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 21, 1999

• 1535

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): The meeting of Wednesday April 21st will meeting. Today is the 51st meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Pursuant to an Order of Reference of the House dated March 1st, 1999, we are resuming consideration of Bill C-63, an Act respecting Canadian citizenship.

We will be hearing several witnesses this afternoon. Before giving the floor to the Canadian Council for Refugees,

[English]

I'd like to welcome the people who are here from the Forum for Young Canadians. I'm glad you've chosen the immigration committee to come to hear how we practise our Canadian democracy.

With us are the various parties that represent the opposition: the Reform, NDP and the Progressive Conservatives. The Bloc member will be arriving in a few minutes. Here is the Liberal side, the party that is in power right now. I'm a Liberal member as well; my name is Raymonde Folco and I am presiding in the absence of the regular chair of this committee.

So we are now, for your information—I hope you don't mind my taking these few seconds—hearing witnesses who are going to be talking to us about their reaction to a bill that has been tabled in the House of Commons concerning Canadian citizenship. We've heard a number of witnesses, and these witnesses, representing the Canadian Council for Refugees, will be talking to us.

The purpose of this exercise is to hear witnesses, and we'll then take their testimony and make up a report that we will submit to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the hope that she will change parts of her bill in accordance to the remarks we will make to her. She'll then table it a third time and it will pass through third reading in the House of Commons.

So that's how it goes. Thank you very much for choosing our committee.

[Translation]

I will now give the floor to Ms. Aiken who will make a presentation on behalf of the Canadian Council for Refugees. Welcome, Ms. Aiken and Mr. Rico-Martinez.

[English]

Ms. Sharryn Aiken (Past-President, Canadian Council for Refugees): Thank you very much. We very much appreciate the opportunity to appear this afternoon.

I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit about the Canadian Council for Refugees. We are a national umbrella organization committed to the rights of refugees both here in Canada and around the world and the settlement of refugees and immigrants here in Canada. In particular, we're concerned about the human rights of all newcomers and their successful integration. We have member organizations from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria, B.C.

We're here today to speak about what we feel are some very important concerns with regard to Bill C-63. I'm going to spend our brief opening statement outlining four specific issues that are particular concerns, and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to amplify on those concerns in question period.

The four issues are primarily language; the creation of second-class citizenship through annulment, revocation and prohibition procedures; the length in residency requirement; and finally, concerns with regard to statelessness.

So I'll begin with the language issue and a proposal in Bill C-63, contained specifically in clause 6 of the bill, with regard to eliminating the assistance of interpreters. Bill C-63 requires both an adequate knowledge of English or French plus the ability to communicate knowledge of Canada in one of the official languages without the assistance of an interpreter. This is new. In our view, this proposal will have a disproportionate impact on all immigrants whose first language is not English or French. In particular, it will penalize certain very vulnerable people who have special difficulty learning a new language— for example, the elderly, immigrant women who are single parents and have less access to language training programs, and refugees who are survivors of torture and other severe forms of trauma.

We feel that the requirement to communicate the knowledge of Canada, which may indeed be somewhat complicated and complex matters—for example, voting procedures—without the assistance of an interpreter violates the equality guarantees of section 15 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and also violates other key provisions of the charter; namely, section 14, which guarantees to everyone the right to an interpreter, and section 27, which affirms very fundamentally the multicultural character of this country. Clearly, national origin and language are key and integral components of Canada's multiculturalism.

• 1540

We're very concerned about the proposal in Bill C-63 with regard to eliminating the assistance of interpreters and strongly urge the government to rethink that provision and repeal it.

On the second concern, the Canadian Council for Refugees has serious concerns about the introduction of new measures that will annul, revoke, or prohibit citizenship, and that make it possible to strip citizenship from naturalized citizens without the protection of due process. There are a few key points we'd like to underscore in this regard.

First of all, in terms of revocation, Bill C-63 proposes that there will no longer be any distinction with regard to whether the misrepresentation was made knowingly or not. Even innocent mistakes will be caught up within the ambit of these provisions and potentially result in a revocation of citizenship.

I'd like to give you an example of the kind of person we're worried about and who will be subject to these new procedures. Take, for example, a woman named Hala, who was a client of mine, a young Somali girl 17 and a half years old, who had actually witnessed the murder of both parents in her village in Somalia. She managed to escape with the assistance of some relatives and found herself in a refugee camp in Kenya, where she was still suffering from very severe trauma. She was interviewed by a staff member of the UNHCR and advised about the possibility of being resettled in Canada under a program that we have called the women at risk program, which would expedite her resettlement to Canada because she was indeed at risk. She had suffered extreme trauma.

The UNHCR staff person advised her that her chances of being resettled to Canada would be much greater if she was single, so she shouldn't report any fiancé or anything of the kind. So the young woman listened to that advice. She didn't report to the Canadian authorities that she had indeed a fiancé. When she came to Canada and first encountered a lawyer, namely myself, she learned for the first time that she had in fact hidden a material fact about herself. She didn't do it on purpose; she was acting on the advice of an elder, and in fact a person in authority.

Because of that simple mistake, which under the old procedures was very easy to remedy, under the proposed new procedures in Bill C-63 someone like Hala would face very serious consequences. We're very concerned about that.

We note as well that under the new bill children will have their citizenship revoked on the basis of a parent's mistake of which they may be entirely innocent, irrespective of how long they've been in Canada, irrespective of any of the other facts surrounding their situation. Clearly, revoking the citizenship of children in those circumstances is not in the best interests of those children, and contravenes both in letter and spirit Canada's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifically stipulates the fact that in all actions concerning children their best interests must be a primary consideration and factor.

With regard to new powers to prohibit citizenship based on public interest and national security, there are a few concerns we wish to underscore.

First, we have serious questions with regard to the protection of individual applicants' rights to the principles of fundamental justice. We're concerned that new provisions in these sections will result cumulatively in the prospect of the executive being afforded unacceptably high margins of discretion to deny citizenship for political reasons. In this regard, we're particularly concerned that “public interest” has not been defined anywhere in Bill C-63.

We also underscore concerns with regard to the current application of threats to the security of Canada as currently defined by CSIS, which has been done in a manner that at times has been entirely inconsistent with individuals' associational and expressive rights.

• 1545

In sum, proposals to deny any right of appeal or judicial review are inconsistent with democratic values in this country, values that we believe are essential to any healthy society. And rife through these new measures are proposals that would take away fundamental rights to due process in all of these areas. It's not to say that the Canadian Council for Refugees doesn't share concerns about legitimate security threats, those who truly do not deserve Canadian citizenship, but we believe that any procedure must be a fair procedure and must be consistent with our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to go on now to the third issue, and that is the lengthened residency requirements, and in particular one aspect. In our view, there is simply no valid basis for lengthening residency requirements such that applicants can no longer count their time in Canada before becoming a permanent resident.

For us, this kind of provision unfairly penalizes refugees who have spent years, in many cases, waiting for their refugee hearing, waiting for a final refugee determination, and then waiting several more years for permanent resident status. As a result of the requirements for convention refugees to produce satisfactory identity documents, many refugees are indeed waiting between five and seven years before they receive their resident status in Canada. That kind of limbo for refugees produces great insecurity and anxiety. The Canadian Council for Refugees is concerned that further lengthening the residency requirement for citizenship will result in making the situation far worse for already very vulnerable people, and will further delay and impede the successful integration of refugees and immigrants. For this reason, we are very concerned.

The final matter I wish to underscore in these opening remarks concerns our obligations pursuant to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Although the bill does go some measure to addressing statelessness, we urge the government to clearly articulate the objective of preventing statelessness right within the legislation and to broaden the provisions relating to grants of citizenship to ensure that any child of a Canadian parent who would otherwise be stateless be granted Canadian citizenship. So it should be spelled out that clearly and articulated as an objective in order to ensure that the legislation, in all of its aspects, is consistent with our international obligations.

Those are essentially our opening remarks. I'd like to pass the floor over to my colleague Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez. He will hopefully address any questions or amplify any of our remarks.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

What we'll do now is simply go to a round of questions, starting with Mr. McNally. Go ahead, Mr. McNally.

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

Thank you for coming today. You've raised a number of interesting points, points that have been made by other groups that have come to testify before us as well, I might add.

I have a few questions for you, starting with your comment about denying citizenship for political reasons. I think you made that point. Could you expand on that a little bit, on how you see this bill impacting that?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez (President, Canadian Council for Refugees): Yes. Basically what we are saying is that national security or public interest could be taken as very highly politicized decisions, and in this way that person, if the person is going to be penalized by a decision like that, has to have due process to defend himself and to represent and to explain. They must have due process against particular decisions, and we don't have that in our current bill.

That would be a violation in terms of due process, particularly in that situation where the elements for which a person is going to be denied citizenship for public interest reasons would be very politicized elements that are going to somehow depend on which party is the government back in the home of the people, or what is the past of these people, and what is the government here. We have had different examples of how that situation, at particular times in Canada, affects how politicized a citizenship issue will be.

• 1550

Let me put forth a very clear example. We have Mandela, for example. Before, Mandela was not considered even a hero. Now we put out the red carpet for him and we treat him like a real hero, a human being who has totally changed the situation that western countries have seen, the apartheid situation. Fifteen years ago he was in jail.

If we put together that concept of politicized reasoning in terms of discussing whether we're going to grant Canadian citizenship to a person in that particular situation, Mandela, in that particular case, would have had a hard time becoming a Canadian citizen 15 years ago. That's something we have to be aware of. The situation changed, and the political climate changed as well.

For that reason, a person who could have been involved in something before, who we agreed could be a political risk or a security risk, or whatever, has to have the right to make their case and make an appeal, if necessary, to be granted Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thanks.

Before us is a citizenship bill, and you're representing a refugee group. Obviously, in your mind, there is a great connection between the two. People have to get from somewhere before they become citizens. Refugees, of course, would fall into that category, so I'm assuming you're making that link, as I have and as others have as well.

You mentioned also the idea of being in limbo, in statelessness, and how much of an issue it is under the current system. You're saying you believe this legislation would make that situation worse, in fact.

You did talk about making a procedure that would balance the risks or the potential of people who would abuse the system versus those who need the genuine protection of Canada. I think the comment made was that any procedure must be a fair and balanced one. I wonder what kind of procedure you would envision that would provide that, a better provision than the ones you see represented in the bill before us.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Do you want to answer that?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: To clarify, you're not referring just to statelessness in that regard.

Mr. Grant McNally: No.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: When we made the comments about due process, it was in fact in relation to provisions related to annulment, revocation, and prohibition.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Certainly we see no need to strip the supervisory role of the courts with regard to citizenship. There is basically no valid justification for ousting judicial review of these very critical decisions, particularly because the implications of a denial of citizenship or revocation of citizenship are dramatic. We're essentially looking at proceedings that will result in an individual's eventual removal from Canada and, in the case of refugees, will certainly put people who may even still be at risk in danger of being subject to deportation. So these people are the very people who require adequate judicial safeguards.

For us, it's absolutely unfathomable why the executive should be granted sole prerogative in this area to make decisions, to be essentially both accuser and judge. Without the very important role of the courts to supervise these kinds of decisions, we end up being potentially subject to very arbitrary decision-making. That's dangerous.

