.

Our following comments are the result of public forums, consultation, and direct interaction within and beyond the community.

We have two issues concerning Bill C-63 today. The first is the residency requirement proposal for three years of physical presence in Canada during the five years preceding application for citizenship. The second concerns the proposal in the legislation for higher English or French proficiency. We are highlighting these proposals because they have raised a lot of concern in our community for a number of reasons.

First, the proposal for three years of physical presence in Canada during five years preceding application for citizenship does not offer a flexible framework to take into account the reality of today's globalization. Today many Canadians, as well immigrants, are employed overseas. In today's global market it is very common for them to come to Canada but to continue to conduct business abroad. Economic considerations often require extensive periods of activity outside Canada. Those with international experience but with Canadian connections work abroad. Many highly qualified immigrants are required to travel abroad to use their skills to assist in the development of Canadian investments overseas. While working abroad, these new immigrants still pay Canadian income taxes, maintain a home, and have family in Canada.

The proposed residency requirement will disqualify these business people and professionals from receiving Canadian citizenship. Effectively, these highly qualified immigrants are being penalized.

• 1640

Another group that could be unfairly treated are immigrant children who study abroad. For example, if a student won a scholarship to Harvard University and he or she would have to spend a great deal of time outside of Canada, would it be fair for us to withhold citizenship from this student even if his or her family resides in Canada and this student has every intention of returning to Canada after graduation?

The strict residency requirement would affect Canada's ability to attract and keep talent in Canada. Number one, as in the examples I have given, many immigrants would not qualify for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, many would be discouraged from even trying to come to Canada. Number two, with the proposal for an identification document for permanent residents, to be renewable in five years subject to some residency requirements if citizenship is not required, as proposed in the legislation, these highly attractive immigrants could effectively be denied entrance back into Canada.

We therefore believe that the system needs to allow for the discretionary granting of citizenship to applicants who may not meet the physical residency requirements for very valid reasons. We understand your concern that the existing legislation may be loose and may lack definition. We believe that strengthening this discretion and setting prerequisites and specific definitions for discretion will be a much more viable alternative to simply enforcing strict residency.

For example, a business immigrant has set up a partnership with a Canadian company that is trying to establish itself in Asia. This immigrant travels to Asia and develops contacts and assists in building the business. With the business in early stages, he can only come back to Canada for brief visits regularly. Nevertheless, he considers his residence as Canada and has every intention to return to Canada, where the family he supports lives and where he pays Canadian income and other taxes. The company he owns in partnership with other Canadians is also registered in Canada. This is a very, very common situation.

It is for this reason that we ask the standing committee to take into account the impact of globalization and telecommunications on people's movements and to allow for an accumulation of three years physical presence out of six years instead of five years. Secondly, we are asking for some well-defined discretion in the system.

Another concern regarding Bill C-63 that I would like to discuss is the proposal for higher English or French proficiency. We believe that the current requirement for functional ability in one of the two official languages is sufficient and meets the needs and values of Canadian society. To increase these levels of proficiency does not reflect correctly Canada's history and values to welcome and integrate people from many cultures, religions, languages, and national experiences.

First, it is a fact that many immigrants coming to Canada with little or no language skills have contributed significantly to our society. This has been proven in the last 125 years.

Second, higher English or French-language proficiency is not an accurate indicator of a prospective immigrant's ability to integrate, contribute, or participate successfully in Canadian society. If you like, we can give you numerous examples of this. For instance, currently half of the entrepreneur immigrants and two-thirds of the investor immigrants have no official language skills; however, they have definitely contributed and positively participated in Canadian society.

• 1645

For the 11 years between 1986 and 1997, investor immigrants invested $4.2 billion into the immigrant investor funds program. This does not even include the other spin-off effects, such as real estate purchases, day-to-day spending, and direct or indirect taxes.

It is not only the functional gains we receive from immigrants that are important. It is also the human factor; the experience, the expertise, the international networking, the diversity and the culture of these people.

We realize that a functional level of English or French is required, but the level of proficiency required for the various roles immigrants play in society varies greatly. For instance, a new immigrant who works as a cook requires a far lower level of English than, say, a teacher. Although the cook's English is not that good, he is still able to contribute and support his family, get around town, get a driver's license, and communicate with people on a day-to-day basis.

Should he be denied citizenship because he did not come from an English- or French-speaking country or a privileged background that would have allowed him to spend more time studying, after he had landed in Canada? Would this hard-working individual really not qualify to be a good citizen?

That's our country. It was to a large extent built by immigrants, many of whom came with strong work ethics and not necessarily English or French skills. We believe raising the level of English or French proficiency from its present level, which we believe is adequate, would be at odds with Canada's values and respect for new immigrants.

We believe, therefore, the existing official language requirements meet the needs of Canadian society. In fact, according to the latest census, although half of the immigrants do not speak either English or French when they come, after three years the figure is halved—three-quarters of them become proficient—and within eight years that figure is again halved. But having said all of this, to increase the proficiency standards will incur hardships on some very hard-working individuals.

In conclusion, on behalf of SUCCESS I would like to thank the parliamentary standing committee for the opportunity to present this brief to you. We realize you have a formidable task ahead of you, and we hope you will take into consideration the issues we have raised today.

Thank you and good luck.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to both of you. It's very good to hear from you.

My first question is about the residency requirement. I would just like you to explain to me how you believe this requirement will be dealt with in practical terms, should the legislation be enacted as it is before us today.

Mr. Wilfred Wan: If you don't mind, Lillian Tao and I will jointly and alternately answer your questions.

Ms. Lillian Tao (Executive Director, SUCCESS): Bill C-63 proposed a very defined requirement of 1,095 days out of five years to be physically present in Canada. We suggest there has to be discretion. We suggest the addition of a clause that the minister can waive that residency requirement on proof of intent to stay in Canada. There should be very definite requirements, such as what our chairman has stated. For example, a person may be paying taxes, his family is here and the reason for not being able to meet the official residency requirement is because of business, having to work in a Canadian company outside of Canada, or setting up a company abroad.

• 1650

We are basically saying the legislation should provide discretion for the minister to waive that requirement for physical residence.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I guess my question is more along the lines of having read the legislation and interpreted it, what is the impression you get as to how the immigration department will determine how many days people have been in the country and how many days they've been out of the country, over that five-year period?

Mr. Wilfred Wan: Our interpretation of the legislation is very simple. Physical presence in the country is required, then the number of days are counted within that five-year period. If the number of days are insufficient, this person is denied citizenship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How will the number of days be determined? Will they be determined by the individual applying for citizenship or the immigration department?

Mr. Wilfred Wan: I suggest it would be some kind of record of departures from and arrivals back into Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How would you obtain that record if you're doing business in the United States, for example, where you go through a border without stopping in most cases?

Mr. Wilfred Wan: It would be a question of voluntary disclosure. I don't know the exact detail, but if I were an immigrant, before I crossed the border I could volunteer to actually have a stamp put on my departure record—like the passport of my previous country. I believe there are ways it can be done. For example, when you go into the United States, they do not typically stamp your travel documents, but upon request I believe they will.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you are requesting a change be made that the requirement be for three years out of six years of physical residency in the country. You don't see it as a problem that people who are applying for citizenship will have to go through this process of getting the stamps when they're going across the border to the United States—making sure they get their passports stamped when they travel to another country. That isn't a concern?

Mr. Wilfred Wan: I believe this is a separate issue. I think what we're trying to deal with here is the stipulation of three years out of five years, or three years out of six years, not the actual travel destination or the proof of such stay, which will be dealt with in accordance with the immigration department policies.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But isn't the immigration department policy in fact stated in legislation? Isn't that what legislation should do—state the policy on these issues in a way people can understand?

Mr. Wilfred Wan: Yes, we totally agree.

Ms. Lillian Tao: I think this legislation made it very clear you have to be present for 1,095 days out of five years to quality for citizenship. How this rigid application is enforced is another question, but this is what it is.

We agree there has to be some requirement for physical residency. We suggest, however, it should be loosened to three years out of six years. At the same time, we feel very strongly there has to be a discretion that the minister can waive the residency requirement when people can prove they are not present for good reasons.

Mr. Wilfred Wan: What you are talking about is an enforcement issue, and we have absolutely no problem with that. We encourage all potential citizens to give as clear records and evidence as possible, and of course in no way do we encourage anybody bypassing any requirements.

• 1655

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. Of course I was just asking about the practical application and whether you thought that was a reasonable kind of requirement to have individuals deal with, and I guess you've indicated you think that is reasonable. So I appreciate that.

The other question is on your second issue, the issue of language. You know, I agree with your statement that in fact Canada has been developed pretty much through immigration over the last two centuries. As to your comment that there's been a strong work ethic among immigrants that have come, I think there's absolutely no way you could refute that; I think it's true.

Also, the fact that many people have come to Canada in the past without language skills and have developed them over time is true. We saw that in my part of the country, where an agricultural area was settled by people who really couldn't speak English and they did develop those skills over time.

The LRAG report recommended that there be a language requirement. At first the minister supported that position. In this citizenship legislation, at least for citizenship, it seems as if there certainly will be some language requirement. Exactly what do you believe would be a reasonable level of language requirement, if you believe that what is in the legislation isn't acceptable?

Ms. Lillian Tao: First of all, we believe that what is currently done is reasonable. I think this is supposed to change in Bill C-63. Currently, someone who applies for citizenship goes through a written test. If they fail the written test, then they try an oral exam. For the oral exam, they need some functional English, which they can pick up...or they can make some compensation. In doing the exam, when they have to be examined on knowledge of Canada, they are allowed to bring an interpreter. This means the current legislation allows someone to have a functional level of English but doesn't require a highly proficient level of English.

However, in the new act, Bill C-63, it's stated very clearly in paragraph 6(1)(d) that somebody has to have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and is able to communicate that knowledge in one of the official languages of Canada without the assistance of an interpreter. So it's very definitely raised the level of English required.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From the legislation, who do you believe will determine whether the language skills are adequate or not? Who will do that? Will it be the new citizenship commissioners? Will it be departmental officials? In your interpretation of the legislation, who in fact will determine language ability and whether it's sufficient under the new law?

Ms. Lillian Tao: My interpretation is it would be more the administration. The citizenship administrator will determine that through written tests, and for the oral exam the commissioner would be handling it. But the big change is they seem to be raising the level, that they will no longer allow interpreters when they are being examined for the knowledge of Canada.

The Chair: Ms. Sophia Leung.

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

Lillian, Wilfred, I'm very pleased you made the effort and time to make the presentation to us. I would also like to say that through the years SUCCESS has provided excellent services in Vancouver, Richmond, and in many other outskirt areas. So I'm pleased you have joined us.

My first question is regarding the residency objection. In your paper you have a very well-reasoned document to support your objection. If we do consider to extend the requirement from five years to six or seven years, does it make it easier? Give us the reason why it will make easier, make a difference.

• 1700

Ms. Lillian Tao: The issue is that people who are doing business internationally have to travel in and out of Canada. If we extend it from five years to six years, it would make it more feasible for them to qualify for citizenship—three out of six years instead of three out of five years. I think we made it very clear this would be one recommendation.

The second very important recommendation is there still has to be discretion for people who are out of the country and can only meet residency requirements for one year out of six years. They should still qualify to be citizens; the minister should be able to make that discretionary judgment.

Ms. Sophia Leung: As you know, the reason we require three years is because we want applicants to make a better adjustment, to be able to integrate into our society. You probably agree with that.

Mr. Wilfred Wan: Yes.

Ms. Sophia Leung: My second question is regarding the requirement for English and French proficiency. I'm very sympathetic with that, as I think both of you know. My view has been publicly debated and expressed in Vancouver. As a matter of fact, I came to the United States as a college student with very limited English. My colleague Mr. Telegdi is the parliamentary secretary of immigration and citizenship. He told me he came to Canada with no language skills. He's obviously doing very well now. We both manage.

For that reason, I am certainly sympathetic and support what you say. A few candidates here would support that too. We will do our best to try to see. We are not saying if you don't know the language you'll be disqualified. That's not the case. We're saying we want you to try to gain proficiency after. Language is just one-quarter of the point system—it's a very small amount. This is what I would like to clarify for you.

Would you like to comment on that?

Ms. Lillian Tao: We are concerned about changes in Bill C-63. It no longer allows an interpreter for an examination on knowledge of Canada. There are two issues here. One, as we indicated earlier, it has been shown that for someone who doesn't know English, to become really proficient in English they would have to study full-time for at least seven years. For someone who comes in with little or no English and has to work full-time, how can they acquire proficiency in five years?

Second, do we use proficiency of English as a measurement of a good citizen? As Wilfred indicated before, many people who are excellent citizens and contribute greatly to this country don't read very well, or may not speak English at all. If they have a functional level of English, as required now, it is sufficient for communication or movement in this country.

Ms. Sophia Leung: If I remember correctly, the first paper—the committee recommendation—on the requirement for language was rejected. After the minister and many people heard the concerns and objections from the communities, we rejected it. Now the requirement means knowledge of one of the languages. So it doesn't require a deep proficiency. Thank you.

• 1705

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Wan and Ms. Tao. Thank you for your excellent brief. I think it's very clear and very well put together.

I learned a great deal about these issues recently. On March 26 Libby Davies and I hosted a round table on immigration at the Chinese Cultural Centre. It was well represented by the Chinese community. Your representatives there made very good representation of these two points specifically, so I not only understand them, I'm very sympathetic to both of the issues you've raised.

On the language issue, I'm very glad to hear there's some sympathy from most of the parties represented here today on this issue. Certainly when the minister toured the country and heard representations on this issue, she heard loud and clear from most ethnic groups the same logic and points you're making.

The one thing you're adding to the debate that I'm very pleased to see is you're pointing out the class issue, in a way. New Canadians or new immigrants who need to work one and maybe even two jobs, and raise children perhaps, simply won't have an adequate amount of time to get the level of English or French they need. They may simply be perfectly occupationally literate and able to function in their workplace. They may know enough English to call the ambulance if their child is choking on a chicken bone, but they may not be able to pass some test dealing with how a bill might pass through the House of Commons, or some technical question about Canada in that language. So thank you for adding that element to the debate.

I also found it very useful to hear your comments on the residency or physical presence requirements. My sister-in-law is a Chinese woman from a Chinese family that lives in Vancouver. Her family has businesses in Taipei, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Tokyo and Vancouver—all over the place. They're on the road all the time. I don't think even under the present rules her father will ever qualify for citizenship, because he is on the road managing their businesses constantly, as are all the children who deal with different parts of the businesses. So I'm very sensitive to this.

Thinking in terms of our own lives, as members of Parliament, we would have to sleep in our own beds 200 nights a year to qualify for 1,000 days over five years. I'm not home 200 nights a year, and many people I know in the business community travel more than I do. It's a fact of life in the global village.

With those comments I can say our caucus will be working hard to try to get some satisfaction on both of these two key issues on Bill C-63. We won't be voting for it until those two items can be amended to give you that satisfaction. Thank you.

Ms. Lillian Tao: Can I just make a comment?

The Chair: Yes, very briefly, please.

Ms. Lillian Tao: I just want to say that one fear is this. As reported earlier, someone who is hired by a Canadian company to work in China will not meet the physical residency requirements. So in five years that person will not qualify to become a citizen. The new proposed changes in the immigration white paper state some kind of document or landed immigrant card will be issued. That card will have to be renewed every five years and there will be a residency requirement for that card to be reviewed.

That means if that person is working in China for General Motors or Air Canada or whatever, he cannot be a citizen and cannot even meet the residency requirement to renew his landed immigrant card. That person will not be able to come back to Canada. He will lose his landed immigrant status, even though his family is here, his house is here and he pays taxes. You will split up the whole family.

• 1710

So we're very concerned that if there is no discretion allowed, it will create a lot of hardship for immigrants and we will also lose very valuable immigrants.

The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you both.

Mr. Wilfred Wan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The Chair: We will hear from our last witness for this segment. As we are waiting for the next witness, I will just remind the committee that we will have a break at about 5.45. Then we will reconvene at 6.15 until 8 o'clock. It was the consensus of the committee before to have a light supper break. I think the clerk is providing some sandwiches.

I would like to welcome, from the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. section, Mr. Gordon Maynard.

I am the chair, and with me is the research staff and the clerk of the committee. The government members are Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Mahoney, and Mr. McKay; and the opposition members are Mr. Benoit and Mr. Martin. Please proceed with your opening remarks.

Mr. Gordon H. Maynard (Executive Member of the National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you very much. I'm here today on behalf of the national CBA section.

You may recall that Mr. Stephen Green and Ms. Tamra Thomson from the national CBA office were before you in early March. They should have provided you—and I hope you have with you today—with the submissions from the Canadian Bar Association national immigration section, translated into French and English. You should also have my speaking notes. Do you have those documents?

The Chair: Yes, we have them.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I would like to start by making a point that I think is overlooked in submissions before you, although it is a point I know was made by the Canadian Council for Refugees.

The overall effect of Bill C-63 is to convert the citizenship process from a process involving independent decision-makers, the judiciary, either in the citizenship court or through full appeal by the Federal Court of Canada, to a process that is purely administrative, in the sense that all the decision-making in acquisition of citizenship rests within the department. The only oversight is through judicial review in the Federal Court, which is a very different process from full appeal.

• 1715

The significance of this is with respect to both acquisition of citizenship and loss of citizenship. With respect to acquisition of citizenship, the use of an independent decision-maker, whether the citizenship court or the Federal Court of Canada, provides consistency, judicial consistency, independence, and a certain stature for the process. That is lost when you go to an administrative process that is really no different from applying for a visitor's visa.

With respect to loss of status, for processes where individuals are going to face loss of citizenship and in many cases concurrent loss of permanent resident status, the loss of an independent decision-maker in the role of a judiciary becomes very significant. It's not just the loss of independence; it's also amendments to the provisions of the existing Citizenship Act that provide fairness and protection to persons facing loss of status.

In that regard, I wish to run through some of the comments made in my speaking notes, commencing at the bottom of page one.

On the matter of citizenship through birth abroad and subsequent loss of citizenship, this refers to clause 14 of Bill C-63. The existing Citizenship Act provides for transmission of citizenship from generation to generation through birth abroad to Canadian parents. Bill C-63 terminates that transmission of citizenship at the third generation. The first generation born abroad and the second generation born abroad will acquire Canadian citizenship, but the new act stipulates that the second generation born abroad will lose that citizenship through operation of law at age 28. If the individual born abroad who acquires Canadian citizenship at birth does not make application to retain that citizenship by the age of 28, under the new act, after having established three years of residency in Canada during the previous five years, that citizenship is lost by operation of law.

What is the problem with this? We have not seen these circumstances arise because under the current law, those children are just being born now, potentially. It won't arise until the turn of the century in approximately 2010 or so. Those people are at risk of losing their citizenship purely through oversight. The significant problem is there's no flexibility whatsoever in that provision.

For example, a child may be born of a Canadian parent abroad, but may reside for their entire life in Canada. Perhaps their only absence from Canada is to attend studies abroad. At the conclusion of those studies they come back to Canada and find they have now encroached on that three-year requirement for residence before the age of 28. There is no provision in Bill C-63 that would allow that individual to avoid loss of citizenship. It's not only loss of citizenship; it's also loss of permanent resident status, since the individual never was a permanent resident; they were a citizen from birth.

It's this lack of flexibility that causes us concern. It's a lack of flexibility that shows itself throughout various provisions of Bill C-63, and we should be concerned about that. If I may suggest to you, for this provision, for the loss of citizenship by operation of law, there should be a mechanism in place that readily allows that individual to reacquire their citizenship.

It may be an application to an independent tribunal that is enabled to consider all the circumstances of the case. Alternatively, do away with that provision altogether. Why do we worry about the second generation having their citizenship removed at age 28? Under the previous act, you could extend citizenship from generation to generation. That's gone under the new act. It only extends for two generations at best. If we're going to grant citizenship to children born abroad of Canadian parents in the second generation, why not allow them to hold it throughout their lives? Why worry about removing it age 28?

On the requirement for physical presence in Canada to permit nationalization—acquisition of citizenship, I realize this is a topic you no doubt have heard a great deal about. My concern here is that the provisions of Bill C-63 require there be three years of actual physical presence in Canada. The issue is not whether three years is an appropriate amount of time—or two years or two and a half years. The issue is whether that should be a strict requirement that allows for no flexibility whatsoever. If this is the test that will be imposed for allowing individuals to apply for grant of citizenship, there is no question that applicants will be denied unfairly in the process.

• 1720

The types of applicants who will be hurt are young people who came here with their parents, have lived in Canada all their lives as children, have been schooled in Canada, and who seek further education abroad. While they are abroad, they are not accumulating time toward citizenship, and that time is held against them, notwithstanding their close connection to Canada.

Similarly, business people will be strongly affected. We live in a global community, and business people do travel. There will be circumstances where business people, often acting on behalf of Canadian companies and engaged in worldwide trade, who have homes in Canada, bank accounts in Canada, and close family members in Canada, all of whom may be Canadian citizens, will not themselves qualify for citizenship, owing to their inability to accumulate the three years of physical presence in Canada.

There should be flexibility in the system. The Canadian Bar Association submissions provided for a three-tier approach that would recognize residency being met through physical presence, and then a second category that would allow individuals to demonstrate ordinary residence in Canada. That is one mechanism that allows the department to be flexible in determining the real issue, which is whether there is a substantial connection to Canada to justify acquisition of citizenship. Again, it's a question of lack of flexibility.

On adopted children, clause 8 of Bill C-63 provides for acquisition of citizenship directly by children adopted by Canadian citizens. This is a good provision. We're glad that the department is endeavouring to provide direct access to citizenship, rather than requiring the adopted child to first go through permanent residence. However, there are some problems with the language of clause 8 of Bill C-63.

First of all, it's entirely unclear whether the process for acquiring citizenship directly first requires consideration as a permanent resident by a visa officer overseas. Are there going to be two different decision-makers, one to determine whether or not the child would first qualify for permanent residence, and then determine whether or not the child would qualify for citizenship directly?

If there is a refusal, is the appeal taken to the Federal Court by way of judicial review, or is it taken to the appeal division, as is the entitlement of a sponsor of a child seeking permanent residence from abroad? There's terrific uncertainty here. We don't know. We can't tell by the provisions of Bill C-63.

Secondly, the requirement that the adoption be in conformance with the laws of the country where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the sponsor is inappropriate, in our submission. Under the current Immigration Act and under adoption law, an adoption is legally valid if it is conducted in accordance of the laws of the country where the adoption takes place. There is no necessity or need to add a second requirement that it be in conformance with the laws of residence of the adopting parent. This strikes me as being a totally unnecessary provision and entirely inconsistent with the provisions of the Immigration Act.

We also have concerns respecting the provisions for revocation of citizenship for false representation, fraud, or concealing of material circumstances—clauses 16 and 17 of Bill C-63. These are some of the most complex criticisms we have, so please bear with me. I'll try to deal with them as simply as I can.

I don't think anybody would have any objection that an individual should have their citizenship revoked if it's found that they acquired that citizenship through misrepresentation—for instance, misrepresentation of their residency in Canada or misrepresentation of identity. If you don't tell the truth, if you misrepresent material facts in the application for citizenship, you are not deserving of citizenship; it should be revoked.

• 1725

That is not our concern. Our concern is the application of this provision to persons who it is alleged obtain their permanent residence through misrepresentation. Under this bill and under the existing Citizenship Act, if you are a citizen of Canada and it is alleged that you obtain this citizenship through misrepresentation in your original landing as a permanent resident, then this provision applies and the department can seek to strip your citizenship as a result of your misrepresentation in the original landing application and process. That is current law.

What is being changed under Bill C-63 are the following. The existing law says that in the process of determining misrepresentation it must be established that you knowingly omitted a material fact. Bill C-63 removes the word “knowingly”. The impact of this is that it does not need to be demonstrated that your omission was deliberate, intentional. It can be an unintended omission. Secondly, this bill makes clear that the test for determining revocation is simply the balance of probabilities and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are important changes. They're important because when a person loses their citizenship through revocation, they lose all status—not just citizenship, they also lose permanent resident status. They are deportable. Furthermore, at the conclusion of that determination, there is no appeal. There is no further review. This causes us great concern.

Misrepresentation need not be serious for this provision to take effect. It can be a misrepresentation where a teenage child fails to tell Immigration that he has fathered an illegitimate child. It can be a misrepresentation or omission where the father, the principal applicant seeking immigration, similarly fails to disclose the existence of an illegitimate child, perhaps a child for which that family has no responsibility and no connection in which there is a real dependency. It can be a failure to disclose an old criminal conviction that has been removed by operation of law in the home country, perhaps through pardons. Any of these omissions justify application of the misrepresentation provisions and subsequent revocation of citizenship. But not all of these misrepresentations necessarily justify complete lose of status and removal of the individual from Canada.

I would suggest that if the test is going to be diminished, as it is under Bill C-63, there should be a provision for persons who lose their status through this clause to have a right of review before an independent tribunal to determine whether actual deportation is warranted. It is a critical point.

I wish to refer back very briefly to the comments on requirement for physical presence in Canada. I also wish to point out to you that under the current act credit was given to applicants who had resided in Canada, perhaps as students or as foreign workers, before acquiring permanent residence status. These individuals were entitled to be given credit for up to one year of residence toward their citizenship application. The new bill takes away, makes no reference whatsoever to that credit. We don't see any reason why this sensible credit should be terminated.

The Chair: Mr. Maynard, how many more minutes do you have? I would like you to leave ample time for questions and answers. We have only about fifteen minutes left for questions and answers as it now stands.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Okay. Is two minutes satisfactory?

The Chair: Can you finish in a couple of minutes?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I can.

On page 5, loss of citizenship by annulment, clause 18, this is a new provision. A similar power does not exist under the existing Citizenship Act. If the minister is satisfied that an individual has obtained citizenship by false identity or through contravention of the provisions against prohibition, the minister gives notice to the individual. That individual has 30 days to make written submissions, after which the minister may annul their citizenship. There is no tribunal proceeding. There is no process put in place except a decision by the minister. It is my reading of the act that the consequences of this are final. The person has no future entitlement to reapply for citizenship. I don't believe the process is adequate in the circumstances.

• 1730

Refusal to grant citizenship in the public interest is a new power to the minister to deny an application for citizenship through agreement with cabinet where it is in the public interest. “Public interest” is undefined and the provision is not subject to any appeal or review and extends for five years. This provision needs to have definition. What is meant by “the public interest”? How broad may this allow the minister to extend this discretionary power?

Finally, I'll refer to the last item in my speaking paper, the administrative provisions, clauses 36 and 37 of Bill C-63. Under these provisions, the minister may compel an individual to surrender their certificate of citizenship or to cancel their certificate of citizenship if she has grounds to believe it was obtained improperly or is not valid.

Again, there is no process in place that permits an independent decision as to whether that process is appropriate. We would not tolerate losing our driver's licence through such a process. Why should we tolerate losing a certificate of citizenship through such process?

I welcome your questions now, and I thank you for your patience.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Maynard.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Maynard.

Just from listening to your presentation, one thing that struck me is that in some of the key areas you've recommended movement back toward the current act. I'd like to ask you whether you would in fact prefer that the current act be left in place rather than putting in place this new legislation?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I wouldn't say that generally. I think on an item-by-item review you have to look at every one of the changes and ask what is being accomplished under the new act as opposed to what was accomplished under the old act. If there was a weakness in the old act that needed to be strengthened, fine, then this is appropriate.

My concern here with Bill C-63 are those provisions that extend powers to the minister, most notably in the removal of status. I find them wanting, not because the minister should not have the power to remove status, not that the law should not provide for this, but there should be an adequate process in place to ensure it is done appropriately and in appropriate circumstances. I'm not sure this bill provides that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In one of the key areas, the requirement for physical presence three years out of five, you recommended that the strictness be alleviated—in other words, more discretion be put in place. If you remove the strictness, how would it really make that requirement any different from what it is right now?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: It wouldn't make it substantially different, but you might have a situation where three years physical presence in Canada that can be demonstrated answers totally any concern regarding residency. If you show actual physical presence in Canada, it no longer becomes an issue to be debated.

There may be a lesser standard, for instance, met by five years' presence in Canada in which you are ordinarily resident, and the flexibility may be provided through that kind of mechanism.

What I know for a certainty is that an absolute strict requirement will work unfairness on some applicants. The question that really must be answered by the department is are we willing to accept that degree of unfairness for the sake of simplicity? Simplicity isn't always appropriate.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It seems that in several places you're calling for strictness to be taken out and for more flexibility in different places. For example, in the area of loss of citizenship, clause 14, you call for more flexibility for the physical presence in Canada. You call for less strictness. Under some other clauses later on you're calling for changes.

For example, under clauses 16 and 17, the area dealing with fraud or concealing of material circumstances, false representation, you've called for a change that would put back in place the requirement that an individual knowingly misrepresented the case. Quite frankly, it seems to me that with your recommendations you're putting back in place a lot of areas that will require the assistance of lawyers to deal with.

I'd like your comments on that. It really does seem like you're calling for a removal of some of the stricter rules that are put in place. To me, this would indicate that it's going to open up more loopholes, which is part of the problem with the current act, or particularly with the current Immigration Act anyway.

• 1735

Mr. Gordon Maynard: The problem with that loophole, sir, is ensuring that these decisions, which often can be irrevocable or have long-term consequences, are made appropriately and fairly, in the best interests of both sides, Canada and the individual concerned. An individual who is up against the power of the state is at an enormous disadvantage. They can choose or not choose to hire lawyers.

On that issue let me comment that I've been a member of the CBA executive either provincially or nationally for ten years, and in the course of that time I have made representations to this committee, to the minister, and to department officials on numerous occasions at the cost of a great amount of volunteer time and effort. It seems that every time we appear before the parliamentary committee someone raises the question, “Doesn't this just mean more work for you?” That view is terribly unfortunate. We don't do this out of self-interest. We do it out of genuine concern for fairness of laws.

Because of the work we are in, we do have a particular insight into how the law impacts individuals. The department sees it from their perspective. We tend to see it from the individual's perspective. And hopefully we meet in the middle. Laws cannot be one-sided, either in favour of the state or in favour of the individual. There must be a reasonable balance to be met. My concern is Bill C-63 does not meet that reasonable balance in many areas. That needs to be ameliorated; it needs to be prevented.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I appreciate your point, but I do think it is important that with everyone we have appearing in fact we look for a vested interest and we can take the comments with that in mind. That's why I made this comment and asked that question. I was looking for you to say no, in fact it wouldn't mean more work for lawyers necessarily, or to explain that anyway. But I think the question has to be asked no matter who we have presenting.

I have one more specific question. In the area of adoption of children, clause 8, you made a comment—or maybe it's in the next—to do with adoptions, and you're recommending the requirement would be that we use the laws that are in place from the country of origin rather than Canadian law on adoption. I'm interested in why you would suggest that. It would seem to me that if we're making Canadian law on citizenship, Canadian law on adoption should apply. It just makes a lot of sense. I'd like you to respond to that.

Secondly, we have had witnesses who have expressed a concern that there are different rules for adoption in different provinces. I'd like you to comment on that and let us know whether it is a concern.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: On the first question, as to whether the law of Canada should be applied throughout the world, consider marriage. If a person and their fiancée travel to Las Vegas and want to get married, they don't apply the marriage laws of British Columbia; they apply the marriage laws of the State of Nevada. That's because as a matter of international law, marriage is valid in accordance with the laws where the ceremony takes place.

Similarly, in accordance with international law provisions, adoptions are valid if they are conducted in accordance with the laws of the country where the adoption takes place. Otherwise, you would have an untenable situation where adoptions would be recognized in one country and not in another.

The current Immigration Act allows for Canadian citizens or permanent residents to sponsor applications for permanent residence by their adopted children. And the current Immigration Act has for years and continues today to state that the adoption must be valid in accordance with the laws where the adoption took place. That's just standard procedure.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In this proposed legislation, why do you think the minister would have this new requirement?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I don't know. I've tried to rationalize that out, and I don't understand why you would try to only accept adoptions that are governed by two different sets of laws and how you would reconcile an inconsistency between two sets of laws. It's not consistent with international practice.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you any ideas at all, any guesses on why that would be in there?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I don't like guesses.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I do. No, I'm just curious.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments.

• 1740

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you for your presentation.

I want to go to clause 6 of the bill. As you know, what drives this change in the residency requirement is what has become a mishmash of contradictory approaches to what constitutes physical presence for the purposes of the act. Presently, it's 1,095 days of the previous four years, and a judicial officer makes that determination. Now we're going to—how should we say it?—a more transparent system of three years out of the previous five, with no judicial discretion as such, eliminating the judicial discretion or eliminating discretion altogether.