There has been no indication that citizenship appeals are somehow clogging up the system and preventing justice. Really, in our submission, the provisions won't stand a constitutional challenge, but they're wrong at the outset and deserve to be reconsidered.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. So you're suggesting that should the bill go ahead in its current form without amendment, there are some serious constitutional issues with it. I know you've mentioned them, but which particular clauses are you suggesting to the committee?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: It's all the provisions that propose to state that decisions are not subject to appeal or review by any court.

In part 4, in the prohibitions section, you have public interest decisions. At subclause 22(3), “The order is final... not subject to appeal to or review by any court.” Under national security, subclause 27(3) reads the same. Then, if you go over to part 2, you have decisions relating to revocation, with the prospect of access to the trial division but no further appeal from there.

• 1555

Citizens have more rights to appeal parking tickets, which arguably have far less impact on human rights, and fundamental rights at that, than what we're proposing in this bill. That's a problem.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Basically, our discussion at the Canadian Council for Refugees was that we are making the right to appeal an exception in this bill, and not a rule of law, which has been a tradition in Canadian history.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. So the huge amount of discretionary power put in the hands of a few is very—

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: It's in the hands of the executive. Also, no appeal process with any of the decisions is very threatening.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Martin, did you have a question?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Yes, please.

Thank you very much for your presentation. We're certainly seeing some common themes. Many of the groups that have come to speak to us have identified many of the key issues that you're identifying.

Key and paramount, it seems the first thing many of the groups raise is the fact that the tests must be taken in one of the official languages, but without an interpreter. You're the first person, though, who raised the idea that it could be a charter issue. Which section of the charter did you make reference to, in which you're guaranteed interpretation?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: In fact, there are three sections. First of all, there's section 15, which is the essential equality guarantee of the charter. That is the provision that requires us to look not just at equality on its face, but also at adverse impacts, and that's the manner in which this particular provision is implicated. But there's also section 14, which guarantees to everyone the right to an interpreter, and section 27, with regard to multiculturalism.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think that's going to be very useful as we put forward amendments, to be able to make reference to those. So I thank you for pointing those out.

The other thing you raised—and actually, most of the groups I've heard make representation have raised this as well—is that there's no justification for increasing the length of time for physical presence in the country. It doesn't help the government make any kind of determination.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: May I comment?

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, please.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: They are not increasing the physical residency; they are increasing the formal residency. That is totally different, because the person is going to be here in Canada. A refugee claimant is going to be physically resident in Canada for ten years. But they just want to consider three years from those ten years. There is a formal decision. It doesn't make sense.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Physically, the person has been here in Canada for ten years, but they care about the last three years. Why? There is no answer.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's three out of the last five years.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Yes, exactly. We asked that question to the CIC, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and there wasn't an answer, because it's not logical. They were talking about physical residency, but that's not true; it's a formal residency in Canada that they are taking care of.

Mr. Pat Martin: But they're also specifically saying 1,095 hours of being physically present. You can't even leave the country to take care of an elderly relative in your native country for two months. That would be taken away from the 1,095 hours.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, Mr. Martin. We're talking here about refugees and not about people who are going out for business. I just want to say that if these refugees are seeking refuge from their home country, I don't think they would want to go back to their home country to take care of their parent. We're talking about two different things.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's a very good point. But there may be some justification for going out of the country for some other reason for a month, or six weeks, or whatever. So I fully agree with you on those two points.

The other thing of interest that you pointed out was raised also by the Canadian Bar Association recently, and as you were mentioning it, I flipped to it. I believe it was revocation of citizenship for false representation or fraud. One of the things you raised, which I don't believe the Canadian Bar Association did, is that you could be found guilty of this even if it was an honest error, frankly, or even if you thought some old crime had been pardoned or erased from your record and it turned out there was still a record of it... and with no grounds for appeal.

• 1600

One thing David Matas raised was that he would like to see at least leave for appeal included, that maybe you didn't have an automatic right to appeal, but at least you could make application for the courts to grant leave for appeal. Would that satisfy your concerns, or would you like to see it go further?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The way the current law addresses that kind of issue is very humanitarian. You have a chance to explain the circumstances about the mistake. You can make your point and avoid the long process of revoking your citizenship or whatever because it was a false statement or something you didn't even know at the time you filled in the application. We believe that kind of flexibility in making decisions has gone from the law as well.

There's another part that is very close to this one. If we leave the door open for flexibility and understanding in terms of solving a problem that may not even be relevant for citizenship in Canada, it will be easier and cheaper to solve that problem with a face-to-face interview with an officer than to go ahead with the whole process of going before the Federal Court and waiting for decisions that could take forever.

We are trying to avoid complicating the process. If you can explain the mistakes and whatever to a person who has the independence and flexibility to make that decision and to understand that kind of human circumstance, that is better than to put together a whole process. If for any reason the decision is still there and we believe that is a mistake that affects somehow the Canadian citizenship the person has obtained before, there is due process—which you can follow very easily—with a decision and afterwards an appeal and an order that you can have granted to a person.

Mr. Pat Martin: I agree. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Doyle, do you have a question for the witnesses?

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Yes, I have a couple of questions. You made the point a moment ago that the minister should not annul citizenship without due process. Should the minister have any powers at all with regard to annulling citizenship? What about a refugee, for instance, who comes here, receives citizenship, and then is proven to be a war criminal? Should the minister have the power to annul in that situation? Would that be a valid reason for the minister to annul citizenship?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Let me make three points about this one. If you want to address the issue of war criminals in the Citizenship Act, do it, but do it by name. Don't try to make a catch-22 situation where you are going to affect a lot of innocent people who just made a mistake or forgot about something.

The second point I want to make is that even a war criminal has human rights and the right to due process. Just because they committed crimes against humanity before, we don't have to treat them wrongly today. We have to show our respect for humanity by putting in front of them due process, and the due process has to be with a right to appeal and everything else we have.

The third point we want to make here is that our responsibility as Canadians is not to dump this person on other countries and say, “Take care of this war criminal.” We have enough legal systems and resources and a whole legal process here in Canada to deal with that particular situation. We can have a trial inside Canada against that particular person who has committed crimes against humanity or war crimes without trying to deport this person, take away their citizenship, and send the problem to another country that is sometimes less prepared to deal with that particular situation, and maybe this war criminal is going to walk free.

Take the example of Pinochet in England. That's the kind of attitude we, as responsible Canadians, have to have, and we have to run the extra mile and try to use our legal system to deal with that particular situation.

To revoke the citizenship of a war criminal, what does that mean? Our meaning has to be to make that person accountable for what they did against humanity. That's another issue we have to discuss by name.

• 1605

Mr. Norman Doyle: Do you not agree that some Canadians might say to you that it is not the responsibility of Canada? If this crime was committed, say, in a foreign land, the country of origin of the person, some Canadians would say that it is not the responsibility of Canada to bring that individual to justice in Canada and have the Canadian system spend hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars, that it might be the responsibility of the country of origin. How would you react to that?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Canada is involved in the international arena in different ways. We have been very proactive in terms of building the human rights international court. We also have sent judges after different people in the Balkans, for instance. Why is Canada participating in the Balkans war right now if we are going to just take care of the human rights violations that are committed on our soil? In that particular situation, I believe we have a responsibility to bring peace and to respect the law.

In that case I totally support the idea of more commitment by Canada in terms of using the judicial instruments, the international legal instruments, and the national instruments we already have to deal with past war criminals and modern war criminals, which we already have and which in the future we're going to have as well.

Sharryn wants to say something.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: We certainly acknowledge that it is an issue over which there is a lot of debate in the public arena over the best course of action, namely, to try to marshal criminal law in Canada to prosecute and punish here or to deport and have the other country potentially deal with it. But regardless of how you come down on that divide, the Canadian Council for Refugees feels very strongly that regardless of the act at issue, the individual requires access to due process rights, and that's what's missing in this legislation. There simply are inadequate safeguards in terms of legal remedy for the individual concerned. While we all share concerns about war criminals, we want to make sure that even the worst war criminal has their day in court and is subject to judicial recourse.

Mr. Norman Doyle: We were given the impression a few days ago by a citizenship judge we had here that the requirement for English and French is not really a stringent one, that if an individual could speak a few basic words of English or French, they would not be turned down. I don't believe you have that impression.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No. We are talking about what is proposed in the bill, not what is happening right now. Right now there is a lot of flexibility. Also, if you have an English or French problem, in order to address some questions, you have the possibility to have an interview with a citizenship judge, and the judge can make a decision based on humanitarian criteria and can grant you citizenship even though you don't speak both of the official languages of Canada. That's how the situation is right now.

Let me mention a very personal example. My father-in-law, who is 77 years old, came to Canada five years ago. Now he's proudly making an application for Canadian citizenship. He wants to be a citizen because the rest of our family are Canadian citizens. He doesn't speak enough English in order to understand all the implications and difficulties about voting and all that stuff. But he wants to be a citizen, and he deserves to be one. That's the other point. So in the current law we have a free way. He's going to become a Canadian citizen even though his English is not so close to perfection.

But with the new legislation, we may face some problems in terms of how the situation is going to be handled when the person is examined on different things and he doesn't have the knowledge of English to pass the exam. Maybe it will be an easy decision to say, “Well, sorry, what are we going to do, keep this person as a permanent resident forever?” Why? What is the point of doing that to a 77-year-old?

• 1610

Mr. Norman Doyle: Do you think that clause in the bill should be eliminated totally, or should there be some requirement or a certain degree of requirement to speak English or French? How do you think the minister should handle that clause, eliminate it?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The ability to speak a language, in particular a second language, doesn't have anything to do with the level of understanding they have about the system. If I can speak only Spanish and I have a very good interpretation, I can understand perfectly the Canadian system and participate in that with my own limitations.

We're saying, then, that granting interpretation to a person would be the easy way to grant their rights, even to that old person or that particular person who has serious limitations in learning English, because you are assessing the specific circumstances of that particular human being. They may not be as able to learn English because he or she was tortured before and has some frustration and trauma that affects his or her way of learning. Do you know what I mean? They could be a very productive citizen of Canada in other ways. So, for me, language is not a way to evaluate how productive or how honest a citizen of Canada they will be; it's just an instrument of communication.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

Mr. Bryden, you want to ask a question.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Yes, thank you. Madam Chairman, how many minutes do I have? I just want to set my priorities.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You have eight minutes. We're a little late.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation, which I read here. I missed your oral presentation.

Tell me, isn't Canada one of the very few countries in the world that, through its Charter of Rights, allows due process to non-citizens— in fact, anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil? Are there other countries that provide that due process? What other countries, then?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Not just in regard to citizenship issues, but non-citizens' rights have been at issue in the international arena for many years. We see, in fact, many decisions coming from the European Court of Human Rights affirming a multiplicity of rights of non-citizens in a number of European countries.

Mr. John Bryden: But citizenship is what I'm aiming at here, and I want to stay on that because that's what we're here for.

My impression is that when most countries around the world, including major countries, decide that a person who has arrived on their territory is a risk—and it may be an unprovable risk—they reserve the right to put that person on a plane and send them back out of the country, whereas Canada, as we all know, does provide due process for all individuals who set foot in this country. Is that not an accurate description of what the situation is worldwide with respect to non-citizens in other countries?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: You're speaking about two things. On the one hand, you speaking about deporting people right up front. We're speaking here today about citizenship, which is obviously the process at the end of the line, after many years.

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine. I appreciate the distinction.

So you agree that my first observation is correct, that Canada is an extremely open country, and very unusual in this respect, in that anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil is, because of the Charter of Rights, given an opportunity for due process.

I happen to know it costs $44,000 per person to use due process to get that person out of the country if they've obtained entry illegally, but that's another point.

I was interested in your saying that if people misrepresent themselves and turn out to be individuals that Canada might not want to have, they should have due process. In the case of a person who perhaps took part in the Rwandan genocide, for example, and who has entered Canada, and may have entered Canada legally and without misrepresentation, but is in fact reported to have been engaged in genocidal activities, or any other crime, in another country, how do you take that person through the Canadian courts and prove that crime in Canada when it occurred in, say, Rwanda, or Central Africa, or Kosovo, or anywhere else in the world? How do you prove it?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Well, I'll try.

Admittedly, there are difficulties in marshalling proof. There are difficulties even in making out a refugee claim at the outset, because we're speaking about events that have happened elsewhere. But the fact that it's difficult does not mean that's a licence to the executive to strip away due process from the individuals concerned. In fact, from our perspective, it speaks very much in favour of the need to ensure adequate legal safeguards, because the danger of a mistake is gigantic. The repercussions are enormous.

• 1615

Mr. John Bryden: Then you acknowledge that it can be literally impossible to prove in Canada a crime that occurred in Africa or Serbia.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: What I would acknowledge is that our government has a lot to account for with respect to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals, which has obviously been an abysmal failure. And if—

Mr. John Bryden: For good reason.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: —Bill C-63 is based on the experience of Nazi war criminals, that's a mistake. The reason we failed with regard to Nazi war criminals has entirely nothing to do with the situation we're facing now.

Today, with modern-day war criminals, there are means of marshalling proof. There are resources today, living and breathing, that give ample opportunity to the government to marshal appropriate evidence.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

Just near my riding, a person was seized who had been living in the country for quite a few years. This person had been involved in an air hijacking of a Turkish airline—if I remember correctly—in which people were killed. I believe this person is still fighting the extradition, because this person did become a Canadian citizen.

Isn't this example—and I'm afraid we can cite many other examples... Isn't it a fact that because anyone who becomes a citizen or even arrives in this country has access to due process, Canada then becomes a safe haven for criminals? Isn't that an attraction of Canada? You don't think so, do you?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: No, clearly we don't. And I fail to see that the government has given us any evidence that Canada has indeed become that safe haven, which is a spectre that has been raised by both the government and some members of the opposition. There has simply been no evidence presented.

Mr. John Bryden: I gave you an example.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: That's one anecdotal piece of evidence. We have many more anecdotal cases that we could give you where members of the community themselves have stepped forward to inform Citizenship and Immigration—

Mr. John Bryden: But surely—

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: —when there are problems.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me. I'm just going to break in here, and I'll ask my revered colleague to try to make his remarks come back... I know eventually it comes back to the notion of citizenship, but I'll ask you to go to it a little more directly.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Madam Chairman. But if you'd allow me to pursue my line of questioning without your intervention, I would appreciate it, because it's very difficult to maintain a line of thought. I appreciate your good intentions, but I would rather pursue what I was doing here. You completely threw off my line of questioning, and I'd rather stay on it. So I'm going to change it, if I have a few more minutes.

I have to say, though—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You have three minutes, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I know that, being in government, one has to worry about criminals coming in and that kind of thing, because we're in a world now in which there is all kinds of ethnic strife occurring and terrorists organizations in Canada may be seen as an attraction.

Let me take us in another direction. As you were observing that you were concerned about the unilateral power of the minister to withdraw citizenship if identity documents weren't correct, what do you say about a situation in which a person may be a dual citizen, may have got Canadian citizenship secondly? As a refugee, this could be somebody who has come from a situation of terrible ethnic conflict. Now, should that person be allowed to return to their country of origin with their citizenship and join a foreign army to fight Canadian soldiers? What happens then to that citizenship? Should they maintain their citizenship? Should we allow that they should keep their citizenship even though that...

I have an example in my own riding. There's great concern about youngsters from the Serbian or Kosovo community being recruited to fight in Serbia or Kosovo for the two sides there.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: That goes with another example. I have a Canadian-born child. What if my Canadian-born child takes a position and supports a group—

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, I won't allow you to—

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No, let me finish.

Mr. John Bryden: —change the question. No.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: If he goes back to my country and takes a position... And by the way, Canadian soldiers born here go to my country and start a conflict there, then they start to fight with each other. It is something that may happen. Are you going to strip away the Canadian citizenship of my child, born in Canada as well, with your example?

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you. Please answer the question I posed.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No, I am—

• 1620

Mr. John Bryden: The question is that if you acquire Canadian citizenship, what happens if you go back to your country of origin and take up arms against Canada? Should you be allowed to maintain your Canadian citizenship?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: My answer is that if the person faces a due process, the person is going to have a fair chance to prove whether the accusations that are raised in Canada are true or not.

Mr. John Bryden: If it's true, what happens then?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No, no, you're talking about an example. You're saying it's proved now. That's exactly what we want to avoid: that somebody else, without consulting the minister in this case, said “No, it's proof for me that you did this, and that's enough to take away your citizenship.” That's exactly what we don't want.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes or no? That's my only question.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: A decision based on one specific person? No.

Mr. John Bryden: So you feel that if you have a—

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The person has the right to due process.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, we know about due process.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No, we don't know about due process.

Mr. John Bryden: If they've had due process and if it's proved that they took up arms against Canada in whatever part of the world, in Kosovo or in Serbia or wherever... If they acquired Canadian citizenship, went back, as they are being invited to do now, to take up arms against Canada, should they retain their citizenship or not?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'll take the answer to this and then your time will be up, Mr. Bryden. The answer will be the end of that part.

Go ahead, please.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I believe the kind of issue you're raising is an issue that would be caught within the ambit of the threats to the security of Canada provisions in this bill.

I think we articulated very clearly at the outset that we don't oppose the fact that truly legitimate security threats should be subject to proceedings. So that's our starting point. The fact is that all individuals who may be caught within such procedures should have the right to adequate legal recourse, adequate judicial scrutiny of the decision. The way it stands now, the decisions are solely the prerogative of the executive. That's what we object to.

The case you raised and the spectre you raised is a serious question, but I think it can be amply addressed within the ambit of legislation, without stripping away important and very fundamental legal rights.

Mr. John Bryden: You still didn't answer the question, which is a question of whether he should retain citizenship or not.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I will break on that if you don't mind, Mr. Bryden.

Madame Leung.

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

I want to thank the presenters' very thoughtful concerns expressed in your paper. I actually agree with most of your concerns. I just have a couple of questions.

When we talk about the increased language requirement, you remember that when the first recommendations came out by the three advisers there was a lot of response and a lot of opposition regarding the requirement for language. I think the minister actually responded to that.

The language requirement, if I understand it clearly, is really not 100% proficiency required, but knowledge of language. The applicants will have a better chance for adjustment and resettlement in this new country. I just wanted to clarify that, because this has been brought up and discussed many times by other presenters.

When you say that you're concerned for your father, I just want you to know that my impression is that it's not that you have to have a fluent language. We all know that it's not easy for a 77-year-old. Again, I want to stress that at least that's our understanding.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: May I clarify something?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Sure.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The level of knowledge or understanding of a language depends. Here it's saying without the assistance of an interpreter. We're talking here about something a little more complicated than you are. I agree with you: if the intention of this part is just knowledge of language, then why don't we use an interpreter in cases where the difficulty in understanding in English about different parts of the system becomes a little bit higher than a knowledge of the language? Do you know what I mean?

That's why we are saying it is better to provide an interpreter. In that case you are really ensuring that the knowledge of English is there. You can have a very easy conversation with someone to prove that this person understands basic English and can communicate and live here in Canada, if you want to put it like that. But in order to have a discussion with full understanding of other issues, maybe that person is going to need an interpreter. That's exactly our concern.

• 1625

Ms. Sophia Leung: I can share that. Many times, I think, if the person is ready to take the oath of citizenship, definitely there's no room for an interpreter. It's a ceremony. Only the person should repeat it. I think that's where the dilemma may be.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: We don't have a problem with the ceremony right now. The ceremony is in either French or English and the person has a chance to memorize the oath, first of all, in their own language. Then they learn how to say it in English. This is valid, in my opinion. They understand the meaning of it because it has been been translated for them.

Even if you give the oath to a person who has no knowledge of English, that person is not going to understand the real meaning of the oath and will need an interpretation or translation of the oath in order to make up their mind and give that oath. That's exactly our concern— to give that possibility to a specific person.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I don't think the interpreter should be completely barred during the process. They are probably not required at the final ceremony where the oath is made.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Paragraph 6(1)(d) of the bill says:

has 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.

It is clear they are talking about a conversation and maybe an exam on their knowledge of Canada, and the person has to address it in either English or French. We're saying maybe that person has enough knowledge about Canada in different ways, but he or she doesn't have enough knowledge of English to express that. So maybe it's a good idea to put an interpreter there and give the people the chance to express their knowledge about Canada in their own language.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

You brought up the issue of long residency— you know, for waiting. That's really a concern for all of us, not just the applicants but the government. We really want to see how we can shorten it. This is what I want to say. If we have the magic solution, we would like to shorten it and avoid any complications and difficulties for the applicants.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The solution is not to increase the time formally, because the person may have already spent a lot of time physically living in Canada by the time they receive or make application for citizenship. That's our argument.

Physical residency means from the date the person expresses their intention to live in Canada permanently. When a refugee comes to this country and makes a claim at the border, they are expressing that they want to live in Canada under the protection of our state. That could be enough to be taken as physical residency in Canada, and avoid mixing it with the formal time the person spends living here after being accepted as a permanent resident. The limit, the extended time, could extend the suffering of a person who may need Canadian citizenship in order to feel like a first-class citizen again, because most of the refugees don't even have travel documents to travel around. They have a lot of problems going anywhere.

That's exactly what we want to bring here.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Telegdi.

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

May I say, Mr. Rico-Martinez, that sometimes discretion in legislation is a good thing. You'll probably agree with subclause 6(3), which says “If the Minister believes that there are compassionate grounds for doing so, the Minister may waive...”, and then you look at the requirements of paragraphs 6(1)(c) and 6(1)(d).

• 1630

I bring that to you because it is the practice of the government to give dispensation for people, particularly seniors, who are unable to meet the language requirements. So I point that out to you in relation to your father-in-law, just so we get that on the record.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Can I make a comment about that one?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Sure.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: One of the intentions, when I made that example, was to treat people with limitations in the same way, not just to develop some special groups and avoid a recommendation or requirement for that particular thing. We believe a lot of people, not depending on age but on human circumstances, are entitled to be included in that particular situation and avoid the situation of language, for instance. So to take it in that particular way is better than just creating sectors.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think one of the reasons you have discretion here is, all things being equal, we would like people to learn one of the official languages. I think you would agree with me that it enhances citizenship and the ability to participate in the life of one's chosen country. I think that's a good thing. If it were totally black and white, you would have difficulty in some situations where exceptions are required.

The other issue I was curious about was when you were discussing a heated little debate we had here. I understand your concerns, but you said “some people go to my country”, referring obviously to the country you came from. I guess I have difficulty with that.

I came here as a refugee from Hungary. When I first went back in 1994—I left in 1957—it wasn't until somebody said to me “Welcome home” that I really had a struggle with that. I said, “Thank you very much for your welcome, but my home is Canada. That's where my wife and daughter are, neither of whom are Hungarian.” Their only relationship to Hungary is through me. She happens to be Irish, if you want to chase that back.