In your recommendation on page 17 and your conclusion, you abandoned this five-year residency. You divided it into three tiers. First of all, you have tier one, which is physically present for three years. Well, that's a bit of a slam dunk; that's within what the minister is proposing, in any event. On tier two, ordinarily resident for five years, I would interpret the permanent residence for the three out of the five years to be ordinarily resident in the same manner. Can you clarify for me the distinction you're trying to draw between ordinarily resident for five years, as opposed to the minister's proposal, which is a permanent resident for 60% of that time? Is there a meaningful distinction there?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I beg your pardon?

Mr. John McKay: Is there a meaningful distinction between what you are proposing as a definition for “ordinarily resident” and what paragraph 6(1)(b) refers to?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Yes. “Ordinarily resident” is intended to be something less than three years of actual physical presence. The threshold is that the person has maintained permanent resident status for a five-year period; however, they would not be necessarily required to demonstrate that in those five years there has been three years of physical presence in Canada. There may be a lesser amount of presence in Canada. However, you would look at other surrounding circumstances, such as the reasons for absence, the presence of family members in Canada, the presence of investments in Canada, payment of taxes in Canada, all the surrounding circumstances that are looked at now by the citizenship department.

Mr. John McKay: So you could reasonably anticipate entering into some legal absurdities. You could have ten days and still arguably be ordinarily resident.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: And, indeed, people have tried to argue that and have failed.

Mr. John McKay: The final point is with respect to tier three, absent for compelling reasons whose activities abroad are in Canada's interests. That's a bit of an open door through which you could drive a few trucks.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: No, that power exists now under the current act. That could also, in fact, mean the granting of citizenship to persons whose contributions to Canada have been significant, and thus avoid the usual requirements of the act. It's not intended that it would be a widely used provision. It would be used in very narrow cases.

Mr. John McKay: Aren't you essentially arguing that the ministry go back to the status quo?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: We're saying that the ministry should maintain flexibility. The simplicity of a test that requires absolute physical presence for a fixed period of time is attractive, but it's not necessarily going to capture all the people who are deserving of citizenship, and it's going to work a hardship upon some people.

Under the current law, it's a flexible test. Absolute physical presence is not required, and the court has gone a little bit back and forth over the years. If you look at case law over the past two or three years, it has been pretty strict.

What the court looks at is do you have a substantial connection to Canada, far more substantial than the connection you might have with any other country? This is the test they impose when they do not see absolute physical presence in Canada. In my submission, it's a test that works quite well, and it should be flexible.

Mr. John McKay: The department's submission is that it's contradictory case law and has led to a level of unpredictability and uncertainty. Do you share that view?

• 1745

Mr. Gordon Maynard: There has been a level of unpredictability and uncertainty. It came about when a decision was rendered several years ago that said the test is absolute physical presence and nothing more. It went right to the other end of the yardstick.

The result of that is that judges throughout the court had to reconsider what test they would apply and whether it should be strict or flexible. The court has agreed that it should be flexible, but it has moved them up to a level where they are being more diligent in ensuring that persons have an adequate connection to Canada, a substantial connection to Canada—and why shouldn't it be a substantial connection to Canada?

Mr. John McKay: Would your view change with respect to the kind of visa on which a person came into Canada? What would your view be if there were a different test on a business visa as opposed to a family reunification visa or some other kind of visa?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I would not be inclined to make that a written legislated distinction. I think that's something you take into account. Under what circumstances was the individual accepted for immigration to Canada? Was it with the understanding that they would be engaged in business activities? They may have a history of business activity. Is it consistent with the conduct they're carrying on now?

After all, what do you do with a situation where a teenaged son comes into Canada, resides in Canada for five or six years, studies in Canada and then goes abroad for a master's degree, perhaps works abroad for a year and then comes back to Canada and applies for citizenship? Shouldn't you be saying sorry, you will only meet the test if you have strict adherence to physical presence? Or will we take into account his prior history in Canada?

Human beings are wonderful people. Human beings have different histories, and it's very hard to capture them in legislation. That's the difficulty with a strict test in any field, let alone immigration, let alone citizenship. When you are strict, you will always find deserving cases that fall outside that strictness. That is why it is important to retain some degree of flexibility.

Mr. John McKay: The downside of flexibility is unpredictability, uncertainty, and contradictory values, which in some respects, arguably, have led to a devaluation of the whole concept of Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I disagree. I think the history of determinations for citizenship show a high degree of consistency, for the most part. There have been odd cases that have broken through the sides of where most cases have fallen. The vast majority are perfectly acceptable. I think people tend to focus on the exceptional cases and think they represent the whole. They do not. The court is fairly strict now. The decisions are defendable.

In immigration, let's take the example of removal of permanent residence from Canada. It's not a citizenship matter; this is a removal of permanent residence, where they have an appeal to the appeal division, and the appeal division looks at all the circumstances of the case. You or I may differ as to what the results would be in any given case, but as a rule, the decisions would be very defendable, because they're conducted in an open court, the evidence is before the decision-maker, and they've balanced all the circumstances and they were there to hear the evidence. Better that than to have a strict rule that says it's A, B, C; you must go.

Mr. John McKay: That is the issue. Is it in fact better to have it?

The minister, for better or worse, is proposing easing up on the amount of time, but it will be certain. There will be no discretion, versus a system that's similar to what presently exists and what you are proposing to continue to exist, which is a “more flexible system” and recognizes the needs of human beings, and so on, but is in fact nothing other than a mini court system on an issue such as this. That's the nub of the issue, isn't it?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: There's a trade-off on both sides. You can't have a simple fixed system that suits all purposes, and if you try to build in flexibility, it's going to cost you some time and effort and there will be some uncertainty. That's the natural trade-off.

Mr. John McKay: Thank you.

I have questions on the adoptions, so if you have time, coming back....

The Chair: Could you ask one question now, because I don't think we will have time to come back.

Mr. John McKay: On the issue of adoption, going to your presentation, I know you have your knickers in a knot here about the adoption taking place under the laws of the country where the adoption occurred and then the second test with respect to the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizens.

• 1750

I would question your concern here, in part because children are being adopted from countries where the laws of adoption are somewhat less than precise and would under no circumstances meet our concept of what constitutes an adoption. I would further question it with respect to the additional test of a genuine relationship. What the minister is proposing here is a reduction in that abuse. I can't quite get my head around why you are so concerned about this double test.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: First of all, I never did criticize the requirement that it not be an adoption of convenience. That is established law under the existing Immigration Act, and I have not complained about that being there, because I too do not want to see abuses through inappropriate adoptions. But the fact that one country or another puts a different process in place to facilitate a lawful adoption I don't believe is a legitimate concern.

One of the ways in which it's being dealt with under the Immigration Act is to adopt the Hague convention where signatory countries, including Canada, ensure that there are processes in place to validate that the adoption is in the best interests of the child through recommendations of legitimate child adoption agencies. That's a fine way of dealing with it, but you don't see the Immigration Act requiring that the adoption be carried out in accordance with the laws of B.C. It has to be consistent with international law.

There's only going to be one adoption. International law says it should be valid under the laws where the adoption takes place. If you choose to adopt a child through the Canadian courts, fine, you will meet Canadian law. If you choose to adopt through the courts in Haiti or through the courts in India or through the courts in Russia, you will have to meet their requirements for adoption. But that just goes to the legal validity of the adoption. It doesn't necessarily mean that adoption will then be valid for the purposes of immigration. That depends on establishing whether or not the adoption was an adoption of convenience or not.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Maynard.

I have one brief question. There's been one grey area I couldn't get any satisfaction on with other witnesses, and I was wondering if you would give me your point of view on it. In the matter where a child turns age 28 and could face having their citizenship revoked because they didn't meet the three years, the issue that you raised, what would be the fallback position if that happens to somebody? Would they automatically become a permanent resident, or would they be stateless? What would be the status of that person, in the example I'm thinking of, if they were in this country when they turned 28 and lost their citizenship, in your opinion?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: First of all, let me remind you that we're operating in an area where we haven't seen any of these cases come forward yet, because sufficient time has not passed. Those new cases will not come forward until approximately 2010. So we do not have the benefit of experience.

However, my reading of the legislation is that first of all, if citizenship is lost a person would have no status in Canada. They would not revert to permanent resident status because they never were a permanent resident. They were a Canadian citizen from birth.

Secondly, as to recourse, there is a provision for restoration of citizenship. It's found at clause 19. It says that the person who has lost their citizenship and who is then lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and who resides in Canada for one year out of the previous two before application can then regain their citizenship. So it appears that what the individual would have to do is to apply and qualify for permanent residence status and then apply for citizenship at least one year later.

That's a terrible row to hoe for that individual who has lost their citizenship by operation of law through oversight when in fact they may have resided in Canada for 24 out of 28 years. That doesn't make sense.

Mr. Pat Martin: I agree.

• 1755

Mr. Gordon Maynard: There's another provision in the bill that allows granting citizenship through order of cabinet in humanitarian and compassionate circumstances. That's another opportunity, but that's extremely rare. I don't think that will be available to the individual.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's very helpful. Thank you.

We had a representation by a lawyer named David Matas, who does a great deal of immigration work and is a man you may know. He was actually representing the B'nai Brith at the time. One of the things they asked for would be a consolidation of proceedings in the situation of deportation. For instance, revocation of citizenship, a criminal prosecution, and a deportation process all use the same set of facts. What would be the opinion of the Canadian Bar Association for that type of a request, or the dealing of all the issues in one hearing so that it could speed up the deportation, for instance, of war criminals?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the recommendation of Mr. Matas in this regard. I'm listening to what you say, but I'm having trouble picturing what the recommendation is. Is it that there would be one set of proceedings to determine a criminal conviction, to determine loss of citizenship, and to determine revocation of permanent residence status, whether it be before the judiciary, federal court, tribunal? You can assist me here in spelling out the recommendation on behalf of the respondent.

Mr. Pat Martin: I don't have much more than what I've told you. The recommendation is for a consolidation of the proceedings, given that they're all dealing with the same set of facts, which would help to alleviate some of the delays in the deportation, for instance, of war criminals. Would the Canadian Bar Association be in support of that idea, without getting too specific?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Well, without being specific, I hesitate to say we'd be in support of it. I can say that we are in support of the recommendation of the minister with respect to consolidation of proceedings before the refugee division and reviews of all risk assessments and programs for protection. That is sensible. There shouldn't be three different lines of consideration heard in different proceedings. You can hear them all in one.

Whether that kind of process has application in the circumstance you're describing, I can't say. Until I see it in detail and consider its application to persons, for instance, other than war criminals, I would be hesitant to say it's appropriate.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you.

I have great respect for the Canadian Bar Association's opinions on this type of legislation. One of the very last items in the bill is a proposed new version of the oath of citizenship. Can I ask you what you see as the value of having an oath of citizenship, both in this legislation or even having an oath of citizenship at all? Does it have any legal force with respect to new Canadians—or spiritual force, for that matter?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Under the existing Citizenship Act and under Bill C-63, the oath of citizenship is a requirement to obtain citizenship. You don't become a citizen until you take the oath. So in that sense, yes, it has legal validity.

The actual wording of the oath does not have legal validity in terms of the citizenship process or the immigration process. It is a matter we tend to regard as one of pure public policy, political considerations. We take no issue with the suggestion for the amendments to the oath.

Mr. John Bryden: Following up on that, then in your view the actual words in the oath are in no sense, shall we say, a contract between Canada and the person seeking citizenship. In other words, as things stand now, no matter what the oath says, it in no sense obligates anyone to respect what is contained in that oath.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: If that were the case, sir, then we wouldn't have treason laws.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me pursue that then. So you are saying that it is a contract, that it is some kind of contract between the person taking the oath and his or her adopted nation. I'm very curious about this. This is an important point.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: You're taking me into waters where I fear to tread.

Mr. John Bryden: Tread.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: We have taken no issue with the language of the oath, and we have not considered what the consequences are of actions or whether the oath should be considered as a contract. I think the fairest thing I can say is that we just take no position on it.

• 1800

Mr. John Bryden: All right.

I have one last point. In your view, does it make any difference in an oath to have an invocation to God, to a higher deity? We are, I note, the only country in the world that takes on new citizens and doesn't have an invocation to God. Does that in any sense in your mind undermine the value of an oath? Is it something we should be looking at?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: You've now drawn me into even deeper waters in which I fear to tread. Thank you. I'll make no comment on the language of the oath.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, if I may say so in conclusion, I'm surprised that you are no help at all. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Maynard, I'd just like to pursue one question on adoption. Is it not a justifiable limitation to international law in the bill before us, it being a step to the citizenship of the country, that indeed we will impose an extra onus, and that is fulfilment of the loss of residence of the adopting parent or citizen? Is it not a justifiable sort of requirement, considering that this is not about adoption that entitles one to immigrate, but adoption that automatically grants one the right to citizenship?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: I'm sorry, sir, but your microphone is a little bit fuzzy to my ears and I'm having trouble understanding your question. Can you try again for me?

The Chair: Yes. Is it not justifiable, notwithstanding international law, to impose a requirement for the purpose of adoption that leads to automatic citizenship and to require in that law, as in the bill before us, a requirement that the residence of the adopting parent be equally applicable insofar as the determination of the adoption laws of the residence of the adopting parents?

Mr. Gordon Maynard: That's not what I read the bill to say, though. The bill doesn't say that the residence of the adopting parent has to be justified in law. It says that the adoption has to be in accordance with the laws of the country of residence of the adopting parent. You're still speaking to the laws respecting the adoption, not the status of the parents. The parents have to be permanent residents or they have to be Canadian citizens.

The Chair: No, I'm referring to the adoption laws as they exist in the residence of the adopting parents.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: But they are of no legal significance to the actual legal fact of adoption, the legal creation of a parent-child relationship. That is a matter that's governed by the law of the country of adoption.

Now, the immigration department can go one step further or two steps further and say that before we give effect to immigration for that child or grant citizenship, we want to be satisfied that this is not an adoption of convenience, that there is a genuine parent-child relationship being developed here. That's a perfectly appropriate consideration, and you're not seeking to do this to avoid other prohibitions under the law. I have no problem with any of that. That is all appropriate. The problem is do you need to look at the adoption laws in two countries to say that the adoption is valid? You don't. So I don't understand why it's there.

Let us also keep in mind, sir, that under the existing act a Canadian citizen or permanent resident can adopt a child abroad and sponsor that child into Canada. You examine the bona fides of the adoption. Are you genuinely creating a parent-child relationship? Is it a legal adoption? Once that child is landed, then the parents are free to make the citizenship application. As a child of a Canadian citizen, the child is entitled to citizenship.

All the government is trying to do here is to consolidate those two processes so that Canadian parents don't need to go through two steps. They should only have to go through one step. There is nothing wrong with that; it's a good objective. But the existing law regarding adoptions is absolutely fine.

Immigration has an obligation to consider whether it's a bona fide adoption. That's a legitimate view. Take a look at that. If you're satisfied that it is a legal adoption, then go ahead and let's process that child's citizenship and save the Canadian citizens that extra application. But they seem to have worked in a consideration that hasn't existed before, and I don't see the legitimate merits of it.

• 1805

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Maynard. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you once more for your contribution to our study of this bill.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: May I ask, did I see Tamra Thomson sitting in the background there, from the Canadian Bar Association?

A voice: You did.

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association): Hi, Gordon.

The Chair: You have very sharp eyes.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: It's a very good video, I must say. It's a vast improvement over several years ago.

The Chair: You are being watched.

Ms. Tamra Thomson: You're looking good, Gordon.

The Chair: You did well.

Mr. Gordon Maynard: Thank you very much, committee members. I appreciate the opportunity.

The Chair: Thank you again.

We will now suspend the sitting of the committee until about 6.15, when we will resume the hearing of our witnesses.

• 1806

• 1826

The Chair: We would like to resume the hearings. We have before us the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society and the Taiwanese Entrepreneurs and Investors Association. We would like to welcome you to our committee studying the act respecting Canadian citizenship.

You may proceed, Mr. Chou, the chairperson, and I guess you have with you Mr. Chang, the adviser. We would advise that if you can make your opening remarks within five minutes, it will give a lot of time for questions and answers for the members of the committee. You may proceed.

Mr. James Chou (Chairperson, Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society and Taiwanese Entrepreneurs and Investors Association): Are we given the time to introduce our organization's board and a brief introduction to the organization we are representing?

The Chair: You may, yes.

Mr. James Chou: Okay. Mr. Chang was past chairperson of TCCS a couple of years ago and I just got elected as chairperson about 10 days ago. TCCS was founded and registered federally in 1991 as a non-profit charitable organization with the clearly defined objective of assisting newly arrived immigrant families to integrate into Canadian society quickly and smoothly through assistance and cultural exchange programs. TCCS is the largest registered self-funded Taiwanese Canadian organization in Canada, which has seen its membership grow from less than 50 in the first year to presently over 2,300 family unit members.

Through a number of similar offices in the greater Vancouver area, TCCS has been organizing hundreds of events programs to assist newcomers to quickly adjust to their new life in Canada and to integrate into society here. Clients served by TCCS include approximately 60,000 Taiwanese Canadians currently residing in the greater Vancouver area. In addition, each year there are hundreds of other events and activities TCCS organizes or participates in, ranging from environmental tours to trips to the annual Vancouver International Children's Festival, attracting more than about 50,000 participants, newcomers and old-timers included.

• 1830

Over the past five years, TCCS has actively participated in consultations on major public policies, especially on immigration, taxation, and unity issues. Our presentations and submissions of recommendations or concerns are based on input gathered through public consultation in our own meetings and discussions. We are committed to ensuring input from TCCS reflects the consensus of membership in the community at large.

Next we want to go directly to Bill C-63. Before we make our recommendations, we have to say we are all laypersons. Neither Mr. Chang nor myself is in the legal profession, so we'll speak in the layperson's language.

Our recommendation forms three points. One, we consider adequate knowledge of Canada to be a must. On the issue of language proficiency in either English or French, we recommend it should be consistent with the spirit built into the Immigration Act. We want to clarify that, for example, under the family reunification, the elderly—those in their sixties and seventies—come here and learn the language. They may accumulate adequate knowledge of Canada, but still may have difficulty speaking fluently in either English or French. We understand the minister can waive their requirements, but we wonder how flexible the minister's permit will be applied in real terms.

The third one, which is the centre of our presentation here, is the proposed physical presence of three years out of the five years immediately before the application for citizenship. We recommend consideration should include limited discretion with provincial nominee provisions. We recommend this because under the current Immigration Act we believe provincial nominee is one of the options.

Let us elaborate just a little. What we mean by “limited discretion” is that the act should allow for limited discretion under the provincial nominee provision for granting citizenship to applicants who may not meet the three-year physical residency requirement due to unusual circumstances. The point here is that this is citizenship by invitation. Canadian citizenship granted under such provincial nominee provision is by invitation, not by application.

How does it work? The provincial nominee provision applies only to the physical presence requirement, and it is to be recommended and endorsed by an active and prominent non-profit organization in the community where the credibility of such organization and basic checks and balances can be much better measured by the local government than the provincial government. Recommendations made by these non-profit community organizations are based on active participation in community services rather than on the amount of monetary donations of the individual being recommended.

• 1835

Our recommendations are based on compassion and the fundamental principle of promoting the active integration of newcomers. We emphasize their participation in Canadian society. Partnership with non-profit organizations in the community is the part of the exercise we consider to be important.

We feel such revisions will greatly encourage newcomers to actively participate in community services and expedite the immigration process. We like the idea of promoting active participation in community organizations to welcome newcomers into Canadian society. We emphasize quality and dedication of real integration rather than the mere number count—in other words 1,095 days out five years. To us, the mere number of days present in Canada really doesn't mean much unless the individuals are really dedicated and committed to becoming real Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Welcome, gentlemen. Good afternoon.

In terms of the residency requirement of your proposal, which seems to be the main point in your presentation, who would determine who would meet the requirements, as you would prefer to see them in this legislation? Could you just explain how the actual process would take place?

Mr. Pang L. Chang (Adviser to the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society and Taiwanese Entrepreneurs and Investors Association): Thank you.

First of all, we would like to emphasize that physical residence is one way of measuring eligibility. We also believe spirit is essential—we want new Canadians to be really Canadian. In that way we believe participation is very important; in some cases, it's probably even more important than physical residence in Canada.

For example, instead of requiring three years of residence, we could ask the new applicant to serve 1,000 hours of volunteer work with the community over the five-year or three-year period. In other words, 1,000 hours is roughly equivalent to one hour a day of serving the community. Through that we could almost guarantee this person would know a lot about Canadians and would become a real Canadian.

The 1,000 hours is just an example. Each community or organization could certify how many hours that person did for the community. We thought maybe the local government, for example the provincial government, could probably make some sort of selection. They could say a certain organization had good credibility—

Mr. James Chou: A good record.

Mr. Pang Chang: The government could trust them to issue the certificate saying a person had gained so many hours. I think that would probably accomplish this and attract people who supported Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So each person who intended to apply for citizenship would keep a log that would be stamped or signed by the volunteer organizations or, let's say, the eligible community groups that would qualify, as designated by the province.

Mr. James Chou: That's correct. For example, right now I believe—I'm not sure, but I can qualify it with their administration—TCCS has a large pool of volunteers. We have the head of the volunteers...and one of the administrative offices keeps track of what kind of expertise each participant, each volunteer, has and what type of program they would like to participate in. When they actually participate, you keep a log in the office and somebody signs it out. Every time we conduct the events, the supervisor or the volunteer group is responsible for making sure they have enough staff and resources to support their program. At the end of the event they each sign out—each individual. They make a list of the log for office records.

• 1840

For example, my daughter participated in Vancouver's International Children's Festival. Each year when she reported and signed off is documented; it is recorded. At the end of an event, a certificate was issued.

I think we can expand this to add a more rigid requirement and credibility to the community organization. I don't know technically how it's going to work, but we make the presentation in the spirit of participation. It's an engagement, a requirement, not only put on the newcomers to count their days, their presence right here, but also it's a joint effort. As I said earlier, it's a partnership for the individual, for the organization. It's a community welcoming them into Canadian society. It's a big family.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's a very interesting idea. So you're not actually talking about community service; you're talking about community participation, which is—

Mr. James Chou: Exactly. That's the key.

Mr. Pang Chang: I believe the whole country is for this. What we want is to amend the act because we want to attract good quality people, the people who want to become real Canadians. If just physically you have to be here for three years over the last five years, I don't believe many of those people will be better qualified or will even become “better” Canadians. I think by participation you are forcing people to march with mainstream society and to provide the service whenever they can. One hour per day is not easy work. If a person can keep that up over the three years, I think it's very good. I think this person, definitely in my mind, is qualified to be a Canadian. This will complement the shortfall of the number of days.

The reason we offer this recommendation is based on the law of economics, first, of today's world. We were talking about this before we walked in here. If I were an oil engineer expert, a worldwide reputable engineer, and I landed today and was hired by Husky Oil, who sent me offshore to Africa, and then I hopped from job to job for the next 10 years and every three months I was given the leave to come back to join my family in Canada.... In the foreseeable 10-year period of time, I can't accumulate enough days, 1,095 days, in a five-year period of time to qualify me to be a Canadian, but all along while I work for this Canadian oil company, I belong, even though offshore, to a Canadian organization, for example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Who then is to challenge me that I don't have the attachment to Canada? To me, it would be an emotional blow. How do you qualify me? Just merely counting 1,095 doesn't mean much to the individual's commitment to this land.

• 1845

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you believe that people meeting this requirement in your proposal would demonstrate more of a commitment to Canada than just being here for a certain number of days.

Mr. James Chou: That's right. Exactly.

Mr. Pang Chang: Just to make one point, if the government or you, the politicians, feel that providing volunteer services with just one community is not good enough, maybe we can modify this idea, this concept, by saying give a person the voluntary services over three years in total, but probably split it over two or three different organizations. I think that would be pretty good, to give this person—

Mr. James Chou: It's a kind of check and balance.

Mr. Pang Chang: If those two or three other community organizations are declared eligible unclear) by the government, I think we have to believe this will give us a good picture.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's an interesting idea.

The Chair: Very short.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you have a concern with not only being able to meet the 1,095-day requirement but with the individual applying for citizenship being required to provide the proof that they had in fact been in the country 1,095 days in five years?

Mr. James Chou: No. Let me clarify that. I don't think it is an additional requirement. What we want to emphasize is the quality of real participation in Canadian society. In other words, when I gave the example earlier about the oil engineer, in the five-year period he might have a physical presence in Canada only a little bit closer to two years. It will show the two-year requirement but add this value of the quality of his participation in Canadian society as demonstrated by this community service track record, which is a complement to the shortfall. That's the emphasis. It's not an additional requirement to the 1,095 days. That's what we're trying—

Mr. Pang Chang: It's a different way of measuring.

The Chair: I would like to yield the floor at this point to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a particular interest in this legislation. If you don't mind, I would like to ask some questions that are a little off your presentation. My concern about the legislation is that it appears that the oath of citizenship is tacked on as an afterthought. I would like to get some sense from you, even your personal opinions if you feel more comfortable that way, on what you feel is the value of having an oath of citizenship, at least in terms of Canadians or new people who are seeking citizenship in Canada. Do you think it's a valuable instrument that we should retain?

Mr. James Chou: I'm not quite following your question, I'm sorry.

Mr. John Bryden: That's okay.

Mr. James Chou: Can you repeat it?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. In your experience, do you feel that having an oath of citizenship, which is part of this legislation, for the new Canadians or the new people who are seeking citizenship is an important part of the process of becoming new Canadians? Is the oath of citizenship important, in your mind?

Mr. James Chou: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: In that sense, then, do you feel that people taking the oath should have some commitment to respect the words and the values expressed in that oath? Is it an expression of commitment?

Mr. James Chou: Quite frankly, to me as a lay person, compassion, the heart, is more important than what is said. What I feel, what I dedicated, what I've committed to this land is more important. To me the single word “Canada” means more than all the other oaths, all that wording. That's what it means to me. This word, “Canada”, means a lot to me. It means compassion. It means humanity. It means fairness, equality, freedom, democracy, all those things. You may put 50 words or 500 words into that, which you consider a solemn commitment, but it doesn't mean much to me. It is the individual when he is taking the oath saying, I'm loyal to Canada. Maybe that's good enough for me.

• 1850

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much. You were very eloquent in your response, and I'd like to pursue it a little bit.

You described being Canadian in Canada very well just in the words you said, and many of those words are not in the oath. Would we not perhaps be right as Canadians, naturalized Canadians, Canadians born here, any citizen, anyone who loves his country, to be trying to express in the oath of citizenship, for the new Canadians, the values you just enumerated? I have to tell you that the oath we have before us is a rewrite of words that were created in Britain. But you just enunciated nearly perfectly what it is to be a Canadian. So shouldn't we, in your view, perhaps be using our opportunity to redesign the oath to tell new Canadians what it really means to be Canadian? Can we make improvements there, do you think?

Mr James Chou: Again, I am a layperson. I don't know if 50 words here or another 500 words would make any difference to me. I already expressed my feeling, my compassion, and if you gentlemen or the legal profession think it's more meaningful, more important, than these few words, by all means do so. It doesn't really mean much to me. I'm not trying to discredit the wording here; what I'm saying is the spirit... Maybe if from the real world we could say, from a marketing standpoint, if Canada or Sony or IBM or Microsoft mean something, then that logo itself is worth more than thousands of words. That's what I'm trying to point out.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

I think I'll go to Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry I came a little late, but I'd like to welcome both of you to our meeting this afternoon, Mr. Wan and Mr. Chang. I'd like to say that, along with other members of this committee, I spent a week in your country of origin, in Taiwan, just two weeks ago. We were extremely well received by your government and by the people, and so your appearing before the committee this afternoon is a little bit of a continuation of that week we spent in Taiwan, at least for me.

I would like to ask you several questions. Perhaps you've explained them during my absence, but I had to be in another committee, so if that is so, forgive me.

On page 3 of your brief, you say “We are in absolute need of citizenship to pass the foreign service exam and work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs”. That is probably so, but I don't understand the relevancy in more general terms of this statement to the Citizenship Act.

Mr. James Chou: That's the wrong one.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The wrong one.

Mr. James Chou: What you read is new to me. I'm not familiar with that.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: The Taiwanese Canadian Chinese Cultural Society?

Mr. James Chou: I only brought in one page and it's included in the fax to Ms. Sirpaul.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I take back my question. I understand that I have taken on the wrong papers and the question I have just asked you I'm going to be asking the people who will follow you, who will represent the Taiwanese Entrepreneurs and Investors Association.

Is that right, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Excuse me, witnesses.

The Pacific Coast will be the next group of witnesses. Who we have before us now are the Taiwanese Canadian—

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I have a document in front of me, of which the first page is the memorandum. The second page says from James Chou. The following page has your name at the top left corner with an address in Kingston at the top right corner, and it's three pages, signed by Tang Fang Wang and Mai Yao Chen. Where does that come from?

• 1855

Once again, my apologies, gentlemen. I take back these questions, because of course they were not prepared by you. Let me just say that I had a very interesting visit to Taiwan. I wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. James Chou: My name is James Chou, not Mr. Wong. Let me clarify. I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear earlier on. I note you sent the invitation to myself, James Chou, as adviser to both organizations of TCCS and TEIA, Taiwanese Entrepreneurs and Investors Association. Unfortunately, the representative from TEIA cannot make it today. So here we are. I am representing TCCS in the capacity of the chairperson of TCCS, as well as an adviser to TEIA. The chairperson of that organization asked me to apologize for not being able to make it today. But what I said has been communicated with the chairperson of TEIA.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's my apology that is in order. Thank you.

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

Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your presentation. I just wanted to explore this idea of the thousand hours of community service. Now first of all—

Mr. James Chou: That was just an example.

Mr. John McKay: Yes. Just following the idea for a while, is that an alternative to the residency requirement?

Mr. James Chou: Correct. For example, you can set two years as the minimum. But if you have provided x number of hours of service in the community and have been recommended and endorsed by a reputable, local community organization, then this recommendation will pass to the provincial government. The provincial government makes the nomination by invitation, by nomination. It's not by the individual's application.

Mr. John McKay: So we recommend to include a limited discretion to call a provincial nominating provision. Help me. How would that happen? I'm from Taiwan. I've landed. I've got two years here but I'm back and forth, back and forth. But I put in x number of hours.

Mr. James Chou: But during the two years, it's the very quality of participation. Not only do I live here—I don't just play golf and eat out, but I participate in community services like urban planning discussions, city hall meetings and hearings, and services; I participate in a children's festival as a volunteer helping the kids; I help in the food banks. It's that sort of stuff, all those kinds of quality services and participation. I think the policy of participation enhances the quality of being a Canadian.

Mr. John McKay: I'm not disputing the issue of the quality of the service that would be given to the community. What I'm questioning is with respect to the provincial nominee provision. I've never heard of that. Where does that come from?

Mr. James Chou: Yes, of course, it's never been included. But if you refer to the immigration as it's being proposed now, in the current Immigration Act there are provincial nominee programs allowing the province to nominate a number of...say, 200, 400 a year to C and I and for landing papers. Why not? Why not extend the same concept to be included in the Citizenship Act?

Mr. John McKay: Okay, so you're transferring from the immigration to the citizenship. That's why I was confused.

One final point is that I also, like other members, have been recently to Taiwan. It was a terrific visit. It is our largest visa office and something we all want to encourage from both countries.

• 1900

The question I have is, when a prospective person is coming to Canada, particularly in the entrepreneur class or the business class, how much detail do they get into in terms of comparing Australian citizenship with American citizenship, with Canadian citizenship, which would be our “competitor countries”? How much actual detailed comparison would there be? Do people sit down and get out a chart and look at making a decision as to whether they want to become a citizen of Australia versus a citizen of Canada or a citizen of Britain or the United States? From your experience, do Taiwanese people actually sit down and compare these things and figure out which is the easiest citizenship to obtain?

Mr. James Chou: No, I don't think so. I cannot represent the majority of them to say what process they went through before they decided where to immigrate to. I can only take myself as an example.

I came here in 1976. I applied in San Francisco. I evaluated all the options, whether to stay in the States or in Canada, like anybody else. The evaluation process goes through everybody's head, and you can quantify it as a very material comparison or a spiritual comparison, but the quality of the decision-making is very individual, and I don't think the Canadian Immigration Act or Citizenship Act should take that into consideration. I'm sorry, I have to consider that irrelevant to how Canada will enact a very important legislation.

Mr. John McKay: Would it be your opinion that a person coming to Canada makes serious inquiry as to whether the residency requirements will be two or three or four years?

Mr. James Chou: I think so. It's logical that it would be one of the considerations. If I were a busy executive of a multinational business and I didn't know where I would be the next day or the next month, then I would want to provide myself enough flexibility, but that doesn't mean....