So I'm kind of curious. I know it's not a simple issue; it's a difficult issue. But when people refer to going back home, surely their home is here. How do you feel about that?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: I think you're right. It's a way of talking we have to correct, because I define Canada as my country as well as my home. You're right, I make a mistake when I say “going back to my country”. That's something I am struggling with myself. To become a Canadian is not easy, because of the language and the history I bring with me to this country.

I have been living in this country myself for only nine years, so I still have a mix in terms of two different cultures and histories. I express it here at the table, even though I became a Canadian a year ago, maybe more. You're right, we have to make a commitment to Canada, define Canada as home and feel Canada is home. I believe it is a way of talking and we have to stop doing it, if we are involved and we believe this is our home.

On the other hand, we have to make the law welcoming to people. That's why we are so concerned about second-class citizens. In that case you are not making this country welcoming to the new citizens or newcomers of this country. These people are going to keep saying “my home” and referring to other countries. Maybe because they are second-class citizens here, they don't feel welcome in Canada.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I recognize that it's difficult, because for me it only clarified itself after almost 40 years. I agree with you in the sense that there are 6 million Canadians out of 30 million who were not born in Canada. That has been expressed as a concern.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

I'll call Mr. Volpe. Mr. Bryden, I think you have a second question, but we're running late already, so I'll ask you to make it very short. Thank you.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to try to be very brief. I'm one of those 6 million who weren't born here.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: There are plenty of us around the table, Mr. Volpe.

• 1635

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I never thought of myself as a problem, but maybe for some people I am.

At any rate, I'm sorry, I missed the first part of the presentation, so I'm only going to ask a couple of questions.

I wouldn't be very apologetic about the concept of home. Only 40 years ago, Madam Chair, the United States went through a traumatic experience. They went through an election during which the big issue was whether the American public would ever, ever be at home voting for—are you ready for this—a Roman Catholic President. This was 1960. The reason for it—this is what's interesting—is that the perception of some in the American public is that somebody who could be Roman Catholic would owe his or his allegiances to someone else in a far-away place.

Now, I think sociologists and historiographers look at these types of phenomena and they say that people have either a spiritual metropolis or a cultural metropolis that goes beyond their meagre parochial boundaries. For example, some Canadian historians think of Canada as an evolving society that has moved its cultural metropolises from London to New York and Los Angeles, some even to Chicago. And in other parts of this country, they have Paris as a cultural metropolis, and some have moved Paris over to Quebec City. For awhile, Montreal was the cultural metropolis of that particular segment of the population.

Now, does that mean people have weakened allegiances to the country in which they live and that they call home, like this person who is speaking here now? I don't think so. So when someone uses a term like “going back home”, for me it's nothing more than a cultural or spiritual metropolis. The Americans grew up, I think, and I hope Canadians have as well.

There are two questions I wanted to ask you that relate to that. The first is an issue that's been raised by others who have come before you, which is whether we should be focusing on physical presence or whether we should be talking about “ordinarily resident”. I wondered what your views are on that, and as I say, I apologize if you've already touched upon it. As I understand the precedent in other places, the concept of “ordinarily present” is the one that's operative because it indicates intent. How far off the mark am I?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: We have talked about that one, and we said that when the current law refers to physical residence, it's not referring to that. It's referring basically to a former permanent resident in Canada, and that is the time they want to take into consideration. We are suggesting to apply physical residence in Canada as the concept that you have expressed as ordinary residence, when a person has expressed the intention to live in Canada permanently. The legal status of those persons doesn't matter. A person could be a refugee claimant for six years or could be waiting for permanent residency for another three years, etc., and that time has to be taken into consideration in the granting of citizenship.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I guess what I want to ask you is whether you have to physically be here to indicate your commitment to an allegiance to this country. Is that your concept of residency?

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: No, that's the concept that we are learning here in the bill.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay, good. Thank you for that.

The second one is on the issue of language. Language is very important for me. It's the only way I have of communicating with people. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, people in my family still haven't been able to comprehend the workings of the English language. It's really tough for them. Happily, they taught me another language, so I can still speak to them in that one.

I'd like to ask you, very sincerely, what language has to do with indicating loyalty and allegiance to the country of which you want to become a citizen.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: In one word, nothing.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I didn't hear you.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Nothing.

• 1640

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay. I was a little confused there for a moment. I thought maybe it had something to do with it. But I'm glad we see eye to eye on that one.

Madam Chair, I think I'm going to stop while I'm still ahead.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I thought you were going to go on, Mr. Volpe. But I think we'll give Mr. Bryden a chance.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: You're very good to allow me the preamble. I just couldn't resist the reference to the United States.

Mr. John Bryden: I would just like to give you the context of my earlier line of questioning and invite you to comment on it when I explain where I'm coming from on that issue. It will be clear to you.

I'm particularly concerned about refugees coming from areas of conflict who acquire citizenship. I'm not so much concerned about people like Mr. Telegdi who have been here for 10, 20, 30, or 40 years. It's this possibility that people come from areas of conflict and acquire citizenship because of due process, because of the protection due process affords, and then return to their homeland to take part on one side or the other of a conflict.

I point out to you that this is the problem: nothing in the bill now provides for the revocation of citizenship if you go back to a homeland and take up arms against Canada. Nothing in the bill provides for it. But if we do not give the minister that power to revoke citizenship without due process when somebody goes back and takes up arms in the homeland, then that person is going to go through due process that involves treason. In other words, the crime of taking up arms as a Canadian citizen against your own citizens is much more severe than giving the opportunity to the minister to annul citizenship so that a different type of due process takes effect.

So I would just suggest to you that in my view anyway—you might disagree and have another thought—surely here, at least, is a situation where it's in the interests of those young men who have come over from various parts of the world, who now are called upon by their relatives at home or their country of origin to take up arms, to go back. We see in the newspapers that they are actually pledging to go back, and they have been refugees and have acquired citizenship. Now they're actually saying to reporters, “Yes, we're going back to our homeland to take up arms.” And it may be Canadian soldiers in the very near future they're fighting against.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'll ask for a very short answer, Mr. Rico-Martinez.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Yes. There are basically two issues.

The new bill is talking here about national security issues, and in paragraph 23(2)(a) it says: “an activity that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada”. You are talking about that part of the new bill.

Our discussion here is about what you mean by “national security”, because it's not defined. And if a person gets involved in that kind of issue, what is the due process that this person will have? Basically those are our two concerns, that “national security” be defined, because we have a problem with that particular concept, and that “due process” for such a person be defined.

The political climate is very important in terms of the historical moment. We now have people from Canada and maybe from the United States and other countries who are joining the liberation army of Kosovo, and they are fighting against something. Maybe in 20 years that is not going to be seen as we see it now, and that's exactly what we want to raise here. Sometimes it's a political perception, and even though we agree that it's totally deserving right now, it could be a total misunderstanding after all, and that could have implications in the application of the law.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. I would like to ask one or two questions.

First of all, when you talked about not having the possibility of becoming a citizen even though the individual might have made an innocent mistake, I understood there was a process called a pardon, in which the individual could apply to the department and have the case reviewed. And in that case, the person could possibly come back and ask for immigrant status and then go through the regular process. That's the first question I'll ask.

• 1645

The second one has to do with length of residency. You would agree, then, that when an individual asks for refugee status in Canada, the length of his residency should be counted from the time he arrives in Canada and not in any other way. I would agree with that. I would say that if we go on shortening the time between when the individual arrives in Canada and when his status is decided by the IRB, the Immigration and Refugee Board, then we might be able to get the two to coincide a lot more than they do right now. So that's a hope I have.

The third one is with regard to the language in the oath. I certainly agree with Mr. Volpe on this. We know that in immigration—and I've said this before in committee—it's not the first generation of immigrants who really do become totally Canadian citizens, it's the second and possibly even the third generation. These are the people who, not only in language but also in culture, can be considered to be really totally Canadian. So as far as I'm concerned, the language problem in terms of the ceremony doesn't really bother me a great deal.

But I want to make a clarification having to do with the oath. I would think that the individual would be able to say the oath in French or English because that oath had been rehearsed, so to speak, and explained to that individual in the lessons he had before he went to the citizenship ceremony.

I'd like you to comment on these three things, please.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: The last thing you said about the oath, that's exactly our position: hold a rehearsal first so that the person understands what the oath is all about, and say it in English at the ceremony. That's exactly how that happens right now, and that's exactly what we want to keep seeing as a tradition.

What was the other question?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): It was with regard to the length of residency. You said yes, now there's a pardon.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I just think the issue is that the existing legislation already has a procedure set out for dealing with these kinds of problems. What Bill C-63 is proposing to do is make it even more problematic for the individual concerned and more difficult to address innocent mistakes. The word “knowingly” has been taken out of the provision, and that's very critical.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much for coming this afternoon. We have listened well. We had many questions, and you've seen the interest on our part.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Thank you.

Mr. Francisco Rico-Martinez: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you again for coming.

• 1647

• 1649

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Would you take your seats, please. We'd like to reconvene.

I'd like to acknowledge the presence of the National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations, Mr. Salvador Cabugao, president; and Mr. Emilio Benavince, the legal counsel. Welcome, gentlemen. I think, Mr. Cabugao, we had the pleasure to meet before.

Once again, welcome to this committee. I will give you about eight minutes to do a presentation, after which the members of the committee will address their questions to you.

• 1650

Mr. Salvador Cabugao (President, National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Our legal counsel, Mr. Emilio Benavince, will present a legalistic view of our concerns about Bill C-63. He may take about six minutes, and I will take the last two minutes for our own community's concerns.

Emilio.

Mr. Emilio Benavince (Legal Counsel, Canadian Ethnocultural Council and National Council of Canadian Filipino Associations): Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I have studied your draft bill for quite some time. You might want to know that I was a professor of international law and of constitutional law as well, but I'm not here to teach you anything. I'm here just to give you a little bit of an insight into what I consider to be the harsher elements of this proposed bill. There are a lot of harsh things in it. Unfortunately, I cannot review them all.

In looking at your bill, the first thing we have to look at is whether or not the requirements are justifiable. The second one is whether or not the method of reaching a decision is adequately realistic. Are you going to reach a conclusion that is really justified? In order to do that, you have to understand why you require Canadian citizenship and what we are going to look for.

I think the first principle we have to understand is that citizenship is not a one-way street; it is a two-way street. There is a reciprocity element in it. The person who wants to be a Canadian will assume obligations and rights. Unless we understand that's the case, we will be overemphasizing what we call Canadian values without knowing that this person who is coming here is also assuming obligations. There is a justifiable relationship between obligations and rights. You cannot deny a person who comes here certain kinds of rights and impose only obligations.

There is a point in time at which a Canadian citizen who was born in this country or is a citizen by way of parentage is almost identical to the person you are denying citizenship in terms of obligations, but yet you are taking away two kinds of rights. The first rights, which are very important, of course, are the democratic or political rights, and you deny him the right to vote. The second one is the mobility right, the right to leave the country and come back again. Those are quite important rights.

The second one I think you would like to look at is that when you are writing a citizenship act, you are writing for a society that has changed tremendously. At the very beginning citizenship was a very feudal kind of concept. It was established at some time during the Middle Ages, and probably even earlier than that. It was intended to form a band of people who would protect themselves from external aggression. As we magnify society, the aggression becomes magnified. Citizenship originally was a defensive concept. We became citizens of a certain clan or group because we wanted to be defended by somebody who had the power.

With the downfall of feudalism, of course, mobility of human beings started along with colonization, and today there is a very busy mobility. If you were writing a citizenship bill, you would like to write a bill that was thoroughly realistic to a mobile global society. My submission to you today is that this is an antiquated approach you have taken in your proposed bill.

The third very important concept you have to look at is the consistency of what you are trying to propose, at least philosophically, with the certain kinds of fundamental rights that are included in the Constitution, specifically in the charter. I have mentioned those two: democratic rights and the equality principle as well as mobility.

Basically, when psychologically and emotionally a Canadian immigrant is equal to a Canadian-born citizen, it is very unfair to deny the immigrant citizenship, because this is a qualitative question. Therefore, the question is, your power to define who are citizens is actually a power to define who are equals. It means that it is actually the power to define who will enjoy political rights, who will enjoy mobility rights and, in the ultimate analysis, who will enjoy certain kinds of constitutional rights. My submission to you is that this is where your proposal fails miserably.

• 1655

Generally, the department and this standing committee had said they wanted to correct inconsistencies, that there were clarifications needed in the statute. There are some ambiguities; that's the first value. Two, we have to improve the value of Canadian citizenship. I will go immediately to the question of improving the value of Canadian citizenship.

We do not need to improve the value of Canadian citizenship; it is very valuable around the world. We have a little of paranoia in this case, some kind of inferiority complex. What we really want is not to increase the value of Canadian citizenship but to determine who deserves it. That is another kind of question.

I do not believe that by making the requirements of acquiring Canadian citizenship you are improving the value of Canadian citizenship. That is not the way to increase the value of Canadian citizenship. There are better ways than that. Your proposed exercise says, let's get rid of all of these ambiguities because we do not want interpretations; there are inconsistencies that have arisen over cases and cases. I will tell you, interpretation is always required in any law. You cannot bureaucratize it. You cannot mechanically define citizenship. It is not possible to approach it on the basis of a checklist. No. Any law requires judgment. What you need are people who will make judgment. It is not only people who will make a checklist. Interpretation is an essence of the legal system. It is interpretation that gives sanity and wisdom to any system of law. If you take it away or make it mechanical, it will become a mechanical judgment and it will become cruel.

In any event, it's an impossible objective. You will never be able to write the law that does not require interpretation. Even your bill now has a vague concept like “adequate knowledge”. Somebody has to define that. If we can define what “adequate knowledge” means, why is it that we cannot define what “residence” means? Something's wrong. I think the distinction that there are certain kinds of concepts where discretion can enter and other kinds of concepts where discretion should be taken away is absolutely ridiculous. You cannot select people who will make judgment along these lines. In my submission to you, the solution is better judges, not better wording of the law.

This brings me to one of my biggest beefs with this statute, which I was asked to look at. That is the so-called physical presence. The physical presence is so intrusive in your bill that it will even have the ability to deny Canadians by blood, after the third generation, of the ability to maintain their citizenship merely because they're outside.

You have forgotten the importance of ancestry. You have forgotten the importance of culture, the emotional connection to this country. There is nothing valuable in being physically present— not in a mobile society, not in a global society. I can assure you that there are a lot of people in this country who have been present all their lives and there are people outside of this country, very prominently, who have stayed out of this country and yet have greater affection for Canada. It's wrong-headed to look at physical presence as an absolute principle.

You should remove the denial of the loss of citizenship merely because a third-generation Canadian stayed outside of Canada or that there is a second-generation Canadian who failed to register here after 28 years. What you should understand is why is she there.

• 1700

The compelling and justifiable reasons for being outside of the country can be very telling, and in any event I do not really think that once you have citizenship acquired by birth, there is an ability to lose it short of treason. It is one of the most fundamental rights that you will have. Remove this loss of citizenship merely because he's a third-generation Canadian. If at all justifiable, ask him at least only to register. That is justifiable, because the request for registration is only an indication that he wants to remain a Canadian. It's not too onerous. But I can tell you how many people who are living outside of Canada today know about their loss of citizenship in the third generation, and how many of them will know about the registration requirement in 28 years. They don't. It's very difficult.

Let me get into the physical requirement, because of the question of what is residence.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, Mr. Benavince. I'm going to interrupt. You have two more minutes. So I would ask you to choose wisely, and then perhaps you could come back in your remarks to the member's question.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: Now, the concept of citizenship defined in relation to residence is that there is that fear of finding what is residence or domicile. It is endemic in the law. It is in the Income Tax Act. It is in the Divorce Act. It is so widespread all over our legal system. If it is not difficult to find there for certain imaginative judges, I do not see any reason why it should be different in the Citizenship Act. There has never been any deciding about whether it's residence or domicile in those areas of law.

My recommendation to you is on page 6 of our submission. It's a more imaginative approach in looking at the question of how you should treat the question of physical presence.

The last point I would like to mention is the question of changing the name from citizenship judges to citizenship commissioners. Changing the name doesn't mean a thing; it is the kind of function he's going to provide that's essential. If all you really want is that he will become a checklist, mechanical personnel, it doesn't matter, but if you want him to make a judgment, call him judge or whatever. And I propose to you that making a judgment is essential in these cases.

My last point is to re-examine the values relating to citizenship. We are not as obvious as we like to think.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Mr. Benavince.

I want to inform members that in fact a brief had been tabled, but it was only in one of the two official languages, in this case—lo and behold!—in French. So we're holding it back until we get a translation, and we will get it to you as soon as possible.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. McNally, you have a question to address the witnesses.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your presentation.

I'm guessing or making an assumption that a lot of the suggestions you have are in the brief that we'll be getting later in terms of which particular clauses you would like to see amended or deleted. Is that the case in your written brief?

Mr. Emilio Benavince: Because I was requested to look at these two functions, especially the physical residence question, I would like to give an approach on the physical residence issue and I would like you to consider it to amend your proposed act.

I would recommend a twofold approach in this. If you are too concerned about requiring physical presence, you can say, okay, the law should provide that the applicant shall be a resident of Canada for at least three years within the last five years. That's fine. And then you put in another provision that says the applicant should provide evidence that he had a minimum degree of physical presence, let's say, 100 days or 200 days. And you can make it absolute if you want, but I think making it for three years is overkill. I would recommend probably around 180 days, which is very useful in most cases.

• 1705

The law may then provide that when a person has not been physically present in Canada, let's say for 365 days or two years, he shall be presumed not to be a resident of Canada unless the applicant proves, by credible and trustworthy evidence, that his or her absence from Canada was temporary and for a justifiable reason. That is where the judgment has to be made. There has to be at least justifiable reason, compelling reason. You can do that and give him a chance, rather than shutting him out immediately if he doesn't have three years.

I have a personal case I just finished about a week ago. This woman came to Canada when she was a student. She saved a lot of money—she was still a minor—and bought a house in which her parents live. But because she was studying medicine, she had to go back to Hong Kong to finish her studies. When she finished, she came here and wanted to apply for a job. You know the employment situation, and she couldn't find a job because she was a doctor. She got married in the meantime, had a child and left the child here. She was compelled to go back to Hong Kong in order to live and provide support for the family.

The choice was very clear. She could go on welfare—including her parents—or go to work. She was denied Canadian citizenship. It's absurd. She has a child who has lived here for a number of years and she has her own home and everything, yet because she wasn't physically present, except for 180 days or so, they said she wasn't good enough and turned her down.

I asked the judge whether he would prefer to see her go on welfare instead of going back to Hong Kong to support her parents. I was given a bureaucratic answer: “She has to be physically present. That's what we are told in the manual.”

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks. You've used some words such as “harsh”, “antiquated” and “wrong-headed” in your descriptions of parts of this bill. I know you have a lot to say about these different things, and we have very limited time in committee. I'm wondering if you might be able to summarize for us some of the comments and direct them specifically to the different clauses in the bill at a later date and then submit them to us for—

Mr. Emilio Benavince: I wrote a very lengthy submission at one point, before the Canadian Bar Association made theirs, and I was planning to submit it there, but for one reason or another I was sidetracked. I would be very pleased to give you the analysis I've made of this bill, because there are many elements here that are questionable.

I'll say a little about the language issue. Language is culture. Whether we like it or not, Canada is a bilingual country. We may not require an absolutely high threshold, but the desire to learn it is good enough. You can approach it that way; just don't disqualify people for not doing it. After all, attachment is only desire.

If they want to study the language, that's fine, especially for first-generation Canadian immigrants. It would be questionable if they were second-generation Canadians. But you can see that if you're going to coordinate that with your Immigration Act, you will probably duplicate certain requirements. So I think you have to look at that too.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Martin, do you have questions you want to address to the witnesses?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Will Mr. Benavince submit his proposal to the committee?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'm sorry. Thank you for reminding me.

Mr. Benavince, perhaps you could send the clerk or me a copy of this text you've just mentioned, and we'll make sure it's distributed to all the member of the committee.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: It's a very technical analysis, rather than philosophical, on the changes I would like to see.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, thank you very much.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: Of course I'd be pleased to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Martin.

Mr. Patrick Martin: Thank you. I made the point to the last group that made representation that there seem to be some themes coming through loud and clear from many of the groups we're hearing.

• 1710

One of the two obvious ones that I've heard from the Filipino community before, in my own province of Manitoba and here, is of course the language issue. I believe that's paramount. We are putting together amendments now that we'll be moving to delete the reference to “without the assistance of an interpreter”, to revert pretty much to where it was.

One of the points some of the groups made is that even if a person has been here for the three years necessary to qualify, during that period of time they may have been busy doing one or even two jobs and raising children and simply didn't have the opportunity to get to a level of proficiency in either official language to pass a complicated test about how bills pass through the House of Commons. It doesn't mean they weren't occupationally literate; it doesn't mean they weren't able to function in the community, or to dial an ambulance if their child was choking on a chicken bone. They could function in the community quite well in that capacity. So I was glad to hear your group raise this again today and drive that home one more time.

The second issue is the 1,095 days of actual physical presence. I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't believe that's a test of anything. I don't think it measures whether the person will be a good citizen, nor does it measure their level of interest in being a Canadian citizen. I think the 180 days is a reasonable compromise. That's six months. I could live with that.

Even within that six months, what tests would you use, for instance, if a person did have to leave the country to attend to a sick relative or to attend to business interests, or for some legitimate reason had to be out of the country? How would you list those tests, or what measure or test would you use to say, yes, it is justifiable that you're out of country for part of this 180-day period. What would you recommend?

Mr. Emilio Benavince: It is not possible to make an enumeration, because, as I said, in citizenship cases every case is possibly unique. The family is almost unique; the situation in which you find them is almost unique.

Take the language, for instance. I doubt very much that many immigrants come to this country without any desire to learn English or French. They do desire to learn. Most often it is a case of just not being able to afford it either in time or financially. The reasons they have for not being able to do that are so unique that it's impossible to enumerate them all.

It is the same with respect to absence from Canada. I think you would have to require at least two things: it must be temporary, and it must at least be compelling and justifiable. The cheaters will not be able to avoid the compelling and justifiable; they can avoid the temporary, but it's tough to avoid the compelling because you have to justify it.