To me, yes, from that angle, you can judge. It's a simple equation of how many days you've been in Canada. But if you don't take the quality of participation in Canadian society into account, then the 1,095 days doesn't mean much.

Yes, it is one of the considerations to allow people's money.... If you put that question to me, yes, I would take that into consideration for sure.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit now has the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you again, gentlemen.

You did say, though, that you would be open to having a certain minimum requirement in terms of actual physical presence in Canada. I know you said you would rather the focus be on the quality of the presence and the—

Mr. James Chou: Yes, I said no definite limit here, but that doesn't mean I don't qualify that, that I don't value the physical presence right here. But what I'm saying is, is two years the minimum, or one and a half years, because of the community service? Maybe it's worth considering, but the spirit is the important thing about our recommendation. We don't tie that recommendation in to a strictly two-year or one-and-a-half-year minimum. We'll leave that to your expertise.

• 1905

Mr. Pang Chang: If I may state one point, we believe this is a creative way of thinking. This is probably new to you, to many people, but I think we are just trying to help you people, or this government, or this country, attract people who really want to become Canadians, who want to come to Canada. If they can perform some kind of voluntary service, say, one hour a day over two, three, or five years....

Let's ask ourselves this question. How many of us, we Canadians, perform 300 hours of voluntary work in a year? Not too many. If a person can commit himself or herself to providing so many hours of voluntary service across the country, in different sections, I think this person has to be good and we have to believe they really want to become Canadian.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I do want to say that an awful lot of Canadians do volunteer more than 365 hours of volunteer service a year. I know a small town survives based on volunteer input from residents.

I do think it is a creative idea. I think it's interesting, and combining that requirement with a certain minimum amount of physical presence may be something well worth looking at. So I do appreciate—

Mr. James Chou: That is our recommendation. It's a limited discretion. It's measured, it's balanced, and we tried to put the local or provincial government into this, to participate in the provision as such.

We're aware that abuse is in everybody's mind. We want to cut down the opportunity for local organizations to be bought into offering some recommendations by merely a monetary donation to the community. I think it has given a lot of encouragement in that regard.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Putting on your hat of being part of an association dealing with investor immigrants, would you see this requirement of three years of physical presence being a problem in many situations involving investor immigrants?

Mr. James Chou: Yes, we do run across some problems. Some people have this kind of problem because of their business involvement, in the States, or in China, or in Hong Kong. They're hopping from city to city and trying to make it....

For example, I'm an accountant, and I've run across a couple of gentlemen who are selling Canadian oil products, lubricant oils, under a private label. They've developed a private label, which has an added value of at least 30% to the commodity value that the major Canadian oil companies are producing, and insofar as they have to make a sale, because the market is in Southeast Asia, Thailand, Indonesia, China, and Taiwan, more than two-thirds of their time is spent on the road.

If we don't welcome these people to become Canadian citizens, I don't know what kind of people we want. They're selling Canadian products, day in and day out. They're adding value to our product, and they're making a tremendous economic contribution to society here. Their families are here; when they come back they participate in our community work and go out and help in the food banks, in the hospitals, in the nursing homes. Working in the community with these kinds of people, we feel that we have a significant say in the process.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: I would like to ask a couple of questions along the same line.

Taking into account the importance of volunteerism, participation in the community, all those things, if we set them aside for a moment, to have a simple system, do you have a recommendation as to the minimum number of years of physical presence, separate from the participation in the community and everything else?

• 1910

Mr. James Chou: I'm not qualified to make that judgment. To me, maybe one and a half years is the very minimum, maybe two. I don't know. I think it's a question that could receive all kinds of arguments, but I don't know. I also don't know the specific arguments against it or to support it.

Mr. Pang Chang: May I just add one thing? I wonder if you do have any statistics regarding the question you asked, or whether our government has any kind of statistics on that issue.

The Chair: Well, we are here getting information from you. We can look for this information later on. What the chair would like to hear from you is, do you believe in the concept? Do you believe there ought to be a requirement for physical presence in the country at all? If so, what number of years? If not, say so.

Mr. Pang Chang: Well, I would think probably one year at the minimum.

The Chair: Thank you.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you both for your presentation and contribution to our deliberations. Thank you again.

Mr. James Chou: Thank you.

The Chair: I think Mr. Mason Loh is here, attending another conference and has deemed it right to appear in person before us.

Mr. Loh is from the Royal Pacific Real Estate Group. I think you have heard our welcome remarks to all the witnesses; you are equally welcome and certainly we welcome you in person.

On that note, you may proceed to give your opening remarks.

Mr. Mason Loh (Q.C., Royal Pacific Real Estate Group): Thank you, honourable chairman and committee members. Thank you for receiving me and for allowing me the time to present a submission to you.

Let me first introduce myself. My name is Mason Loh. I'm a lawyer in general practice in Vancouver, and I was also the immediate past chair of SUCCESS. I believe you've heard from SUCCESS earlier this afternoon, from the current chair and executive director. I'd like to take this opportunity to give a personal apology to the chair. The last time you were in Vancouver, I know you visited SUCCESS, and unfortunately I was out of town. I wasn't able to meet you there, but I hope the organization gave you a warm welcome.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Mason Loh: Today I'm appearing on behalf of Royal Pacific Real Estate Group, which is one of the major real estate companies in Vancouver, with over 200 real estate agents and realtors. It's in all aspects of real estate business, like development, management, sales, leasing—basically all aspects. Since it's a company involving the real estate business, hopefully I can help to answer any questions you may have from the business angle with respect to this particular bill.

Now I know you have received a copy of our brief. I don't intend to read the brief to you. I'm sure you are capable and willing to read it at your leisure. I don't want to waste your time that way.

The Chair: That's a very good assumption, that we have quick readers. Go ahead, please.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: May I make a comment perhaps, Mr. Chair, and that is that the brief has been presented only in English. I understand there is no French version of this.

The Clerk of the Committee: We translated it.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You did? Okay, thank you very much.

• 1915

Even though my colleague from the Bloc is not here, I am also French-speaking and I also represent Quebec and I also like to read it in French. So I just wanted to make that point.

Mr. Mason Loh: Sure, I appreciate that.

The Chair: You may proceed.

Mr. Mason Loh: Since I won't be reading my brief, I guess I can proceed without your having a copy of it. Basically, my main theme will be set out in my brief, but my presentation will be slightly different. I'd like to basically focus on two issues in my discussion, and they relate to physical residency, paragraph 6(1)(b), and paragraph 6(1)(d), knowledge of Canada and rights and obligations in one of the official languages. I just want to focus on those two issues.

On the first issue, the residency issue, I believe there is a problem with the current Citizenship Act, and that's why there is a proposal to amend it. But the problem I perceive is not necessarily the same as what the proposed amendment seeks to address. My understanding of the problem with the section on residency is its ambiguity. The current law doesn't define what residency means. Therefore, there are two lines of authority in the Federal Court of Canada trying to decide what residency is.

To me, that is the real problem with that particular provision in the current law. It's the uncertainty in the law, because there is no appeal right from the Federal Court right now on citizenship cases. Therefore, that issue has never been resolved. If you look at all the cases in the federal courts, it goes two ways and judges can pick and choose which way they want to go, whether physical residency is required or it's not required.

I understand the proposed amendment to introduce physical residency is not necessary to address that uncertainty, but is more to, hopefully, instil a sense of commitment in aspiring Canadian citizens. But I would pose the question, do we have a perception that new Canadian citizens who have become Canadian citizens in the last 20 years in our country—I believe this particular provision was revised 20 years ago; it hasn't been touched for 20 years. Do we have a perception that the citizens of this country who became citizens in the last 20 years were any less committed to Canada than people who arrived in Canada more than 20 years ago or became Canadian citizens more than 20 years ago?

I don't know if that's a fact. Maybe you have some information I don't, but I think people become Canadian citizens because they want to. As far as how committed they are to Canada, that's a very individual thing, you know, but I think people, once they have decided they want to become Canadian citizens, want to be part of this country. It's a natural thing. Why else would they want to become Canadian citizens? So to me, it's a little puzzling why we want to instil a heavier sense of commitment supposedly on new Canadians, or immigrants who want to become new Canadians.

Now, I'm just trying to guess here—maybe in the later discussion we can talk about this. I'm guessing that maybe we are talking about wanting to instil a sense of commitment in new Canadians because there's a phenomenon of what we call astronauts, people who come to this country, take up Canadian citizenship, and then don't stay here very often, or even before they take up Canadian citizenship, they don't stay here very often. There's a perception that there's a group of immigrants that is doing that.

Now, if indeed that is the case, that is the perception—it could be a fact. I don't know how large the group is—there could be many reasons for that phenomenon. I would venture out and argue that maybe it has nothing to do with commitment to Canada or the lack thereof. There could be many other factors at play—why people travel, why people move around. It could be related to economic reasons, employment reasons. It could be related to educational pursuits. It could be related to businesses or investments. It may not have a lot to do with commitment to Canada.

• 1920

If we were to introduce mandatory physical residency, I'm not quite sure that would necessarily instil loyalty to Canada, commitment or patriotism, or whatever we're trying to accomplish. On the other hand—I'll try to probe your mind—maybe it would have unintended negative implications or consequences in other areas.

I'm glad I'm speaking to this committee. You're the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I know we're not dealing with immigration here, we're dealing with citizenship, but the fact that you are a committee dealing with both citizenship and immigration issues is quite helpful. I believe we have to have certain consistencies and rationales that run through our immigration and citizenship laws. They are related. The honourable members asked some questions a little earlier about people wanting to become immigrants to Canada and how they would look at the citizenship laws; yes, these two laws are related in many ways.

In our immigration law we have a provision, of course, that we want to attract business immigrants, investors, entrepreneurs, and the self-employed. These immigrants are very different from the types of immigrants Canada received before this particular program was introduced 12 or 13 years ago. For the longest time, Canada was built up by immigrants who came from all over the world, most of them seeking a better economic future for themselves and their families and their future generations. But I would say that in the last 20 or 30 years we've been seeing immigrants moving around the world, and not necessarily for economic reasons. They move around for political reasons, to escape political instability in many parts of the world. Economic reasons is not even an issue to them.

I believe that when we introduced our business immigration program in 1986 or 1987, the intended objective was to attract business people to come to Canada to help contribute to Canada and build Canada economically. When we introduced that program, it was in the best interests of Canada. I understand the proposed revision of the Citizenship Act is in the best interests of Canada. The intention is in the best interests of Canada. But would the results of this proposed revision necessarily be in the best interests of Canada? I query that.

If the business immigration program is in the best interests of Canada and if the revision of the Citizenship Act were to go against the business immigration program, then the question arises: Is it in the best interests of Canada? Which is in the best interests of Canada?

I would argue that the way this particular physical residency requirement is proposed is strict enough that it would jeopardize our business immigration program. I would go so far as to say further jeopardize, because there have been amendments to the business immigration program and other Canadian policies and laws that are whittling down our business immigration program anyway.

You might have more current statistics than I have on the business immigration program, such as the number of business immigrants who entered this country last year compared to the year before. As I understand it, 1985 was the peak year, when we had the highest number of business immigrants who came to this country, and it's been downhill ever since. I believe it was drastically down in 1988 from 1987.

So that particular program is already in jeopardy. Now, if we introduce the citizenship revisions, I'm very worried that it will basically do more damage to our business immigration program. If at the end the day all the other amendments to the immigration laws are put in place, then maybe we don't need the business immigration program. If that's the decision we want to make as a country, that we don't need business immigrants, we only want refugees, that we take enough refugees and independent immigrants or family class that we don't need business immigrants at all, so be it. That's a decision we make.

• 1925

But I believe that hasn't been made. I've heard the minister and the government from time to time saying that business immigration is good for Canada, that business people coming to Canada do help to build up this country by their capital and their network and their entrepreneurship.

As members of Parliament, our political leaders, I don't need to tell you—you know a lot more than I do, I'm trying to understand your job myself—you're governing the country, and governing is about making choices and setting priorities for the country. I would challenge you to think about the issues I've talked about, the priorities in terms of the business immigration program, citizenship, which one is more important and what would be in the best interests of Canada.

I have some specific suggestions for your consideration, a specific suggestion on this issue of physical residency. I would really like to see physical residency not required. In the old law we have, we just need to clearly define what residency means. If we don't want residency to be physical residency, let's define it. If someone who wants to apply to become a Canadian citizen doesn't have the physical residency, what do they require?

I believe the new proposal already settles some requirements, how people can prove physical residency, but maybe it can be expanded to include other criteria that can help citizenship judges to decide whether or not someone should become a citizen. But alternatively, if that is not an option, if the committee has gone far enough with the department to say this is the way to go, that physical residency definitely is required, I would like to throw out a suggestion.

I will go with the question asked earlier of the previous two gentlemen: if it were up to them, how long a physical residency would they think is fair? I would say let's just keep it at three years, 1,095 days, and not set a limit so that it has to be earned in four years, or five years, or whatever. If the argument is that physical residency in Canada helps someone to understand Canada better and they will commit to Canada more, then staying in Canada for 1,095 days would accomplish that purpose, supposedly. Does it matter whether they accumulate that within three years, or five years, or seven years? They've spent over 1,000 days in Canada. Do we need to strictly require that to be within a certain period? I just wanted to throw that out.

I will deal with the second issue very quickly: the requirement in paragraph 6(1)(d) for the knowledge of Canada and the rights and privileges of citizenship to be in official languages. As I understand it, paragraphs (c) and (d) are two separate things.

First, paragraph (c) deals with language proficiency, and paragraph (d) deals with knowledge of Canada and also rights and obligations. Why are we mixing the two? For someone who is fluent enough in English or French to be an operating Canadian citizen, does the fact that they know about Canada and they know their rights and privileges, whether they can enunciate it fluently in English and French, make them necessarily a more qualified Canadian citizen or a less qualified Canadian citizen?

We're mixing the two paragraphs. One paragraph deals with language; let's deal with that. The knowledge—let's keep it that way. Are we saying that the English and French of the people who have become Canadian citizens in the last 20 years have not been good enough and that this has been a problem for Canada? I certainly haven't heard that suggestion. But if there are facts to back that up, then I'll listen to them.

The way I see it, nothing has been broken, so don't fix it. You're busy politicians and you have many issues to deal with, such as the Immigration Act and other issues. This particular section hasn't been broken.

I can go into more about how hard it is to learn a language and all that, but I won't do that. I know time is short.

The Chair: Thank you. Thank you for your very lucid presentation.

I would like now to open it to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Loh, for your presentation.

• 1930

Having heard what you've just said in your presentation, I'd like to ask you to take your best guess at why the minister has included this residency requirement in the bill.

Mr. Mason Loh: I tried to deal with this a little earlier. My guess is that there's a perception that there has been a group of immigrants in the last few years who have been astronauts; they haven't spent enough time in Canada and then they became citizens—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you think the minister has that perception?

Mr. Mason Loh: I'm only guessing. I don't really know the true reason. Do you know?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't know. I've never been given an explanation. The minister hasn't offered an explanation and, in fact, seems pretty evasive when asked about this issue.

Mr. Mason Loh: I really don't know what the rational is.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So we're both looking for an answer, I guess, when it comes to that.

You referred to the investor immigrants and how this residency requirement might be very difficult for investor immigrants. Of course, investor immigrants make up a very small percentage of total immigrants who come to the country, extremely small, somewhere around 1% roughly, I believe. So what are you suggesting, that the residency requirement be removed for everyone, that there be a special provision for investor immigrants? What are you really recommending here?

Mr. Mason Loh: No, I'm not suggesting that. I think it would be discriminatory if we singled out one category of immigrants for special treatment. That's not my suggestion here. My suggestion is that the problem with that particular residency provision, the current provision, I believe, is that it's unclear, and that's why there have been lots of court cases.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're suggesting the legislation should clarify that, and then the courts won't be able to interpret it in a way other than how it was intended.

Mr. Mason Loh: Exactly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, that's clear enough. I think you did make that point in your presentation, but I wanted it to be confirmed.

It's interesting, because your recommendation on what should happen with the residency requirement kind of changed from your written recommendation, which recommended using a physical requirement of three years out of six, to your verbal recommendation, in which you said, well, why do we need it at all, what does it really measure, what's the real purpose of requiring a physical presence? It's interesting that this changed from the time you sent in your written recommendation until now. Can you explain why that is?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes. Thank you for your perceptiveness. It's a progression of thought, I think.

When I was thinking about this issue, I said three out of four years is the current law and then the proposal is to extend it to three out of five years by requiring physical residency. Then when we were talking about it in our own group, we were talking about three out of six, about making it 50%. When we came up with that, it was after a comparison with other countries—Australia, U.S., Singapore—and three out of five apparently was the most stringent of all the immigrant-taking countries there are. So we thought three out of six, 50%, would put us right around the median among the countries offering that.

But then I thought more about that. Really, does it make that much difference whether it's three years out of four or five or six when we're talking about instilling Canadianness in someone?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Did you see the presentation made just before you presented?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What did you think of that concept, of maybe having a certain minimum residency requirement? It's kind of like a Dutch auction on the part of the previous presenters. They started at two years when I asked a question; it was one and a half when Mr. Pagtakhan asked it the first time, and one when it was asked the second time. So a continually declining physical presence requirement was suggested by the presenters. But they did recommend a combination of a certain minimum physical presence being required and then the rest of the commitment to Canada being shown through maybe a combination of community service work and just involvement in the community.

• 1935

Mr. Mason Loh: I like that idea. I think it's creative. On the other hand, I'm a little concerned because we know our government is very responsible fiscally, trying to cut down costs of running the government and all of that. When we're talking about examining each application in detail and what exactly they do, a proposal like that may create more cost issues and all of that.

I would say I like the concept and I like the creativity and I like the discretionary aspect of it. Basically, I think it would be a wrong thing to do if we tried to cut everything down the middle and say, if you don't make the physical residency of 1,095 days, you're not going to be a Canadian citizen. I just can't accept that kind of concept.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But if you look at the involvement of the immigration department, in terms of checking the documentation provided by people applying for citizenship in regard to the physical presence aspect, it would seem to me that would require an awful lot of time and resources as well. Would this type of program that was suggested by the previous presenters really make for any more work or any more cost on the part of the department?

Mr. Mason Loh: I have to agree with the first part of your question. It is a lot of work that the department has to review everybody's case to decide whether they actually fulfil those requirements. So I would like to simplify things to say, what is the law clearly and do you fall under it or not? But for people who have genuine reasons, they can present those and then the government can look at it.

I do see some appeal in that particular proposal. As long as it doesn't create a lot of costs and administrative burden in running the program, I can see that. But I can't see that as a wide-scale thing, like requiring all immigrants to go through that. This is because that would create a lot of extra work and administrative costs.

The Chair: I would like to yield the floor now to Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you. You began your remarks by observing that people want to become Canadians because they want to become Canadians, basically. We accept that, because I think people all across the world want to become Canadian because Canada has very many positive attributes.

You ended your remarks by wondering why we had to have paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d). It seemed to you that they could be merged in what you said, actually.

Mr. Mason Loh: No, sorry. That wasn't what I said.

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, excuse me then.

Mr. Mason Loh: Do you want me clarify it?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, yes, clarify it.

Mr. Mason Loh: Okay. What I said was paragraphs (c) and (d) are separated for a specific purpose.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Mr. Mason Loh: I see paragraphs (c) and (d) as being separated for a specific purpose, one dealing with language and the other dealing with knowledge.

Mr. John Bryden: What you actually said is that if you had knowledge of language, then you would have, you thought, sufficient knowledge of rights and privileges. Knowledge of language brought knowledge of rights and privileges.

Now you did say that, which is fine. But I would like to observe for you that in paragraph 6(1)(d), the wording was “an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges”, not just the rights and privileges.

So I just ask you, in your view—and I'm sure you'll say yes and that's fine—surely when one seeks citizenship in another land one should be prepared to adopt responsibilities along with that citizenship. You would agree with that?

Mr. Mason Loh: Absolutely.

Mr. John Bryden: Would you not agree also—and this is where the language comes in to some degree—that it is very necessary to also understand what those responsibilities are? Those responsibilities have to be defined.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: You would agree with that?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: You don't mind? I know this is—

Mr. Mason Loh: No, no.

Mr. John Bryden: So you would agree with that. Because of that reasoning, surely in the act we should be very, very clear about what those responsibilities of being a Canadian are. Now I would suggest to you that one of the things that's missing in the act as it's presented now is that nowhere in the act does it define that one of the responsibilities of being a Canadian is respect for human rights. It's not in this act anywhere. It's not in the oath. It's nowhere.

I would hope you would agree with me. I hope you don't mind my leading you on a little bit like this, but in the context of what's happening in the former Yugoslavia and in the context of what's occurred in Sri Lanka, for example—and I could go on around the world—would you not agree that being a Canadian is more than just being concerned about, as we have in our current oath, Canada's rights and freedoms?

As Canadians we should be concerned about respect for human rights everywhere, and that would be a proper thing to have in the legislation.

• 1940

Having said that then, do you see some opportunity, or would it be appropriate in your mind, to try to rephrase the oath so that it did capture this type of component of being a Canadian? Do you have some thoughts on that?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, I have to say that I like the proposed new oath in general. We can pick and choose the words and all that, but I like it because it tries to capture some of the essence of what Canadian values are. Human rights and freedoms all over the world are important. The current wording just talks about our country's rights and freedoms. You're talking about maybe expanding that a little bit more to capture the Canadian compassion—

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

Mr. Mason Loh: —for the whole world and all mankind. I'm all for that because I think, being a Canadian, I'd like to see Canada stand up for those values, and we teach those values in our new citizens or aspiring citizens.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm going to ask one more question, and it's a difficult question and you can handle it however you like.

It's partly hypothetical. Theoretically we could change the act so that it involved respect for human rights, and actually later, at some time, I'm going to propose this because I believe it is a serious omission. I want to propose it for a very good reason. Here's the hypothetical situation. As you well know, it's possible to have dual citizenship, and as you well know there will be instances where people have had dual citizenships and they've been able to go back to their country of origin and become major political leaders. That has happened in various instances around the world.

Now, I suggest to you, what happens if a person who has taken an oath of citizenship that requires respect for human rights...what if that person goes to another country, becomes the leader of that country, and then engages in the type of thing we're seeing in the former Yugoslavia, where there's ethnic cleansing? Do you think, without being specific, that perhaps this is something we should be concerned about as parliamentarians as we look at the oath of citizenship, we contemplate dual citizenship, and we contemplate the possibility that someone could take the oath of citizenship, say that they intend to respect human rights, and then go abroad and do the exact opposite? Now, under those circumstances do you think maybe we should be at least considering that as grounds for revocation of citizenship?

Mr. Mason Loh: Well, it's a very deep-thinking question. I like it. I would support your idea that if we have someone like that, a very specific situation that you're talking about, that we have the power as a country, our minister has the power, to say their Canadian citizenship is revoked.

Of course, also as Canadians we believe in due process of law. So it has to be proven that this person has done something that is drastically wrong. We can't just say we are following some other country going to war so somebody must be wrong. If we believe that, then it's hard to say, but if there is due process of law and one of our Canadian citizens has done something drastically wrong and offends the oath that he's taken as a Canadian citizen, I'd like to believe that we have the right to do that, to revoke his citizenship.

Mr. John Bryden: I would just thank the witness for the candid reply, because it's refreshing to have witnesses who aren't afraid to answer questions that are not expected.

The Chair: On that note the floor goes to Mr. McKay, another lawyer.

Mr. John McKay: First of all, I want to thank you for your very good presentation, very thoughtful. Your reputation has preceded you. You expressed the opinion that you didn't know what politicians do. Well, I suspect you know greatly, and should you ever wish to work twice the number of hours you're presently working at probably a fraction of your salary, I'm sure we could find you a riding.

We want to have an aspiring career as opposed to some other kind of career.

• 1945

I wanted to go to the essence of your testimony with respect to the two lines of authority that have emerged and are in the case law. One question is, do you have a significant attachment to Canada and therefore we can excuse a whole bunch of days of absence? The other is, shall we say, more black-letter law, which is you're here or you're not—period, end of sentence.

The minister has chosen the latter, extended the time in which you can qualify, but made it pretty darn simple. You're either in or you're out. In part, I suspect—and this is where I'm going off into suspicion more than anything else—there's a sense in which if a person is not physically resident...and this is really the only objective test you can put to an aspiring citizen, as to their attachment to Canada. The rest is often a little airy-fairy, shall we say. There's a sense in which that offends Canadians, that people are either making investments, or depositing money here, carrying on business as usual out of another country, and at the end of the landed period, etc., are picking up their investment and they're picking up a passport at the same time. There's a sense in which that devalues one's sense of the citizenship of Canada, which many people believe to be the best citizenship in the world.

I'm curious as to how your thinking would enhance the sense that this is the best citizenship in the world and diminish that sense where a person is just simply getting a bonus on their investment.

Mr. Mason Loh: That's a very good question, Mr. McKay. I struggle with that issue myself. I have to say, when I try to think about issues like that, I try to think about what is in the best interest of the country. As lawyers, learned friends, you know that sometimes a good case makes bad law. We don't know how many bad apples are out there. If we pass law, try to deal with the bad apples, and end up creating more damage to our own interests, is it the right thing to do? We don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.

I try to think about a situation—if there's a problem, let's identify the problem first. What is the problem and then what is the solution to deal with that problem? Not knee-jerk reactions based on perception or whatever. If we act too rashly, we may bring in new laws or change the policy, which will create more damage. That's the caveat I give myself. I know I'm not answering your question directly—

Mr. John McKay: But you're helping us think out loud, which I think is very important for us to do. I was particularly struck by your testimony when you said the person seeking status in this country has changed over the past 20 years, from a person who was primarily an economic immigrant to a more subtle shading of political-economic immigrant. It's something that I frankly hadn't thought of and I think it's a valid thought.

As soon as we start drifting over there, we create more ambiguity, more uncertainty, and since we are giving a status, we then end up in a situation where we're going to have various mechanisms done to find out whether this is a valid status—you know, indicia.

• 1950

Have you thought about things like changing the onus from probabilities to a higher onus of some kind? I know you've rejected the notion of a different kind of treatment for various kinds of visas. So, again, I'm inviting you to explore that a bit as more of an open dialogue than a question.

Mr. Mason Loh: I think there are options, there are many ways that could deal with it. I have to confess I haven't put a lot of thought into what is the best solution to deal with it. I believe there are some solutions and some being talked about, but I don't think this proposed amendment is going to deal with the problem. In fact, it may create more negative consequences than the problem we have in trying to deal with it.

Mr. John McKay: In essence your testimony is leave it alone. It's broken, but it's not that broken, so don't fix it.

Mr. Mason Loh: No, it's not to leave it alone; I think it needs clarification. If I had the choice I would clarify it to say residency, and not physical residency, but let's define what residency means.

The Chair: Ms. Folco has the floor now.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It so happens that I would like to continue on this particular point. I have several points I want to bring up and that is one of them.

On the question of residency, contrary to what Mr. Benoit affirmed earlier, in fact the minister did talk to us about this problem of physical residency and why she wanted to bring it within four or five years. You mentioned it yourself—we're talking about a sense of identity in these new Canadians and we're talking about a commitment to Canada.

Certainly I haven't decided in my own mind as to whether it's going to be four years, five years, any years at all. What I see really on behalf of the witnesses that have appeared before us, and I include you amongst them, is that this is a thorny problem in that nobody has ever really been able to tell us, in terms of commitment and in terms of a sense of identity, what it takes. This is partly because it takes different things for different types of people and different categories of people. I think it should be something that is more elastic. That's the only conclusion I can come to, and I can see you're nodding your head and you agree with me.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, I do agree with you, Madam. That's how I feel about it. You know, it's a very nebulous thing when we're talking about a loyalty to a country, a commitment to a country. We come to this country, we all want to belong to this country, and we believe it's the best country in the world. That's why we're here, if we're immigrants. If we're born here, it's a different situation.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: You didn't have any choice.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, although you can still leave once you're old enough, but if you chose to stay, obviously you believe this is the best place to stay, or one of the best places.

I want to share with you one anecdote in terms of what people think about physical residency. I don't know if you have heard this expression among the immigrant community. I think Mr. McKay asked the previous gentleman a question about whether people assess this citizenship residency requirement before they choose a country to immigrate to. Now, one of the expressions that's been used widely in the immigrant community is the expression “immigration jail”.

I'm translating directly. In Mandarin it's yeeminjian and in Cantonese it's yeamankam. Directly translated, it's immigration jail. This expression was reserved for the residency requirement that we always had—accumulate three out of four years. Basically a lot of immigrants felt they chose to come to this country, they already want to belong, but these requirements, like counting days.... Even before the physical residency was a requirement, even before, people said it was a real hassle having to count.... They lived here, they had their children going to school.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I do agree with all of this, but I think we must not be naive either. I have worked for a long time in immigration. In fact, I think in one of my other lives I had the pleasure of meeting you through Access. There are a number of people—I don't know how many there are and that's the problem, but there a number of people—who come to Canada not to settle here but because business-wise it is a good decision to make. There are a number of people who do this. In any system there are people who try to take advantage of the system, and this is so here as well. Now I'm not saying that because of these few people we ought to change the whole law. I think our system is a good one, and I'm not committed to how we're going to...except for this elasticity, this flexibility; I don't know.

• 1955

I think we should not be naive and we should recognize that because Canada has a good immigration system, there are many people who come here not because it is a good country, but because they know they can take advantage of it. This may seem very strange coming from somebody who's sitting on this side of the House, but I can tell you that I've worked many years in immigration, and you know what I'm saying is true as well.

I know from having talked to many people in British Columbia that there has been for a number of years a problem with immigrants from, for example—this is one example—Hong Kong when it was still a British territory, a crown territory. The family comes here, the wife and the children stay here, the man goes back or sometimes the couple go back and leave the children on their own, when they're still young enough not to have been left on their own.

So that's the kind of problem we have to grapple with. Those are the people I'm thinking of in terms of this elasticity. I wouldn't want these people to go back to Hong Kong, or wherever they have come from, and say, now I've parked my children here and I know I can come back at some other time because I've bought a house and I've invested.

Something needs to be done about that particular situation, not only in terms of our Canadian citizenship, but also, quite frankly, in terms of the children who are left here on their own or with a governess who has no authority whatsoever in most cases. I don't know whether you want to comment on this.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, I do. I do agree with you that we have to have the elasticity, flexibility, in the law to deal with various kinds of situations. The proposed amendment, like a very rigid system, 1,095 days out of five years, would be very problematic. There are many situations we could run into that it wouldn't contemplate. As I've said, working in the community, I've certainly heard enough of those from various people. As you said, the flexibility has to go both ways.

There are two types of people. There are people who abuse the system, and we've got to have a way to deal with that. Then there are people for whom, if they're caught in a system that's too rigid, it would be very unfair and very problematic. So I do agree with you that we have to have that flexibility.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If I have more time, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I do have another question that cropped up during the discussion. It has to do with the English and French, the knowledge of Canadian culture and rights and responsibilities.

I believe very strongly that—and I'm going to be really careful how I say this, because I know it's a thorn in a lot of peoples' sides—it is important for a nation to have a sense of identity to be able to have a language or languages in common. This leaves people who wish to speak another language free to do so.

For example, in my own family we speak French. That is the language we have in common, but we have also in the family some who speak some Italian, some Yiddish, some German, and so on.

Though there's an individual component, there is a national component. So when you said, if I understood this correctly—correct me if I didn't—that as far as the language thing is concerned, you didn't see the language requirement as being, how shall I put it, something that made a better or worse citizen, I would beg to differ, because I think ultimately—and I insist on the word “ultimately”—our aim as Canadians is to have a language or languages in common. I'm being very careful about how I put it, because we know first-generation immigrants very often don't get to that ultimate, but we expect it of the second and third generation, while we respect their right to keep their own language. So I beg to differ with you on the importance of the language.

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes, Madam. Actually, I have to say that I don't disagree with you. Maybe I didn't make myself clear when I made my point.

What I said was, under paragraph 6(1)(c), there is already a requirement that an aspiring citizen has to have fluency in one of the official languages. That provision is fine. It was there before, and it's now proposed to be in the new act. That's fine; there is no problem with that. I totally support it and agree with it.

• 2000

The problem I have is with paragraph 6(1)(d), the part about an aspiring citizen having to have adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. That's perfectly fine. I totally agree that this should be there. It's the following sentence, the words that are added in this new act, that I have a problem with, where it says:

and is able to communicate that knowledge in one of the official languages of Canada without the assistance of an interpreter.

That part I have a problem with, because we already have a provision that says you have to have certain fluency in one of the official languages to become a Canadian citizen. The knowledge of Canada and understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of a Canadian citizen...as long as a person understands those things, does it matter how well they can articulate those things in one of the official languages itself? That's the question I pose.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: May I ask one last question, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Okay, but make it very short.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It will be a very short one. It has to do with the fall in the numbers of the business category in immigration. We know there has been a drastic fall in numbers in the last couple of years, and when I've talked to people, I've tried to understand why that is. We know there have been political changes in Asia, and particularly in Hong Kong, for example, so we could expect that it would peak and then it would go down. This has happened.

We also know there has been a fall in markets. I'm talking about Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia. But I was in Taiwan recently and they told me that there wasn't such a fall in the markets in Taiwan, yet we have seen a fall in the number of Taiwanese business people who wish to come to Canada.

I'd like your interpretation of why those numbers have fallen so drastically as far as immigration of the business class to Canada is concerned.

Mr. Mason Loh: As I said a little earlier, I think it's a combination of reasons. It's hard to put a finger on it. I know our minister had suggested it was the Asian financial crisis. I don't believe that is the only reason, and maybe not even the major reason.

Because the drop-off started two years ago, before the Asian financial crisis actually started, I think it has to do with.... When you talk about immigration, you always talk about push and pull; people have to dislike for some reason the place where they are staying, and they have to like the place to which they are going, like in Canada. So I believe a lot has to do with what is happening in the source country.

In Hong Kong, there has been a perceived stability with the changeover in sovereignty, control, so people's interest went down. In Canada, there is a problem with our economy, especially on the west coast in the last year. Two years ago it wasn't as bad, but now it's really bad. So people are not interested, really, in coming and investing, especially for business class, the people we're talking about with the capital and the interest to make investment in Canada.

So it's a combination of factors, and also our policies. You may or may not know that when our government announces a change in our immigration policy, very often it appears in headlines in some overseas countries, such as Taiwan, or Hong Kong, or some other places. So if we have a change of policy...some of the policies we've been proposing or have actually implemented have not been perceived as welcoming. If you have visited Taiwan, you will know what I'm talking about; I don't want to take everybody's time.

The Chair: The chair would like to ask a couple of questions.

Is your understanding of adequacy of knowledge different from one's ability to convey a knowledge of something?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes.

The Chair: In what sense?

Mr. Mason Loh: There's a provision in paragraph 6(1)(c) about fluency in one of the official languages of Canada. That, I understand, is tailored to every applicant's individual circumstances when that knowledge is judged.

For example, as a policy, I understand we don't test seniors, people over 60 years old, because we understand that they may have difficulty learning a language at that advanced age. If it's a housewife who doesn't work outside of the home, just attends to children, maybe their language fluency will not be the same as someone who is actively participating in the labour force. So there's a range of fluency, and there has to be that flexibility that Madam was talking about in applying these rules to the individual applicants.

• 2005

My worry with this suggestion of wanting applicants to enunciate their knowledge of Canada and their rights, responsibilities, and privileges as Canadian citizens is it is an extra hurdle for immigrants aspiring to be citizens, when it really doesn't necessarily add a lot. I understand, with the language requirement, a lot of times people are tested on a very reasonable level. We understand these immigrants have learned the language enough that they can function in our society. We have already established our standard, so why are we raising that standard and wanting people to be able to articulate...? Sometimes it's not easy to articulate issues like responsibilities, privileges, and knowledge of Canada.

The Chair: Do you have a question on this point?

Mr. John Bryden: After you're done, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: That is why I posed the question to you. Obviously, if there is a difference in the level of the adequacy of knowledge of language between the two sections, I can see your point. If there is no difference, there is no point to be made. Right?

Mr. Mason Loh: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. So we will clarify that.

In terms of the physical presence, I have been reflecting on your very lucid presentation. When you look at the social programs in the country, such as medicare, a very important social program, there is no difference in terms of privileges and access to it between a citizen and an immigrant.

When you look at job opportunities, except perhaps for very special circumstances in terms of national security, citizenship is not a requirement. In terms of mobility from place to place within Canada, whether you are a citizen or an immigrant, you are protected, with equal rights. But when you run for public office, certainly at the federal level and I think even at the provincial level, and when you vote for public officials, citizenship is a requirement.

So there is an element of standard of importance, because citizenship confers a right to a person in Canada that will allow that person to run for public office and be able to vote. Now, imagine there is no physical requirement of presence and one is able to run for public office. Have you thought about that?

Mr. Mason Loh: I will put that question back to you. If someone doesn't even live here, why would he want to run for office?

The Chair: That's why I'm posing this to you. Conceivably, if there is no physical requirement—and one is a proclamation of sense of attachment—if there is no physical presence required and one has citizenship already, theoretically that person—unless you require an election law—must be a resident for six months in a given constituency, or what have you. Then the physical requirement is the only one that will be governed by the election law, whereas the automatic right to seek public office and even vote will be there, notwithstanding a minimum requirement for a physical presence in the country, where one is to vote and where one is to serve.

Mr. Mason Loh: I agree with you it is a logical thing to require someone who wants to vote or run for office to be a Canadian citizen. If you have citizenship you have made an oath to this country that you are committed and loyal to it. So when you cast that vote, you're thinking about the best interests of the country, or when you're running for office you're thinking that once you get into office you will work for the best interests of the country. I agree with that.

But what we're talking about here is before someone acquires that citizenship, does it really matter? Let's take your example. If it's someone who hasn't really spent a lot of time in Canada and is not committed to Canada—you have to take those two conditions—why would that person be running for office in this country? Even if he does have an interest, for whatever reason—some ulterior motive, let's say—to want to run for office in Canada, the fact that he doesn't have an understanding or knowledge of this country, because he's never really committed to this country—he wouldn't be elected in the first place anyway.

The Chair: Things can happen too. Please continue.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: What about the ethnic vote?

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

• 2010

Mr. John Bryden: If I may just follow up very briefly, in your view should one be required to take the oath of citizenship in one of Canada's official languages, or should one be allowed to take that oath of citizenship in the language of one's choice?

Mr. Mason Loh: That's a very good question. I see advantages for both, but on balance I would probably say it's more important for that person to understand and appreciate the meaning of that oath than the language he uses to take that oath.

Mr. John Bryden: Then wouldn't you agree if the oath defined the responsibilities and privileges of being Canadian—which is what the oath is supposed to do and I don't think it quite does it as it stands—wouldn't that fulfil the requirements of paragraph 6(1)(d), the ability to speak and communicate the rights and responsibilities in the official language, if the prospective Canadians were required to recite the oath in either English or French? Then they would have to know what the oath contained and would fulfil the conditions of paragraph 6(1)(d). It would work then, wouldn't it?

Mr. Mason Loh: Absolutely. I love the idea.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Chair: On that note, I would like to thank you again on behalf of the committee for your very excellent presentation, Mr. Loh.

Mr. Mason Loh: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members.

The Chair: We have one more group of witnesses through the videoconference.

The last witness—you see we are hard-working parliamentarians here. We would like to invite the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants. Welcome to the committee. Can you hear us?

Ms. Katherine Manvell (Director, Western Canada, Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.): Yes, I can hear you very well.

Welcome from beautiful downtown Vancouver, where we have an embarrassing outbreak of daffodils and cherry blossoms right at the moment.

The Chair: We're glad to hear that. I apologize for being late by about half an hour, but we got excited with some of the witnesses here.

I would like to welcome Ms. Katherine Manvell. Please proceed with your opening remarks.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee, good evening.

My name is Kate Manvell and on behalf of the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you in regard to Bill C-63, the Citizenship of Canada Act.

• 2015

From 1989 until 1994, I served as a full-time Citizenship Court judge in British Columbia. Prior to that I was married to a member of Parliament. How's that for past history?

In 1994 I returned to the private sector, and since that date I have operated a private consulting company. This evening I appear before you as a national director and the western chair for the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants.

It has been, to my personal knowledge, at least some 15 years that the Government of Canada has been talking about changing the Citizenship Act. Now Bill C-63 has found its way through two readings in the House of Commons to committee stage.

In 1994, when the Liberal government joined together the two departments of immigration and citizenship, the objective was to streamline and make the processing of citizenship cost-efficient. At that time, changes in administrative processing were introduced. Applicants mailed in their applications to Sydney, Nova Scotia, rather than being interviewed by a citizenship officer. Written tests were scheduled for applicants versus Citizenship Court judges interviewing all applicants to test language and knowledge skills.

Using the Vancouver court as an example, these changes reduced the public service staff from 32 employees to five, and three full-time judges and two part-time judges to four part-time judges now in Vancouver. Statistics tell us that the number of applications processed in 1998 were equivalent or greater in some regions to what they were in 1994. One significant difference is that an application in 1994 was most often processed in a five- to seven-month period, compared to 1998, when the average processing time was twice as long, 10 to 14 months.

In my opinion, Bill C-63 will not accomplish what the Government of Canada perhaps fully intends when they introduce the new regulations. I would suggest that the proposed legislation in regard to the residency requirement should require an applicant to report absences from Canada for a period of more than six months. This would enable international business people to travel to and from Canada without disqualifying them from Canadian citizenship.

If a permanent resident of Canada establishes their home in Canada and has all the necessary documents to prove that they have maintained a residency, should it really matter whether they have physically lived in Canada for 1,095 days? Purchasing a home, paying your taxes, and raising your children in Canada are most certainly being a part of Canadian society.

Please consider the fact, of course, that in 20 years the population of baby boomers is 50% less than the population that will be following us. That means 50% fewer Canadians to buy our homes and pay taxes. We need new immigrants and we need to keep the permanent residents that we are now disqualifying from Canadian citizenship in order to survive.

Are we not in direct contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when we deny one member of a family Canadian citizenship because he or she chooses or must continue to work outside of Canada or to do business outside of Canada?

This act should be and can be an act of Parliament that is in step with the 21st century. International travel, as you all know, is a fact of life and will continue to be. I would ask that you please consider my recommendation that only absences from Canada for a period of six months or longer be reported when applying for Canadian citizenship.

OPIC, the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, believes that the decision of the Federal Court to revoke citizenship should be appealable. OPIC supports the provision to grant citizenship to adopted children, but OPIC strongly opposes the retroactive provisions of Bill C-63.

In regard to changing the Citizenship Court judges to citizenship commissioners, I would suggest that this position is redundant under Bill C-63 and it should be eliminated. Eliminating the quasi-judicial role of a Citizenship Court judge also eliminates the court from Canadian citizenship, thereby making it—the intent of the bill, I believe—an administrative process.

• 2020

Under Bill C-63, the Citizenship of Canada Act processing would be streamlined to an application for Canadian citizenship. After receiving clearances, you would complete a written test. Those who passed the written test would be sent a notice to appear. They would swear the oath of citizenship before a citizenship officer and would receive their citizenship certificate. For those who didn't pass the test, they would not be granted Canadian citizenship.

Canadian citizenship swearing-in ceremonies could still be conducted on Canada Day, during Heritage Week, and at special school events. These ceremonies could be presided over by the elected member of Parliament for the riding, members of the Privy Council, or Order of Canada recipients.

In closing, I would share with you the written words of the Honourable Madam Justice Southin in the Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, November 27, 1998:

One could not disregard in addressing such a question that, at the time of Confederation, laws relating to “immigration” were laws to assist people to come to Canada, not laws, as later became enacted, to keep people out.

It is such that Canadian citizenship is the natural progression after obtaining permanent residence status and thus should be given the same consideration.

Please ensure that your work, your decision as members of Parliament on the standing committee studying Bill C-63, is a Citizenship of Canada Act that keeps people in Canada.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you so much for the very concise presentation.

Mr. Benoit, you have the floor.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Good evening. I, too, appreciate your concise remarks.

First of all, in regard to residency and the residency requirement as it's written, you express some concern that this section of this legislation contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'm not going to get into any more detail on that, but I would like to ask you about your comment that the act should ignore absences of less than six months. In effect, wouldn't that pretty much just revert to the old legislation in regard to residency, when you look at the application of the current act?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Under the current act, all absences have to be reported. The new act proposes that you would report all your absences if you were out of Canada for more than 1,095 days in a five-year period. If you do not remain in Canada for a period of 1,095 days, you're going to be disqualified. Most international business people travel back and forth from Canada frequently during the six-month period, for example. By making the six-month requirement, that would ensure that people were maintaining a home here and did have their families here. It would only be for people who physically left Canada for over 183 days, and I think those are the people we should be questioning and looking at objectively in terms of not receiving citizenship, because they're not living in Canada. It would then not disqualify the international business people whom the present act and this act will disqualify from citizenship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So your main concern is to accommodate people who travel a lot in carrying out business.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of the differences between the application, you're saying all absences have to be reported right now.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: From what I've heard, it seems to me that it's really not a firm requirement, that it's very loosely enforced. That's why I'm asking whether there really would be much difference in the real application of the current act and that of the proposed legislation if the amendment you propose here regarding the six months is put in place.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'm not too sure who you've been listening to in regard to these people. People must report their absences. If they don't and their passports are checked or they're picked up in a quality check at the court, they could be in big trouble for that. People are now supposed to be reporting all their absences.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you think it's fairly carefully enforced.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Well, how carefully? It's on the honour system, as many of our laws in Canada are.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Particularly when travelling back and forth between Canada and the United States.

• 2025

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Exactly. I hate to have it that we have laws in place that encourage people to cheat. The six-month requirement would eliminate a lot of people panicking about not receiving their citizenship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is your concern only the difficulty in meeting these residency requirements? Or do you have any concerns at all about the inconvenience or even the difficulty in terms of the individual who is applying for citizenship, proving they have had the required number of days of physical presence?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'm sorry, I don't totally understand your question. Repeat it again, will you?

Mr. Leon Benoit: According to the minister, the onus will be on the person applying for citizenship to prove that he or she has been physically present in the country 1,095 days out of the five years. Do you see that as being something that would be difficult for some individuals to actually prove, to demonstrate, particularly if they're doing business in the United States? It's very difficult to prove whether you're in Canada or the United States, because you just drive through the border checkpoints in most cases.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: It's impossible, and the department cannot govern or legislate that. It's the same as Revenue Canada trying to ask about worldwide assets. How do we police that?

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that another concern is the difficulty in the department actually enforcing this law if it's enacted as proposed in the legislation.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: They can't. We know that. They can't enforce it the way it is now, so why not make it a little bit more lenient in order to accommodate those people who are legitimately living here? This six-month requirement would definitely solve that problem.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've made a really important statement there in saying that the minister would not be able to enforce the law she's proposing to put in place.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: As you said, people can go in and out of the United States. From Vancouver, they can fly into Seattle and come across the border. They would perhaps come in after they've been gone for a year or two years. We have that access. How can I physically prove to you that I've lived here for the last year? The minister certainly can't unless she has put an RCMP officer outside my door for 1,095 days.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's a concern I've expressed in regard to this portion of the act, but the members opposite and the minister say they can do it; they will figure out a way.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Well, I'm here to tell you that—

Mr. Leon Benoit: You can't do it.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thank you.

In regard to the citizenship judges, you've said very clearly that because the current role of the citizenship judges, which is a substantive role, will be moved to the department, that this position should be completely eliminated. It makes sense.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Why have it other than for a few patronage appointments? It's always been them and us. It was was when I was in the court. There's the public service and there are the political appointees. With the changes, they're not needed.

I think you could still do ceremonies because the Citizenship Court would still be in place to organize them. I think no one better than members of Parliament or Privy Council members or the Order of Canada is needed when you want to do ceremonies at school.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Or it could possibly be local elected officials, mayors of towns and cities. There are a lot of good ideas there.

You have some very interesting perspectives here. You've been a citizenship judge; you've seen the proposals that the responsibility go to the department under this proposed legislation. Which system do you think would actually work better and be most efficient? Which would you prefer?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'm sorry, but how broad is that question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's as broad as you want to make it in your response.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: After working in the system for over the past ten years and more, I think the biggest problem is the residency. As we know from statistics, ninety-odd percent of your applicants have no criminal records and there are no problems. That other 10% may have criminal records, they don't speak any English, and they're under 60 years of age for example, or they don't pass the written test. But the basic problem right now is the residency requirement for our international business people who travel in and out of Canada. I think that's my main objection. If I were to change anything in the act, I would want to change that.

• 2030

Mr. Leon Benoit: In regard to the various proposed changes to adoption rules, do you see any improvement through the changes, or do you have concerns with any of those changes?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think they're worthwhile changes?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Yes, and my OPIC group supports those changes as well, as I mentioned.

Mr. Leon Benoit: All of them?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'd have to get back to you on that one. I came in with a couple of major things because I knew I had only seven minutes, so I don't have a consensus from my OPIC group to be able to tell you whether they agree with all of them or not.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One in particular would use Canadian law on adoptions to determine what would be considered to be an acceptable adoption, rather than using the adoption laws of the country of origin. It's one that has come up many times. I would be interested in your reaction to that.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Okay, if you want to know, I totally agree with what is proposed, and I'm sure my OPIC members would agree as well. I think I can speak on their behalf to say that it's a good idea. If there's any abuse in the system, that would definitely eliminate it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. I would certainly like to react to the things you've said. First of all, I find the six months to be a very interesting concept. For the first time in my experience, at least, I see the possibility of getting out of this conundrum about whether it should be so many days in three years, so many days in four years, or whatever. That's a real thorn in our side and in the side of many of the witnesses who have appeared before us.

It's true that we're working on the honour system. It's true that with our laws in Canada we're used to, as we say in French, donner la chance au coureur. That is, we trust a person unless that person has shown to deserve the opposite. But realistically, how do you see the six months working? If I want to leave and not tell the department that I have left for six months, do you see any system, whether it's through passports or—I hate to say it—cards of identity or something like that, whereby we could see the comings and goings of the people who leave the country before they have their citizenship? That's my first question.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Regardless of what is passed, there will always be that small minority of abuse, and, yes, people could still get around that. But this six-month period would be for those people who do tell the truth or who haven't applied because they can't meet the qualifications. It allows them to have Canadian citizenship.

So it will not stop any of the abuse that's there now, such as illegal passports coming through from the States, but what it would do is allow Canadian citizenship for thousands of people who, in my view, have maintained or do have a home here.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I certainly like that idea, and for the same reason you've mentioned: because it allows those people who are in good faith to be able to live up to the law without having any problems.

The second question I ask concerns the ceremony of citizenship. Many of the MPs I've talked to are already very worried by the fact that when they have by chance gone to a citizenship ceremony, they have often felt the ceremony itself did not have enough, for lack of a better word, of a ceremony, partly because perhaps there wasn't a judge there or whatever. That's one problem.

The other problem is that although I rather like the idea of having the MPs—or other people as suggested—present as the key person at the ceremony.... I come from Quebec. It so happens that in Quebec we do have a large number of MPs who do not believe in Canadian citizenship. When I look at it in reality, I say to myself that I'd be glad to do this job. I'd love it.

• 2035

I come from Laval. There are three ridings. Only one is Liberal and the other two are Bloc Québécois. Can I be sure that the other two MPs who represent the Bloc Québécois will do justice to a ceremony where Canadian citizenship is being presented, with all the honours? I have a very big problem, not in the theory—I like the theory—but in the reality of it. I don't know whether you want to comment on this.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Just quickly, I would say that whether it's the Order of Canada or the Privy Council or a member of Parliament or, as we were, judges, some do more compassionate jobs than others, and that would remain. I sincerely hope that some day in Quebec there will not be a Bloc Québécois. That's not a partisan statement. I hope we can all believe in Canadian citizenship very soon.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Well, not tomorrow morning, that is for sure. Thank you very much.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: You're welcome.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I just ask what period you were a citizenship judge? What years?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: It was from 1989 to 1994.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm very interested in the section here about ceremony and notes. Paragraph 33(2)(b) requires that the citizenship commissioner “ensure that the oath of citizenship is taken with dignity and solemnity”. I'm very much along the same line of thinking as my colleague. I think there's been a huge erosion of the ceremony and the sacredness of the ceremony in recent years.

Canada is the only nation that accepts large numbers of citizens that has eliminated God from the oath of citizenship. The United States has an invocation of God—and Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and all the rest of them. Do you think we could increase the solemnity of the occasion, in accordance with what is said here in the legislation, by putting some sort of reference to God back into the oath of citizenship? It's been gone since 1973, just for your information.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: It's very difficult, because we are no longer just all Christians living in Canada. As a Citizenship Court judge of over 25,000 people—

Mr. John Bryden: Let me just stop you right there. I said God, but I didn't say it was a Christian God.

My very next question to you is this. With your experience as a Citizenship Court judge, surely many people from other countries, be they Hindu or Muslim or whatever, when they encounter the word “God”, they think of their God. They don't think of a particular Christian God.

In that context, would you like to again comment? Could we put some sort of indication of God back in it, and would it be meaningful to people coming from other lands when they approach the oath of citizenship?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: You're right, and I apologize. You did catch me on that. Of course, all my Muslim friends and my Buddhist friends...everyone says “Thank God”. Everyone has their God. It doesn't have to be a Christian God. So thank you for correcting me on that.

Yes, I was going to say, of the 25,000 people that I had the honour of swearing in, not one complained about the oath and taking allegiance and believing as part of your country. The majority of them talked about when they come to the country, they come to accept certain qualities and standards. I have no problem with that being reintroduced, but I would also have to say there has not been a problem since 1973.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me just explain. I'm seeking a reaction from you. The reason I think it's important is that we are now in a state of the world in which new Canadians are often torn by their former citizenships, indeed those citizenships that they may be retaining; who come from parts of the world where there are ethnic conflicts, conflicts that tear them one way or another. If we put God back into the oath, in your experience, would that not enhance, however marginally, their sense of responsibility to the oath they are taking if we in some way connect it with the God of their religion? Would it indeed not help a little bit?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I agree, but I would like to just quickly add that when you're talking about oath and dignity and trying to get something back together again, I think those days of a good citizenship ceremony are gone, because, you're right, without the RCMP in their uniforms, their scarlet tunic, and without a judge in robes, you lose that whole court aspect. I'm sorry, it's getting so watered down, to my thinking, it's almost getting to be a stamp and a passport.

• 2040

So I guess as honourable members of this committee you have to make those decisions on whether you want to try to say, hey, hold on, we don't want to go this far. This is where you have to do it. Otherwise, it will be an administrative process.

Right now in Vancouver they are swearing in 500 people at a time. I have people tell me that from the fourth row on they can't even hear the oath.

So if you go back to doing the oath, and if it's going to be this watered down without courts, there is no reason why an officer cannot take an oath from someone one on one, because now it's no longer an intimate, personal ceremony.

Mr. John Bryden: So maybe I'm right in assuming that there's a good reason why the oath is just tacked on as an afterthought in this legislation and there's been no serious attempt to upgrade it, revise it, or make it meaningful. I thank you very much for your remarks.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Thank you.

The Chair: I would like to pose one question and then I will yield the floor again to Mr. Benoit.

You alluded to a potential discrimination based on the Charter of Rights and Freedom with respect to a member of the family not granted citizenship because of physical absence. I am not pursuing the question, but because you mentioned the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how in Canada we seem to hesitate to speak about God, and yet in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedom it is clearly stated...and, I recall, invoking the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms follow. It is right in the Constitution of Canada, and I wonder why sometimes we even hesitate to invoke that when in fact it is already in the Constitution of Canada. Am I right in my observation?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Of course.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have one more question for you. You were a citizenship judge for five years, roughly. Probably in that time you developed a good understanding of some of the problems with the current Citizenship Act. In terms of residency, I would like to ask you for your thoughts on...your guess maybe as to why the minister put in this new legislation the residency requirements that are there.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'll be perfectly blunt. Whether it's immigration or citizenship, we seem to have an attitude now to make things more difficult for people, and this doesn't just come from people in my industry, but it's why I quoted Madam Justice Southin in her statement in November in a court here in Vancouver. I guess if you make things a little difficult for people, it keeps the process going or it keeps the system going. But I don't believe we can, on one hand, woo people to come to our country and accept them, whether they come as business class or independent, without allowing them to become Canadian citizens without having to cheat or lie about it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think the requirements that would be put in place with this legislation would require that people would have to cheat and lie, in many cases, to meet the test?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Yes, on the residency.

Mr. Leon Benoit: On the residency, I mean. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your frank comments.

The Chair: Madame Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chair, I would be very remiss if I didn't add my grain of salt to two of the declarations from members of my own party.

For myself, I must say, regarding the oath and the presence or absence of God in the oath, I feel very strongly, coming from Quebec where we have the choice when we appear in court to either put our hand on the bible or to make what we call in French une déclaration solonnelle, a solemn declaration on our own word of honour, that we have that choice. I don't think having this choice takes away from the seriousness of our subsequent declarations in court after that.

My comments are even perhaps partially to you, but certainly more perhaps to my colleague. I feel very strongly that although I respect other people's belief in God, and I respect it very highly, I want other people to respect my feelings that I don't want to use God in a declaration. I want to make my declaration as a person of good faith and as a prospective citizen if I'm going to be such. I want my declaration to be made clear.

• 2045

Mr. John Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're not debating here; we're interviewing the witness. I think Madame Folco's remarks, which are directed towards my remarks, are basically out of order. We can have this discussion privately elsewhere.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I was coming to a question, if you don't mind.

The Chair: Sometimes the chair allows a special imagination.

Proceed, Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Certainly we will have that discussion one of these days, because I feel very strongly about that.

My comment really had to do with the fact that if we're talking about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think the rights of people who do not wish to use the name of God, who do not believe in God—and those people do exist—have to be respected. By not putting the word “God” into such a declaration, it also respects the rights of people who do not wish to use the name of God.

I wonder if you would like to react to that.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: You want me to run and jump in the middle of the two of you here?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: No, I don't. I just felt you were being led down the garden path, and I want you to know that there is another garden that is possible.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'm sorry, but I'm a very spiritual person, so I'm going to agree with A. I like the idea of God. I have many Muslim friends, Buddhist friends, whatever. God is often used in their topic of conversation.

On the other point, quickly, when I was a Citizenship Court judge, the Canadian Bible Society brought in the New Testament, but for people who wanted to swear on the Koran or something, those books were always provided. Religious books were always provided in the court. At some point, they were removed. There was never an outcry from new Canadians. This was just something the government decided to do.

Once again, we're back to whether we're going to take the consensus of what people object to. After the bibles were removed, for a few years following that, a lot of people said they were really sorry because they were looking forward to it. They felt a little terrible, but they would bring it and they would often ask the judge or the RCMP officer to sign it. On the front cover, there was a place where you could sign the date on which they were sworn in and everything, so it was a small token that they could take home if they wished. When it was eliminated, we had a lot of people—probably quite a few hundred people—who would say after their ceremony, when they had their pictures taken, that they were sorry we no longer did that.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If I could just reply to that, my comment is not to eliminate other people's rights. My comment is to add the rights of another group of persons we have not included in this, and these are the people who don't wish to use the name of God in this. If you are Muslim, Bhuddist, Christian, Jew or whatever, I have no objection to the idea that you can take the oath on the book that is the book you use commonly in prayer. I just want to bring in the fact that there may be people who don't wish to do so.

Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bryden, I will allow you the floor, but you must promise you will not debate.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, but I just want to build on her point.

The problem that has occurred is that we have apparently erred the other way by eliminating God, by eliminating the instruments of any sort of religious affiliation. This is not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps for the benefit of a very, very small number who are atheist—and I think the number of actual atheists among new Canadians, from most countries at any rate, is very small—we've deprived the majority of the recognition that for the majority of Canadians, of Canada, in the Charter of Rights, we are a country that is united before God, if not all believers in a particular God. At least most of us would think of that as part of what we are. Maybe that is what we have deprived people of, and perhaps we can return it to the oath so that people know that God is there first for most of us. Then, if they do elect to solemnly take the oath and eliminate God from the oath, they should have to actually make an application to the citizenship commissioner and explain what they're doing. But we should surely not automatically take away God from all the new Canadians who want to come before us. Is that not true?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I think that would bring God back into the schools again.

The Chair: Ms. Manvell, do you have any comment on the last comment?

• 2050

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Well, I'll just quickly say there is that option. You put God back in, but people standing with their hand raised, if they prefer not to, they don't say it. We had that before with the oath, if they did not wish to use the words “I swear”. So I'll leave that to all of you in your wisdom.

The Chair: Now, I'd like to pursue a few more questions.

In reporting the absence greater than six months, I am not quite clear from you yet as to the physical presence as a requirement. Are you making any submission to physical presence over a period of time or not?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I'm sorry, I'm not too sure what you have asked, but I'll answer your question the best I can understand. I believe people at the time of their application, if they've been absent from Canada, would list...the question would be asked, have you been out of Canada for a period of more than six months in the twelve-month period? If they checked off yes, then we would ask them to list. So you would show the block at six months or more that you were absent.

But everyone who has been absent from Canada would then be required to provide proof, to give residency documents—ownership of your home, the taxes you paid, ownership of your car, what you do now. So that would be proof to the court through the paper administrative process that you were maintaining a home in Canada.

Does that answer the question?

The Chair: That should count as a requirement for filling the residency requirement. The maintenance of a home, payment of taxes, maintaining the family in Canada, even in the absence of one member of the family who is equally applying for citizenship—the three factors, the presence of the three criteria, ought to be able to compensate for the physical absence in Canada. Is that your submission?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: I think I'd say yes to that.

The Chair: Now, with respect to the citizenship commissioner, you indicated requesting members of Parliament, perhaps members of the Privy Council and the Order of Canada—and all are excellent people, I would say in all modesty. But maybe they lack the continuity and regulatory of a set of officials performing these particular but very important duties, which over a period of time in fact also leads to the creation of expertise and knowledge that can only contribute to the betterment of the process itself. Don't you agree to that?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: No, because that's what's been happening now. Since 1994, the Citizenship Court judges now are only appointed for a year, and in many cases they weren't renewed, and now it's going to be changing. Before that our appointments were for three or five years, and some were part-time, some were full-time. So there has not been any continuity that way. Some judges talk for 15 minutes and others for five. So it's very difficult for ceremony situations to say, okay, this is the agenda and you have to stick to it.

The Chair: But an experience of three to five years, I hope you would admit, would still be better than an experience of one week and one month. In other words, if we were to get one member of Parliament one week in a year and another official one week in the same year, then the continuity definitely would suffer. Would you agree?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: If I had my druthers I would say bring back the Citizenship Court judge, and maybe you're not going to have him doing hearings and everything, but bring back the judges. To change the term to “commissioner”, that takes them out of the role; it takes the RCMP out of the court. So you either keep the position of Citizenship Court judge and put them back to three-year or five-year appointments, or I think you do away with it altogether, because to reduce them to commissioners is, as I said, redundant.

So if I had my druthers I would want them back full time in robes, with the RCMP by their side, with the flag waving in the breeze behind them.

The Chair: But we have heard in previous testimonies, in previous parliaments, that the Canadian Bar Association—I hope I am quoting it correctly—or certainly members of the legal profession, have felt over the years that the term “judge” is not too appropriate for the citizenship judges as we know them today, and over the years.

• 2055

The term is now being changed to “commissioner”, and part of the function has been modified, but a good component of development of expertise and advising the minister will continue to be retained. Don't you think it is an important function to retain?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Isn't it sad again that this act is bowing to the whims of the Canadian Bar Association?

The Chair: No—

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Is that why you're changing the name to “commissioner”? That's the fact we had—

The Chair: It's not my suggestion, but it's sort of a reflection I am posing to you, if that were true. Irrespective of whether we bow or not to a group, is the change for the good or not?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Of course not. It's not for the good.

The Chair: But why is one-half not as good as or better than zero?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: You're missing my point. It was called Canadian Citizenship Court; therefore you had a court and a judge. The reason why an RCMP member was in the court was because of the judge. If you don't have a judge, the RCMP really has no role to play there and only shows up on Canada Day.

So when we change, change it all. Why have commissioners? They're no longer playing the role of judges. They're not involved—blah, blah, blah. So why bother keeping the commissioners? It's just one more faction. I'm not going to repeat myself, because I said that in my presentation. I know you're all getting very tired.

The Chair: I'd only like to indicate that you are aware there are four duties the new citizenship commissioner may perform. It is not just to preside over ceremonies, is it?

Ms. Katherine Manvell: They're just irrelevant. It's not workable. The Citizenship Court judge is part of the daily routine of a citizenship court. Now they're proposing to have them do ceremonies some days and maybe send them out to a school to talk. That just keeps public servants busy trying to keep jobs and projects, because they're no longer part of the day-to-day operation of the department. It will no longer be the court; it will be the department of citizenship.

The Chair: On that note, I thank you so much for your presentation before the committee.

Ms. Katherine Manvell: Thank you very much. Good evening. Bonsoir.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m. in room 209, West Block.