I think I would leave it to the discretion of the judge. If the judge is honestly looking for a person who should be a Canadian, he will be able to look at what is compelling and what is justifiable. I have confidence that they will be able to do that.

Mr. Pat Martin: Do I have time for one more question?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Okay, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: In the case where a person loses their citizenship because they've reached 28 years of age and haven't yet filled the three-year residency requirement, in your opinion, what should happen to that person? First of all, should it happen? Secondly, should the fall-back position be that they would then become permanent residents, or would they become stateless, in fact?

Mr. Emilio Benavince: My view on this is that citizenship by blood is an inheritance.

One of the constitutional issues we have faced in our time is whether you're an aboriginal. In my way of thinking, the fact that you are born aboriginal is an inheritance... not only because you left the place. You should always stay an aboriginal.

The same is true with being a Canadian. I think it's important. There's an advantage to this, by the way. We should encourage Canadians to see the world, because they are the best ambassadors of this country. They can speak of how beautiful this country is. We should not be afraid of Canadians leaving this country. If they want to leave this country, they don't know what they are missing.

• 1715

So I'm not going to be very afraid about this. There is paranoia in that provision.

My proposal is this: Since we very often require them to register anyway in all of the foreign missions in order to give protection to Canadians, we should keep track of where they are, and if there is a limit of 28 years of age, we should give them notification and say, “We would invite you to register because you might lose your Canadian citizenship”, or whatever. We should take the initiative to keep our Canadian people. Do not shift it to them, because they can forget it. I find the statute a little strict on this.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much.

Mr. Bryden, I think you had a question.

Mr. John Bryden: My father emigrated from Britain in 1925, and I was born in Canada. Under the rules then, I was entitled to British citizenship as a result of my father being born there—he never in fact took out Canadian citizenship, but that's all by the by.

When I became a young man, I went over to Britain, and I didn't feel that it was my country at all. I felt then, and I still feel now, that while there were some things I shared in common with British tradition because I was born in Canada, in fact, it was a different country entirely.

So I'm curious about your analogy, because to me, at least in my own experience, how can I expect somebody who is born of Canadian parents abroad and who has grown up abroad to feel that Canada is their home any more than I felt Britain was my home?

Mr. Emilio Benavince: There is one way in which you can resolve this kind of so-called dual nationality situation. We may require, in certain cases, a renunciation process, because the failure to register is in effect a renunciation. All you are trying to do is give them a chance to renounce it.

I think it is our duty to make them aware that there might be either de facto renunciation or consensual renunciation of citizenship, but at least you will bring this person to a point where a crucial decision is going to be made, rather than it being made by default. That's very important.

Mr. John Bryden: You said also that citizenship is by blood; it's inherited. You made analogies to aboriginals.

Again I have to give you my own example. I'm born of British stock, there's no doubt about it, but I feel in my heart of hearts that it's wrong for me to think of myself as British. I feel that I'm Canadian. I feel more kinship with you than I feel kinship by blood with somebody simply because they're born in Britain.

I have to tell you that I'm not comfortable with your analogies there, with all due respect.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: I understand.

Mr. John Bryden: I'll take it a step further. I'm very conscious of the fact that we're dealing with a terrible problem in the former Yugoslavia right now. Again you have this problem. If a person is born, say, of Serbia parents, born here in Canada, by your rationale that person should consider themselves to be a Serbian citizen. If that's the case, then that person will consider that they have at least equal loyalty to the situation that may be occurring in Serbia right now. I would suggest to you that again, by your own rationale, that puts people in a conflict where they might have to set aside the country they know, which is Canada, for the country that, I would submit to you, they don't know.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: The answer to that is this: I can read a certain kind of renunciation the moment a person emigrates away from Canada, but for that period of time until he acquires the citizenship of another country, he is in limbo.

I will make a distinction. I'm not going to presume renunciation merely because a person is absent from Canada. There are a lot of countries around the world today where citizenship is not required to live in that foreign country. You can live in the United States; there are hundred of countries around the world today to which you can go for weather or whatever kind of reason. I would think that you cannot read mere absence from Canada as a kind of implied renunciation.

• 1720

But I can go this far. The moment they emigrate out of Canada and become immigrants of another country, there is at least a tentative judgment that they want to leave. Then the moment they acquire citizenship in the other place, I can see that there will be a renunciation. If the second-generation Canadian has not indicated at a certain point in time that he would like to retain citizenship, because he was born Canadian, I would also argue that he has acceded to and adopted the renunciation made by the parent. But we should at least give them a chance to make that decision. That's my argument.

Being absent from Canada cannot be read as a renunciation. It cannot be.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

I think, Mr. Cabugao, you had mentioned that you wanted to make some closing remarks.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Yes, Madam Chair.

Our presentation is similar to that of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, which we presented a week ago. I would mention here that we highlighted important aspects, particularly on the refusal and revocation of citizenship.

We have 15 recommendations in the paper that we submitted to the committee. I will just read numbers 11 and 13, because this is quite important as to the function and powers of the minister:

(11) The Minister's power should be exercised with caution and compassion, considering the gravity or lightness of the offence, as a mistake may or may not be made “unknowingly” upon application. The non-disclosure of dependents upon application, for example, should not be made a basis for revocation of the citizenship, and the law should allow the naturalized citizens to make amends or correction within specific guidelines.

(13) The Minister shall not have the final say in the Citizenship Act, where the rights of citizens and immigrants are protected by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. The Citizenship Act should provide recourse to the final court of the land, and should conform to similar other Acts, which could be subject to review or amendment by Parliament.

These are a few of the things. I think you will have time later on to read all the 15 recommendations our communities have summarized.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Seeing that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has already submitted its brief, I will not go around the table for questions unless the members desire it absolutely.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I wanted to say, simply in closing, Mr. Benavince, that I certainly appreciated your talking about the obligations and the rights of citizenship. We tend to forget that there are obligations as well as rights quite often.

We certainly look forward, as a committee, to receiving a copy of your brief, which you will be sending to the clerk as soon as possible, I hope.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: I'll be glad to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): And I'll have it distributed to the committee.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: Sure.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Once again, gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this afternoon. We appreciate it very much.

Mr. Emilio Benavince: Thank you.

Mr. Salvador Cabugao: Thank you very much for having us.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

• 1725

[Translation]

I am extremely pleased to welcome the representatives of the Centre de recherche-action sur les relations raciales de Montréal. They are Mr. Fo Niemi, executive director, and Mr. Walter Chiyantom, chairman of the board. Welcome to both of you. I will give you 10 minutes to make a presentation first and then there will be questions by members of the Committee.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom (Lawyer and Chairman of the Board, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, CRARR wants to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for having extended this opportunity to come and share its views on Bill C-63, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.

CRARR recognizes how important it is for Canada to enact a new citizenship legislation that should reflect the modern values of our multicultural, multiracial and bilingual society which is at the height of an unprecedented globalization trend.

CRARR is an independent Montreal organization that has been involved in racial relations since 1983 and it has the mandate to promote an active involvement in every area of society by members of ethnocultural minorities and aboriginal communities in urban centres. As such, CRARR is happy that many provisions and aspects of the bill are full of fairness.

CRARR recognizes the formidable challenges that not only the citizenship and immigration authorities are facing, but also those who are directly affected in their daily lives by these challenges, that is all first generation Canadians and all those who have become Canadians after immigrating here themselves.

After setting the debate on citizenship in the context of the boundless economic, technological and cultural evolution that Canada is presently experiencing, CRARR wishes to highlight jointly a number of provisions in the bill that appear counterproductive and even detrimental to many areas of society.

At the same time, CRARR notes that the bill has a few shortfalls that get to the core meaning of citizenship in a post- industrial and post-modern society. This is particularly significant in a country that is having to redefine regularly its social and economic values and structures because of both global and domestic forces, in particular the transnational movements of peoples and cultures, the redesigning of geographic limits, etc.

It would also have been possible with this bill to elaborate a more substantial concept of citizenship in a post-modern context, by taking into consideration the works and thoughts of academics on the Canadian identity, to modernize our collective concept of citizenship.

You could have included in the bill—and this is a very real recommendation—an inspiring preamble summing up the great principles and values, among other things, that are presently found in the various international conventions on civil and economic rights, on the rights of the child, on women's rights and on racism, as well as the Canadian Charter of rights and various national legislations. For example, there is the preamble of the Multiculturalism Act.

Additional issues could have been dealt with, such as citizenship training and federal standards and objectives to set for this training.

In the following sections, CRARR will deal with other problems such as—and we will then get to the meat of the matter—the inconsistency of this legislative process.

Before presenting a more detailed analysis of the bill, you have to wonder why you are now in the process of adopting a bill that really touches the core of the Canadian identity without dealing with the process used to make it happen. In other words, it would have been better if the government had introduced at the same time, or even beforehand, a bill on immigration, given the close link between immigration and citizenship and the fact that the bill includes many legal notions relevant to immigration matters.

• 1730

Our organization has done no legal analysis of the bill. I think that the one made by CBA, the Canadian Bar Association, was detailed enough, but as we say in Québec, are we not trying to put the cart before the horse? In other words, there are many important concepts in the Immigration Act. Maybe we should start by putting those in concrete form before enacting a citizenship legislation.

The other important issue is the fact that, in our opinion, passing the citizenship bill now might compromise the true value and effectiveness of the consultation process on new immigration policies.

In other words, if citizenship is to be the end result or outcome of a process to obtain and maintain the permanent resident status, then by first establishing guidelines and procedures to limit access to citizenship, the government will probably have to make some amendments to the Immigration Act. This is a very serious fact that has to be taken into consideration.

For these reasons, we are recommending to government, among other things, to make sure that the whole citizenship and immigration public policy it will develop for the next century is uniform; that it is consistent with other social legislation and government policies that directly impact on citizenship and on future citizens, including the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Official Languages Act; and finally, that it is consistent with other economic legislation and government policies in the areas of taxation, international trade and economic development.

Let's move now to provisions that have to be amended.

As far as citizenship at birth is concerned, CRARR supports the provisions on citizenship at birth because they generally affirm the traditional values and practices of Canada, that is giving citizenship to people born here.

Clause 4(1)(b), however, seems to be contrary to clause 3 because it negates the right to citizenship of people who do not meet the so-called generational requirement found in the bill. As it presently reads, clause 4(1)(b) means that an individual born outside of Canada from a Canadian parent past the second generation will not be considered as a Canadian citizen any more. What is the reasoning behind this kind of limit or exclusion, especially given the mobility of people and families in the new global economy? Is this provision consistent with the international conventions and the Charter of Rights, particularly if you take into account the fact that a child with a Canadian bloodline can't help where he or she is born? Could such a decision eventually lead to a situation where children would be stateless or without citizenship?

Let's now direct our attention to the grant of citizenship issue and to the infamous period of physical residence.

We feel that there are many elements in clause 6 on physical residence that should not remain as they now read.

We are asking in particular that the permanent residence requirement of at least 1,095 days during the five years immediately before applying for citizenship be amended. This is an inflexible requirement that doesn't take into account the effect of globalization that we have previously mentioned.

CRARR does appreciate government's concerns about permanent residents who reside in Canada only on paper, but it notes that the proposed requirement is not very realistic in the face of contemporary dynamic forces and requirements brought about by globalization and by the Canadian economy.

Whatever the real reason behind this new residency requirement, CRARR remains unconvinced that there is a causal link between the length of permanent residence or physical residence and the ability to officially become a citizen or to integrate well into Canadian society.

• 1735

Do we have to remind you once again that the requirements for acquiring citizenship must necessarily and logically be based on the immigrant's ability to meet a number of obligations and take on some duties as a full-fledged member of Canada's society? At the same time, Canadian society must meet its own responsibilities and duties to welcome immigrants and reach out to them in order to make their integration easier.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I have to interrupt. You have two more minutes. You might tell us about the rest of your presentation or deal with the other concepts you want to make known to us when you answer questions later on. You have already used up more time than you were allowed. However, I will let you have two more minutes. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Concerning physical residence, what must be noted essentially is that the citizenship process starts as soon as the immigrant selection is made. I mean the selection of Canada as the country of destination by the immigrant, and not the selection of the immigrant by Canada. The immigrant has already made a choice. He or she wants Canada to be the country where his or her children will be growing up. You have to take into account this thought process.

You must also take into account the fact that many of these people cannot physically be here for one reason or another, whether it is for business reasons or because they must earn a living elsewhere. The most important thing is the concept of Canadian identity, that is what it means to be a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident.

Basically, you have to look at what an immigrant is giving to his or her family remaining in Canada when these family members eventually acquire citizenship. A man or woman who has to travel all over the place must earn money to enable his or her family to integrate. The citizenship notion should then have a wider and more general meaning.

Finally, the idea of suppressing half-days, notably at section 5 of the present act—I'm sure that other organizations have presented the same views—is totally against the spirit of the bill. On one hand, physical residence is required because people can then integrate better to society, while on the other hand, the physical residence of other people is not taken into consideration. That's not very logical. The legislation is inconsistent.

I will let Mr. Niemi conclude.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Niemi.

Mr. Fo Niemi (Executive Director, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations): In closing, Madam Chair, we would like to mention two other aspects that have not been adequately discussed to date. I will do so in English because it will be faster.

[English]

In our brief, we raise a number of issues. I believe there are some very specific recommendations for amendments to the wording of the bill, without amendments to the spirit of the bill, that have been proposed in the brief. But what we would like to raise is that we believe this should have been an occasion to define what Canadian citizenship is.

There should be also a legislative framework for the department to look into citizenship training. The concern we have is that in an age of federal devolution of powers, or signing of accords with the provinces on immigration and citizenship training, if there are no clear standards for training and citizenship courses given to new immigrants, then we may come up with very different norms and different contents in the citizenship training that each province will undertake.

We believe this is an issue that could have been looked at, because it's a real issue in some areas, and we end up with a situation where newcomers to Canada would have a very different understanding of what Canada is all about, depending on where they live.

• 1740

We also believe that the issue of citizenship as a condition of employment, for example, for the federal civil service and for Elections Canada could have been addressed in this debate. Right now there's a case before the Federal Court of Appeal involving the federal civil service and the requirement for Canadian citizenship as a condition of employment in the federal civil service. By the way, this has been done away with by the Quebec government for its own civil service because it has found that citizenship as a requirement has no bearing whatsoever on the ability or the knowledge or the performance standards of the individual. This kind of requirement should be looked at, because it sometimes provides a very contradictory message to would-be citizens or permanent residents as to whether this country and this society are really about equal opportunity and equality under the charter. So we would like to raise those issues.

We suggest, finally, in conclusion, that this bill be perhaps delayed or postponed in order to give much greater thought and concentration on the white paper on immigration.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Mr. Chiyantom and Mr. Niemi. We will now go to questions.

[English]

Mr. McNally, do you have a question to address to witnesses?

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Madam Chair, just a few questions.

You made an interesting comment off the top about the need for an immigration bill versus a citizenship bill. I think my colleagues across the way will be letting you know that there is an immigration bill coming as well. It's your opinion that that should have come first, before this bill— is that what you're saying, or at the same time?

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Either at the same time or even before. Without getting into the technicalities of it... My other hat, besides being a volunteer president of CRARR, is that of immigration lawyer. In fact I worked a little bit on the CBA brief as well.

What it comes down to is this. As I was saying in French, how can we pass the buggy before the horse? There are fundamental notions within the citizenship law that have to be coherent with the immigration law. We cannot define in the citizenship law the conclusions of what we'd eventually like to have in the immigration law. So one of the things we really would like to have the committee take a look at is the consequence of adopting a law that will perhaps even limit to a certain degree the debate upon the upcoming reform of the immigration law.

Mr. Grant McNally: What consequences do you see of that debate being limited by the fact that this bill is coming prior to the—

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: One of the consequences, which we really haven't talked about necessarily in great detail but which I think other groups have brought out, is the elimination of an appeal de novo— in other words, a full hearing in which people who have been refused citizenship can have their claims looked at again in more detail.

Citizenship is not a cut-and-dried issue. Citizenship is an issue dealing with identity, with knowledge; it's dealing with many issues. To simply say it's a matter of physical presence, and if there are not enough dates that are calculated correctly... Or even if we stuck with the present definition, that citizenship is this, this, and this, and if the first judge makes an error, but this error is not a great error in law or in fact, that's it and that's that. Right now, as the bill stands, there's only a judicial review.

In the upcoming white paper on immigration that is being elaborated, they're looking at the same issues— the elimination of appeals to certain categories that presently have the right to appeal, and to turn it into a judicial review.

Our point of view is that there's a dangerous precedent that is being set in the adoption of certain mechanisms in the citizenship law regarding even the loss of citizenship, among other things.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thank you. And just to clarify, many of us around this table are going to know the difference between judicial review and appeal. What we are saying here is also on the record in Hansard forever. Could you elaborate a bit further, for the record, your point on the difference between judicial review and an actual appeal, that being the review looking at points in law?

• 1745

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Yes. A judicial review is basically a review by a superior judge based upon the fact that there is a considerable error in law, not a simple error in law, or an error in fact that is a considerable error in fact, which allows the superior judge to overturn the decision of the first judge. No new evidence is allowed. No new material is allowed. Everything is based upon the original material.

For example, especially in the case of citizenship, we have many cases that... Let's say, for example, someone was refused because his language wasn't good enough, and later on, two, three, or four months down the line, the person might be in an appeal de novo. The person's English at that point might have improved. The person's knowledge of Canada might have improved. But because an appeal de novo doesn't allow these new elements to be presented, the person wouldn't have that right.

Mr. Grant McNally: Many groups have said the same kind of thing over and over again to us about this removal of the right to appeal and the additional discretionary power that would be in the minister's and the executive's hands to make those kind of decisions. You're echoing those concerns as well.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Effectively.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, thanks.

I'll pass the floor on to—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

Mr. Martin, you have no questions?

Mr. McKay.

I'm sorry, did anyone else raise their hand on the Liberal side? No? Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Last and least.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I just wanted to be sure I was being fair to all the members of the Liberal caucus present at this meeting.

Mr. John McKay: You're such a fair chair.

Let me play the devil's advocate here for a second and put the department's argument, which is that in clause 6 the worst thing that can happen to an individual is that they don't get a passport and they don't get a vote. There's no issue about being deported from the country. There's no issue about their status changing or anything of that nature. It's not as if they can't move and go where they wish to go. They still can travel in accordance with whatever passport they've had, etc.

So that's their position. The attraction—and the corollary—of the position is that it simplifies things. You're either here three years out of five or you're not, you're here 60% of the time or you're not, period. End of sentence. It takes away a—how shall we say it?—mini-industry among judicial officers as to whether a person is or is not resident.

My question to you is what's the harm?

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: I'm sorry?

Mr. Grant McNally: What's the harm?

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: First of all, I think the question you have to ask yourself is whether the government is saying that citizenship is nothing but a piece of paper. Is the government saying that all citizenship is is a passport? If that's effectively the position of the government, they should come out clearly on this, because in all of the preamble... And this is it, there is no preamble. This is what we're asking for. Let's take a look at what the spirit of citizenship is. What is the intention of citizenship? Why not put a preamble into the Citizenship Act saying what exactly we are looking at? What exactly are we testing?

Mr. Grant McNally: Isn't the preamble really a post-amble in the oath? Isn't the oath the preamble of what constitutes citizenship?

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: No, because a preamble is much different. A preamble is what directs the spirit of the interpretation of the law. I don't want to get into the technicalities of the preamble or whatever else, but you asked me—

Mr. Grant McNally: I understand what a preamble is. My point is that the minister, for better or for worse, is saying that the decisions on what constitutes residency are contradictory. It's created a bit of a mini-industry. We're onto a rights-based system, and this is ending up in endless amounts of litigation over what is ultimately a very small impact on a person's position and status in society.

• 1750

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Yes. But once again you're saying citizenship is nothing but a piece of paper. I obtained Canadian citizenship when I first came to Canada. It's the same as asking why people get married. Is marriage just a piece of paper? What is citizenship? Is citizenship just a piece of paper?

Mr. John McKay: I don't think that's your perfect analogy, but that's another issue.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: But basically it's the same thing. What's the harm? The harm is basically in terms of Canadian identity and being a Canadian citizen. It's a rite of passage for many people. People come to Canada because of the values Canadian citizenship represents and symbolizes.

Mr. Fo Niemi: I would like to add that especially where we come from, citizenship gives a person the right to vote in elections or referendums. In some cases every vote is very important.

Secondly, our electoral system, as we mentioned earlier, confers certain sorts of privileges— for example, the right to run for office or, according to our provincial legislation, make a financial contribution to a political party. Right now in Quebec you cannot donate money to a political party at the provincial level if you are not eligible to vote, i.e., if you don't have Canadian citizenship. So it goes to the heart of what Canadian democracy is all about.

Sure, a lot of people live in this society right now without being Canadian citizens. But those are some of the issues we have to be careful about, because we're talking about the principle of fundamental justice. In the case of being wrongly accused and imprisoned, it goes to the heart of what is justice and democracy.

Mr. John McKay: Let's address the next issue, then. Basically we're moving out of the income tax model as to what constitutes a residence for purposes of income tax, and moving to a pretty hard notion of what is or is not a resident for the purposes of this legislation.

I can understand the minister's frustration with the contradictory decisions and the mini-industry that's developed over this. That's from the representations we've heard from various citizenship judges. Tell me how this could be a less litigious process, a more precise process, and still respect the concerns that, for argument's sake, you're raising here.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: What it comes down to, once again, is the following. If the legislator has not expressed clearly his or her intention in the legislation, that's effectively where it's open season, as you say, for the judges. However, where the legislator has expressed exactly what we are looking at, what citizenship is and what the obligations of citizenship are, where there is contradictory jurisprudence, it's open for the legislator to decide.

Perhaps my legal background is a little bit of a handicap, but if it were clearly defined in the preamble, as it is in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Multiculturalism Act, what exactly the legislator and the Canadian people finally were looking for in terms of Canadian citizenship, it would be much clearer how the judges would apply the act. But where there is a lack of direction by the legislator, you will have differing and varying interpretations.

Mr. John McKay: Okay. That's a good response.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Volpe, you have a question.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thanks.

If I could pursue this concept of devil's advocate and maybe mini-industries, Mr. Niemi stole part of my thunder when he made reference to the impact of denial of citizenship just a few years ago in another event in another part of the country.

You said you have a legal background. You're a lawyer, right?

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Yes.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Tell me something about the legal industry, or this industry that would develop. We're told that last year about 160,000 people were granted citizenship and 248 cases were caused by the department to be appealed. Of those, 109 were for residency. I'm trying to figure out quickly what the percentages involved are, but I think they are significantly small. In your legal experience, are they sufficiently significant to warrant legislation to ensure their elimination?

• 1755

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: We're straying a little bit from the brief we are presenting.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I'm interested in the industry.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: I really can't speak for my fellow practitioners, but what it comes down to is this. Basically, as you said, one thing that needs to be looked at is whether the numbers warrant this legislative hardening of the definition of the conditions to citizenship and to a certain extent the limiting of accessibility to citizenship. I can tell you quite honestly that I have had very few cases come to me because of a refusal of citizenship, the reason being that most of these people, unfortunately, often have to go back because of a lack of means or whatever. And if it's a lack of language ability, they have to go back and spend more time learning English or French.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: In the process of the industry, which you've avoided, the applicant who is being turned down faces a series of choices. One of them is to beef up the elements that are found wanting, be they language or be they physical presence, but we're talking about the industry of appealing a challenge to a citizenship.

The department says 248 citizenships were challenged last year for one reason or another; 109 of them were for residency. I thought I heard you and the previous two presenters say that the essence of this legislation is based on the concept of residency. The person who presented just before you gave us political constitutional concepts that flow from that and some democratic concepts that flow from it as well. I'm just wondering whether 109 and 248 out of 160,000 constitutes a significant enough problem or an industry that would clog up the judicial system or the department. I'm looking for the perspective of somebody who is an expert in the area and who deals in the area.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: In terms of citizenship litigation, that's not what I deal with. I deal more with immigration selection.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Okay, I think you're from Mr. McKay's background. As lawyers, they refuse to answer questions.

Again, along the same lines of being the devil's advocate, if an applicant goes before the department, because that's the first line of acceptance or rejection, and he is refused or the department judges the applicant to fall in an area that isn't simply... As somebody said earlier on, they can check him off and everything is okay, but someone has to make an assessment. Someone has to make a judgment, and they go before the adjudicator— in this case still a judge. The judge may decide for or against, and as judges are wont to do, they have different viewpoints in life. We're beginning to see this in virtually every other aspect of other jurisprudence.

Because they see things differently, the consequences for an applicant will be not simply the permission to carry on on their passport, but a whole series of life decisions based on the political and economic consequences that flow from either having or not having that citizenship. Under those circumstances, are we talking about a devaluation of Canadian citizenship because of those consequences, or an evaluation, a re-evaluation upward, of the value of Canadian citizenship because someone has suffered a rejection?

• 1800

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: Throughout our presentation—and Mr. Niemi may wish to comment—we've always said that basically citizenship is more than a piece of paper. Citizenship is really a rite of passage. For this reason, it's important that the judges or the adjudicators have the discretion to effectively take into account all the different aspects of citizenship and all the different aspects of what the person has to present as a citizen.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: May I ask one last question, Madam Chair?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Go ahead.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I'm going to ask a question one of my colleagues asked sort of in passing at one of our previous meetings. How much legal sense does it make to require an applicant for citizenship to swear allegiance to someone who does not have a physical presence in Canada and yet you require of the applicant that same qualification?

Mr. Fo Niemi: It's an issue we did not discuss because it's—

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Does it have any legal—

Mr. Fo Niemi: You're referring to the Queen, and I think we're talking more of the crown as a concept and as the basis of a democracy.

But I would like to go back—

A voice: What about God?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: God is absent in that particular oath, but the Queen is there.

Mr. Fo Niemi: I'd like to go back to the issue you raised earlier about the evaluation and devaluation of the notion of citizenship when a person is denied by the citizenship authority or the judge.

One of the things that motivate us to adopt this approach is that citizenship, as Mr. Chiyantom said, is more than a matter of legality or administrative papers. For the individual it's very much an issue of human, emotional, psychological, and intellectual attachment to the country. So when the person is denied, for whatever reason, I think we have to look at the factors leading to such denial and the impact on that individual per se. We cannot have a general rule unless that general rule is outlined clearly in the act.

One of the issues we're always faced with when we analyse this bill and compare it with the immigration paper is what we mean by these traditional Canadian values. What are some of the parameters? What are some of “des assises solides”, as they say in French? What are some of the foundations that can define citizenship in a way that goes beyond the administrative and procedural thing?

I believe that in Quebec there has been a lot of discussion about citizenship as an entitlement. The Quebec government, through its different bodies, produces papers that go beyond having a passport. What does being a Quebec citizen mean in terms of economic entitlement and social entitlement?

These are the issues that really go to the heart of the matter. In 1994 a parliamentary committee raised these issues in their report on citizenship, but unfortunately, for some reason, these notions did not find themselves repeated in this process or debated enough. In our opinion, there's a risk here of making a citizenship bill into a citizenship admission or citizenship control bill more than the substantive notion of citizenship.

You asked about the value of Canadian citizenship. These are the issues we're facing that are in a grey area. It varies from individual to individual and from circumstance to circumstance. Coming from a province and from an area in society where the issue of citizenship acquires an entirely different political, social, economic, and cultural notion, we believe this is perhaps the weakness this government needs to address in the bill in order to provide for a clearer legislative framework that goes beyond the administration of the process of becoming or not becoming a Canadian citizen.

I don't know whether you understand the subtleties and the profound psychological, intellectual, and cultural impact in this debate. We cannot talk about who is entitled to become a Canadian citizen unless we outline perhaps a little bit more clearly the foundations or the values of citizenship for the 21st century. In some ways the immigration white paper better defines the values of what Canada is than this bill does, unfortunately.

• 1805

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Have you found anybody who likes this bill?

Mr. Fo Niemi: There are some parts on adoption that are possible.

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: There are some good points. But what it comes down to once again is the following: citizenship really is the cherry on top. It's the final product. It's everything you work toward. And if citizenship is so important, then in that case perhaps we need to take a look, in terms of this bill, not just at who will not be citizens but, more importantly, who should be citizens and what citizenship means. To that extent, perhaps more study is needed.

Mr. Fo Niemi: May I suggest that the committee examine the report of the Quebec council of intercultural relations, which talks about being a citizen in a pluralistic democracy. It goes beyond the issue of ethnocultural diversity and really looks at what it means to be a citizen in a society in constant change that has to redefine its social and economic organizations, at what the relationship is between the state and the people who live in a geographically defined piece of land, and at the mutual obligations and the notion of...

Again, Quebec came up with the notion of more of a social contract between a would-be citizen and the so-called whole society. Those are very important frames of reference that can help us better situate this debate and perhaps come up with a better notion and procedures by which to define conditions of access to Canadian citizenship. Ottawa is... coming from where we come from. Some of these things may not have the same resonance and may not affect this country in the way this bill is designed to. That's all I'd like to say.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you.

I would like to add a few words, if you wouldn't mind. I do understand the suggestion you're making to us about the definition of citizenship and the relationship of the individual to the state through the notion of citizenship, and certainly I participated in the debate, as you know, in Quebec. But I think the Quebec situation is in a sense very different from the situation across Canada in terms of why we in Quebec felt we needed to have such a debate. We needed to define the relationship between the citizen and the state and the relationship of one citizen to another.

I'm not altogether sure that kind of definition or debate is quite as important across Canada as it is in that particular province. But certainly we had a big debate; it's still going on. It raised a lot of enmity, but I think it also raised some very interesting arguments about what citizenship was, in particular its relationship to ethnicity in terms of being French Canadian, or French-speaking Québécois, and other-speaking Québécois, whether they be English, Italian, or whatever.

So I'm querying that. I'm also querying the fact that if we were to have such a debate in this committee or in the House... I see a lot of difficulties linked to this. I think if we were to do this, it would be very difficult to get a bill passed through the House in a short period of time. However, I think such a debate might be interesting outside the House, which is what has happened in Quebec also. Such a debate happened outside the Assemblée nationale.

I do have one or two questions to ask you. As a point of clarification, Mr. Chiyantom, when you talked about coherence with other social laws, you mentioned the law on multiculturalism, the law sur les droits de la personne. There was a third law, and I missed it. I'm trying to—

[Translation]

Mr. Walter Chiyantom: The Official Languages Act.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Les langues officielles, of course.

Now, I do have one thing I would like you to develop. It concerns the agreements between certain provinces and the federal government regarding citizenship, and the fact that, as you mentioned, Mr. Niemi, some provinces, among which is Quebec, do have the responsibility for language training and, it would seem, what goes along with training for citizenship. I would like you to talk a little more about these clear standards you see, why you see the need for them, and how you think the federal government could have a role in setting these standards, when, it seems to me, the responsibility has now been given to at least three of the Canadian provinces.

• 1810

Mr. Fo Niemi: I think, to answer the question... I have a cold, so my voice goes up and down.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You always have a cold, Mr. Niemi, whenever I speak to you.

Mr. Fo Niemi: About a year or two ago it was reported publicly in Quebec that many of these immigrant training classes run by the Quebec government's immigration department said very little about Canadian history, for example. Yet the federal government signed an accord with the Quebec government to transfer responsibilities for the adaptation and settlement of immigrants to the province.

The issue is not whether it's Quebec or not, the issue is that when the federal government devolves part of its administrative and financial responsibilities and resources to a lower level of government to carry out some of its mandate for services, what are the basic minimal standards and objectives that we're providing to create a certain degree of uniformity or coherence and to also help reduce the warped perception that some newcomers in some parts of the country may have of other parts of the country?

For example, I personally travel a lot across the country, and when I go to Vancouver I hear people saying in effect, “Well, French is not our language because our language is Chinese.” Somehow in the training of these new citizens, or in some of the citizenship training courses, the message is not going through that French is not “their” language—it's not “us” and “them”—but it is one of the two national languages. This is only one example of what could be done.

The other thing is the whole role of Louis Riel, the whole western expansion of Canada, the early history. When we go through some of the stuff related to citizenship training, the history of Canada... there's a great debate right now on Canadian history. There's a debate also about the geography and what this country is really made up of in terms of its people. Some of the things we see in Ontario, some of the things we see in Quebec, and what we see in some of the immigrant settlement classes that are run by NGO, non-profit sector organizations or in the schools are a little bit in every direction.

We've discussed this and we feel it's really important that the government that pays calls the shots a little in terms of the minimal objectives. Why are we training people for citizenship? What are the tools? What are the standard tests and means and criteria that one can come up with in order to have some sort of federal-provincial cohesion in defining a common framework for citizenship training or for civic education of the newcomers?

We don't know whether it's an issue that has been raised so far in the discussion of this bill, but in the present context we believe it's important to address it, because oftentimes, as you mentioned earlier, perhaps in English Canada there's uncertainty because perhaps English Canadians tend to define themselves more in terms of whether or not we are Americans, or because of the vast cleavages of all the regions we tend to avoid issues that seem to be too complicated. But by avoiding that we're creating greater confusion, and newcomers or immigrants who come here, depending on where they live, can get a very distorted perception of what this country is really about.

This is why we suggest that in the discussion about this citizenship bill we should really—perhaps not in this bill but somewhere such as in the Department of Canadian Heritage—come up with a framework to address the need for some sort of coherent citizenship training to newcomers or to would-be citizens.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much.

Certainly I expected your presentation to be very thought-provoking, and you have been up to par, as usual. Thank you very much for presenting this evening.

I will remind the members of this committee that our next meeting will be held tomorrow, Thursday, at 9 a.m., April 22, and it will be in Room 308 of the West Block.

Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned.