CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 22, 1999

• 0932

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)): Today is April 22, 1999, and we are now beginning the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration. Our agenda is as follows: pursuant to an Order of Reference of the House, dated March 1, 1999, we are continuing consideration of Bill C-63, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship.

I am very pleased to welcome you here today. Mr. Bouthillier and Mr. Philpot, you will have an opportunity to appear before members from other parts of Canada.

It is our pleasure to hear from two representatives of the Société Saint-Jean Baptiste de Montréal, Mr. Guy Bouthillier, who is the president of the society, and Mr. Robin Philpot, director of communications.

Welcome to the committee. Mr. Bouthillier, you may begin. You have ten minutes to give your presentation, and then the members of the opposition will be the first to ask questions.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier (President, Société Saint-Jean Baptiste de Montréal): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm going to give my colleague Robin Philpot the floor, and then I will make my remarks.

[English]

Mr. Robin Philpot (Director, Communications, Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal): I'm going to speak in English to start with, especially to be able to address the people from outside of Quebec. I'm originally from Thunder Bay, Ontario.

I imagine that in their case they have probably never heard of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, which was my case for a long time. I think it's important that before we make our presentation, people understand and know a little bit about its history. It was founded in 1834, well before Confederation. It was very involved in the patriot struggle of 1837-38, both in Lower Canada, which became Quebec, and in Upper Canada. In fact, we recently remembered the executions that took place 160 years ago by placing an ad in the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir. With that ad we were trying to point out that at different times we had fought together for democracy and human rights. We included the names of those who were executed in Upper Canada at that time.

If you sing the national anthem before hockey games and probably here quite often, you might not realize that national anthem was commissioned by Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal in 1880. It's quite ironic that now that anthem is the national anthem of the country Quebec would like to separate from. Also, the maple leaf was the emblem of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste. The Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste was also among the founders of l'École des hautes études commerciales, which is the business school at the University of Montreal. It was also one of the founders of the Chambre de commerce, the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. It has been very involved in the social, cultural, political, and economic development of Quebec.

• 0935

The fact that there are so few members of Parliament from outside of Quebec here explains a little bit why, when I was growing up, I never heard of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal. We do regret that there are not more people present. I hope our regrets will be conveyed to those who are absent.

[Translation]

Mr. Bouthillier will give our presentation, and then we will answer your questions.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Thank you, Robin.

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, our remarks will deal solely with one aspect of the bill, namely the proposed wording of the oath of allegiance. First of all, we would like to state that in our opinion, the proposed oath is behind the times and misses the mark with regard to the new realities of Quebec society that have emerged over the past 30 years. We would also like to stress that the proposed oath is dangerous, in that it strengthens a trend that has been seen and heard in political life, and which is still seen and heard, namely the undemocratic and threatening trend to limit the political freedom and the freedom of expression of certain people.

So our first point is that the proposed oath is behind the times in terms of the new realities. In the olden days, swearing an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty and to Canada was in keeping with the reality of immigration, the reality that prevailed before 1947 and up until the early 1960s. During that period of time, for all sorts of reasons that we understand, immigrants to all parts of Canada, including Quebec, tended to join English-speaking or English Canadian society. Nowadays, we are aware of the efforts that all elements of Quebec society have made over the past 25 or 30 years to ensure that immigrants integrate into Quebec society, whose official, common language is French.

There has been a considerable amount of change on both sides, both among Quebeckers as the society welcoming newcomers, and among the immigrants who are settling in Quebec. We see stronger ties forming between the two groups. Everyday, immigrants tend more and more to integrate into the French-language society, Quebec society, which of course has a role to play in the selection process. Everyone is familiar with the 1978 Cullen-Couture agreement on immigration. Quebec society also intervenes in various ways and on many occasions in areas such as social security, culture, language, and perhaps first and foremost, education.

Bill 101 has had a very strong effect in this regard, and that is why it is so important to Quebec society and to the experience of immigrants who come and settle in Quebec to become new Quebeckers. Thanks to Bill 101, the children of immigrants now live, receive training and learn in the French schools of Quebec, with a few exceptions. This is an extremely important point, and it shows just how important the structures of Quebec society are in the lives of immigrants to Quebec.

Naturally, the immigration process is one of selection, settlement and welcome, but it is not over until the immigrant is naturalized. At that time, the immigrant becomes a citizen, and in a way, the immigrant behind the new citizen disappears. Where an immigrant once stood, a citizen now stands. It is the desired and happy outcome of the process.

• 0940

Becoming a naturalized citizen means having to swear an oath of allegiance. I believe that's how it works in every country throughout the world. When you look at this proposed oath of allegiance—this is the first point that we would like to draw your attention to—you can see that absolutely no mention of Quebec is made in the oath. When the immigrant swears his oath of allegiance and becomes a new citizen, he finds himself in somewhat of a schizophrenic situation.

Ever since he arrived, he's been told that he is joining Quebec society and becoming a Quebec citizen, but when the solemn, extremely important time comes for him to swear the oath, all of a sudden Quebec disappears. In our view, this is a terrible pity and it just won't do. We would like the wording to be amended so that new citizens swearing the oath of allegiance who live in Quebec would swear allegiance to both Quebec and to Canada. That's our first suggestion. The proposed oath in the bill, which may have been suitable 30 years ago, is no longer at all in keeping with today's realities.

I'd now like to turn to another matter that may be even more serious and more disturbing. Life being what it is, and political passions being what they are, sometimes people go too far when speaking. In my own political circumstances, what strikes me is that sometimes I hear federalists rage at Quebec nationalists who are not native-born, people who are naturalized immigrants and now Canadian citizens.

I have seen this happen, and I've heard it too. I have been present at some extremely unpleasant scenes where people said that those born in Canada were entitled to be separatists, but that people from other countries, such as Morocco, Lithuania, Italy or Greece, were not entitled to be separatists because they had sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada.

In my opinion, it truly is a pity and it is quite dangerous that some people would or would not recognize the political rights and freedoms of others, including the right to be in favour of Quebec independence, depending on where the other people were born. Some people think that if you were born here, you are allowed to be in favour of sovereignty; if you weren't born here, you aren't allowed. They treat people differently, but above all, they stir up such passions and say that these people are traitors to Canada and that they should leave the country.

This attitude leads to scenes such as the one that was described shortly after it occurred in Le Devoir. One person said to another, "Get out of here—we were in a synagogue—you're not entitled to be here, you are not welcome because you are a sovereignist; it's all right for him to be one, he was born here in Montreal, in Canada, in Notre-Dame hospital; but you, you were born in Morocco, you don't have this right and you are a traitor to Canada." Sometimes the example comes from very high levels.

Some people will remember, although it did not happen right here, it was here in the Parliament of Canada, a senior minister told a member of Parliament who was born in another country and who had become a naturalized Canadian citizen that if he wasn't happy, he could leave. Such remarks by a minister to a new citizen are quite threatening. A member of Parliament may have the strength to just shrug off such remarks and not let himself be intimidated, but that's not necessarily the case for ordinary citizens or people who do not have the same kind of background.

• 0945

I'm afraid that the proposed oath reinforces this tendency to exclude the non-native-born, that is to say naturalized citizens, from political debate and I'm afraid that it is an affront to the political freedom and personal safety of ordinary citizens. There have been many accounts of people being treated this way. For example, just read Ms. Ghila Sroka's articles in La Tribune juive, and you will see many accounts of people saying just how hard it is to be excluded by one's own community for political reasons.

Canada being what it is, and having the opinion of itself that it does, which I understand, Canada should be worthy of its own opinion of itself and make this change to the oath. We would thus avoid many unpleasant situations that fly in the face of the fundamental rights of men and women in Quebec and Canada. Thank you.

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

Mr. Philpot, you don't have anything to add right now?

Mr. Robin Philpot: No, thank you.

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

[English]

We are now into the question period. Mr. Benoit, do you have questions for the witnesses?

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen. It's interesting that you've suggested amending the oath. From everything I've heard from you before regarding the oath, an allegiance to the country, you indicated that in fact you don't respect what is in the oath anyway. You've said that when people have come to Canada and taken the current oath and then decided they wanted to separate from Canada, somehow that really doesn't matter, that the oath they took is pretty much irrelevant. So it's interesting that you would suggest we amend the oath. It would seem to me that you would prefer the oath be taken out entirely.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: The oath is there, and there is going to be an oath. Let's start from there. The oath says “Canada”. We say why not add to the word “Canada” the word “Quebec”? As far as the people being naturalized living in Quebec—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you suggesting we do that for each province?

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: I'm speaking for Quebec. I'm not speaking for the other parts of Canada.

Mind you, I think this would make the debate more civilized. It was incredible to hear in this day and age, in this very civilized world, in this very civilized city of Montreal, a person being told by another, “Get out of this synagogue. Because you voted no... I mean you voted yes”—sorry, changing languages sometimes has a meaning, which was the case in 1992—“you're a traitor. You, Mr. Bouthillier, can vote yes, and I understand that because you were born here. He was born in Morocco. He is not allowed to vote for Quebec instead of Canada.” I think that's preposterous.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But in the oath that person took when they came to Canada, they swore allegiance to Canada. Surely, voting in favour of separating and no longer having any allegiance whatsoever to Canada is a contradiction. That is not respecting the oath that was taken, so—

Mr. Robin Philpot: Now you're getting to the heart of the issue. People have rights and liberties. We have a charter, and people have a right to their political beliefs and to carry out those political beliefs. One of those could involve, and has involved, a certain number of people who decide that Quebec's future is best ensured in an independent country. They have the political right to express that and to work in that sense.

In addition, despite all its shortcomings, the Supreme Court did say that the Quebec independence movement and the desire to create a new country is a legitimate movement. Therefore, the fact that in the new oath people would have the rights and liberties to have equality of political rights with the other Canadian citizens who live in Quebec is of utmost importance; that after they become citizens they cannot be discriminated against because they make a political choice the other citizens can legitimately have.

• 0950

Mr. Leon Benoit: But you are suggesting, then, that the oath really isn't very meaningful. Swearing allegiance to Canada, then, really isn't meaningful, based on what you're saying. I would be surprised you wouldn't argue to eliminate the oath entirely.

[Translation]

Mr. Robin Philpot: Yes, but in the oath, I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, and to defend our democratic values. These rights, freedoms and values apply to everyone, and include the right to favour a political option other than Canadian unity.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: I guess I'm really missing the connection there.

Mr. Robin Philpot: Well, if the oath includes respecting rights and freedoms of our country and respecting democratic values, that includes the right to have another option than that of Canadian unity and seeing that two countries would be the best option. Everybody has to have that political right, including those who have been naturalized.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: If I have, as a citizen, the right to propose and defend the cause of the independence of Quebec, I suggest that every citizen in this country has the same right, whether that citizen is a citizen by birth or by naturalization. And this is what we're trying to correct, the situation where you create two categories of citizens, two categories of rights or citizens with different rights. I am a born citizen so I can defend the cause of independence. He is not a born citizen, but a naturalized citizen, so he is not allowed; it's illegal for him and somehow immoral, illegal for him to defend the cause of independence. I want to strike that difference and make it equal for every citizen.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Maybe part of the way we could do that is have every Canadian, when they're of age to do so, take an oath of allegiance to our country. That way everyone would take an oath of allegiance and there wouldn't be this discrepancy. Maybe that would be one way we could deal with it.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: It wouldn't be the way we would go, I think.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We could start with members of Parliament and have all members of Parliament swear allegiance to the country.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: I'll leave that to you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Do you have any other questions, Mr. Benoit?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No.

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

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard, I suppose you have some questions for our witnesses.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Chair, you haven't missed a beat.

A Member: What insight!

Mr. Réal Ménard: You appearance before us today really comes at the right time, because my own political party is currently looking at all these issues, as are other parties, no doubt.

Every day, we experience a contradiction here in this Parliament, and sometimes this contradiction can be somewhat distressing. When the Minister of Immigration appeared before the committee, I pointed out to her that we are sovereignists and that we believe in the rule of law, as she does. A few years ago, they had us vote on a motion in the House of Commons that said that the specific nature of Quebec had to be reflected in government legislation and policy. On the basis of that premise, I asked the Minister if it wouldn't be normal to mention Quebec in the Citizenship Act. This is what you are telling us today regarding the oath, and I would like you to be more explicit on that point so that I can understand your arguments properly. You want some room for Quebec in the oath and you want Quebec to be mentioned properly.

The right to self-determination and the events that followed, well that's another debate. You are speaking of permanent residents who become citizens while living in Quebec—you are not claiming to speak for inhabitants of British Columbia or the Yukon, but rather, for inhabitants of Quebec—and you would like people to be able to speak out in Quebec.

Do you know what the Minister's answer was to me? She told me that she didn't see the connection and she did not understand why I was asking the question. I want to make sure that I've understood you correctly. Tell us how Quebec should be referred to in the oath, how you think the ceremony should be held and tell us exactly what you would like to see in the oath.

• 0955

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Both the wording and something apart from the wording. Robin, did you want to...

Mr. Robin Philpot: No, go on.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: We have a little bit of originality. We took the wording proposed by the Minister—doing something once doesn't mean you're making a habit of it—and we just added the word "Quebec" to the word "Canada."

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Quebec, Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.

We didn't forget Her Majesty

I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian and Quebec citizen.

Although this isn't in the oath, I would add, at the bottom, allegiance to Quebec and allegiance to Canada, so that the person being naturalized would understand that he is taking on two citizenships. In the future, I would like naturalization ceremonies in Quebec to be held in the presence of two officers, one representing the State of Quebec and the other the State of Canada. Obviously, there would be two flags, the Canadian flag and the Quebec flag. This innovation would show the new citizens that they are indeed in Quebec, in this very special part of Canada that we call Quebec.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's very... Pardon me, Mr. Philpot.

Mr. Robin Philpot: It would be consistent with the rest of the immigration and naturalization process, which ranges from selection to integration. Quebec allocates a great deal of money to integration, and we are proud of the results.

The next step is completely logical. We are asking the Minister to be consistent with the previous steps. She has said that she wanted to amend the Immigration Act, and after 50 years, it is pretty much time to change the oath of allegiance. So let's change it to reflect what has already been accepted: there are two societies, Quebec society and Canadian society. This has to be reflected in the oath.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I understand that you want to do away with this aberration where we ask people to swear an oath to a reality that is not named. We tell people that they are permanent residents of Quebec, so we must make some reference to the society that they are going to be joining. You have a special mission, and over the past years, you have worked very hard on this concept of integration. That's interesting. Could you tell us about it? We must understand what tools these people need to become part of their society of adoption.

In two weeks, the Bloc Québécois will have an opportunity to hold a press conference and to explain its suggested amendments at third reading. I was surprised to learn—I don't want to reveal too much about our strategy because there are reporters here, and despite their discretion, we have to save all that for the press conference—that there were other federations in the world where there is space for... I beg your pardon?

[English]

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): We won't tell anybody.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I know how discreet you are, sir.

So, throughout the world, there are other examples of federated States where components of these federations are allowed to involve their citizens in the process of naturalization, and I think it could be very useful for Quebec to take these cases as examples. We will be explaining this at our press conference.

How do you envisage the process of integration? A few weeks ago, I was very pleased to read in the Gazette that you were making very specific efforts to reach out to our fellow citizens of different origins. I know that your organization has established alliances with particular groups. How do you see the process of integration?

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Yes, that's part of the integration process. The most civilized, the most pleasant part of the integration process is to go among others, to visit others, to converse with them, not always about politics, because sometimes that can become more difficult, but at least we should make contact and break out of isolation. Someone who is isolated may perceive others as undesirable and sometimes even disturbing. By leaving the shadows and making contact—often Robin and I do this together, and I do it with others as well—we can show others that sovereignists are not what they thought. People think that we are different.

• 1000

The article in the Gazette was part of an initiative that we occasionally engaged in. We take advantage of the English newspapers. Sometimes we've used the Globe and Mail, but often we use the Gazette, in Montreal, for obvious reasons. We run messages for readers and for people from various communities.

On March 17, St. Patrick's day, we ran an add paying tribute to the Irish of Montreal and their friends. All of us are the Irish's friends, or at least we all are on March 17. We wanted to pay tribute to Ireland first of all, because if there were no Ireland, there would be no people of Irish descent in Montreal, but we particularly wanted to draw people's attention to the fact that this year, the Irish of Montreal are having their annual parade for the 175th year running. When you live in Montreal, that's nothing out of the ordinary. The parade is held every year, and you don't think twice about it. It's just like the air you breathe. But when you look at the situation elsewhere, you can see that Montreal certainly is an exception. We saw that for 100 years, an entire century, there was no St. Patrick's parade in Toronto, because it had become impossible for the Catholics of Toronto to hold their parade because of the hostile atmosphere.

At that time, we wanted to salute Ireland and the Irish, of course, but also, above all, we wanted to salute the spirit of Montrealers. Thanks to them, having a St. Patrick's day parade is a natural thing, whereas in Toronto, it was impossible for an entire century.

Let's take another example. At around the same time, we saluted the Jewish community, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish Congress. We wanted to point out that the founding conference of the Jewish Congress, paradoxically, and this may surprise some people, was held on the premises of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, at the national monument on Saint-Laurent Street, which was our headquarters for many years. It's also the place where the Jewish community of Montreal and of Canada gathered for three days in March 1919 for their founding conference.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So this tradition of openness is part of the Société Saint-Jean Baptiste's identity.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Exactly.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That's the conclusion we must come to, Madam Chair. You have given us some relevant examples from history...

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: And there are others.

Mr. Réal Ménard: —where you were among the very first to build bridges toward other communities. You certainly could keep on going and give other examples, for there are others.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Yes, but we don't have any time left for that question, Mr. Bouthillier. We will return to it during the second round.

[English]

Mr. Telegdi, do you have questions to ask the witnesses?

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

Welcome, gentlemen. I find, actually, your presentation quite interesting. Let me first of all ask you the question, do you recognize that immigrants to Canada and immigrants to Quebec and all the other provinces, once they become citizens, are equal?

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Yes, and this is precisely the point we want to stress right here, and make sure this point is understood by everyone and that never any more will we hear in this city of ours, in this country of ours, a person telling another, you are not allowed to take such and such a political stand because you were not born here.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: As someone who was born in another country, Hungary specifically, I do strongly believe that.

Along those same lines, when the referendum was lost, why would the premier of the province of Quebec blame ethnics and money for the loss of the referendum? And why is it that so often when there's a sharp debate on the question of separation in Quebec, ethnicity seems to rise to the forefront?

• 1005

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: It's an interesting question, and I suppose the answer will be interesting. There will be first one from Robin.

Mr. Robin Philpot: One week before the referendum, the Canadian Jewish Congress in Quebec, the Italian Congress, and the Hellenic Congress held a press conference, as community leaders, calling on their communities, asking their communities, to vote no. They were playing, you might say, the ethnic card. One of the leaders of the Liberal Party said “It's finished now, we're going to get them by demography because our votes are...”. I'll name him: Christos Sirros.

People have played ethnic cards enormously in Quebec and in Quebec politics and, I would add, in Canadian politics, from the beginning. They've talked about the French vote at the turn of the century because the French vote would be for Laurier in the rest of Canada. There was the ethnic vote. You might say it's an obsession, it's almost a sickness in Canadian politics, to use “ethnic”, to use the term.

What Mr. Parizeau described was what had been the obvious case. People before had been playing the card, and when he said it he was the only one who was taken to task for it. Our goal in establishing this is to make it so that people will not vote on ethnic lines; people will vote according to their political choices, which are made available to everybody.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I guess what I find so interesting in that is—first and foremost, I'm a Canadian, and I think it's important to establish that. As a Canadian, when I came to this country, I found passing strange the debate that was taking place, and I find it somewhat strange when I read a biography by the premier of the province of Quebec right now, Mr. Bouchard, that such emphasis is placed on the history, where Quebeckers were discriminated against by the anglos. Then to hear them refer to Canadians, and we have a lot of new Canadians—that somehow we are responsible for that is not congruent for me and for many new Canadians.

It would seem that if we agree there's equality among all citizens, whatever the head of the Jewish community says or the Italian community says, any more than what the head of the Parti Québécois says, should not be that relevant. The argument can be made that the Parti Québécois in particular appeals mostly—and you can see it by the support for separation—to old-stock Quebeckers versus Quebeckers on the whole. It would be nice to get equal treatment for all of Quebec society from the leader of the Quebec government, be it Parti Québécois, Liberal, or what have you.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Interesting. It should be irrelevant, indeed, what the president of the Italian Congress or the Jewish Congress says. It should carry no more weight than any other citizens. But it isn't like that in real life. Ghila Sroka, who is head of La Tribune juive in Montreal, experienced during the last referendum... it so happens she voted yes, and she's very strong, very adamant, very visible on the public scene and so on. She said it was a terrible period of her life. People would phone her at 3 a.m., telling her she was a traitor to Canada and she should go back home, which was somewhere in France, Israel, or Morocco—I don't know. She was victimized because she was on the yes side. And why is it that in her own community apparently the community rejected her en bloc if not because the head of that community, the chairman of the Congrès juif canadien and so on, kept saying you must vote no, you must vote no, and you must vote no?

• 1010

But looking forward and not only in the past, what I find interesting about the ethnic vote... I don't like the word; I don't like the reality. I hope the day will come when Quebec will be a republic and we will define people as citizens and not as having this background or that religion or that language. I'm sure this day will come. In the meantime, I think progress has already been made since since October 1995.

Despite the phrase you mentioned about money and some ethnic votes, I recall and I keep telling my friends never to forget this wonderful prise de position, public statement, that was taken by members of the Italian community in Montreal in October 1996. You'll find it in the Gazette of October 6. Seven of those chaps voted yes and seven voted no, and amongst those who voted no was a certain Senator Rizutto.

What did they say, in a nutshell? First, we've been around here in Quebec as a community for one century. Quebec is our home; it is our society. That society, the society of Quebec to which we belong, is discussing its future. Four roads are in front of that society: do nothing; accept some sort of Meech Lake; accept some sort of sovereignty association; or accept pure and simple independence. Whichever way is chosen by Quebec society, of which we are a member, will be our way; we will accept that decision and nobody in our community will leave in exodus. Home is here for us and we will allow nobody to go away with any part of the territory.

I thought that was very optimistic, very good, and very good for the future of a Quebec that will have integrated all the people living on its territory and being part of its society.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me just say that most Canadians who come here have been—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Did you have a question?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Make it very short. You're really at the edge of your time.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: They have at one point in time been told to go home, and they said, that's fine, we are home.

The issue of swearing allegiance to Quebec within the confines of the oath... would that not open up the possibility of a separatist government going abroad and advertising for people who support the concept of separation? That to me just does not make sense within the context of Canada.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: The Quebec government today would not need a document like that to propose the cause of independence abroad. It would simply have to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of last August, which said that if the Quebec people vote yes, the Canadian polity will have to take that into account and negotiate. This is one way of saying this cause is legitimate.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But to recruit separatists abroad—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Telegdi. Perhaps you can come back on another question.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I apologize first for missing the bulk of your presentation, but I take it from listening to the conversation that the essential issue here is that you want to add Quebec to the oath, one way or another. My initial reaction to that is, aren't you immediately setting up a conflict in loyalty? You're saying from this day forward I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Quebec. In cases of conflict, what prevails?

• 1015

Mr. Robin Philpot: The goal in this is to provide equality of rights. There are two things: equality of rights to those who are naturalized and to be logical with the rest of the process. It goes along with the agreements. It's basically aimed at concluding the process that began with selection and integration of the new immigrant—the pre-selection, selection, arrival, and integration.

Mr. John McKay: Let me hear more on your argument about the difference you see between a citizen who is naturalized and a citizen who acquires citizenship by virtue of birth. I don't quite understand what you perceive to be the political difference. I hear political reality, shall we say, but I don't understand, either constitutionally or in law, how a naturalized citizen of Canada is any more or any less able to participate fully in the political debate as to whether, for instance, a province separates or whether it doesn't. Show me where that is in the Constitution or law.

Mr. Robin Philpot: I'll come back to your first question. You said, what if there's a conflict? In the very same sentence you say “we pledge allegiance to Canada and the Queen”. What if Canada becomes a republic? Is there not a conflict there? You'll have two allegiances there.

Mr. John McKay: If Canada does become a republic, then obviously that gets dropped.

Mr. Robin Philpot: There's a conflict.

Mr. John McKay: I don't know that it's a conflict.

Mr. Robin Philpot: There would be a conflict. So the potential for conflict is already there. You can just add “Quebec” and say there is a potential because the allegiance is going to be to one or the other.

The point is that there were cases in the last ten years—we could name a few—where people in government, in the current Liberal government and in the previous Liberal government, told new citizens who had been elected and were in Parliament that if they weren't happy they should go back to their own country. They're citizens; they have equality of rights. And this was a high-placed minister in the Liberal government.

There were other people, another person who is also in the government today, who used the same terms.

Mr. John McKay: But isn't that part of regrettable political dialogue in all provinces? I come from Toronto, and frankly, every time there's a little bit of a bump on the road of integration of a variety of communities, people say some pretty absurd things, such as why don't you go home, blah, blah, blah.

Mr. Robin Philpot: There's a difference between somebody saying that in a tavern or on Bloor Street somewhere in Toronto and when it's a minister, who is a minister of defence, to name the man, who uses that and speaks to another person who is elected, because this person has made a political choice. When a person in authority uses such terms, it is an unveiled threat to all those people who may at one time... We're not saying they're all going to choose the option, but they have the right to choose it.

Mr. John McKay: Your example is that of a political discourse. Do you have any constitutional example, or any example of a decision of a Quebec court or any other court where there was a distinction between one's citizenship as a natural-born versus a naturalized...

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: No. What is important, I think, is everyday life, and everyday life is not carried on in the courthouse; it's carried on, as you said, on Bloor Street and on Park Avenue, and when a person says to another, and especially a person in authority, or when you have... These are threats. You can imagine my friend, Ghila Sroka, a Jewish girl, being awakened at 3 o'clock in the morning by a foreign voice telling her “Raus!” because she voted or she planned to vote yes. This is terrible.

Mr. John McKay: I don't dispute that this kind of dialogue went on, and I suspect that my colleagues from the other side of the argument could find another set of examples that would be equally compelling.

But here the government has put forward an an oath that is an allegiance to Canada, and the essence of your argument, as I understand it, is that it should also include Quebec because of some, how should we say, regrettable statements made on the part of certain political officials. Have I got it?

• 1020

Mr. Robin Philpot: There are two reasons. One is to provide equality of rights in the name of human rights and liberties to new citizens to have a political choice they will opt for.

Mr. John McKay: But in law they do have that choice.

Mr. Robin Philpot: In law they have the choice, but in practice they have threats. There's a fear that they will not.

The second point is to be logical with what the governments in the seventies and the governments today have recognized, that Quebec has a responsibility over immigration, a responsibility to integrate. Quebec has put a lot of money into it and is doing it with great success. It's a logical conclusion that the oath, for those people who are naturalized in Quebec, include Quebec, because that is completely logical with existing law and practices in Quebec and Canada.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We're now going on the second round, so we all have five minutes.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In terms of the comment you just made about Quebec having a lot of control over immigration, I think other provinces would be wise to become more involved so that you can certainly choose people who are going to meet the needs of the province much better. And I do congratulate Quebec for that involvement. I think that makes sense.

I am of course not happy with the funding Quebec gets for immigration compared to other provinces. It's out of line on a per immigrant basis, and that I am really concerned about and I think it should be changed. But I do congratulate Quebec for their involvement. I think that's important. We're going to meet the needs a lot better if the provinces are involved and if the private sector becomes more involved in choosing people who are going to meet the needs in their businesses.

Your comment earlier, I believe it was in response to a question, that your society is involved in helping to integrate new Canadians into the community was very interesting. I'm wondering if part of what you do as you're helping people to integrate is to encourage these people to support the separatist movement. Is that part of what you do in the process of helping integrate people into Quebec society?

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: If we could only achieve the goal that no one will any longer demonize the idea of independence, we will have achieved a very important goal. We're not asking people to vote for our cause, let's say. We're trying to convey to them the message that we are not a devil; we are not Quebec's answer to such and such a tyrant. As you know, there's a whole slew of literature and so on that tends to demonize, if not each and every one of us, our leaders, the main figures of our group. We have to break that image, because there's no dialogue possible between a normal being and a devil. And we're trying to break that.

We're not telling them “vote for us”. We're telling them that we are quite normal beings and that they should act towards us and towards our cause, our ideas, as a cause and the ideas of normal persons. If we achieve that, that's enough.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm concerned. Something that's been in the news lately is that an awful lot of immigrants who have come to Quebec originally have very quickly moved on to the Toronto area, and of course the funding doesn't move with them. This is a real concern that's been expressed by communities in Toronto and in the surrounding area—

A voice: And by members of Parliament.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —and by members of Parliament. I think it is something that should be expressed. I congratulate the members of Parliament for expressing that concern.

Again, I think you've indicated that part of what you do is certainly to acquaint people with your view on what should happen in Quebec. I'm wondering—and this is just a question; it's certainly not an accusation. I ask it as a question—

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —and I hope we can have open dialogue here. I'm wondering, if you find that people are very unlikely to move towards the cause of Quebec separation, if you actually would discourage them from remaining in Quebec.

Mr. Robin Philpot: Absolutely not.

• 1025

As you know, Montreal is a wonderful city with a wonderfully mixed population. The Quebec separatist movement is going to keep going ahead, and we all want to avoid having it degenerate into something we wouldn't like.

Brian Moore, the author, wrote a book about the October crisis in 1970. He's an Irish author, born in Belfast. Somebody asked him, “Why didn't you write about Belfast?” He said, “Montreal is something that could be Belfast in 50 years.” Our job is to make sure it will not be Belfast in 50 years, and that involves building bridges and getting along with everybody. Everybody has the political right and the liberty to make the choices they want and use the motto of Montreal: Concordia Salus.

We're trying to keep that civic spirit, and that's why we mentioned the St. Patrick's Day parade and the founding of the Canadian Jewish Congress. That is our goal. Then the people will make the choice they want. But we have to avoid having conflicts, lines and barriers built up along ethnic lines.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand a lot of the causes for the separatist movement in Quebec—certainly not all. Being westerners, we've had that same feeling ourselves. In fact, we had quite a substantial separatist movement in the west in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I think we decided the way to solve the problem was through negotiation—keeping our country together.

I understand the alienation of provinces, due to the strong federalist role of the federal government, which goes way beyond the Constitution, not respecting the rights of the provinces under the Constitution. That boundary has been overstepped in many cases. But I believe, rather than separation, the solution is to respect provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution, which is not happening now, and of course give each province—not only Quebec—control over language and culture. That would go a long way toward helping in Quebec and in Alberta, in fact, which is the province I come from.

So I guess we see different solutions. I agree that getting into character assassination is not the way to go, and I don't personally feel any negativity toward separatists. But I despise what they are doing and trying to do to our country.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Bouthillier, I'm not going to give you the floor, but perhaps you'll have the opportunity to respond to Mr. Benoit if you want to. I'm going to move directly to Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Madam Chair, I'd like to respond immediately to the remarks that Mr. Benoit just made. I would say that the sovereignty movement is 30 years ahead of the Reform party movement, in that many who now support our option and believe that sovereignty is the best solution, both for Quebec and for Canada, tried over the past 30 or 40 years to come to an agreement within Canada, to reform Canada, so that Quebec would feel comfortable within Canada. Seeing that it was impossible to reach a solution or come to a satisfactory agreement, they concluded that the best option for both countries was to live together, but in a separate way.

This having been said, I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee today. I would also like to thank them and congratulate them for being so patient with us, since the committee started late.

I listened to Mr. Robin Philpot speak on behalf of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste and in many ways I felt personally involved in his presentation, not just when he was telling us about the patriot movement, but also when he mentioned the founding of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, because the founder, Ludger Duvernay, was from my own riding, the riding of Verchères—Les-Patriotes. I listened to the presentation very carefully.

I would like to go back to the question that my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve asked. For argument's sake, let us completely set aside the constitutional debate and the divisions between sovereignists and federalists.

• 1030

I was surprised to hear Mr. Benoit wonder about the reasons why you are asking us to include a reference to Quebec in the oath of allegiance, just for Quebec. I'm surprised at this reaction from Mr. Benoit, particularly since he proudly rose in the House of Commons a few months ago to support a government motion that recognized the fact that Quebec was a distinct society and that this fact should be recognized in all new legislation. We are quite aware that this concept of distinct society was proudly supported by the federalist members of this house, but it had no impact upon—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Pardon me, Mr. Bergeron. There's a point of order.

Mr. Benoit.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Madam Chair, I believe it's imperative that I correct that statement. In fact, Reformers did not support that recognition of distinct society, just for clarification.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, the majority of federalist members of the House supported that motion on the distinct society. So far, we have not seen any practical application of that motion, and here we have an opportunity to implement it in a practical way. Quebec being a distinct society, it is necessary to recognize, in the oath of allegiance, allegiance to this entirely special society within Canada.

Could you comment on the relevance of this motion that was adopted by the federalist majority in the House that recognizes Quebec to be a distinct society, as this recognition is supposed to be found in new federal legislation.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Bergeron, I must tell you that we are well beyond our time. Obviously, you are entitled to a reply. Mr. Bouthillier, could you please be brief.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: If that corresponds to a position that was adopted by your colleagues opposite or beside you, that's just fine, but we didn't do that with the idea of "Quebec, the distinct society" in mind, because that concept isn't exactly part of our vocabulary, as you can guess. We define Quebec as a full-fledged, complete society, defined in terms of itself, not in relation to its neighbours. Quebec is not distinct. It is itself. Because Quebec is itself, we would like new immigrants who are naturalized in our territory to also swear an oath of allegiance to Quebec. Once Quebec becomes a republic, they will swear allegiance to Quebec and only to Quebec.

At present, there is Canada as well, for a while yet, and we certainly agree to their swearing an oath of allegiance to both.

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

[English]

Mr. Bryden, you have five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Thank you. I am an English-speaking man of letters, a former journalist and author. I was elected to the House of Commons for the first time in 1993. After that, I learned French because of the debates in the House, in fact because of the Bloc members. Because of the separatist movement, a great deal of French is now spoken in the House of Commons. Because of that, an English-speaking old man like myself learned French.

As a man of letters, I believe there is a nuance between "nation" in French and "nation" in English. In English, that word has the meaning that Mr. Milosevic in Serbia attributes to it. In French, the word "nation" has another meaning. There is a very subtle nuance, and it is a cultural nuance. I believe that's the difference between the separatists in Canada and the separatists in other parts of the world.

• 1035

In my opinion, the movement is very constructive here, because of the francophones' concept of nation. Canada has become a land of tolerance, but I have a problem with your suggestion. I think that the idea is sincere, but if we added the word "Quebec" to the oath, there may be a danger of the oath becoming an oath based on ethnicity rather than a oath of citizenship. I think that in countries where there are ethnic conflicts, it's because of the conflict between... You are not in agreement. That's fine.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): —

Mr. John Bryden: No, that's all right. Perhaps you would like to make a few comments on that topic.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: That is not the spirit of our suggestion. We have to fight this ethnocentrist attitude that says that recognition of someone's political rights depends on his place of birth. That is why we made this suggestion.

Now you're saying that the word "nation" does not have the same meaning in English has it does in French. That's all very well, but I would point out that there is an organization present throughout the world, particularly in New York, that is called "l'Organisation des Nations Unies" in French, and its name in English is "United Nations Organization." So, I see the same word applied to the same reality, and it is indeed that very reality that we, the indépendantistes of Quebec, aspire to. We want to be one of these nations or "nations" that belong to the international organization known as the United Nations. There you have it.

Mr. John Bryden: I remember clearly what Mr. Parizeau said about ethnic groups in Quebec. I am a federalist and I respect the views of my Bloc colleagues, but Mr. Parizeau's remarks on that subject drove a large wedge between me and the extreme nationalists in Quebec.

Mr. Robin Philpot: Your colleague from Kitchener—Waterloo asked the same question. You can read the answer in the blues.

Mr. John Bryden: You may answer in French if you wish.

Mr. Robin Philpot: Pardon me.

Mr. John Bryden: You could state the answer to that question in French, since there are nuances in French. I would like to have the answer given in French.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Bryden, I must interrupt. We are seriously over time.

Mr. Telegdi, very quickly.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well done, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

On civility of debate, I'm glad you raised that issue. One of my concerns has been how federalist leaders, prime ministers, be it Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien, have been vilified by the separatist movement as not being true Quebeckers.

I have a problem with swearing allegiance to Quebec within the context of the oath. When we first came to Canada we were in British Columbia, and then we moved to Ontario. As a Canadian citizen, it's my right to decide in which province I want to be a citizen, by going and living in the province. So certainly, if we are to swear allegiance to any one province within the context of Canada, we should be swearing allegiance to all the provinces, which I think would become somewhat cumbersome.

What would happen if somebody swore allegiance to the Province of Quebec and then moved to B.C.? If they started out swearing allegiance to the Province of B.C. and then moved to Quebec, would they have to redo the oath? It doesn't seem practical, because the provinces operate within the context of Canada and the Constitution.

• 1040

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: If you moved not from one province to another but from one country to another and went to the United States, Mexico or Australia and took an oath of allegiance there, would there be a contradiction? Would you still be a Canadian and have dual citizenship?

I think we could sort of

[Translation]

think in those terms.

[English]

It's not being cumbersome. People in this world of globalization have many passports, nationalities and allegiances. It becomes easier and more natural to have them within the international borders of one state.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The problem with that is you're assuming it's country to country, which this situation is not. It's between provinces within the country of Canada. There are some countries that do not recognize dual citizenship.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: Yes, I know.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I just wanted to make it clear as to where it lies.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Mr. Bryden, you have three minutes exactly.

[Translation]

Mr. John Bryden: In answering my colleague, you said that there was a conflict in the present oath because both the Queen and Canada are mentioned. If we drop the Queen from the oath, would there not be a conflict in citizenship in your proposal? It would be an oath simply to a country instead of to the monarch of another country. I think that we should take the Queen out because if Quebeckers and francophones across Canada want to swear allegiance to a country, it will be to Canada.

Mr. Robin Philpot: The problem is that there is a conflict not just between allegiance to Canada or the Queen. If the allegiance is only to the country, the following sentence will create problems. As the oath stands, if only Canada is mentioned, there will be a problem because naturalized citizens in Quebec may choose the sovereignist option. There is a conflict there. They will not have access to all the rights and freedoms under the Charter if your oath of allegiance is only to Canada.

Mr. John Bryden: Maybe the oath needs to be rewritten. I feel that the oath in the bill is not a good one.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. Mr. Bouthillier and Mr. Philpot, I do not want to pass up this opportunity to speak and to respond to two or three of the points that you have made.

To begin with, regarding the Irish Catholic parade in Toronto, I am very much aware of that situation and I know that one of the reasons that the Irish Catholics no longer hold a parade in Toronto is because there were problems with the Irish Protestants, the Orangemen. I therefore think that we cannot really attribute that to the public in general, because there were already problems between the various groups of Irish background.

Second, I'm very pleased that you have raised the issue of the openness of Quebec francophones toward those from other backgrounds, in particular the Jewish community. What you said about the national theatre is quite true but, unfortunately for everyone, there were disagreements for years. For example, we know that Catholic immigrants did not have the right to go to Catholic schools on the Island of Montreal and that created friction. That is what Bill 101 tried to correct. If your initiatives today are intended to reach out to the cultural communities in a spirit of greater national and ethnic openness, I am only too pleased to hear it, even if there are political aims behind these initiatives. But I will not ask the question.

• 1045

Third, you talked in English about playing the ethnic card. You know that my family name is Folco. I am not unaware of what happened regarding the coalition of Italian, Greek and Jewish communities. I believe that what those three communities tried to say in 1995 and again in 1996, through Senator Rizzuto's remarks, was that on the one hand these communities share Quebec life and citizenship with all other Quebeckers. That is why the senator said that neither he nor anyone of the members of those three communities intended to leave and that, furthermore, the members of those groups also had a right to express themselves...

Mr. Réal Ménard: It was a statement.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): —on behalf of their community that Mr. Bouthillier has the right to speak for the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, and there is no one who wants to or should take that right away from him. If Mr. Bouthillier can speak on behalf of a group, elected representatives of another group are equally entitled to that right. I would remind you that the presidents of those three cultural communities were elected by their groups, and I feel that they have just as much right to represent those groups regarding voting in the referendum.

I will give you time to react. Concerning your proposed addition to the citizenship oath, you know that in the future, if ever the separatists in Quebec were to win a referendum and Quebec separated and wanted to change the citizenship oath, that would be possible because then Quebec would be an independent State. But at this time, Mr. Bouthillier, Quebec is not an independent State. At this point, we are discussing Bill C-63, and Quebec is a province. The distinct society has been recognized by the vast majority of parliamentarians and Canadians, but distinct society does not mean a separate or independent State. Quebec is currently a province with more or less—and I mean more or less—the same status as other Canadian provinces and, in addition to that status, it shares a certain number of powers with the Canadian government. I therefore do not see how we can add "allegiance to Quebec and Canada" to the citizenship oath, when, in my judgement, the word Canada already includes Quebec because Quebec is part of Canada.

A Voice: Bravo!

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I would like to hear your reaction to that.

Mr. Guy Bouthillier: To begin with, Quebec is a State. It is Quebec that receives and integrates immigrants coming from other countries almost every day. The State of Quebec has duties to these immigrants. Immigrants have rights with respect to the State. Given this interrelationship of rights, duties and obligations, I think that it is quite appropriate to ask new arrivals who settle on our territory, who decide to live in our society, to swear allegiance to that society that welcomes them, that welcomes them into its schools, hospitals and community clinics, and that provides them with all the social and economic rights.

For that reason, I think that it would be important for both parties that people who come to settle in Quebec recognize that special and intimate connection with the State of Quebec. Quebec is not a province. Quebec is a State, a federated State, with the status of a State. That status is incomplete, but it is a State. There are federated States in the world that have citizenship.

Our proposal today is made somewhat in that same vein.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Mr. Bouthillier and Mr. Philpot, I have to apologize once again. You can hear the bells ringing. That means that all the members have to go to the House for a vote. There is a vote at 11:15.

[English]

There will be a vote at 11.15 a.m.

• 1050

[Translation]

The meeting is suspended. This is the end of the first part of the meeting. I think that you are aware, Mr. Bouthillier and Mr. Philpot, that I extended the meeting as much as possible to give you your full right to speak.

Mr. Robin Philpot: Thank you, Madam.

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

[English]

As for the other witnesses, Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women, the Kitchener—Waterloo Multicultural Centre, Mr. Benson and Mr. Jervis, we must go to a vote now. We will come back here immediately after the vote and hear the witnesses who remain. Thank you very much.

• 1051

• 1148

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): We're resuming the sitting of meeting 59 in consideration of Bill C-63.

First of all, let me apologize to both Madam John, representing the Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women—is that correct? —and Madam Rivera, representing the Kitchener—Waterloo Multicultural Centre. My deepest apologies, mesdames. It's a bit out of our control. There was a vote called and we had to go. Some of us are back. But be assured that those of us who are still here are listening intensely to your remarks. As I said, they are being recorded, so all the members will have access to what you have to say.

What I propose is that we start with Madam John, who will present her brief. We'll give her seven minutes to do this. Then we'll go directly to Madam Rivera, who will do the same thing—a seven-minute presentation. Then we'll go around to the members to ask questions.

Madam John, would you start, please.

Ms. Sungee John (President and Coordinator, Third World Resource Centre, Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women): Hello. My name is Sungee John and I'm here on behalf of Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women. The Windsor Women Working with Immigrant Women welcomes this opportunity to make this presentation to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration regarding Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. Throughout this paper our organization will be referred to as WWWWIW or the immigrant women's centre.

I apologize for not getting anything in writing earlier so that there would be French translation. I have only an English presentation to make here.

• 1150

The Windsor Women Working With Immigrant Women came together in 1981 as a community-based organization concerned with improving the welfare and development of immigrant and visible minority women in Windsor and Essex counties. Our mission is to assist first-generation Canadians to be fully participating members of Canadian society. The immigrant women's centre provides the community with services such as English language instruction, in-depth counselling, citizenship preparation, life skills classes, support groups, and information and referrals. As well, it operates as a drop-in centre.

The immigrant women's centre also advocates on behalf of isolated women who have a limited ability to communicate in the language of their adopted country. Currently we are in the process of assisting foreign-trained professionals to work toward the removal of employment barriers, many of which exist simply due to poor communication between the various levels of governmental and professional bodies.

This brief is also being presented on behalf of a coalition of community organizations in Windsor that includes the Third World Resource Centre, the African Community Organization of Windsor, the Windsor Islamic Association, the Arab-Canadian Intercultural Orientation Centre, and the Windsor Urban Alliance.

In the following brief, the immigrant women's centre will outline its concerns over changes being proposed in Bill C-63 and the obstacles it will present to the women and men with whom we work on a daily basis.

We are pleased to read that Canadian citizenship is still automatically granted to people born in Canada. It is also welcome news that the government is proposing to lessen the distinction between children born abroad to Canadian parents and foreign children adopted by Canadians. However, our concerns with the changes, and the removal of rights they represent, far outweigh the positive aspects of Bill C-63.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me for interrupting, Madam John. I realize that you're reading the text. I wonder, considering the limits of time we're all suffering from, if you could possibly take perhaps two or three of the major points in your text and summarize them as you know them. I think then you'll get a chance to develop more as the members ask you questions. Otherwise I don't think we're going to be able to get to the end of your text.

Ms. Sungee John: Okay, I'm getting to that. In fact—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Can I just say another thing? You have presented a written brief that is in English, I understand. We'll be translating this brief and distributing it in both languages to the members, so they will have a chance to get all the information.

Ms. Sungee John: Right.

Well, first of all, we want to raise our concerns about the lack of consultation that was set aside for such a major change in legislation.

The immigrant women's centre found out about the hearings only within the last week and a half from our contacts and networks within the metro Toronto area, and we also received information about Bill C-63 only recently. As a result, we didn't have the time to prepare as in-depth a report as we would have wanted to.

Getting down to the issues of concern, regarding grants of citizenship, under clause 6 of the proposed act the residency requirements for Canadian citizenship will be significantly changed. The current act allows for people to apply one-half of the time spent in this country in their application for permanent residence. The changes will eliminate this. It will require that people spend three years physically as permanent residents. We feel strongly that for many groups, especially refugees, this will be a difficult barrier to overcome. With the current backlog of refugee cases, it will take years to process their applications. These years that the refugees spend waiting for their cases won't be applied to their citizenship applications.

Moreover, we also take issue with the changes that state categorically that permanent residence requires three years of physical residence in this country. For those issues, we are concerned about how it affects people who may not have the economic or family considerations that might keep them here physically for three consecutive years.

• 1155

Paragraph 6(1)(d) would take away the current provision that allows for the assistance of an interpreter. We feel this is unfair, because many permanent residents are not in the position to become fluent in as quick a time in either of the official languages, especially seniors, who require more time to adjust to languages. This will hinder their ability to apply for citizenship.

This also has an impact on immigrant women who are isolated from the larger community through the demands of nurturing their family and the lack of opportunity to take advantage of or know about language classes.

Regarding clause 14, which concerns the automatic loss of citizenship, we are concerned about a couple of factors. One is the fact that an individual will have until their 28th year, or risk not being granted citizenship and having to apply as an immigrant. There are a number of reasons a person would not have the opportunity to realize that they weren't born citizens. Those factors need to be taken into consideration.

Moreover, once again the physical residency requirement restricts certain permanent residents from achieving the three years of permanent physical residency—for example, people who need to travel out of Canada for business. As we know, one of our immigration criteria is the entrepreneurial class. That requires a certain amount of investment in this country, but with that investment, more likely than not these business-class immigrants will need to travel abroad to maintain their business contacts. They may not be able to fulfil those three years of physical residency. Moreover, students who are studying abroad may also not be able to fulfil those three years. Also, people with a sudden family illness may need to abandon their chances of applying for a quicker citizenship.

Moving on to the revocation order, which is subclause 16(1), the proposed changes we feel will provide the minister with the power to revoke citizenship, but with this power there's no recourse for the individual to appeal that revocation. Under the current act, if there is reason for revocation, it's clearly stated that it would be revoked if there is an intent to commit fraud or conceal information. Under the proposed act, intent is not stated. It has removed the term “knowingly” and has left it very vague.

Furthermore, in subclause 16(4), anyone whose citizenship was acquired through a person referred to in subclause 16(1)—that is, a person who has made fraudulent claims—will also face revocation of their citizenship. In that case, we feel that needs reconsideration, because the person may have sought the assistance in good faith, not knowing that the person assisting them was committing fraud.

Moving on to public interest, under clause 21 in Bill C-63 the cabinet has the power to refuse citizenship based on national interest. There's no clear definition of what national interest is. This also leads to concerns that citizenship would be denied based on political bias. Furthermore, under subclause 22(3) this refusal of citizenship is not subject to appeal or judicial review.

Finally, in regard to citizenship commissioners, clause 29 of Bill C-63, citizenship judges will no longer be relevant. The act will replace the judges with citizenship commissioners, who would be merely civil servants and would not have the same independence and discretionary powers of citizenship court judges. We feel this is a step in the wrong direction, and we urge the committee to consider these points and eliminate some of the areas we have concerns about.

• 1200

Many of the changes being proposed under the bill, once again, have a broad sweeping impact on the citizens. They need to be addressed, but they also need full consultation, not the hurried process that's taking place right now.

We also feel the committee needs to take the time to travel to as many communities as possible to hear the views of citizens across the country. For example, in Windsor in Essex County the Statistics Canada data from the 1996 census shows that more than 20.7% of the population is composed of immigrants. It's the sixth-highest percentage in Canada. We feel strongly that we have areas of concerns that can only be addressed if committees come to Windsor and see the impact of immigration, and the potential impact the changes to citizenship will have on immigrants and permanent residents.

That quickly wraps up my presentation.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much. I've given you a lot more time than I said I'd give you.

Madam Rivera, it's your turn to speak.

Ms. Myrta Rivera (Executive Director, Kitchener—Waterloo Multicultural Centre): How long do I have?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You have seven minutes.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Thank you.

I come from the region of Waterloo, an area that is seen as being mostly German and Mennonite by most people. By contrast, we know we have over 60 language groups in our community. We are fourth in Canada in the per capita reception of refugees. In our own community, over 4,000 individuals become citizens every year. It's a considerable number for a community that is seen as a little community.

I am the executive director of the multicultural centre in Kitchener. It's an organization that last year served over 9,000 individuals. We provided over 3,000 interpretations in 52 different languages last year. We have a broad range of programs, but the most important ones right now are employment programs. We have at least an 80% rate of success after people finish our programs. Three months after completing them, they've already found employment. I'm telling you these things because they will put the comments I will make into context.

Another thing I would like to mention is that out of a $400,000 budget, we only received $35,000 from the federal government. We find the rest from other places. It isn't that we wouldn't want your money, mind you. We'll take it if you give it to us.

Our comments on the Citizenship of Canada Act are made on the basis of 33 years of community development with immigrants. We will limit our comments and reflections today to those areas where we feel we have specific expertise. We are particularly interested in the potential for nation building in this act and in the work we do.

We will concentrate our efforts on five areas: the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and her values; the role of the commissioner in community outreach and in enhancing the importance of citizenship; some thoughts on the selection and training of citizenship commissioners; some suggestions for the expanded role of the commissioner, which has not been yet defined—one thing we're proposing is to explore a role for the commissioner to help borderline cases, those people who have not quite passed the exam, find other options for acquiring that knowledge—and finally, the need for a small discretionary budget and some independence for the commissioner from the bureaucratic arm, so they can effectively communicate their outreach in the community.

From my own experience in teaching citizenship courses in the past, I find we often seem to spend more time helping people learn how to pass the test rather than gain actual knowledge of Canada and her democratic traditions and values. As I read the act, I don't see that we're remedying this in any way.

• 1205

So I would like to bring this to your attention and remind you that if your intent is to standardize the system and to be consistent and objective, sure, if you give the same test to everybody in the country, you're going to get consistent answers, but you will not necessarily have determined whether or not the applicant has an appreciation for and a commitment to our democratic values. There isn't a formalized process—and the bill doesn't clarify that—as to how people are to acquire this knowledge. Perhaps it's a role for Canadian Heritage or some other body.

I'm just bringing it up to point out that if we are asking people even in the oath to pledge loyalty to certain values, then we have to find a way to ensure that people then learn what those values are. They are not really as self-evident as those of us who live in this culture might imagine.

May I give you an example from my own casebook. Recently I was visited by a new Canadian. He happens to be from the former Yugoslavia. He was showing great anxiety. He's taking a citizenship course, and he refuses to learn—some of you might be interested in this—the names of the opposition leaders. He says, “I can't believe such a thing will be asked in the exam. Knowing about things like that is what got me in trouble to begin with. Why would I want to go there again?”

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Present company excepted.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: You might like that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I don't want it to say it, but—

An hon. member: Democracy trod on again here.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Exactly.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An hon member: —

Ms. Myrta Rivera: That's my point precisely. Thank you, sir, for saying that.

So to someone who comes from another culture, the concept of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is really an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and we have to find a place to ensure that people learn those democratic values. Otherwise, why are we asking them in the oath to pledge their loyalty to those values if we don't ensure that they learn them?

The present book—the taxi driver this morning still had the red copy from years and years ago, by the way—deals more with the technique than with the essence. Although my time is very short, I'd like to discuss with you for a moment that difference between technique and essence. I may know all about hormones and how they work, but I may not really be loving you. The same goes for citizenship as for a relationship between friends or lovers. I may know whether the initials MP stand for medical practitioner, military police, or a member of Parliament—a question included in the exam today that is completely irrelevant—and I may still not understand what are Canada's democratic traditions. So we have to do something more about that.

Lastly, I'd like also to talk about the role of the commissioner and the fact that although in the past the judge was doing something that was very important, on paper it would seem to have been lost. I still think there is a place for the commissioner to continue to play that outreach role in the community.

Again, I'll give an example from my own community. We see the citizenship application as the last official moment where an immigrant can relate to the Canadian bureaucracy in a personal way—other than income tax—that says this is how my settlement has gone, this is how my Canadian journey has gone. So the interview with a judge or a commissioner is important. Many times a call to my office from the judge would trigger English classes for a woman, assistance for a battered woman and her children, or employment counselling for a man who has been recently laid off.

There is not that possibility any more with the judges. So I would like to encourage, especially as you consider a new role for the commissioner—and perhaps we can talk more about this in the question period—that for at least the borderline cases of people who have failed the exam, before we give them only the option of appealing, perhaps they could meet with the commissioner and explore other options in the community.

There's lots more to say, and I'm sure we'll have time. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you, Ms. Rivera. Are you intending to present a written brief to this committee?

Ms. Myrta Rivera: I have already given it to the clerk, and I apologize for not having completed the French.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): That's fine. So we'll get a chance to go more in depth. Thank you very much for respecting the time allotment as well.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Excuse me, Mr. Benoit, each member will now have only five minutes rather than the ten in order to make it shorter.

• 1210

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you both very much for your presentations. I really appreciated your presentations. Maybe the fact that you didn't speak from written briefs was actually helpful.

I would like to ask a little bit, Ms. John, about your comment that you only heard about this bill about a week and a half ago. I've heard this in several cases, even when meeting with people who are heads of groups. That really concerns me, because whenever I've brought it up with the minister or others, the answer has been that there has been widespread consultation. The two don't jibe. I'm somewhat concerned about that.

In terms of the residency requirement—I want to get right to the question here that I think is extremely important—the three years of physical presence is something you expressed concern about, especially in regard to the investor class, students and family illness. This concern has been expressed a lot.

I want to start by asking you whether you feel it is important for people who are applying for citizenship to demonstrate that they really feel a commitment to the country.

Ms. Sungee John: Yes, but commitment by physical presence is not necessarily the criterion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How else could you demonstrate a commitment?

Ms. Sungee John: You could demonstrate commitment by being involved in the community, but that doesn't mean you have to physically be present for three calendar years.

Going back to the question you had about my comment on hearing about the bill, we knew of the bill, but we only heard about the consultation process itself, this committee hearing, just slightly under two weeks ago.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I appreciate the clarification.

Have you thought through the actual process that might be used to determine the three years of physical presence? How would you envision the government, the citizenship department, determining whether an applicant had actually been present for three years out of the past five years?

Ms. Sungee John: There are many ways to determine whether they've been present. I'm sure the government has ways to investigate that. They can look at their travel plans. They can certainly look at other ways of measuring their presence in the country. For example, if they're in school they can check their attendance records.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What do you mean by checking travel plans?

Ms. Sungee John: With business trips they may need to make, there would certainly be a flight schedule.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In terms of documentation, particularly between Canada and the United States, if you're driving—which would be very common in the southern part of Canada, where most of the population is—to do business, there would be no way of verifying whether someone had left the country to do business in the United States and then returned.

I just see this as being completely unrealistic. The minister herself, I believe, in response to a question on that, said we'd have to use the honour system to a large extent.

Ms. Sungee John: Certainly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm wondering if you'd be a little concerned about putting in place a law that would rely on the honour system. Those who might want to push the envelope a bit and make statements that they'd been in Canada might be accepted, whereas others who wanted to be completely upfront and honest would be refused, when in fact they'd been in the country the same amount of time. That really concerns me.

When you make a law, it should be expected that there's some reasonable way of enforcing the law. Again, that's why I'm asking you how you might envision a process the government could put in place to allow the law that's in this act to be enforced.

Ms. Sungee John: I don't agree with the changes, so what is in place right now is certainly satisfactory for our needs. I can't present to you a vision of what the proposed changes would look like because I don't support the proposed changes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This is a concern I have. This legislation is so broad and vague that no one reading it could determine what is really meant. The regulation that is added later will never be approved by Parliament through the democratic process—speaking of the understanding of a democratic process. The regulation will never be passed through the House of Commons. It is the regulation that will determine how this act works in key areas, such as the one you brought up—the physical presence requirement. That's a real concern to me, and it's a concern I've heard expressed by others.

• 1215

Ms. Sungee John: The majority of people applying for Canadian citizenship want to live here. So if there is any fraud, as in any other areas where there are fraudulent cases, it's in the minority. To raise those issues, I think, is not a relevant point in this case, because you will find, in every aspect, in every society, in every element, people wanting to slip through the cracks and take advantage of that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My point exactly.

Ms. Sungee John: Pointing out immigrants taking advantage of this is, I think, unnecessary.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just to clarify, I wasn't doing that.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Please, I'm going to have to cut you off. I'm sorry, Mr. Benoit. I'm very sorry.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I will be brief. I have two short questions for either or both of you. In passing, I believe that you and Mr. Telegdi live in the same region. Are you in Mr. Telegdi's riding, Ms. Rivera?

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I imagine you do see it that way.

The idea of eliminating citizen judges seems to me to be a relatively positive thing. Because their duties are fairly routine, is it necessary for the process to be in the hands of a judge, when a citizenship commissioner or even an immigration officer could very well do the work? In some cases, it will be immigration officers or citizenship commissioners who have a role to play in promoting civic pride and Canadian values.

What problem do you see with the administrative process of citizenship no longer being in the hands of a judge? Is it unreasonable to expect that, after three, four or five years in Canada, our fellow citizens should be able to take a test without an interpreter beside them?

I would like to hear your answers on those two aspects of the bill.

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Thank you. I'm not opposed to taking out the judges, and I support the change on the broadening of the role of the newly called commissioners. So I don't have a problem there. I think perhaps the title “commissioner” might be a little too commonplace and pedestrian. Perhaps we could think of something in between judge and commissioner, so there might be another title. But I am certainly not opposed to that.

I do have a problem with getting rid of that idea altogether, for the reason that I mentioned, which is that in terms of citizenship, if we want to stick to the technique, certainly, let a civil servant do it. If you want to deal with the essence, with what it means to really build a nation here, if you really want to talk about what it means to be Canadian and what Canadian values are, then this is a good opportunity to do that. We're not doing enough of that as it is.

So I have no problem with getting rid of that judicial aspect of judges. I still support, though, keeping the idea of commissioner, and I suggest we find a better name.

Passing a test, again, is that—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to make sure I understand. You agree on sharing the workload in assigning responsibilities to citizenship officers and commissioners. You simply do not like the name "commissioner".

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Yes. But I believe there is a role for an appointed person and not just for a civil servant. That would stick to the technique, not to the essence. The civil servant will have a template, and if you pass the test, then fine, bingo, you're a citizen. That does not verify whether you have some kind of... we're getting married here when we become citizens. Canada and I enter into a kind of relationship that's very special. It shouldn't just be left to a civil servant to determine on the basis of an objective test.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: So you feel that citizenship is like getting married, and that there can also be divorces from citizenship, but that is a whole other debate that I don't want to raise with you.

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Invite me to Quebec some day and we'll have a coffee over that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You will be welcome.

I know that citizenship officers are civil servants and are considered as such, whereas commissioners are political appointees. These are people who have been appointed. Do you agree with me?

• 1220

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: That's right. In my brief I am suggesting—I'm pleading for—a new way of selecting and training those commissioners. Just because someone has received the Order of Canada doesn't necessarily qualify them to be a commissioner of citizenship. They may have been in sports or—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could I myself become a citizenship commissioner?

[English]

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Well, let's talk about it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have no more questions. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you. Mr. Bryden, do you have a question?

[English]

I'm sorry. Do you have a question for the witness?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I have several questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I beg your pardon, Mr. Telegdi, I didn't realize. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, madame la présidente.

First of all, let me get to you, Ms. Rivera, in terms of the kind of cultural sensitivity training we need to deal with for new Canadians. Certainly you can recognize that in our various communities we have a fair number of people from Bosnia-Herzegovina as refugees. So we have people who are of Croatian, Serbian, and Muslim backgrounds. One of the concerns we have is that while we appreciate people bringing the best their culture has to offer to this country, we are also concerned about leaving the hatreds and the baggage behind.

In terms of the role of the commissioners, what role would you see that they could play in this area, so that when we have the new citizens come forward, they recognize Canadian values, which are very much of peace and harmony, if you will, within our communities?

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Again, the selection of the commissioner is extremely important. And the kind of training we give to the commissioner is very important, first of all, because they can play a role in expounding, talking about, and backing up the kind of Canadian values that we aspire to and ascribe to in this country, whether we're in Quebec, Prince Edward Island, or wherever. We do talk about the fact that there is a process for solving our differences. There are certain orderly ways we process conflict in this country. This is not something that is self-evident. This is a cultural trait of our people that has been developed over hundreds of years of experience, and I don't think it's something of which we can say, well, it's self-evident, it's common sense, everybody should know it.

Yes, we have to have the cultural sensitivity to know that people come here with the best aspirations, and that they also bring their cultural baggage. How to drop that cultural baggage, to not even leave it under the bed any more, but take it to the attic or even get rid of it altogether, is a process the commissioners can play an important role in if they understand that.

Sometimes we fund sociology chairs in university, Mr. Telegdi, yet we don't give value to what they learn. What we learn in sociological research is that those emotional aspects of our culture are the last ones we give up. We will buy the microwave, we will buy the house in the suburbs. We will get the second car if the wife needs it. We will do whatever. But giving up some of these core values we have brought takes time, and sometimes it's on to the second and third generations. In Canada we want to speed up that process so that we can live more harmoniously. Yes, the commissioner should play an important role in that process and could play an important role in the community.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Would you see value in having some interaction with people coming from that part of the world?

Ms. Myrta Rivera: With the commissioner?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: With the commissioner, but with each other as well.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: Certainly.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: One of the things that I think is so magical about Canada is that you have people from all over. You can have friendships with every group that you might have had a problem with, say in a cultural context, in the country you came from.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: That again is why there should be something like a commissioner. It's not something that a civil servant can do. A civil servant cannot speak with that kind of clout about the country. I hate to use the word “clout”; I wish I could think of a better one right now. It's important.

• 1225

That is why—if I may sneak in a little point here—I am suggesting the committee seriously consider assigning a small budget, fiscally, to the office of the commissioner. I have too often seen—and I have personal experience of this—cases where the judge was not able to even send a letter to certain groups if the office manager did not approve it. It is crucial, if we're going to give an outreach role to the commissioner, however small, that there be a little budget so the person doesn't have to ask permission from a civil servant, for example, in a situation like this one, to get a number of groups together to discuss citizenship, or to have a forum in a high school, or be able to take co-op students from high school to job-shadow them in the commissioner's office. In that case, you need volunteer appreciation. You shouldn't have to go begging to the civil servant to give you 25¢ to buy a coke.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

Ms. John, I'll direct my remarks to you. You were concerned about clause 14, which was the business that if you were outside the country to age 28, unless you did certain things, you would lose your citizenship. What's your position on that? Do you think we should strike that clause, or should we make some provision for people who were born outside the country?

Ms. Sungee John: Yes, there should be some provisions made. We shouldn't be so sweeping that age 28 is the limit and that anyone who misses that deadline will have to reapply as an immigrant through the whole immigration process. I think there are cases that warrant special consideration, and that needs to be clarified in the legislation.

Mr. John Bryden: You're not opposed to the idea in principle that somebody who's born outside of the country should have some requirement to—

Ms. Sungee John: The existing legislation has an age limit too. I do support the existing legislation.

Mr. John Bryden: With your permission, and yours, Madam Chairman, I want to make some remarks that follow out of testimony yesterday.

We had a very distinguished witness, a member of the Canadian Bar Association, who spoke extremely well on various issues, but he also came to this point. I have to tell you, Madam Chairman, I woke in the middle of the night and suddenly was struck by the significance of his remarks, and they went very, very close to what I think is the heart of this legislation.

What he said in objecting to clause 14 is that “citizenship is consigned by blood”. Those were his precise words. He said your blood descent confers your citizenship on you. His argument was that if you were born of Canadian parents, regardless of where you were born, you are Canadian.

I reflected on that, and I realized that this isn't so at all. Blood doesn't even consign ethnicity, because we are of various ethnic and cultural origins as a result of our living experience, not our blood experience. He made the parallel with aboriginals. He said aboriginals were born aboriginals.

On reflection, Madam Chairman, I thought what his confusion was is that the only thing that is consigned by birth is race. One of the fundamental things we're trying to correct or trying to do in this legislation is to establish that this is a pluralistic society and that we do not define citizenship by race. That's the one thing we want to avoid above all.

I just had to get that off my chest, Madam Chairman, because he was a very distinguished witness, but I believe he was very much in error. If I may, I'll just move on to...

Do you have a comment, Ms. John?

Ms. Sungee John: I wasn't present yesterday.

Mr. John Bryden: That's okay.

Ms. Sungee John: I would prefer to read the minutes first.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. At any rate, I hope you would agree with my feeling that citizenship in this country, at the very least, has nothing to do with race. I would never want to see it that way.

That comes back to Mrs. Rivera's point. You were saying this is not just a matter of technique. It's essence. We have an opportunity in this legislation—and I believe in the oath of citizenship—to establish what the essence is. I would observe in the testimony we have heard that what we have discovered is that the Charter of Rights, for example, is not reflected in this bill at all. What we have in the oath of citizenship, and I've made this point before, is that we have to obey Canada's laws and our obligations and duties as Canadian citizens, but we say nothing about the rule of law as a fundamental principle of what it is to be Canadian. We say nothing about the respect for basic human rights as a fundamental principle that Canadians in general believe in.

• 1230

So I turn my point around to the whole definition of the title, because I understand from what you were saying, Ms. Rivera, that it's not the post you're concerned about, it's the dignity of the title and that the word “commissioner” could be a commissioner of anything. It could be a commissioner of fishing licences. It could be a hydro commissioner.

Perhaps I'll turn the point back to you. We heard here suggestions that the reason we have taken the name “judge” from the people who administer citizenship is because the Canadian Bar Association has objected to the use of “judge” in this context. I would seek your comment on the observation that surely if we do believe in the principle that the rule of law is something that goes with democracy—we would want to have the title “judge” in the application that deals with the citizenship because of the dignity that title confers. Could you comment?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I will ask for a very brief response to the question.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry. I took a lot of time.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): You took up all your time, Mr. Bryden, and over.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: You were speaking very eloquently anyway. Wasn't he?

At any rate, don't call it a judge if you don't want to, but, yes, keep something of the essence of the dignity of the position. Call it “magistrate”; and I don't know if that has another resonance in French. “Commissioner” is a little too pedestrian.

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

Mr. Benoit wanted a second question. You'll have two minutes, Mr. Benoit, this turn.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Ms. John, I would like to first of all carry on a little bit with a comment you made. You said you somehow took offence to the fact that I stated there would be those people applying for citizenship who would be willing to twist the rules to meet the three-year residency requirement, and because the law isn't clear and because we really don't know how it would be determined that there was three years' physical presence, it would certainly allow that to happen. Yet in your comments, you said yourself that there would be those in any group who would twist the law and find loopholes and so on. So you made my point exactly after criticizing me for making that point.

Ms. Sungee John: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm somewhat concerned about that. I don't know why you reacted to my comments like that and then really supported them in statements you said.

There were several other concerns you expressed, but one that caught my attention is that you're concerned that the government has the power to refuse citizenship based on national interest and the fact that this isn't defined. Again, this is another place in this legislation, one of many, where there's a broad statement but there's not enough definition so that you really know what is meant. I would like to ask you what your concern is with “national interest” being left in there as a reason that government can reject or in fact overturn citizenship.

Ms. Sungee John: First of all, I didn't agree with you, as I said, on your point that there are some in every system. Every time governments chase after the so-called frauds, they find that those frauds are very few, less than 3%, so that issue is not relevant again. “National interest” is very vague. It's not clearly defined, so it's up to the interpretation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and up to cabinet. Unless it's clearly defined about what constitutes a violation or a threat to national interest, I don't think something like this should be written down in legislation.

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

Mr. Leon Benoit: Or it should be clarified.

Ms. Sungee John: That's what I said. It needs to be clarified.

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

Mr. Telegdi, you have one minute. That includes the question and the answer.

• 1235

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Chair, I think it's important in terms of what you were saying that there is no link between refugees and immigrants and lawbreakers. I think all too often that link is made, and I appreciate your pointing that out.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Thank you very much, Madam John and Madam Rivera. Once again I apologize for the little time we gave you, but I know you've already handed in some things, and we will give it all the attention it requires. Thank you again for coming.

Ms. Myrta Rivera: May I take Andrew's last 30 seconds?

I want to say that I'm Canadian first. I speak Greek, I'm Spanish, but I really firmly believe that God isn't finished making Canada yet, and I think this is an opportunity for all of us to participate in collaborating in that effort. I congratulate you on a good bill, and I hope you make those minor points a little bit better.

Thanks for having us here today.

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

I'm pleased to welcome the next witnesses, who where I come from would be called maître Benson and maître Jervis.

Of course we have a time element that is very constraining. I propose that each one of you do a five-minute oral presentation, after which we can give more time to questions from the members.

Mr. Benson, do you wish to begin?

Mr. Ian Benson (Individual Presentation): Mr. Jervis is going to make a few opening remarks.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I see. Please go ahead, Mr. Jervis.

Mr. Peter Jervis (Individual Presentation): In fact, what we'll do is share 10 minutes—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Together.

Mr. Peter Jervis: —and divide it up.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Perfect.

Mr. Peter Jervis: Perhaps you should know who we are. I am a lawyer from Toronto; I'm partner in a law firm in Toronto. Ian Benson is a lawyer from Vancouver. We both have had experience in constitutional litigation, and we are addressing today the issue of what I would call “institutional competence” with respect to spousal definition, which appears in the bill in paragraph 43(i). Just to tell you who we are, both Ian Benson and I have acted in litigation with respect to this particular issue for a broad group of organizations.

We're not here today to discuss particular substantive decisions, but rather issues of process. We've been involved in the Egan decision in the Supreme Court of Canada as counsel, and in the more recent M and H decision, which are the leading cases where the court has determined the constitutionality of previous definitions of spouse in federal legislation. I also acted recently in the Rosenberg decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the court focused on the constitutionality of the definition of spouse in the Income Tax Act.

Generally, what has become clear from those decisions is that there's a debate right now in the courts as to where the institutional competence is to determine fundamental social policy decisions, and specifically the definition of spouse is one of those issues. In the Egan decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the leading decision in Canada today on this issue, the majority of judges essentially deferred to Parliament and said that the issue of how the term “spouse” should be defined is a fundamental social policy issue, and Parliament should decide it. And Parliament should listen to and balance the competing social issues, the philosophical issues, the legal, moral, theological issues, that go into this definitional process.

The court shouldn't be deciding it. Parliament should be deciding it and the court should defer to Parliament.

• 1240

In other cases, and a prime example is the Rosenberg case of the Ontario Court of Appeal last summer, the court said it's up to the courts to decide this, not the Parliament; deference by courts to Parliament can only go so far.

Essentially, what I think has come out of these cases is that if Parliament is going to make these decisions, then the courts will defer. If Parliament doesn't make them or doesn't deal with the issues, the courts will take over. I'm not going to debate whether that is a good or bad thing. That's what's happening.

So the focus here today is on process. In this particular legislation, Parliament has essentially delegated the responsibility for defining spouse to the regulation section, which essentially means delegating it to the Governor in Council. I think any astute person knows that if Governor in Council is doing it, then essentially it's not being done in Parliament; it's not being done with democratic scrutiny. The competing interests, whatever they are, that are being addressed are not being dealt with publicly. Therefore, when the courts look at whatever definition is used, the courts will consider it under the charter and the courts will ask, is this a balanced and proportional application of competing social, moral, philosophical, and legal issues? Are we satisfied that this has been done properly?

If the courts say this has been done pursuant to regulations passed by Order in Council, that there has been no public process whatsoever, the various competing interests in society who might be interested in this process will not have had a chance to speak to it. There will be no public record of how Parliament has balanced these interests. Quite frankly, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any definition to withstand section 1 charter scrutiny. I won't get technical and legal here, but that's the process whereby the courts ask, is a particular legislative piece in violation of constitutional rights, and if so, is that a legitimate exercise of legislative power?

So we're here to speak about process, and what we say is that this legislation is flawed because it abrogates and delegates that responsibility to deal with this type of issue in Parliament and sends it out the back door through regulations. That simply shouldn't be the case.

Mr. Benson is going to deal more specifically with some of these issues.

Mr. Ian Benson: Madam Chair, first of all, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to appear and make these comments today.

I'd like to pull the camera back to look at the whole context of the matter that Mr. Jervis has just addressed.

First, it's important, as this bill is discussed eventually in the House, to realize that charter jurisprudence itself is still in its infancy. Patriation of the charter as a whole occurred not even 20 years ago, and as you know, the equality provision, section 15, came into effect three years after that date and the first decision was really rendered only about 15 years ago.

Recently any observer of the Canadian cultural scene would acknowledge that the debate about the institutions within Canadian public life has heated up, particularly on the question of the jurisdiction of the courts versus the competency of the House. In some respects the debate is parallel to what we observe south of the border; in other respects it's different. But the debate about competency of the House versus the courts is something we need to take a note of as we look at this kind of problem that my friend Mr. Jervis has touched upon.

There is an active debate within the charter community about the possible uses of section 33, the notwithstanding clause. So itself, the whole application of the charter to our social life and the issues that are embodied in legislation is very much a live one.

That's the context in terms of the charter and the constitutional matters. Now, one of the specific social issues that's hotly at issue now in Canada is the flurry of advocacy and litigation at all levels surrounding such terms as “spouse” itself, and Mr. Jervis has referred to our involvement in the Egan case litigation in 1995.

• 1245

So there is a social debate about the role of the House and the role of the courts, and with that background, if we look at paragraph 43(i), we see, as Mr. Jervis said, a removal, a dropping down from the openness of the House with all it's panoply of committee procedures,and so forth, to this, in a sense, closed-door framework of regulatory powers. In my view, given the context I've tried to paint of debate and the charter in its infancy, that is not a good move. This is going to look to many people as if an extremely important social issue has been, in a sense, taken off the table of public debate and analysis. In view of democratic theory, I don't believe that is a good way for us to go.

Ladies and gentlemen, justice must be, in all respects, not only done but seen to be done, and this provision in the bill is a move against open government at its broadest understanding, not in furtherance of it. The rule of law requires openness in government.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Benoit, you have some questions.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, gentlemen. I really appreciate your comments.

This is an issue that I brought up in our debate on second reading. It's a real concern to me, particularly where decisions like the definition of spouse and, in the section on regulation in this bill—I'm going from memory—the definition of a parent-child relationship, and some other issues as well, are left completely up to regulation. If you go through this bill, though, you'll see that there are several other areas that are written in such a way that only regulation will determine what this act really means, and clearly, in most areas only regulation will determine that.

I have really strong concern when government writes legislation in a way that is so unclear that only the regulation defines it, and I've called for several clauses to be much more clearly defined. Unless that happens, quite frankly, this legislation is completely unacceptable.

I do appreciate the particular point you brought up here. There will always be some conflict between the Constitution and, in this case, the charter and Parliament. There will be areas where the court will determine that law really doesn't respect the Constitution of the country and that there are areas of debate in that regard. Clearly, there will be far fewer if the legislation is much more clearly written and if changes like the one you pointed out are made actually within legislation rather than in regulation later on.

Mr. Peter Jervis: In response to that, this member, whose name I can't see, made a comment about the rule of law. I think the key issue in the rule of law is that the law should not be applied arbitrarily. There must be a rational basis; there must be proportionality.

Clearly, if Parliament ducks the issue and fails to bite the bullet and define what the law will be, and delegates that essentially to those who draft regulations, which is not Parliament, then essentially we will have arbitrariness in the decision-making process and that may or may not reflect proper constitutional principles. Therefore, this could all come back to the drawing board five years from now, after it goes up through levels of court, if the Supreme Court of Canada says these regulations are arbitrary and will not withstand scrutiny. Then you're back to the drawing board five years from now, and of course there may be a lot of injustice and lack of equality in the meantime.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you've answered my question, but I want you to answer it very directly—and I would appreciate either one of you or both of you answering this.

Do you feel there is a strong or, say, high probability of this legislation, if it's passed as it is presented here today, actually being successfully revoked under a challenge under the charter? I don't know if I'm using the right words there exactly.

Mr. Peter Jervis: I understand what you're saying, and I think the problem is the very one you've identified. That is, on this particular issue of spousal definition, we don't know what definition the regulations will utilize. Quite frankly, if the regulations use a particular definition of spouse that groups in society might think is unconstitutional, underinclusive, or overinclusive, there could be a constitutional challenge, and it's impossible to say whether that would withstand judicial scrutiny, because, first, we don't know what it is, and secondly, we don't know the extent to which it properly reflects a proportional balance of competing interests and considerations.

• 1250

So the bottom line is, who knows until you see it? That's why Parliament should be defining these issues and they should be debated thoroughly, letting all the various groups in society have their say.

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

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is my time up?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I think it's important enough, and so I will give everybody a chance to go around perhaps a second time.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you very much for your presentation. Perhaps you know that I have introduced a bill three times to have same-sex spouses recognized; in 1995, my bill was voted on and was defeated by the parliamentarians. I believe that you would like to include in the definition of "spouse" the notion of "same-sex spouse".

[English]

Mr. Peter Jervis: I could say that at this point what we're talking about is purely process. I'm not here advocating one particular definition over another, and I don't believe is Mr. Benson either, but rather to say that this is something that should be fully considered in Parliament. So there's no intention here to use this discussion of process as a platform for advocating one definition over another. Therefore, what I'm saying is that obviously that is one of the key issues on the table. There are others as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: As the law stands, there are three criteria for defining a spouse: common repute, cohabitation and the presence of children. There are some 90 federal laws that have definitions of "spouse" using these criteria. You are saying that if the legislator has not defined the notion of "spouse", people may avoid their responsibilities, and you would like to see parliamentarians define the notion of "spouse". You do not want it defined through regulations, without a debate.

You said that you were involved in the Nesbit-Egan case in the 1995 trilogy. It would be helpful to me if you said whether you intervened for or against. What would you like to see as a definition of "spouse"? I am aware that the process is flawed and that it is up to parliamentarians to define the notion, but what are we supposed to take away from your remarks this morning?

[English]

Mr. Ian Benson: May I answer it?

Mr. Peter Jervis: Why don't we both answer it? But go ahead.

Mr. Ian Benson: Can we answer it one at a time?

It's a standard lawyer's answer to such a question to say, well, of course, when we appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1995 we were advocates, and therefore our personal views weren't at issue. As one of the counsel for the group that intervened, our position for the group was that the matter of spousal definition is one that ought not to be decided by the court. It was very similar to what we're saying today.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: But who were you representing in 1995? I am very familiar with the Nesbit-Egan judgment, the Thibaudeau and so on. Who were you representing in 1995?

[English]

Mr. Ian Benson: Mr. Jervis and I appeared for the Interfaith Coalition for marriage and the family, and our brief before the Supreme Court of Canada dealt essentially with philosophical and religious traditions, and in the context of the debate we urged the court to leave to the legislature a place for public discussion, fully cognizant of the views of religious and ethnic groups that may have a particular view about same-sex spousal status.

You will recall that in Egan, it was the definition of spouse in the Old Age Security Act that was at issue, and for many of the religious groups on whose behalf we appeared, the heterosexual nature of marriage is of great interest and great concern to them, and with Canada being self-avowedly and very commitedly a pluralistic society, they argued before the court—Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Catholics, Protestants—that it was important for those religiously informed views of theirs to be understood and debated by Parliament and not imposed by the court.

• 1255

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to clarify so that we understand your testimony correctly, that you, as an individual, asked to appear before the committee. You say that "spouses" should not be defined in the regulations, and I absolutely agree on that. What would you like to see as the definition of "spouse"? You must have some thoughts on that. Given that you have presented a brief on this, you have definitely thought about the matter.

[English]

Mr. Ian Benson: Speaking personally, my very strong view in total is the one I put forward today. I do not want this committee, in reviewing this legislation, to embark upon a broad-ranging philosophical or theological discussion. It wouldn't be appropriate. My own views on these issues of spousal status, the nature of marriage, the nature of male-female relations, and so on are informed by a deep philosophical and theological understanding, but it's simply not relevant for what we're doing here today.

Do you understand my answer to that? It's very important—

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I do understand your answer. No, I'm not going to give any more time. I think both of you have said the same thing three or four times in different ways.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I need only one minute.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): No, you've gone over your time. I'll try to do a second round.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But will we be back?

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymond Folco): We'll be back.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I don't have any questions.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymond Folco): I see your name on the list.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm just going to follow up on Mr. Ménard's comments, because I know where he's coming from on this issue. Let me try it in another way.

First of all, let me say that I think you're absolutely right. I'm the one who thinks the rule of law actually should be in this legislation. We don't want to have an example of disregarding the rule of law in the very legislation in which we want to celebrate it.

Having said that, I wonder how complicated it is to define spouse in this legislation. I note that in paragraph 43(i), which you referred to, it says “defining who is a spouse for the purposes of this Act”. Could that purposes for this act be fairly narrowly defined as the joint responsibility for children so that you don't get into the broader constitutional issues? When we look at immigration, citizenship, and spouses in the context of this legislation, what we're concerned about is the fact that a spouse is somebody who shares joint responsibility for children.

My question to you is, can we avoid some of the constitutional pitfalls the government is afraid of? Clearly the government is afraid of the various issues, and that's why it's relegated to here. It's not prepared to face the issue. Can we get around it by defining spouse narrowly like that?

Mr. Ian Benson: We can't get around it in the way you've suggested. Sharing joint responsibility for children would not be a definition of spouse that, first of all, would be understood historically to be satisfactory. Many people who are not married might share responsibility for children.

If you argue backwards from the bill, namely, sharing responsibility to create a spousal status, I think that would be an error. I know of situations in which two people who have none of the spousal indicia are responsible for children, but that does not make them spouses. So I don't think that particular definition you've suggested would survive scrutiny.

Mr. John Bryden: Then let me try it another way around. Clearly, if we attempt to define spouse in this legislation, it could still be subject to a charter challenge. Is that not correct?

Mr. Peter Jervis: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: So what you're basically saying is have your charter challenge now as something that Parliament is initiating rather than have your charter challenge from the courts as a result of the regulation.

Mr. Peter Jervis: What I think is a key issue that this committee should take away is that this issue has been identified by the courts as a fundamental issue and one on which until now the courts have said they will defer to Parliament. I think if Parliament has been given the opportunity to deal with this and has ducked the issue or has failed to consider all equality issues, the courts will take it back.

The point is that Parliament has to consider all of these issues and try to draw a fair balance. For instance, when defining spouse, there are a variety of things. There isn't time to discuss all of the parameters, but there are a variety of issues. There are a number of models used in a number of European countries that say, how can we accommodate social units that are family-like units in various ways? How do we define those terms? What are the reasons for historical definitions? Why should there be changes? If this is all just pushed off and not dealt with, it's never going to survive a charter challenge.

• 1300

Mr. John Bryden: I have two observations and two questions. Are you saying that we need to amend this legislation and define spouse?

Mr. Peter Jervis: I think you should, or you will likely find an indefensible position if there's any inequality in the definition that's promulgated in the regulations.

Mr. John Bryden: Is there anything to be said for simply eliminating paragraph 43(i) and not making reference to the spouse at all in this particular paragraph?

Mr. Peter Jervis: The problem is that you then have legislation that refers to spouse, but it's not defined. Then you leave it up to the courts to define it, so again you're delegating to the courts.

Mr. John Bryden: We're back to square one.

Mr. Peter Jervis: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: What you're saying, basically, is that it's a definition or nothing at all.

Mr. Peter Jervis: It's either your definition or the court's definition. We say that it should be Parliament's definition.

Mr. John Bryden: And I say that I absolutely agree with you.

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

Mr. Benoit, you have time for a very short question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I also absolutely agree with that approach. I really respect the position you've approached us with today. Clearly, this decision should be made by Parliament, and let's take this to be the piece of legislation where that happens. The government can put forth a definition, we can have a debate across the country, and then Parliament can decide what the appropriate definition is. Certainly I think this is the time to do that.

As Mr. Bryden said, if the definition were to be very narrow, then why on earth isn't that narrow definition in this legislation rather than just in regulation? To me it makes no sense that if it were a very narrow definition, it wouldn't already be in the legislation. I do think it is critical that this issue be dealt with.

There are other issues that also fall under the clause on regulation, such as the definition of a parent-child relationship. I think that's extremely important as well, and that should be defined, as well as others. Then there are others that aren't even in that clause—which I've mentioned today to prior witnesses—that are so vague and broad as they stand in the legislation that you can't possibly know what they mean without further definition.

Mr. Peter Jervis: I'd like to say one thing. The courts have pointed out that drafting legislation that provides equality is an incremental process, and as society changes, Parliament must respect this. There are a variety of ways in which that can be done. If Parliament just ducks the issue because it is a difficult issue politically and because the legal interpretation is evolving, essentially Parliament isn't doing its job.

Our point is to say that Parliament has to recognize equality rights and has to deal with that in a responsible way. There are competing interests that have to be considered, both historical and sociological. You're the people who should be doing it. If you don't do it, it will be done by the courts, which are not elected and which may impose values that come from the makeup of the judges who are put on the courts. That's not the way the system is designed to work, but that's what's going to happen.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): Perhaps I can simply end on this note. Obviously we're talking about same-sex marriages. But I wonder whether in the case of immigration we might include multiple-wives marriages, if I can put it that way, under the appellation of who is a spouse; in other words, a man—because it usually is a man—who marries several women at the same time, which is permissible under the law in some countries, and then comes to Canada. I know that other countries in the world, particularly France, have had to grapple with this problem. So I think this would be the kind of problem that would possibly have to be looked at under paragraph 43(i).

But I would like to add something. It seems to me that the minister has already responded to the kind of comments you've made, the preoccupation you've stated, and that is that as far as she's concerned, she's willing to go further than the very vague definition in paragraph 43(i) and actually accept same-sex marriages. This has also been accepted by the Minister of Justice. If I'm wrong, my colleagues can change what I've said.

• 1305

I agree with you on the rule of Parliament and the balance between Parliament's decisions and the court's decisions, of course, and I fundamentally agree with your premise. But I'm not sure if the example you've chosen, paragraph 43(i), the definition of spouse, is the one that illustrates best your argument. Perhaps you'd like to react to that.

Mr. Peter Jervis: First of all, that issue is before the courts right now, and it's an undefined issue. But secondly, this is one of the very reasons these types of definitional issues should be defined in Parliament, because you've jumped to the assumption there's only one issue here: same sex. You've said that is obviously the issue.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): No, I jumped to the conclusion there were two at least. You brought in a second one.

Mr. Peter Jervis: I'm sorry, but the point is that a variety of domestic arrangements may have been excluded from previous definitions, and may or may not be included in future definitions. For instance, why should the definition of spouse be based on conjugality? If that is broadened, what about domestic partnerships that are not sexual in nature, but rather founded on long-term friendship? Should those people be excluded if these categories are broadened? If they're broadened, what is the best way to broaden them?

The point is that if Parliament does this, it should focus on these very broad issues and ask why there was a basis for a previous limited definition. Is there any basis for expanding it; if so, why, and how should it be done? Should other categories be brought into play? These are all matters that are discussed in the courts. The bottom line is that you've identified two, but I would suggest to you there are many more than simply two.

As I said before—and I didn't have a chance to answer Mr. Ménard's question—the purpose of our presentation here today is not to advocate one particular definition or another; it is to say that a variety of issues come into play here, and it may well be that simply adopting one particular issue because there's a lot of political pressure on that issue—you've identified same sex—may lead to further arbitrary distinctions that would not be constitutionally justifiable. It may lead to all sorts of other issues that, for instance, the Ontario Law Reform has considered in its consideration of this issue.

The bottom line is, just as courts shouldn't decide this on a single-issue basis—that's not the best way to define social policy—similarly, it should not be deferred to regulation, where perhaps the political issue of the day will determine something that is not well founded and not subject to the type of democratic discourse that happens in the House and in this type of committee. The discussion in this committee and in the House should be substantively about what the definition should be. It should not simply come through an Order in Council.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I think your point is well taken. You've said it in many forms—both you and Mr. Benson have said it many times. You haven't replied to Mr. Ménard's obvious question because you came here with a specific purpose. I think your purpose in coming here is very clear to the members.

Mr. Bryden, you have one minute, and I'm going to cut you off after that, I swear.

Mr. John Bryden: This is very important for the record, because I think it's one of the very key issues. I have two quick questions.

If we don't define it in the legislation, can we define the term “spouse” in other legislation and make it applicable to this legislation? In other words, can we get this one going and define spouse through major legislation elsewhere?

Secondly, is the issue of citizenship relevant to this definition, in the sense that we are talking here about people who are not yet citizens? Is that relevant to the definition we're searching for?

Mr. Ian Benson: The definition we're talking about here would be properly located in the interpretation clause or the early clauses of the legislation for this act, to answer your second question first.

On your first question of whether there is a more general mechanism for defining spouse for federal enactments, I think the answer is yes. Provinces and the federal government have interpretation acts that can more generally contain a definition, but we must remember that what is at issue here is much bigger than just the definition of spouse. You have competing debates in Canadian society at the moment about inclusion or not and where and when of same-sex relationships.

It's very important to be clear that the democratic process doesn't give everyone what they want at a particular time. It's an ongoing dialogue. Mr. Ménard earlier referred to the fact that he'd attempted on several occasions to bring in a private member's bill, or some form of legislation, and had been unsuccessful. This is the nature of democracy. The changes people may wish to bring are not always going to be successful, and everybody in society at some point or other is frustrated. At this time it's one particular group that has a particular frustration.

• 1310

But remember that we are all involved in an ongoing dialogue, using the courts and the House, around a contentious social issue. The key here is that as citizens of a joint enterprise of a common society, we must do our best to maintain civility and engaged dialogue, and that does not mean caving in on our analysis.

Madam Chair used the term “same-sex marriage”, yet the groups that are advocating and have been advocating through the courts for that have been very careful to drop certain cases in which marriage has been challenged. The Layland decision out of Ontario was a challenge to the Marriage Act, and that was dropped before it was proceeded through the courts. So there is a litigation strategy ongoing here, and this House and this committee need to be careful not to be drawn into that debate improperly, in the wrong context.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): No, Mr. Bryden. I'm sorry, I have to call—

Mr. John Bryden: I seek unanimous consent to ask another question, because these are the last witnesses and I don't think they would mind a further question.

Mr. Peter Jervis: Madam Chairman, I would also like to make about a 30-second response to that question.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Raymonde Folco): I'll let Mr. Bryden ask his question, and then perhaps you can put everything together at the very end. But this is definitely the last one, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one last question, and then you may go as far as you wish.

What I'm trying to get at is that this is about spouses of people who have not yet become citizens. I have recognized that the charter gives rights to people who are not citizens in this country. I ask you then, in that context, if it weren't for the fact that the charter was inclusive to people who were not citizens as well as to people who were citizens, would the concern about spouses in this legislation exist in the same dimensions as you've described?

Mr. Peter Jervis: I would simply say that because the charter applies, judicial scrutiny will apply to this term. In a sense, that answers the question. I should say, and you should understand, that the courts have interpreted these legislative terms in their legislative context.

For instance, benefit-conferring legislation, which puts dollars into the hands of citizens, is interpreted sometimes differently and less restrictively from other types of legislation. This type of legislation doesn't confer a monetary benefit, therefore there are scarce resources to be divided between competing interests, and it would be subjected to much stricter scrutiny by the courts.

I don't think it's possible to defer the definition of spouse to a general interpretation provision, because it could be different in different sections, depending on how Parliament dealt with issues. Parliament could come up with other definitions of groups that are entitled to certain benefits; therefore there can't be just a global response to this.

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

This sitting is suspended until 3.30 p.m. today. The meeting will be in room 269 of the West Block. Thank you.

• 1548

The Chair: I would like to resume the meeting and welcome Ms. Nancy Riche and David Onyalo to this consideration of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

Mr. David Onyalo and Nancy Riche, you may proceed with your opening remarks.

Ms. Nancy Riche (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you.

I'll very quickly state that I'll leave in nine minutes to go to another committee. But David, who is the national director of our anti-racism and human rights department at the CLC, can certainly stay. The reason I'm rushing off is that quite frankly this is not too controversial for us. We don't have a big problem with the act.

We do have some questions and some concerns we'd like to raise. It's very short, and I'll try to read very quickly. We have copies, I think, in French and English.

As you know, we represent two million workers, many of whom of course started out not as citizens of Canada. So we are an institution and an organization that is vitally concerned about this country. We have demonstrated interest in the way Canada treats its citizens and the way Canada plays its role within the international community.

• 1550

We are appearing before this committee because we have a demonstrated interest in citizenship and immigration issues. We have over the years made presentations on Bill C-86, Bill C-44, minister's consultations, and we'll be participating in changes to the Immigration Act. On these issues we work closely with groups representing women, people of colour, new immigrants, refugees, lesbians, gay men, persons with disabilities, and all other equality-seeking groups.

At our upcoming CLC national convention we will be debating and discussing a number of important policy resolutions and statements dealing with citizenship, immigration, and refugee issues. These of course would come as resolutions from our membership across the country. Some of these resolutions call for a number of government actions.

On Bill C-63, we would like to start by commending the government for bringing forward some positive changes. Under the adoption requirements, we applaud the fact that children adopted abroad will acquire citizenship directly, without having to go through a permanent resident immigration process, including medical requirements. We welcome this new provision, which lessens the distinction between natural-born children and adopted children.

We also would like to support the granting of citizenship to all children born in Canada, thus putting to rest the divisive public debate that has taken place on this issue. Our concern is that this debate was tinged with racist and sexist overtones by the extreme right, who question the intentions of new mothers from countries of the south.

On the issue of children's rights, it is important to note that deserted children and children born after the deaths of their parents will be treated with some compassion by acquiring Canadian citizenship. In the case of deserted children, they should retain their citizenship unless they renounce it, instead of the seven-year provision.

We support the provision to bar human rights violators and hate-mongers. This is an important step, due to the rise of human rights abuses around the world in places such as the Sudan, Bosnia, Rwanda, and most recently Kosovo. We also do not need to add to the population of hate-mongers and groups that already exist in this country.

We would also like to point out those areas where we have concerns, and we would like to see amendments for the purpose of strengthening the bill.

Refugee claimants should be able to get exemptions on the residency requirements. A number of refugees will not be able to meet the three-year provision because of delays in processing their application due to lack of identification.

On citizenship annulment, while we agree that criminals should not be allowed in Canada, we are concerned that a number of union and human rights activists might be negatively affected because of their “criminal status” in their countries of origin. A number of repressive regimes are now in the habit of criminalizing legitimate trade union and human rights activists as a means of doing away with the opposition. Whose standards will be used in assessing the criminal records of new Canadians? We think this is very sensitive, very important, very fundamental. A few years ago there were suggested changes to the Immigration Act that would have seen us barring people like Nelson Mandela and Gandhi, so we have to be very careful as to who defines a criminal here.

On the language requirements for citizenship, we believe that although the intention is good, the issue of when someone acquires the ability to communicate effectively in a second language is not one of residency alone. There are factors such as access to school in country of origin, refugees still facing trauma, and access to second-language classes in Canada. On the last point, the federal and provincial governments have made it difficult or impossible for certain immigrants to learn English or French as a second language because of funding cuts or the elimination of these programs.

The language requirements should be removed from Bill C-63. We strongly recommend that all levels of government should restore funding to programs for English as a second language and French as a second language in order to facilitate the process of newcomer integration into our communities.

There are two other areas we would also like to comment on. On adoption, the bill is silent on same-sex parents receiving equal treatment in having their adopted children gaining Canadian citizenship directly, without going through immigration processing. In fact the review of the larger act, the Immigration Act, may solve that problem, or the omnibus motion that is being pursued by a number of groups, but we still think it's important to be on the record on this issue.

We would hope that the office of citizenship commissioners is not seen as an ongoing spot for political patronage. We are concerned that every Liberal or Conservative government has used these positions to reward party loyalties. What kind of message are we sending to new Canadians about the function of the state?

• 1555

In reading your own material, I was quite pleased to see the movement of following the rules to the staff, to the bureaucracy, or to the functionaries, but leaving in the citizenship judges, who are now called commissioners, to basically hold picnics on July 1 and be ambassadors. We have to decide whether we need judges or where in fact our staff can do it. We're a little concerned that it's a bit cynical, being maintained to also maintain the patronage function that is played.

In closing, we would like to reaffirm our support for citizenship policies that speak to our principles of collective responsibility, fairness, social justice, and equality.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Ms. Riche.

We will start questioning with Mr. McNally.

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

Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of quick questions for you.

We've had a number of people appear before us now, and a number of people are saying that they see the Immigration Act and the Citizenship Act quite intricately linked together. It seems to me that you're saying the same kind of thing with your general comments here. Would you agree with that point? Is that what you're saying?

Ms. Nancy Riche: I assume, yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thanks for that.

Also, you've talked about some rather broad generalities here. I'm wondering if you have any specific comments for us or particular clauses of the bill that you'd like to look at in terms of amendments or suggestions for changes—which we'll be doing very soon in committee—as to how the bill, from your point of view, could be made better, things that need to be perhaps deleted, added, or changed.

Ms. Nancy Riche: We didn't go through and do the bill piece by piece, mainly because we weren't terribly distressed with the changes. But we would like to see some more work around the language. I won't give you a specific amendment. The fact that we provide opportunities... If we want people to speak French and English, I don't think we can assume in many cases that that's easy somewhere else. We used to have incredibly good programs in this country around ESL and FSL provided through our community college system, through the public system. So we would like to see that. There was a great uproar when it came out first. There's been some softening of it. We would like to see some understanding of providing that kind of training. So that would make that not as tough.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. As a former ESL teacher myself, I understand your perspective. I got an opportunity to work with people from all different backgrounds, and—

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'm a former community college teacher, so I was down the hall from the ESL classes. I think it does more than second language. In fact I think it's a great opportunity. That might be something the commissioners could be looking into, because I think it does more than teach people how to speak the language. It does as much about Canada and being ambassadors for Canada as commissioners, I think.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I know the witnesses are pressed for time, so I'm going to—

Ms. Nancy Riche: No, just me. David can stay.

Mr. Grant McNally: All right. Well, maybe I'll pass to my colleagues and then come back on the second round, so they can have an opportunity to ask questions.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I know you are very busy, so I will go straight to the point.

Some witnesses have said that it was discriminatory and caused a problem to require people to be Canadian citizens in order to hold a position in the public service. Have you had any representations on this from your activists, and what is your view of this issue?

[English]

Ms. Nancy Riche: Unless David knows something about it, I...

Mr. David Onyalo (National Director, Anti-Racism and Human Rights Department, Canadian Labour Congress): No. We chose to be silent on that one. We didn't choose to comment on that issue.

• 1600

Ms. Nancy Riche: Tell me again the problem.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Some witnesses have told us that requiring people to be Canadian citizens in order to hold certain jobs in the public service and elsewhere was seen as discriminatory. As a union group, have you had any representations on this? Do you think we should require that people be citizens in order to hold jobs in the public service or elsewhere?

[English]

Ms. Nancy Riche: I do not, but David may.

Mr. David Onyalo: We were going to be silent on that particular issue, but you're right that with most of the groups we work with, particularly the ones that represent people's colour, people from the south, there has been some discussion in terms of making sure the citizenship requirement doesn't end up being a barrier in terms of access to public positions.

As you can see, we didn't take a position on that, but it's a discussion that we are aware of, and as part of our integration and employment equity discussions and in line with our policy, it's an issue we would normally support in terms of making sure that if any particular barrier prevents people from accessing government positions, the government take a look at that. But we didn't take a position on that today.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have two short questions. You say that you are afraid that the requirement for three year's actual physical presence causes problems for political refugees, because of their identification papers and the time required to process an application. I would like you to give us a little more information on that.

What do you think of the oath that is being required? You did not really mention it in your brief, but would your association be prepared to consider a request that people be able to swear an oath of allegiance to both Canada and Quebec?

[English]

Ms. Nancy Riche: I'll take the second question and David can answer the first one.

I thought for a while that we should comment on the oath. We decided we wouldn't. I could be very happy with just an oath to Canada. Your question, however, is would we have separate oaths, one to Canada and one to Quebec?

In my heart I'd like to say that, but we have not had this discussion at the CLC. Personally I think we should swear an oath to Canada. I'd get rid of the Queen, but I'd keep Quebec as part of Canada under the oath at this point. Maybe things will change.

Mr. David Onyalo: On your first question, one of the things we are trying to get at is that somebody shouldn't be penalized in terms of not getting Canadian citizenship because of matters that are completely out of their hands, for example, the slow process in terms of getting their permanent residency. So that's really what we're trying to get at, the common sense whereby somebody is legitimately in this country. They've applied for refugee status, but because of ideal requirements or some other hiccups in the system, they are not able to meet that three-year residency requirement.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you. I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

In the morning session we had someone from a multicultural organization, the executive director of the Kitchener—Waterloo Multicultural Centre, and she talked specifically about the role of the commissioner and how they must facilitate education, interaction with would-be citizens, and have an outreach component in the community. We even talked about cultural sensitivity training, maybe talking about some of the problems for people who come from Bosnia-Herzegovina, how we don't want the hatreds and that kind of baggage coming over here. The good stuff we want; the bad stuff we don't want.

• 1605

She thought it important that it be kept separate from the bureaucracy—and I might say to you that this woman who was before us was appointed by the police commission of the previous New Democratic government; she hasn't any political affiliations as such. She made a strong point about keeping the role of the commissioner separate from the bureaucracy because of what they can do in terms of community development around those issues.

There's a comment in the brief about not being seen as a political appointment, but I see little else. Has thought been given to it by the Canadian Labour Congress?

Mr. David Onyalo: I'm going to try to answer your question in terms of the reason we made that comment. It is our experience that both the ruling parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, have always used those positions as a way of rewarding political friends. Right or wrong, that's our experience.

What we are trying to point out here is that, as far as we're concerned, those are really important public positions and it's important that they not be tainted somehow with a brush of patronage. Because they are one of the few groups of people who have a first contact with newcomers, the kind of message we want to send to people who have just moved to this country is not that you get ahead in society by patronage appointments. That's really the point we're trying to make.

The whole issue around the need for them to have cultural training is a separate issue. I think it applies to anybody in the public service in terms of having the capability to communicate with people from different cultures. But our main point was really the fact that those positions should not continue to be used as patronage spots.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think you do a disservice in some ways to say that because, if I might point out to you and the New Democrats who are in office in Ontario, there were virtually planeloads of people coming in from all across the country in terms of the appointments, and looking at the close ties between the Labour Congress and the NDP... But I think we do a disservice when we say that, and I'll tell you why. What you're saying is that political appointments somehow taint people because of their being involved in the political process and that is something that should not be encouraged.

Let me tell you that when we came into office in Kitchener—Waterloo, we had a citizenship court judge, Judge Somerville, who was appointed by the previous government. That person has been reappointed on numerous occasions by the present government because the individual is competent, he is doing a good job, and it's so recognized. But he was a Conservative appointment, if you will.

I think there is a danger of taking cheap shots, and I think that's a cheap shot coming from the Labour Congress, because they know better. They know it's important too. It's part of citizenship to be politically involved.

Let me just say that I'm a little bit disappointed in that area.

The Chair: Do you have any comment, Mr. Onyalo, or will you let it pass?

Mr. David Onyalo: I have no comment.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, have you any further questions?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, that's it.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you.

I won't go down that road, as tempting as it might be to respond. I'm going to use some restraint today.

Two of the items that have come up in many of the representations, you have identified as well, the first being the physical presence issue, the three years of actual physical presence. Many of the people making presentations felt it wasn't really a true test of whether or not the person would make a good citizen or whether it would be an indication that that person would now be qualified to be a Canadian, and many pointed to the barriers that this presents.

You mentioned refugees. Others mentioned people who may have to leave the country to deal with a sick relative or a business concern that's ongoing outside of the country.

The figure is 1,095 days currently, which is three years—365 times three. Would you be able to recommend what a reasonable timeframe might be, in your estimation?

Mr. David Onyalo: I certainly agree with those who have expressed that sentiment at these hearings, that the three-year period might be a little bit too much. But in this case, sometimes you have to pick the right time. I would say anywhere between one and two years—not to be exact—but that points to the fact that what we are saying is we would be happy with a reduction in the three-year period.

• 1610

Mr. Pat Martin: The other, of course, that comes up with virtually everybody who comes before us is the issue of not only do you need to demonstrate some level of proficiency in one of the two official languages, but you have to be able to pass quite a complicated test about the Canadian government, how a bill passes through the House of Commons, etc.—fairly complex concepts—without the benefit of an interpreter. Many of the presenters have pointed out that this could be a charter issue, in that many of the chapters of the charter... one chapter actually specifically indicates the right to interpretation in any legal proceeding.

I guess the amendment our party will be looking for is to simply delete the words “without the benefit of an interpreter” when it talks about taking the citizenship test. Many of the arguments by presenters have been that it isn't a test on whether that person will be a better or a worse citizen. Really, if they've reached that level of proficiency... many new Canadians, when they first arrive here, need to take one or even two poor-paying jobs and raise children, and they may, frankly, not get around to taking the language lessons in the evenings. They may be occupationally literate. They may be able to function in their job, and they may even be able to do their shopping or any business in the community, but they simply couldn't pass a complicated test. Would you like to comment further on how that could be a barrier?

Mr. David Onyalo: That's why in our presentation we also pointed to the weaknesses of the requirement that people should have either English or French. We pointed to the fact that we don't think there should be an expectation that somebody who has been here for three or five years will be fluent in English or French as a second language. That's why we're recommending that that provision be deleted from the act, the language requirement.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you very much. I have nothing further.

The Chair: Thank you.

I would like to pose a few questions, if I may.

On the language requirement, part of the premise for your conclusion relates to the resources available to teach English or French. Is that right?

Mr. David Onyalo: That's one of the factors, yes.

The Chair: If those resources were there, are the requirements then reasonable?

Mr. David Onyalo: It would help, but I wouldn't say that is reasonable.

The Chair: So it's your position that there should never be a language requirement?

Mr. David Onyalo: That's our position. In the past there were generations of Canadians who never had to meet those strict—

The Chair: How do you expect a Canadian, whether an immigrant or a citizen, to be able to function for his own good; not to have the motivation even by way of searching for citizenship, to have that as a requirement to get citizenship?

Mr. David Onyalo: I have lived in Toronto for years, in different neighbourhoods, with people who have been immigrants, from Europe, from Southeast Asia, from different countries. We have communities who have survived here for years and years without having to go through those strict language requirements.

My position is that you're probably alluding to very few people, and we shouldn't be restricted by this kind of language in the legislation. My own assumption is that even without having to pass this strict test, people should still be able to function in society. This is all to say that I don't think the measure of success is dependent on having to pass some test in English or French, and that's borne by experience. You only have to look at Toronto or Vancouver. There are communities there that have been here for generations and they've survived. They contribute positively to their communities and to society, and they never had to pass this language... That's my argument.

The Chair: But you said they are only very few and far between.

Mr. David Onyalo: Yes, I would say it's few and far between who haven't been able to... I don't have any statistics, unless you have access to some statistics... For example, I know three people in Toronto who—

The Chair: If you have no statistics, how can you say they are few and far between?

Mr. David Onyalo: All I'm going by—with due respect, you have to go to Toronto or Vancouver or Winnipeg. There are communities of people who never had to go through the kind of test your government is prescribing. Yet they are contributing members of society.

• 1615

The Chair: I can see your point there. So you're relating to anecdotal evidence.

Mr. David Onyalo: I'm talking about the experiences of people living in those cities, yes.

The Chair: On the issue of standards, your congress made a submission asking whose standards will be used in assessing the criminal records of any new Canadians. Who should make those standards?

Mr. David Onyalo: Since the Canadian government is the one that's going to be making a determination of what criminality is, I think we should be looking at our own standard instead of going by some piece of paper that says a trade unionist committed an offence in a second country. We're saying that the Canadian government should have the ability to take a second look if someone comes in front of them and says, “I wasn't a criminal. I was legitimately doing my trade union duties, but I ended up in prison. I ended up in court.” We're saying we should use the Canadian standard.

The Chair: So what you are saying is that a conviction in a country is not necessarily the basis for a conclusion that the offence for which the person has been convicted truly happened.

Mr. David Onyalo: We're saying that we should take another look, and also be guided by international human rights conventions. That's another guide we could use.

The Chair: How would you then assess the violators of human rights and hate-mongers coming from other countries?

Mr. David Onyalo: The same way we do it right now in this country.

The Chair: Should it be on suspicion of charge or on conviction?

Mr. David Onyalo: Would you please repeat your question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Should it be following a charge in court and conviction, or should it be simply on the basis of general knowledge or an accusation and a charge in a court of law?

Mr. David Onyalo: Once a minister or somebody in that ministry determines that somebody has a criminal record and you have the knowledge that that particular person was a human rights activist or a trade union activist in a particular country, then you should take another look in terms of the circumstances surrounding that person having that criminal record. That's what we're asking for.

The Chair: My last question relates to adoption, and I'm glad you welcome that. Do you foresee any problem at all with that in the provisions? You do not foresee any problems.

Mr. David Onyalo: In terms of...

The Chair: Adoption requirements.

Mr. David Onyalo: We want to support the government's good intentions and the government's principles in terms of trying to make sure that adopted children get the same treatment as natural children. If there are any problems, we haven't picked up on them yet. We're just generally supporting you in principle.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Onyalo.

Are there any more questions from the committee?

Thank you very much for your contribution to the deliberations of our committee.

We'll now turn to the next witness. We would like to welcome to our committee Mr. Tom Denton, a friend and a Manitoban. We look forward to hearing your opening remarks and participating thereafter in a question-and-answer session. Mr. Denton.

Mr. Tom Denton (Executive Director, Citizenship Council of Manitoba): Thank you for this opportunity.

The Citizenship Council of Manitoba is 51 years old this year. Formed in 1948 in the aftermath of the first Canadian Citizenship Act, it is the only one of many similar provincial organizations to have flourished, built upon, and transcended its roots. It did so by becoming a large immigrant and community-serving United Way agency in Winnipeg, better known through its work as the International Centre. Thousands of clients pass through our doors each year.

• 1620

The Citizenship Council is a member of the Canadian Council for Refugees. Indeed, I am a member of its national executive, so I am familiar with the position taken by the CCR on Bill C-63 before this committee last night, and I support it. But rather than dwell upon the CCR issues, which I know have been competently presented to you by them and, I'm sure, by others, I would like to take a somewhat philosophical tack and make some other points.

I'm not going to discuss eligibility issues. Rather, I want to talk about goals, process, and resources.

Our agency from its beginning has been a proponent of immigrants getting their Canadian citizenship. It has also been a proponent of the importance of good citizenship practices, including the civic participation of newcomers to this country. It should be self-evident that the civic good health of this country is dependent upon a participating citizenry. I'm sure your committee thinks so. But the issue is of sufficient concern to have become a workshop topic at the upcoming national meetings of the CCR in Halifax next month.

Why is this? There is a sense that citizenship acquisition is something that needs to be both encouraged and prepared for. There is a sense that at the same time the value of Canadian citizenship is espoused, the responsibilities should also be inculcated. How does one do this? I believe the answer is through education, and I know the resources are in place.

There is a problem, however, with the process. Over the past 15 years I have lived through changes in the process, and I have seen its deterioration. In the name of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, a reasonable process has been sacrificed for a poor one. I'm appending to my report an eloquent article entitled “Must Citizenship Classes End?”, which was written in 1996 by one of my department heads. In summary, it describes how citizenship education developed in Winnipeg and how it ended, replaced by a mail-in system; a cursory booklet entitled “A Look At Canada”; and a 20-item multiple choice test with a pass mark of 12, whose answers can be learned by rote.

This hardly seems to mesh with the department's news release 98-62 to the effect that new Canadian citizens

will... be familiar with the values of Canadian society, since they will have acquired an in-depth knowledge of their new country and will be able to demonstrate this...

That's nonsense if the process is as we now find it. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

The mail-in process and the hoped-for turnaround time of a month that was intended for citizenship applications in Sydney didn't allow for citizenship classes, and the requests for our classes dropped dramatically, as Ms. Yacula's attached essay describes. Ironically, the turnaround time for applications has now extended to a 10-month waiting period, worse by far than the old days of six to eight months. So the vaunted expedited process is a failure, and any reasonable chance of teaching a citizenship curriculum has vanished. The only positive thing is that citizenship fees collected by the department have doubled from $16,835,000 in 1993-94 to $33,500,000 in 1997-98.

One would hope that your committee is monitoring the number of citizenship applications being made to ensure that cost isn't dissuading people from applying. I hope this isn't the case, but if it were, then this would be a concerning signal for a country that wants a population that fully and legally participates in the citizenship process.

• 1625

Anecdotally, I hear that people without their citizenship are appearing on voters lists and actually voting without being challenged. Perhaps some of my concern for civic participation should be replaced by a concern for law-abiding values.

In summary, the process in place is in conflict with the goals of my agency and the apparent desire of the government for an informed and participating citizenry. The process is also antithetical to the wisdom of any reasonable person with concerns in this area.

This is not a money issue. It is more a common sense issue. In fact, our delivery of citizenship classes in the past was undoubtedly the cheapest program we ran and could probably be replicated at a cost of $20 to $30 per person, if numbers of attendees were reasonably high.

The process needs to be thought through once again, with the view to achieving Canada's goals in a realistic fashion. Again I appeal not for money but for common sense and a process that is goal-driven, at least in a broader sense than the apparent departmental agenda of speed, failure, and money.

It would not be responsible of me to criticize without offering an alternative. Let me say first I have no problem with the mail-in system, as long as it can be made to work in Sydney without the current long delays.

I have no problem with the fee structure, as long as your committee determines it is not impeding in any significant way the appropriate number of citizenship applications.

I have no problem with the ceremonial aspects of the awarding of citizenship, as long as there is appropriate ceremony attending the event. I've been to too many wonderful, moving ceremonies to ever deprecate the importance of this.

I have no problem with the appointment and the role of citizenship judges or citizenship commissioners, as long as they are people with a talent for the work and stature in the eyes of the community, and I think they are.

I have a problem with the lack of citizenship education as preparation for one's future role as an informed, participating, and responsible citizen. There is an easy answer through altering the process. If citizenship preparation classes were a requirement and citizenship applications had to be accompanied by a certificate of course completion—and successful course completion could even include that multiple choice examination—then I think we would have an appropriate process.

What about course content? The answer to that is surprisingly simple. A wealth of material already exists. Of course, delivery agencies like ours have developed and used this kind of material for years and have experienced teachers available. But you need look no further than the Department of Canadian Heritage for excellent resources. For example, Canadian Heritage has developed good material collected under the heading, “Citizenship Participation Initiative Modules”—CPI modules for short. These were prepared fairly recently at a cost in the millions of dollars. Some agencies such as ours assisted in their preparation. We produced the health module. The purpose of these modules is to teach many aspects of Canada to newcomers after they have attained their citizenship, with a view to encouraging their civic participation.

This introduces us to issues of departmental turf. Canadian Heritage, or Secretary of State, used to have responsibility for citizenship. Now that responsibility has shifted to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. So an expensive collection of specially developed materials seemingly cannot be targeted at candidates for citizenship, but must be targeted at the post-citizenship phase.

• 1630

A recently contracted survey for Canadian Heritage has revealed that virtually no one is using this great stuff. I don't find this surprising. The opportunity available to teach persons seeking citizenship disappears once they have it. So the CPI modules sit on shelves all across this country, and thus far the money has been wasted.

In Winnipeg in February we brought together three focus groups, carefully selected and drawn from many newcomer ethnocultural communities. Each received well-prepared lectures from professional teachers on two of the CPI modules. They were asked to evaluate them. The resounding verdict was that the material was good, but our focus groups of Canadian citizens, although newcomers to Canada, were the wrong target. The material should have been presented to candidates within their first three years in Canada—before citizenship, not after. Isn't this an absurd situation?

Canadian Heritage has other useful materials available through its Canada Place centres across the land. The stuff is there and the need is there; it just requires some overarching political will to put these pieces together.

I will conclude by repeating that the role of citizenship education in the process of attaining one's citizenship should be re-evaluated. I think citizenship education is a useful and practical lever for achieving both philosophical and practical goals. I hope you share that view.

It's not a money issue. You could even require the candidates to pay the $25 or so for say an eight-session course, spread over as many weeks, culminating in a session to teach the correct completion of the application form—which would speed up Sydney's processing. Immigrant-serving agencies across the country could be tasked to deliver the service. I'm sure they would welcome the challenge, because they too are concerned about the issue of civic participation by newcomers, as the agenda item on the CCR national convention next month indicates.

All that is required of government is to look at the broad picture and see the advantages and practical ease of implementing this revised process. I hope your committee will recommend it. Thanks.

The Chair: Thanks so much, Mr. Denton, for your very insightful presentation. You have certainly touched one of the nerves of the whole issue.

On that note, Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your submission. Obviously the issue of citizenship is very important to you. You've outlined some excellent ideas about how we might go about revamping citizenship education and how important that is. You talked about the practical ease of implementing these ideas. I would suggest to you that there would be some hesitation in implementing some of those ideas, not necessarily because of any lack of wanting to do it, but because of the energy and direction needed to do it.

I'm wondering how you might see this fit into specific areas of the bill. Part of our task is to look at the brass tacks of the bill in the clauses and what specific amendments or changes we could make to the bill. Are there any specific parts of the bill you would refer us to? You mentioned at the beginning you didn't have any.

Mr. Tom Denton: I don't. I didn't think it was appropriate for me to try to indulge in some legislative redrafting at this point. This is a broad issue and it needs to be addressed. There is passing reference to this notion that people should have some knowledge of the country in areas where they can get it.

I would like to make a couple of points. One, I don't think it would be difficult to do this. There is a network of agencies such as mine all across this country, who are committed to doing this kind of thing if they're given the chance. We were cut out of the process by the mail-in system. We used to have brochures available to people walking up to the counter in Winnipeg to apply for their citizenship that described the courses we offered. They were free, and most everyone came and took them. Now we can't even arrange with the department to include a circular in the mail-out to people about the availability of our courses, even assuming we had the time to deliver them. There's a lack of cooperation on the part of the department in this whole area.

• 1635

It's obvious it is no longer a priority for the department that there be citizenship education, even though they pay lip service to it with this little booklet and the 20 questions. I think it could be done so easily. As I say, the system is there. People like me in our organization and people through the CCR all across this country would be happy to do it, and it wouldn't cost the government a penny.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you. Those are practical suggestions about how to do that.

One of the operational questions would be how you would foresee being able to network with all the different groups across the country to have some consistency in terms of what information and which particular courses were provided. Are the courses the same in each region of the country? Are they offered in both official languages? It's those kinds of questions.

Mr. Tom Denton: They would certainly have to be, but there was a time when this did happen.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Mr. Tom Denton: I don't know about—

Mr. Grant McNally: Now they're cut out of the system. Can you expand a little on your perception or perspective on that and how that came about?

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes. It came about because of the mail-in process. Initially, the mail-in process was to accomplish a turnaround in Sydney of, hopefully, a month, certainly no more than two or three.

Mr. Grant McNally: Were you consulted about that ahead of time?

Mr. Tom Denton: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Do you think it was perhaps an inadvertent by-product of looking at the efficiency of the system versus what the system was actually intended to address?

Mr. Tom Denton: That's right. We certainly addressed these problems as vocally as we could at the time, but my experience in dealing with the department has been that when their minds are made up, you might as well shout at the wall.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. So you're saying your organization didn't sense a receptivity to pursuing any of these notions, even though you're stating that this would not be at cost to the government.

Mr. Tom Denton: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: It would be... assuming you're a non-profit organization, obviously.

Mr. Tom Denton: That's right.

Mr. Grant McNally: And yet this was a service that was not taken advantage of.

Mr. Tom Denton: That's right. And if the requirement were there that the course be taken, they wouldn't even have to change the style of the forms or enter into any kind of money transaction around the cost of the classes, because the agencies could look after collecting that, just on a cost-recovery basis to pay the teacher. As I say, there's a wealth of good material, most of it available within government right now.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have three questions. First, have you had an opportunity to look at the oath? Do you find it inspiring? What is your overall assessment of the oath?

Second, you are a lawyer by training. I know that that fact alone does not define you, but, among other things, you are a lawyer, and that does not cause the committee any problem. What do you think about clause 43 of the bill? This morning's witnesses told us that it gave tremendous regulatory power to the Governor in Council. I don't know whether you have a copy of the bill; if not, we could get you one. Many witnesses have pointed out the enormous regulatory and interpretation power that will be given to the Governor in Council—such as defining the term "spouse", the costs to be paid, and so on. In other words, the Governor in Council will have as much authority regarding administrative matters as definitions, which are central to the bill. I don't know whether you have had an opportunity to look at that.

• 1640

In your comments, you said that the Citizenship Act should achieve certain philosophical and political objectives. I would like you to tell us more about what you have in mind there.

[English]

Mr. Tom Denton: That's three questions. First of all, on the issue of the oath, it may be a function of my age, but I prefer not to get involved in that issue, and I prefer a solution from the government that creates as few waves as possible. I think that's what they seemingly have done.

It really matters very little to me whether the Queen is in or the Queen is out or what. I think at this juncture the thing that causes the least controversy but carries us somewhat forward in the process of achieving an acceptable oath over time is to be recommended. So I'm satisfied with the apparent solution, or the compromise solution, that seems to be implicit in this so that the Monarchist League doesn't get too excited about all of this. I'm taking a pragmatic approach to that.

On the issue of the section you referred to and whether the cabinet powers are too broad, the CCR feels they are. I'm not quite as sure as the CCR would seem to be about that because I think there's a tendency in passing lots of legislation to try to answer too many minute questions. I think we need to repose some trust in the political process to make practical and fair decisions and not try to define every little nuance by some piece of legislation or regulations arising from the legislation.

In things like, for example, the Immigration Act, the more we change the Immigration Act, the tighter we make everything and the less flexibility we end up having. It's as though the bureaucracy wants to have easy answers in the legislation, and I think there are places or times when it's a useful idea to have flexibility. Does that help? That's how I feel.

What was the third question?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You said that the Citizenship Act should be used to achieve certain philosophical objectives.

[English]

Mr. Tom Denton: I didn't say philosophical and political; I said philosophical and practical. I think from the philosophical point of view I am again concerned about a process that achieves a participating citizenry. I think it's good for the general health of the country that we have this. I've always found it amazing that the percentage of people who participate in national elections in the United States for the presidency, despite all the hoopla that precedes them, is usually 45% or 50%, whereas in Canada we usually achieve 75% to 78% participation in our national elections. I don't know why that is, but I don't want to lose it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Just to add to your knowledge of democracies, I would point out that 97% of eligible Quebeckers voted in the last referendum in Quebec in 1995. I'm sure you share my enthusiasm for such a vigorous democracy.

• 1645

[English]

Mr. Tom Denton: I think it's great. We've done something right in this country, but as more and more people join us from different parts of the world, where there may not be the same traditions of democratic process, I'm concerned that we continue to have these sorts of values by teaching people through a citizenship education process.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. Fifty-one years is a long time that you have actually managed to survive and, earlier on, flourish.

You have a wide range of people coming to the courses, I would imagine, anywhere from somebody who comes from a democracy over in Denmark to somebody who came over and was labelled as one of the boat people. You obviously have different experiences of the students you have.

Can you tell me how your program also facilitates in some of the life skill areas?

Mr. Tom Denton: First of all, one of the things that probably should be mentioned is that because people come from these many different language backgrounds, the teachers who had been involved in the process in the past—and bear in mind, it's not happening right now—had ESL, in our case, or it could be FSL capability. They are experienced in working with people whose first language is not English, so the program is geared that way.

In fact, the CPI modules I mentioned in my presentation that were developed through Canadian Heritage also had that as a reference point when they were being developed. So there is some sensitivity to this dimension. But the course content was focused on things like the history of the country, the geography of the country, the political systems of the country, the three levels of government in the country and how they work—those kinds of things. The focus was more on the civics part of the thing.

The justice system is one of the CPI modules that we are now dealing with. Also, there's the volunteer system, and I think it's good to mention volunteering because this is Volunteer Week in Canada. The notion of volunteering in Canada I think is an important ingredient of inculcating in people a sense of Canadian values, because I have found in working over these many years with people from other parts of the world that it isn't as commonplace in other areas that one volunteers for the benefit of his community as it is in Canada. So this is another module that's been developed and is available. There's a lot of stuff.

But we're not talking about the same kinds of things that we teach arriving immigrants in terms of coping skills for life in this country. That's a whole different curriculum, but we deal with that all the time. I'm talking beyond that now in terms of the civic participation issues.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You mentioned that these classes should be undertaken by groups who work with new citizens and who assist them in terms of fitting into the community.

Earlier on we had the executive director of the Multicultural Centre from Kitchener—Waterloo.

Mr. Tom Denton: I know her.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: She really made a strong case on the commissioners and cultural sensitivity and what some folks will understand. She cited an example of somebody from the former Yugoslavia who's Serbian. He was not going to learn the name of the opposition parties and his reason was that's why he ended up being a refugee here in the first place, because he was looking at what they were doing and might have been involved with them.

It's a very important component in terms of assisting new Canadians. I wonder if there is a chance of having some of these classes offered earlier on in the person's arrival.

• 1650

Mr. Tom Denton: One of the difficulties is that when people arrive... how do you know who is arriving? Years ago our agency, for example, had a program of inviting all arriving immigrants in Winnipeg to come out on a Saturday morning for coffee. There was a little ceremony that went along with this, and Canadians met arriving people and so on. That worked for many years, and it worked very well. However, with the arrival of privacy concerns, we can no longer be told who is arriving. We used to get the list of people and send them invitations to come. You can't do that any more because that's privacy, you see. And there's a limit to how many brochures you can leave at airports in the hope that somebody will pick them up.

So most of the contact we have with arriving people is with government-assisted refugees, because they are delivered by the government into our clutches and we have them in our hostel for a while, and we go through a process of teaching them how to cope with Canada. The only problem there is that we, over long experience, found we could do a reasonable job with these people if we had them living with us for 21 days. Some stayed a little longer because apartments weren't readily available. Some didn't have to stay quite as long. But we had a process of going through a curriculum, and it took about 21 days. It wasn't unique to us. This was happening in other western Canadian cities of which I am aware.

Now the government has decided that it can be done in 13 hours, and they have cut the time for which they will pay in hostel for us to do this—to ten days in the case of Winnipeg. So it's almost an impossibility. In any ten days you've usually get four weekend days, maybe even a statutory holiday. So we're squeezed into the process now where it's impossible to do the kind of things we would like to do and we used to do. Now it's just a slapdash process of getting the paperwork done, showing them where the apartments are, how to get their household effects, and away you go.

I find that after people move on into the community it's very difficult to get them back for adult ed, if you will. It's very difficult. That's the reason why the Department of Canadian Heritage has met with failure with the CPI modules. They're great, but nobody is delivering them because nobody will come back to hear that kind of stuff. People want to get on with their lives, and when people arrive here as immigrants they've got a lot of getting on with to do. So you lose the opportunity.

I think the citizenship process we're talking of here today gives you that opportunity to get them back. I'm not naive enough to think that a six- or eight-lesson program is going to solve all the problems and educate the people completely, but it's a start, and it's more than is being done now. We can develop a curriculum as targeted as it can be, as complete as it can be, and it's a start. But now there's nothing.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Denton. I'd like to pose a few questions with respect to the envisioned citizenship classes. Is there a need for this to be a reality? Do you see a need for an accreditation process so that we do not see classes and schools spring up around the country while we lose control of quality? The reason I pose this is that I recall, in regard to the history you're relating from Manitoba, that the teachers at the time were professionally certified teachers. Do you see us going back to that to ensure the integrity of this type of class, if they were to re-emerge?

• 1655

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes, I think that can be done quite easily. I agree that the teachers need to have some kind of accreditation. I think the program itself needs to have some kind of accreditation, the program content. But I don't see that as being terribly difficult to achieve, because you're dealing with what I might call grassroots agencies who have the same goals the government would have in this case.

So I think there would be a desire on the part of all of us to get to the same point, just as we are concerned on a national basis for settlement standards and we have committees that work on that. We're concerned that we do a good job; that's what we're there for. I think you'd find that if this thing can be handled in cooperation with the grassroots, between the government and the grassroots on a partnership basis, it wouldn't be hard to get together.

The Chair: When you speak of partnership with government, do you include in that partnership both the federal and provincial governments?

Mr. Tom Denton: This is not a provincial issue; this is a federal issue. We're talking citizenship now.

The Chair: Indeed. But at the same time, the immediate salutary impact of any such classes would devolve to the provinces themselves. In other words, it is equally to their interest.

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes.

The Chair: And in fact provinces have departments of citizenship.

Mr. Tom Denton: That's right.

The Chair: So it may be a basis for federal and provincial cooperation.

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes, that's right. That wouldn't be a problem at all in the province of Manitoba. When it comes to the immigration scene in Manitoba, you pretty well have a city-state: it's Winnipeg. Everybody knows everybody. It's a small place, as you know, and we work together quite well. But I don't know how that would work in the large provinces like Ontario.

The Chair: And with this proposal you still envision the continuing role of volunteers, over and above?

Mr. Tom Denton: Absolutely.

The Chair: When you speak of these types of classes, do you see any need for more classrooms, for utilities, payment for them, books, etc.? You indicated the availability of materials, so you're really only looking at the cost for the minimal amount.

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes. You see, we have 3,000 people who get their citizenship in Winnipeg in a typical year. If they paid $25 for the course, that's $75,000. That covers everything—the teachers, materials. It's not a problem.

The Chair: Would you go so far as to intimate that this may be one way of going around the debatable issue of language requirement?

Mr. Tom Denton: Well, in a sense it is, because you really wouldn't be able to cope with the class very well if you didn't understand English or French.

The Chair: So in a sense it would be a natural, positive effect that knowledge of one of the official languages—

Mr. Tom Denton: I still think there needs to be some recognition of the special problems that elderly immigrants might have, the language and so on. I think you'd have to have those exceptions built into the system. But for the bulk of the people I think this should work.

The Chair: In relation to the issue of privacy, making the list of applicants' names available, say with these types of classes and so called mini-schools accredited, if they do exist, do you have any problem protecting the privacy of names? In other words, were they to released, they would only be released for the purpose for which they are released to begin with—in this instance, for citizenship classes, information notices.

Mr. Tom Denton: Well, I don't think the privacy issue enters into this particular process. If people are required to take a class in order to have a certificate of class completion accompanying their application form, privacy doesn't enter the equation.

I was referring, when I talked about the privacy thing, to the fact that we used to be able to make contact with arriving immigrants in our initiative to bring them in for a social time. That was a different issue.

The Chair: I see.

I was glad to note, and I heard this from you before, that at the time the fees were being imposed, there was no objection on the part of the users to the imposition of a nominal fee. I thought that was also a good sign—

Mr. Tom Denton: You mean for the citizenship classes.

The Chair: Yes.

• 1700

Mr. Tom Denton: No, that's right.

The Chair: Now, you indicated a problem about whether the cost today to apply for citizenship can be a disincentive to applying. You indicated a challenge for us to monitor it.

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes.

The Chair: Do you have a way of measuring?

Mr. Tom Denton: You see, I don't know the answer to that. Anecdotally, I hear from time to time about families that aren't applying for their citizenship because it costs so much, but I don't know if this is statistically significant or not. I would think that your committee should be able to find that out through the department, by tracing and comparing the number of applications for citizenship relative to the number of people who came in three or four years ago, year over year.

If you find that there has been a serious drop in the number of applications for citizenship, then I think you've got a problem. On the other hand, if there isn't any serious decline then you don't have. I think if I were in your position I would want to find that out.

The Chair: Mr. McNally alluded to where in the bill you may want to insert this particular proposal. You declined to pursue that. Might it not be one of the responsibilities or duties that can be assigned to the envisioned citizenship commissioner?

Mr. Tom Denton: I don't think you need to do that. I know that in the old days the citizenship judges went through this routine of asking people questions. I think it had certain value in terms of the people making contact with the judge, and it was probably a positive experience for a lot of people, but I don't think it was necessary in terms of assessing their proficiency in the knowledge of Canada. I think that was kind of Mickey Mouse.

The Chair: Not so much that they would be there to assess that, but more sort of overseeing if there were to be duties assigned to these types of classes from time to time so that we continue to sustain the integrity of the whole system.

Mr. Tom Denton: Well, perhaps, but I think that could be handled departmentally by staff.

The Chair: Thanks so much.

Are there any more questions from members of the committee? Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I'd like a brief opportunity.

I want to thank you for a very thoughtful presentation. I enjoyed it very much.

You opened with a comment we had heard at least once before from other people. I believe you were trying to make the point that citizenship should be more than just a piece of paper. Another person drew the analogy to a marriage licence being more than just a piece of paper, that it implies a great deal more. So being more than just a piece of paper and more than just a right to vote I think lends a great deal to the argument you were making for citizenship classes to convey that to people and help them realize what an honour and a privilege and an obligation it is to be a citizen. I certainly am with you in that regard.

The figures you raised—$16 million in 1993-94 in fees, and $33 million in 1997-98—what is the change in fees during that period of time?

Mr. Tom Denton: I think it's gone from $80 to $200.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's $200 currently?

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would say that could be a barrier for people. If they weren't made aware that citizenship is more than just a piece of paper and the right to vote, then they would think twice about whether they should shell out yet another $200.

Mr. Tom Denton: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Pat Martin: Especially after all the other fees that have been involved with coming to Canada—the landing fee and everything else they have to pay.

I guess what I'm most alarmed by and wanted to comment on is you were saying that for the work you were doing in settlement you used to receive funding for 21 days in your hostel, and some power-that-be made the determination that 13 hours of contact time and 10 or 14 days would be adequate for settlement. Have you done a costing as to how much money was saved by cutting you back to such a degree? How much money it would cost to put you back up where you were?

• 1705

I'd like to say for the record that we all recognize in the city of Winnipeg what an enormous contribution the International Centre makes, and how much my office frankly uses it to this day. Do you have an idea of what it would take to put you back where you were, to be as effective as you were?

Mr. Tom Denton: Sure. The change hit us first last year, when we were cut to 14 days, and then we were cut to 10 days. The total cost of that is just over $300,000, which is a major piece of the funding we received for looking after one of the largest quotas of government-assisted refugees coming to Canada. We get 540 in Winnipeg.

It's interesting you should raise that point, because something else has happened, and I think all of you will be aware of this. The closing of counter service by CIC offices across the country and the resorting to 1-800 numbers and mail-in processes has converted our office and offices like ours across the country and your constituency offices to front-line troops in dealing with immigration issues. So it may have been a saving on the part of the government to close those counter services and transfer everything in these other ways, but it's meant that a flood of people now come to our office and I believe to yours because of it. So was there really a saving?

We're getting a far heavier walk-in volume than we ever did before, and we got not a penny of assistance for having to undertake all this new service. And to compound things, our cash coming in has been cut year over year by $300,000. It's really awful.

The Chair: On that note, we shall conclude this part of the proceedings.

Thank you again, Mr. Denton, for your very insightful presentation.

Mr. Tom Denton: Thank you.

The Chair: Now we would like to call Mr. Davis and Mr. Trister.

It is unusual to have lawyers on the witness stand.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is the second time. Do you remember?

The Chair: I think I'm beginning to recall.

We would like to formally welcome you both to this part of our proceedings, the study of the citizenship bill. We look forward to hearing your opening remarks. Who would like to start?

Mr. David H. Davis (Chair, Manitoba Immigration Lawyers' Section; Member, Coalition for Non-Governmental Organizations): I'll start off.

The Chair: Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here, and I thank you once again for allowing us the opportunity.

First of all, I want to clarify who it is we represent. Both Mr. Trister and myself are immigration lawyers. We're representing a coalition of non-governmental organizations; namely, the Canadian Employee Relocation Council, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Yee Hong Community Wellness Foundation, the Buddhist Light International Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, among others.

You have before you the bullet points I sent to the attention of the clerk a week ago. I hope they were translated as well for your attention. I'm going to read as part of my opening remarks the bullet points.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do we have it in French?

The Chair: Yes, we have that in two languages.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Two languages? What a wonderful country.

Mr. David Davis: Would you like me to wait a moment until it's distributed?

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's always useful to have a text.

• 1710

Mr. David Davis: Sure.

The Chair: You may proceed, Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: There are basically four issues that our group has narrowed down. The first one is the right of appeal.

Bill C-63 proposes that a federal court decision with respect to the revocation of citizenship is final and not subject to appeal. Affected persons would not have any recourse. We feel this is unfair and contrary to the rules of natural justice. With the exception of war criminal cases, there should be an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal of decisions from the Federal Court, Trial Division.

Under the Immigration Act, for instance, a permanent resident in similar circumstances would have recourse. Accordingly, it is unacceptable that a person whose misrepresentation, innocent or otherwise, is discovered after years of residence and acquisition of citizenship should be in a less favourable position than a person whose misrepresentation is discovered during their permanent resident status.

The legislation proposes that children of a person whose citizenship has been revoked or annulled should have their citizenship revoked or annulled as well—this is in regard to subclause 16(4) of the bill. As interpreted, this could apply to adult children who have been Canadian citizens for many years. We feel this is punitive and unfair. Children should not be penalized because of the actions of their parents.

The governor in council orders should also be subject to appeal, and the minister should not have the power to reverse decisions that have been made.

In terms of residency, we feel it is probably one of the most important issues under the bill—this is referring to paragraph 6(1)(b) and paragraph 2(2)(c) of the bill. The bill redefines the criteria for obtaining citizenship for those who have made Canada their adopted country. In the government's view, permanent residents who obtain citizenship will have demonstrated their deep commitment to Canada, and that commitment is only possible if the person is physically in the country.

The inclusion of a residency requirement is to prevent those who do not wish to make Canada their permanent home from being able to enjoy rights and privileges associated with citizenship. However, this places an unfair burden on permanent residents who have chosen to make Canada their permanent home, but who, often for reasons beyond their control, are unable to fulfil the residency requirement. This may include, for example, scholars, professors, and business people working abroad for Canadian corporations.

While a person admitted to Canada for permanent residence under the act is a de facto resident of Canada, the bill imposes a higher residency test for a permanent resident to meet to achieve citizenship. The government should abandon the physical presence requirement of five years as the sole basis for the granting of citizenship. Physical presence should not be a substitute for making a commitment to Canada and understanding the rights and obligations of Canadian citizenship.

An alternative could be a three-tiered residency requirement. Tier one, for instance, would be persons who have been physically present for three years. Tier two individuals would be those who meet the definition of ordinarily resident for five years. Tier three would be persons absent for compelling reasons, but having compelling Canadian interests.

It is in Canada's best interests to facilitate the international business interests of immigrants, so long as they are legitimately in Canada's interests. Canada can benefit economically by progressively working towards consistency with international trade agreements, reducing labour mobility and professional qualifications' red tape, thereby creating better opportunities for international investment. This is how advanced economies are succeeding in the international marketplace.

If a physical presence requirement is adopted, it should not be applied until immigrants' entries to and exits from Canada can be reliably verified. We feel that the suggestion that school records and employer affidavits could be used to establish physical presence is impractical because while these documents could establish residence, they would not verify physical presence on a day-to-day basis. We feel that a more reliable method would be electronic permanent resident cards. I might add that we had a visitor in Winnipeg in October from the federal government proposing this resident card, and it's supposed to take place in the next one to two years. We feel there should be no limit on the time period for calculating accumulated residence.

• 1715

The next and third issue is in regard to clause 8, on adoption. Granting Canadian citizenship to adopted children makes good sense. However, Bill C-63 should be enhanced by the following five items.

Firstly, citizenship officials in Canada and visa officers abroad should be given the authority to process and approve adoptions of children abroad by Canadians, as they have to now with natural-born children of Canadian citizens.

Secondly, any refusal with respect to granting of Canadian citizenship to adopted children should be appealable to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Thirdly, Bill C-63 limits the granting of citizenship to children adopted after the bill is adopted. The adoption provisions should cover those cases already in process.

Fourthly, we feel that the requirement of the adoption to be valid in the adopting citizen's point of residence is not necessary. The only requirement should really be that the adoption be valid in the country in which it took place.

Fifthly, the decision to grant adopted children Canadian citizenship should be considered an administrative decision based on an official adoption order and a provincial no-objection letter.

Our last and fourth main issue is in regard to retroactivity in subclause 55(1) of the proposed bill. The bill provides that citizenship applications not concluded before the legislation is enacted must be considered under the new law. We would submit that retroactive application is inappropriate, unfair to those individuals who have already made applications, and contrary to the law. The new provisions of the Citizenship Act should only apply to applications after the law comes into force.

There are two noteworthy Supreme Court of Canada cases on that point: Angus v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co., 1988, two Supreme Court reports at page 256; and R. v. Stevens, 1988, 41 Canadian criminal cases, third at 193—both of the Supreme Court of Canada.

That would be our submission as an opening statement. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm pleased to see you. I don't know whether you were given a copy of the information kit distributed to members which gives a clause-by-clause explanation of the bill. I would like to read a sentence regarding the application for permanent residency:

The reference period has been increased from four to five years for the purposes of accumulating the three years of actual presence; this will help people who have to leave the country frequently, such as business people.

I have trouble believing we need to completely give up on the criterion of actual presence in Canada. You say that an electronic map might enable us to do some real checking, but what do you think the rationale is for completely abandoning the criterion of actual presence in Canada? You say that perhaps an electronic card would enable us to do proper checks, but what do you think the rationale is for completely abandoning the criterion of actual presence, particularly since it seems to me that we give people the benefit of the doubt? It is not necessary to have been in Canada for five years. In your statement, you seem to say that there is a five-year residency requirement, but that it is not the rule. The rule is three years over the last five years, which I find reasonable. As an opposition party, our role is not to promote the bill, but I must say in all honesty that this seems reasonable to me.

[English]

Mr. Ben Trister (Member, Coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations): Our position is that we agree with the physical presence requirement of three years out of five years, in principle. We think it's important that people establish a commitment to Canada, and in the vast majority of cases, 95% of the cases, these people will routinely qualify.

• 1720

We have a number of concerns about the imposition of a physical presence requirement at this time, the primary one being that under the present system, where you just have to be ordinarily resident, people do not have a fixed target to shoot for. If we cannot track their movement in and out of the country, which we can't, we are concerned that people will lie and that it will bring the administration of our citizenship system into disrepute. We know what goes on out there. We know that people, for example, travel to Buffalo and then cross the border. They will fly to Buffalo and then they'll drive through because they know they're not going to get stamped in or out.

So it's great PR to say that we're going to impose a physical presence requirement, but until you can prove when people come and go, it's just going to make the system more of an embarrassment than it already is. It's only really going to hurt the honest people, who are not going to lie to get citizenship, and they're going to go through these additional hardships that dishonest people will not have to go through.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You're not opposed to the principle, but you would like to see some genuine enforcement regarding actual presence, and in order to do that, you are suggesting the use of electronic cards.

[English]

Mr. Ben Trister: Yes. For most of the cases, that's true.

But to get to your other question about whether a five-year period is enough... three out of five is sufficient. We are aware of a number of cases where individuals who work for Canadian companies, who have no connection to their home country, whose families are here, whose only office is here, whose jobs are here, and who pay taxes as ordinary residents of Canada on their worldwide income, will never qualify for citizenship on the three-year out of five-year requirement.

There was an article in the Globe and Mail, so it's public record, about a fellow named Joe Danni at Placer Dome. He's an American who came up here, became a permanent resident, and travels around the world for a multibillion-dollar Canadian-headquartered company to attend to the interests of the various mines. His only office is here, but that's his job. He won't get citizenship under these rules.

What we've proposed is a simple way, because we're very concerned about the government's need to quickly determine citizenship at a clerical level and save money in processing these applications. We're saying that for people in these circumstances, we need to recognize their need to citizenship. We say that if they file their tax returns as Canadian residents on worldwide income for five years, they should be allowed to get citizenship. It's easy to process and it serves our needs.

Companies are concerned that their employees will either cut the time back that they will spend away for the Canadian companies or they will refuse to take transfers. I have one client who just sent somebody to South America. People are shifting around every week. Permanent residents will be hesitant to take these positions because they're going to be out of the country on a one- or two-year assignment. They're going to be hesitant to take these jobs.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are a young lawyer. How long have you been practising immigration law?

[English]

Mr. Ben Trister: Ten years.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Ten years! You look so young. That's astonishing. Are most people you meet part of this trend toward globalization with a job that takes them outside the country, or do they work in Toronto? Can we not assume that most of the people we are talking about actually reside in Canada, and are not part of this international trend? In your practice, what percentage of people would fall into this category, and what percentage would have international obligations that would prevent them from meeting this requirement?

[English]

Mr. Ben Trister: I would say that it clearly is not a major problem. This portion of the bill is not earth shattering, but since it's an easy problem to solve... It's our understanding that the minister intentionally decided to—you know what they say, throw the baby out with the bath water. She knew these people were going to be disentitled to citizenship. What we're saying is we have a simple way of satisfying their needs and satisfying the government's needs at the same time. Even though it's not a big issue in terms of numbers for the government, it's important to the companies that deal with these people. That's just one point of residency.

Another point is that they're taking away the half-day credit for every day you're in Canada prior to becoming a permanent resident. We disagree with that. We can't even fathom what the rationale is for that, other than that they don't want the workers who calculate these things to have to deal with fractions. The principle of time spent in Canada for all these years has been that time is not the be-all and end-all; time is just a way of establishing that you've become Canadianized, that you've spent enough time in Canada reading our newspapers and watching our television, our news programs, to know what the rights and obligations of being a Canadian are. So there's no rationale to take that half day away. It further penalizes the people who are here on employment authorizations who have to now accumulate this time toward physical presence.

• 1725

There are other issues. We mentioned in a Canadian Bar Association brief that even maintaining residency is an uncertain point. You're deemed to have abandoned Canada if you're gone for more than six months out of every 12-month period. Because returning resident permits are hard to get... the government, if they're going to impose this physical presence requirement, should at least be making it easier or clearer as to how one might maintain their permanent resident status so at least people could have confidence that, okay, they won't get their citizenship, but at least they'll be able to come back.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do I have any time left? I'm going to use all the opposition's time, because I am the only one here. I am going to take the five minutes that should go to the Reform Party and the five minutes that should go to the NDP. Mr. Telegdi and I are the only ones here. Is that all right with you, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: One more question.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: All right. What are you really trying to get through your recommendation on clause 3? I understand that a number of parents were very pleased that we were eliminating this distinction between natural and adopted children. You support the principle, but you say the bill limits citizenship for adopted children once it comes into effect.

In addition, some individuals will lose their citizenship because of crime, hate propaganda or matters related to national security. You say that we should not be applying the same treatment to their children. So your position is that even if a parent loses his or her citizenship, the children may retain theirs. Is that what you mean?

[English]

Mr. David Davis: Our position is that children should not be the victims of the misrepresentations made by the parents. That in essence is our position.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the legal principle involved here? If citizenship can be passed on from one's parents, why should the opposite not be true as well? In law, people are responsible for what their children do, but the opposite should not be possible. You say that we should not penalize children because the parents made a mistake. You would lose points on that answer in a legal examination at the University of Ottawa. Your position must be linked to some legal concept.

[English]

Mr. Ben Trister: We feel that the issue regarding holding children accountable or punishing children for the acts of their parents is sort of an elastic one. It's one thing if the misrepresentation is discovered fairly recently after the child comes or if the child was old enough to understand what the father or mother might have been doing.

For example, I believe in France they have a basic principle that says if you've been residing in France for 20 years, or whatever it is, at that point they think you're their problem. It would be unduly harsh to punish an innocent person by forcing them to go back to a country they may know nothing about or they may have no real connection to as a thinking person.

We're trying to be a little more sympathetic, but we think these cases merit case-by-case review rather than no recourse to the courts. We think we ought to have a system that's above just government officials looking at it to see whether, in the totality of the circumstances, that kind of severe action is warranted. It may be in some cases; it may not be in others. We would just like a little humanity and a little fairness.

• 1730

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'll have some more questions on the next round.

[English]

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

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

Mr. Trister, can you give me a number... You said the example you gave of the Placer Dome executive is not very numerous. What kind of numbers can you guess at?

Mr. Ben Trister: I would say that if you take the multinational executive situation, or managers, and you take the employees who may refuse to be transferred abroad and put them all in the same pool, you're probably looking at between 1,000 and 2,000. If you're focusing strictly on the executives, you're going to be in the low hundreds.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Your suggestion was that if they file worldwide income for five years in Canada, they would be...

Mr. Ben Trister: Yes. If they have a Canadian employer and they're filing income tax returns for five years—in the circumstances I'm describing, where the family is here and this is the person's job, to be in Canada but to go abroad for the company, yes. That's one easy way for a clerk to review it.

In the present act we have this provision that allows people to apply for citizenship based on an extraordinary contribution. In my view, the kinds of people I am thinking of would qualify for that consideration, which has traditionally been used for athletes who want to compete for Canada. But the minister is not interested in making those assessments based on the totality of a person's circumstances, and because of that, we're forced to give this sort of second-best concept of “file your tax returns”.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Let me just pursue the issue of punishing children and punishing the innocent. I think we can all agree that it never is and never will be the intent of any government to punish any innocent or any child without any offence. I think we can accept that as a premise.

As I read subsection 16(1) relating to revocation of citizenship, and then go to subsection (4) of that section, where it says the order may apply to any other person, and naming those, I think if you combine these two subsections, (1) and (4), it's indeed the compassion, the flexibility, and the care with which such an order would be made.

In other words, I can quickly imagine one who has misrepresented himself in a very serious way and then, with a newborn child, who went with this particular applicant—not born in Canada, because that's another issue; that is citizenship by birth. If you have another situation, a similar adult, but it was discovered many years later, then there will be discretion. So not to automatically disallow including any other person may in fact also be counterproductive. Don't you see that?

Mr. Ben Trister: When we did Bill C-86, I think it was, there was this provision put into the law that said the minister could designate offices where people would file their applications for permanent residence, and we were assured that that power would never be used, and of course it has been used in the business immigration program.

We don't like laws to give powers to governments that they say they'll only exercise with compassion, because unfortunately, in the real world, department functionaries are not as compassionate as you might expect. We could accept this section if there was a right of appeal. If there were some independent person who could look at what the decision-maker did and say, yes, this was reasonable, or not, we'd be okay with “may”. But without the appeal rights, we don't trust them. We just don't trust them.

The Chair: So you are not necessarily objecting to the substance of the approach; it is when there is an error in judgment that you worry about it, and that is relating to appeal.

• 1735

Mr. Ben Trister: Revocation of citizenship is as basic an issue in this democracy as there ever was. Taking away someone's citizenship is crucial, and to have no right of appeal...

The Chair: I agree with you. With relation to appeal, you indicated in your submission that, for example, in relation to adopted children, it should be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. How could a citizenship issue be appealed to an immigration body and tribunal?

Mr. David Davis: The Immigration and Refugee Board already determines issues relating to permanent resident status, so why could it not also deal with citizenship issues? There should be a right of appeal to an arbitration panel that allows for the issues of citizenship to go through principles of natural justice in that fashion.

Mr. Ben Trister: It would require legislative amendment, but it's doable.

The Chair: I can see. My difficulty in accepting it on its face value is that one is about citizenship and one is about immigration.

Mr. Ben Trister: Fundamentally the issues are the same, because this particular body deals with the overall humanitarian considerations when it makes its decisions. They have experience in making the kinds of assessments that would be necessary in this area.

The Chair: How many levels of appeal... Is there a minimum number of appeals beyond which it is just perpetual appeal and below which natural justice may be denied?

Mr. Ben Trister: Well, one of the interesting problems in the citizenship area is that when you apply for citizenship, there is actually no right of appeal now. This will give you... Why do you see lawyers here? You see lawyers here because we get upset when the law is treated with disrespect. The Citizenship Act says we have a right to what is called a trial de novo. You go to the federal court and you start the whole case over again, and everything's fair game. The government didn't like trial de novo, so the federal court changed its rules, and now all of a sudden we have judicial reviews in citizenship cases instead of rights of appeal, even though the act says we have trials de novo.

So we're going to court, and we're going to find out if that's justifiable—and it isn't. These are the kinds of concerns we deal with in citizenship here. There are no extensive rights of appeal now, and there are going to be even fewer. There's no appeal to the Federal Court Appeal Division and there's no appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Chair: The chair will pause in putting questions, since I've seen a few more members.

Mr. Bryden, then we'll go back to Mr. Ménard.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry I missed your formal presentation. As you can appreciate, there's a theme of questions that come up all the way along the line and they relate to what I see in your written presentation. One of your points is the lack of appeal, just as you were saying. Actually you were very strong. You say this is contrary to the rules of natural justice. Tell me, though, when you compare Canada to other countries in the world, aren't we relatively unusual when it comes to providing due process, the right of appeal and so on, to people who are in effect not yet citizens?

Mr. David Davis: I would agree with that, but I think, as Mr. Trister was just pointing out, the opportunity to appeal what are errors in judgment is being depleted. So our past and present records are good, but if the bill goes ahead as written, you'll be eliminating an appeal that other countries do allow, namely Australia and the United States. That would be my answer to that.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm a little bit surprised. I'll give you the example that bothers me—and I've used it elsewhere in testimonies. Very close to where I live there was an individual who was picked up because he was identified as a former Palestinian terrorist who had been engaged in a hijacking of a Turkish airliner, I think it was, and people were killed. This is an event that occurred some 10 or 15 years prior. The difficulty with someone like that is if you allow for due process for every person, even before they become citizens—due process purely by virtue of landing on the territory, which is what we provide in our Charter of Rights—aren't you creating a situation where Canada becomes a safe haven for criminals worldwide? As in the instance I just cited, they know that if they are identified as having falsely obtained citizenship, and he certainly wasn't willing to admit he had been engaged in a hijacking... Aren't you creating a safe haven for criminals worldwide? I see where you're coming from, but as a legislator I have to be very concerned about Canada becoming a magnet for former terrorists, if you will.

• 1740

Mr. David Davis: The way I would answer that—and maybe Mr. Trister can supplement what I'm about to say—is that there are always going to be a few cases that draw the ire of the public.

Mr. John Bryden: No, I'm not talking about the ire of the public. I'm talking about national security and my responsibility as a lawmaker. I'm not worried about public opinion in this. Please go on.

Mr. David Davis: I'm not suggesting that you are. But what I would say is that you have to allow the principles of natural justice to apply to everyone.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, that being said—

Mr. David Davis: You can't just single out certain people and say, it can't apply to him.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm not sure you're correct on that. I'm not sure that the majority of other countries do not reserve the right when they have reasonable grounds of suspicion that may have been received from overseas intelligence organizations... that you cannot lay on a table before a court in this country, a federal court, of all places. What are you going to do if CSIS or whichever of our security organizations receives information from the United States, Britain, or even Russia that a person who has come into this country is connected with a terrorist organization? Surely, in the interest of national security you have to reserve the right as a nation to expel that person who is not yet a citizen. Natural justice is a good thing, but what about national security?

The Chair: Mr. Trister.

Mr. Ben Trister: I seriously agree with your concern. You hear these stories about the school in the States, and then you remember what happened at École Polytechnique, and all this terrible stuff. We have to be very careful. We know that the number one issue facing Toronto's public security is Russian organized crime, so I've heard from the police. It's a very serious matter.

You have to accept the fact that Citizenship and Immigration and CSIS have a responsibility to this country with regard to our public security. We ought not to be letting these people in in the first instance.

But if somebody has made it in and has passed the security check prior to citizenship and we've gone through two levels of security and CSIS still missed it, then I would suggest to you that just as legitimate Canadian citizens like yourself have a right to a proper review if they believe they're innocent, those people should not be hurt because we have a few bad apples that CSIS and Citizenship and Immigration Canada failed to catch.

On permanent residents, I agree with you, but I think there's a distinction to be made between permanent residents and what they have a right to and people who have been living as citizens and what they have a right to. They should have the most protection.

The Chair: I would ask you to wrap up. There are only two minutes left.

Mr. John Bryden: Maybe there's a middle ground on this. You'll appreciate, though, that in this day and age organized crime, criminals, terrorists, and so forth have the ability to create extremely sophisticated identities so that they can get through. So perhaps the middle ground is maybe not turning it back to the courts, but perhaps finding some sort of ombudsman or other person—I don't even know what it would be—who might take the responsibility out of the hands of the minister. I don't know.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have three short questions.

In our case law at the moment, we have two very important judgments that should convince my colleague, Mr. Bryden, that we cannot discriminate on the basis of citizenship. They are the Singh and the Andrews cases.

• 1745

Are you telling us that at the moment, it is impossible to challenge a decision on citizenship? There is case law on this. At the moment, some courts may hear challenges to decisions regarding citizenship. Am I mistaken about that?

I will ask my three questions and then give you an opportunity to answer them all at once. Your colleague says you will be the one to answer. So, get ready. That's how lawyers work: when one doesn't know the answer, he refers it to another one.

Mr. Ben Trister: It's a good system.

[English]

The Chair: You have but a few minutes left.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is so pleasant, Mr. Chairman. You can't interrupt now.

Second, are you not a little concerned about clause 43? I'm very surprised that you did not mention it, because this clause gives the Governor in Council tremendous power, regarding some very important definitions.

I would very much like you to answer my third question, Mr. Trister. Would you be inclined to accept the demand from Quebec that the oath include a reference to allegiance to Quebec? In Quebec, there would be two oaths. Permanent residents of Quebec who become Canadian citizens could swear the oath of allegiance to Canada, but also to Quebec. I would like to know what you think about that, but let us start with the appeal procedures.

[English]

The Chair: To the point, Mr. Trister and Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: I didn't quite get the first question. You mentioned two case names, the Singh case and the Drews case, I think, but I wasn't sure exactly what your question was.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: The first was the Andrews case. The Andrews judgment was the first one on section 15, on equality rights. If I remember correctly, the judgment was handed down in 1989. Section 15 came into effect in 1985, and there was a lawyer in British Columbia who was not allowed to practice law because he was not a citizen. That is how citizenship became a prohibited ground of discrimination, even though this was not mentioned in section 15 initially. Three grounds were added: citizenship, sexual orientation and marital status.

You said that decisions based on citizenship could not be challenged. They can be challenged at the moment. The procedures are in place. You would like provision for challenges on other aspects of the bill as well, because there is no right to appeal. Give us a bit of a description about the current situation. What is the procedure? How far can people go in challenges to the Citizenship Act?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: Thank you very much. I actually heard the case name wrong. I thought you said Drews. Of course, I'm very familiar with the Andrews decision.

My answer would be this. That was obviously a charter case. I'm not saying the charter wouldn't apply to the new citizenship bill, and certainly there could very well be well-versed arguments to be made under the charter, but section 15 of the charter doesn't always apply to every circumstance. Not only that, but if you find a violation of section 15, the counsel still has to convince the court that the violation cannot be saved by section 1 of the charter. Section 1 has been very successful over the past 10 or 15 years to say we recognize the breach of the right, but it can be saved by section 1. So by not having the appeal procedure in place, under the proposed citizenship bill, you can't say we'll just rely on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Do you think this could be challenged in court? My view is that if there is no right to appeal decisions as important as those regarding the revocation of citizenship, the matter could eventually end up in the Supreme Court and become a very important challenge. The Charter would apply in this case because it involves the government and an individual. The Charter does not apply when two individuals are involved, but it does apply in cases involving one individual and the government. If there is no right to appeal, the government could face court challenges.

I absolutely agree with you when you say that there is something very unfair about the fact that there is no right to appeal. In fact, we will be putting forward an amendment on this. I hope the Liberals will vote with us, but don't be too optimistic.

• 1750

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Davis, quickly.

Mr. David Davis: My final point on that would be that I recognize exactly what you're saying, but to just allow this bill to go in as worded and then hope a counsel will take the case to the various levels of the court... It's very expensive, and the typical case that finally makes its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, but for emergency reasons, can take somewhere between four to six years from the inception. You're basically saying that the taxpayer will have to bear the cost, and it can be tens of thousands of dollars to fund a case from the very onset of the first tribunal all the way up.

So my answer would be correct the problem now. You're going to save the taxpayer lots of money by allowing the due process of law to take place in the first instance.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: There were two other questions. Would you please answer them?

[English]

Mr. David Davis: Actually, section 43... I had the benefit of hearing the question put to Mr. Tom Denton, and his answer. I agree in some respects with what Mr. Denton said, and that is to have some faith in the administrative process and not put too much burden on various administrative tribunals to enforce what otherwise appear to be straightforward matters. I haven't given each one of these points a great deal of attention under section 43, but for the most part, it seems pretty administrative.

Having said that, though, if an issue does arise within one of these provisions under section 43, I would expect that if there is an error made, there can be some appeal brought. So perhaps a provision could be added that if the governor in council is making what might otherwise be an error, that can be appealed. That would be my response to that.

The Chair: Do you have any remaining questions?

Mr. Ben Trister: Could you just briefly repeat the third question?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would your association accept an amendment stating that there should be explicit reference to Quebec in the oath? I'm asking all our witnesses this question, just to hear their views. You are familiar with the oath. The new wording would be: "I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and to Quebec...". This oath would be taken by permanent residents who become Canadian citizens and who live in Quebec. Do you have any opinion on that, or do you think it is not relevant?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Trister.

Mr. Ben Trister: I would simply say that as an association we don't have a position on that. But if you're interested in my personal opinion, as somebody who used to live in Quebec, I don't see it as a bad idea. It seems fine to me.

The Chair: Since that's your response, Mr. Trister, when you speak of Canada, does it not at all times include all the provinces of the country?

Mr. Réal Ménard: He said it's a good idea, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I'm posing a question now.

Mr. Ben Trister: I appreciate that, and I am just answering as a citizen.

Of course. As somebody who's from Quebec, I don't, if you'll forgive me, appreciate the language that's frequently used by people in Quebec... Quebec being Quebec and the rest of Canada being Canada. So I'm not terribly sympathetic to that wording, but I also think there is a value socially in recognizing that we have both a great affection for the province we're from as well as for the country as a whole.

The Chair: If that were to hold for Quebec, it should hold for any other province of the country.

Mr. Ben Trister: I absolutely agree.

The Chair: And since all provinces of the country are part of Canada, for simplicity, to say “Canada” answers for all. Wouldn't you agree?

Mr. Ben Trister: I think I made the point that—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't respond to that.

Mr. Ben Trister: I think I made the point that in my own view you can love your province and love your country, and a positive statement of both of those facts is not a negative thing.

The Chair: But the point is, if in fact you make a positive statement to only two, then you exclude the other provinces. It is against common logic.

Mr. Ben Trister: I can only say that I'm really glad I'm not an MP.

• 1755

The Chair: Let me pose one quick question, because of the testimony of other witnesses.

You spoke very eloquently about the need for natural justice, the need for certainty and assurance, and that revocation is a very serious process. In light of your statements, should revocation ever proceed on the basis of a charge before a court of law or only on the basis of a conviction for an offence before a court of law?

Mr. David Davis: My personal opinion would be that it should be based on a conviction.

The Chair: Thank you.

On that note, I would like to thank you all for your presentations and for your contribution to our committee.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't leave. The chair will call for a pizza and we will be very happy to share it with you.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

We will suspend for about ten minutes. We will resume the meeting at 6 o'clock.

• 1756

• 1818

The Chair: I would like to resume our hearings. I know some of us are still in the midst of our hurried supper. Please continue, members of the committee, but we would like to go ahead with the proceedings.

I certainly welcome the groups before us, Real Women of Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Campaign Life Coalition.

We have a real panel here before us, so we will have the distilled wisdom of the group.

Who would like to start? Please identify yourself and your group.

Ms. Diane Watts (Researcher, Real Women of Canada): I'm Diane Watts from Real Women of Canada. With me is Sophie Joannou, a director of Real Women of Canada.

Thank you very much for inviting us to appear before your committee.

[Translation]

I would like to describe our organization. Real Women of Canada—which stands for Realistic, Equal, Active and for Life—is made up of women from all social, economic and professional backgrounds. One of our objectives is to reaffirm that the family is the basic unit of society, because individuals are raised best in a family setting.

Another of our objectives is to promote and defend any legislation that uphold the values of marriage and family life. Family is defined as two or more people living together, who are united by blood ties, marriage or adoption.

[English]

I will go through our brief, which was prepared by our legal counsel, who was formerly legal counsel for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

• 1820

We recognize that Canadian citizenship is a great honour and privilege, and we'd like to express our support for the provisions in the bill that increase the residency requirements, based on actual presence in Canada, for those seeking citizenship.

We also note an apparent discrepancy in definition in the bill between adoption and marriage. Clause 8 of Bill C-63 specifies a minor's adoption may be considered valid if it:

was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizens;

That is, the law of the country of domicile and the law where the contract or agreement took place determine the validity of an adoption under the proposed citizenship act.

This is the accepted interpretation of private international law in our judicial system. But this accepted interpretation of private international law has not been applied in Bill C-63 in regard to the determination of a spouse.

Clause 43 states:

The Governor in Council may make regulations

(i) defining who is a spouse for the purposes of this Act.

This means the determination of spouse depends on the discretion of the executive or cabinet that, by order in council, sets out the regulation on the definition of spouse. Since marriage is the very foundation upon which Canadian society rests, it seems the definition, by way of regulation that does not require public debate, is completely unacceptable. The procedure directly undermines the institution of marriage, as it minimizes the extraordinary importance of the definition of spouse in Canadian society.

Regulation usually deals with process, rules, and procedures, but the definition of spouse is related to marriage and has profound implications in our society. It's not a peripheral matter, and we don't think it should be dealt with in this way. We refer to the leading case on this matter Hyde v. Hyde, 1866. This is the leading case on marriage for the Commonwealth. It was stated that to constitute a valid marriage, the union must be one of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others. It was held in this case on marriage that no union would qualify as a marriage unless it was a monogamous marriage between a man and a women.

We also note in Nesbit-Egan, the Supreme Court of Canada case in 1995, that the Supreme Court held that marriage between a man and a women was unique and was a social unit fundamental to the stability and well-being of society. The court also concluded that Parliament, quite properly, could give special support and recognition to this relationship, since it has the critical task of producing and raising children, which is of benefit to all society.

Justice Gerard La Forest spoke for four out of the seven judges. Justice Sopinka agreed with the ruling, and there were two dissenters. We quote extensively from Justice La Forest's statement, which recognizes that marriage is firmly grounded in our legal tradition. It's firmly anchored in the biological and social reality of heterosexual couples who have the unique ability to procreate, and it also involves the care and nurture of children.

He states there is nothing arbitrary about the distinction supporting the heterosexual family unit. It has a very long tradition of supporting and giving special benefits, if Parliament decides on this unit in our society. He says “This is the only unit in society that expends resources to care for children on a routine and sustained basis...” This unit “fundamentally anchors other relationships and other aspects of society”. So it's not peripheral, and he also supports the distinction Parliament makes in relation to this relationship—marriage and family.

• 1825

To date there's been no decision contrary to this Supreme Court of Canada decision. We also mention that the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada are binding on the federal government, which has jurisdiction over the Citizenship Act.

We also mention that the present definition of spouse as a man and woman legally married reflects a long-standing tradition in English and Canadian common law, as well as European law. This is consistent with the definition of spouse in over 50 federal statutes and hundreds of provincial statutes throughout Canada.

We also mention that American courts and legislatures have continued to recognize the legal status of marriage and spousal relationships as uniquely heterosexual, and no nation in the world provides otherwise.

In relation to domestic partnerships, some Nordic countries have made provisions for this, but legal marriages are not included in that definition, and the partners are not considered to be spouses.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1976, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 all recognize the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”, which is “entitled to protection by society and the state”. So it's not discrimination to recognize the uniqueness of the family, and it's not discrimination to try to prevent the redefinition of the family and spouse to include whatever anyone arbitrarily wants to include in that unit.

Also, all major world religions recognize that the concept of marriage and spouse should involve only the union of a man and a woman. This is a basic tenet of all major religious communities that make up the multicultural heritage of Canada.

We point out the momentous question of marriage and this foundation of Canadian society. The definition or changing definition cannot be based on the discretion of the cabinet, by way of order in council. A regulation as to the definition of spouse to us is not acceptable, especially if it contradicts clear Canadian law on this issue.

Also the solemnization of marriage falls within provincial jurisdiction, according to section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867. If the federal government provides a change by regulation, the definition would create an inconsistency with provincial laws, and this could lead to lack of clarity and confusion. It's important, therefore, for reasons of consistency alone that the definition of spouse be determined in accordance with established Canadian law and that we not isolate ourselves from the international community.

In conclusion, it is clear that the definition of spouse, which is a matter of major significance in Canadian society, should not be defined by regulation at the discretion of cabinet, by way of an order in council. This is what concerns us about clause 43. Rather, the definition of spouse should be in accordance with established Canadian and private international law, which restricts a legal spouse to a marriage between a man and a woman. To do otherwise is to gravely undermine the value given to marriage and family by society and to fundamentally alter Canadian society without public debate.

We're very concerned about the lack of public debate in such a fundamental change that could occur as a result of clause 43. This is unacceptable to us in a democratic society. Our legal counsel, in fact, called it abominable that the definition of spouse, marriage, and family could be made through this clause without public debate and consultation with Canadians across Canada.

The Chair: Thank you so much for your opening remarks.

Would anybody like to make other opening remarks? Who's next?

• 1830

Yes, Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger (Director, National Affairs, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Beth Hiemstra and myself represent the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, a national association of some 32 denominations. We'll address our remarks to three aspects of the bill: the oath, the definition of spouse, and the definition of the child-parent relationship.

Ms. Beth Hiemstra (Researcher, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada): Our first concern reflects the concern of conscientious objectors. The oath set out in this schedule of Bill C-63 reads:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to defend our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

On behalf of those of our membership who are conscientious objectors to military service based on their religious beliefs, we ask that the words “to defend” be removed from the proposed oath. While military service might not be the only way to defend democratic principles, we note that the word “defence” is commonly associated with military service. There are other words and phrases that could be used as alternates, which would alleviate the concern of conscientious objectors; for example, “uphold”, “respect”, “promote”. So our recommendation is that in the oath the word “defend” be replaced with the word “uphold” or a suitable alternative.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: On the definition of spouse, we note that Bill C-63, paragraph 41(i), gives the governor in council the authority to define who is a spouse for the purposes of the act. Although the definition of spouse for the purposes of the act will only apply in a limited set of circumstances, spouse and the related concept of marriage are deeply rooted in Canadian society and are critical to a matrix of statutes and regulations, both federal and provincial, that are premised on a specific understanding of the unique circumstances, needs, and contribution to the society of the spousal relationship. Any proposal to alter the definition or to recognize other forms of domestic relationships should be subject to broad public consultations and debate in Parliament. As the Supreme Court of Canada said in the Tremblay decision, decisions based on broad social, political, moral, and economic choices are more appropriately left to the legislature.

We have several questions about why this clause is included in Bill C-63. First, why is the governor in council given the authority to define spouse rather than defining spouse in the legislation itself? The federal definitions of spouse are fairly standard in Canada. Why isn't one of these definitions proposed for the Citizenship Act?

Secondly, how will the governor in council define spouse? There are no guidelines provided in the legislation, as there are, say, for defining the parent-child relationship. This provision, then, gives the governor in council the ability to change some or all of the fundamental elements of the definition of spouse, and this could lead to a significant inconsistency in the definitions used in federal legislation.

Benefits and obligations were extended to marriage relationship for two reasons: one, in order to protect spouses, particularly female spouses, who were more vulnerable and likely to be economically dependent upon male spouses because of their child-rearing activities and unequal earning power; and secondly, it is the primary relationship by which children were procreated, and therefore these relationships carry the burden of raising and nurturing children. Some of the benefits and obligations pertaining to married spouses were also extended to partners in common-law marriages, as they were analogous to married spouses in both of these areas.

Currently, there are several criteria used to define spouse: two people, both adults, of the opposite sex, in a conjugal relationship, which means, usually, the capacity to procreate, and in a long-term relationship or who are parents of the same child. The governor in council could alter any or all of these criteria. Such changes will dramatically change the conception of spouse, and if the definition of spouse is expanded, then any or all of these five criteria could be challenged as legitimate criteria; for example, a change in the definition of spouse to require a relationship of a shorter duration. If spouse is to fulfil the reason for its being a benefited and protected status, it must be a serious long-term relationship. If spouse is redefined to reduce the amount of cohabitation necessary, or to make cohabitation unnecessary, even these changes have broad implications and must be fully discussed.

The third question is that if the governor in council defines spouse differently for the Canadian Citizenship Act than in other federal legislation, how will these alternative spousal relationships now recognized by the act be treated once they're resident in Canada? The possibility of the governor in council altering the definition of spouse means that persons will be granted citizenship on the basis of relationships that are not recognized in federal law and who may have no legal obligation to one another once in Canada.

• 1835

The terms “marriage” and “spouse” identify a specific type of relationship that plays a unique and valuable role in Canadian society. And as Justice La Forest said in the Egan decision, it is one that

has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long standing philosophical and religious traditions.

These relationships have been given distinctive status and are foundational to Canadian society, so changes to these institutions should not take place in a vacuum or behind closed doors, particularly when they affect the whole of society.

So it is our recommendation that paragraph 43(i) be removed from the act.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clemenger.

Who would like to be next? Ms. Murawsky.

Ms. Karen Murawsky (Director of Public Affairs, Campaign Life Coalition): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

David MacDonald, who is our legal counsel for Campaign Life Coalition, and I represent Campaign Life Coalition, a national pro-life, pro-family organization.

Our organization is involved in current political debate that concerns the definition of family. As such we are deeply concerned with the current proposal to allow the definition of spouse to be made by order in council for the purpose of this Citizenship of Canada Act, specifically, as was referred to by the other presenters, paragraph 43(i).

While we recognize the need for the government to properly delegate administrative duties, they should not usurp the democratic process on issues that deeply divide Canadians. The proper forum for the definition of spouse to be raised is within the House of Commons, where debate can take place by members of the House who are answerable to their constituents. Democracy demands that contentious issues be resolved after proper parliamentary debate.

We oppose this delegation of authority to the governor in council, not only from our pro-family perspective, but also as citizens of a democratic country. We reject this attempt to bypass debate on this particular issue.

It seems to us that the purpose of this delegation to the governor in council is to redefine spouse without creating political fallout. These objectives to us are repugnant. The delegation of this authority to an unaccountable governor in council is certainly beyond the democratic spirit of our nation. I ask you to consider not only the issue of whether spouse should be redefined, but additionally whether the proper legislative route is to delegate to the governor in council.

The first issue is one of proper political debate, while the second strikes at the heart of democracy.

Thank you kindly.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Welcome, guests.

I really appreciated your presentations, and I believe you very thoroughly covered the issue, which doesn't leave an awful lot of questions. I'm only going to ask one question, and if I could get one person from each of the delegations to answer the question, I would appreciate it. It's a very general question, but you've all expressed a real concern that a decision as important as the decision of changing the definition of a spouse would be made through regulation behind closed doors rather than through Parliament. I think you've all focused on that.

My question is a fairly general one, but how do you view in fact a government that would delegate the authority in a piece of legislation to governor in council? In other words, they would make this important decision behind closed doors rather than to have the debate in Parliament, and because of that have debate across the country on the issue, which is I think the democratically accepted way of making critical changes like this.

The Chair: Let's start with Ms. Murawsky or Mr. MacDonald. Would you like to respond to the question?

Ms. Karen Murawsky: Mr. MacDonald will respond to that.

Mr. David MacDonald (Legal Counsel, Campaign Life Coalition): It's our position that we believe an issue such as this is one that, because of its complexity, deserves to be heard in a setting where the constituents have a right to voice their objections or support of the legislation. You asked me specifically about a government that would do this, and I think I do question whether they are usurping the democratic process by doing this, and of course as a citizen I would be opposed to that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger or Ms. Hiemstra.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I would echo those comments. The notions of marriage and spouse are concepts that have been with us for a long time and have certain meanings. Over time, first obligations and then benefits were attached to the spousal status. That was done for specific reasons. Different statutes had different rationales for attributing certain benefits to spousal relationships.

• 1840

I think the danger here is in setting a precedent in, again, the governor in council doing this for the Citizenship Act. I would rather have a general discussion about the definition and what other forms of relationships are deserving of protection or obligations or benefits. If there are others that deserve protection, should the term “spouse” be expanded to accommodate them? If we do that, then how do we address the unique needs of the heterosexual conjugal relationships, for the reasons I gave earlier? What was the rationale for benefits across these broad ranges of statutes? So it's a very complex issue.

My concern is that the governor in council, in making a decision, in a sense, behind closed doors, will not benefit from the opinions and the input and the evidence of a broad range of Canadians. They may not take into consideration the diversity of the relationships in society and understand how they should be nuanced. It's such a complex issue that it deserves to be done before committees like this. It needs to be done in Parliament with full discussion and exposure.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Watts.

Ms. Diane Watts: It's surprising that the government would disregard established Canadian law by putting something in a bill that would be so risky when the Supreme Court recognizes the unit in society that fundamentally anchors other social relationships and other aspects of society; that the government would take a chance on jeopardizing relationships in society, jeopardizing the family. So it's very surprising that our government would continue to try to redefine something so fundamental as spouse and family, disregarding private international law or traditions there, which were recognized in terms of adoption but not in terms of a spouse, isolating Canada regarding UN declarations and covenants, which strongly support the family; disregarding traditional English and Canadian common law, as well as European law and European conventions recognizing the basic importance of the family; disregarding the beliefs and the values of all major religions adhered to by many people who come to Canada and form our multicultural nation; and totally disregarding the Constitution Act of 1987 and the bill of rights, which included protection for the family—this was changed with the charter of rights, but the bill of rights specifically mentioned the family. So I find it rather surprising that a government would continually try to do this in this act and in other acts, thinking that Canadians would not respond to this in defence of the family.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have to run and catch a plane. Mr. Lowther will have more questions for you, either in this round or in the next round.

But in clause 43, which says the governor in council may make regulations, there is paragraph 43(b), which says:

(b) specifying who may make an application under this Act on behalf of a minor;

I've had some concern expressed about that, and also paragraph 43(j):

(j) defining what constitutes a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of determining entitlement to citizenship under any provision of this Act;

Those are two other clauses that I think are certainly related to giving the governor in council the power to redefine spouse as well. I'm sure you're aware of those, and if any of you have any comments on those, I'd appreciate hearing them.

The Chair: Are there any comments from the group?

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: Actually, that was our third concern, which we didn't get to, about the ability of the governor in council to define what a genuine parent-child relationship is. We notice paragraph 8(b) gives three criteria for allowing the citizenship of an adopted child.

• 1845

We have questions. We wonder why the section about a genuine relationship is necessary. The other two seem fairly comprehensive. We're concerned about the governor in council determining what a genuine relationship is. If they do determine that, what guidelines or criteria will they use?

Our recommendation is that paragraph 43(j) be removed and that this committee determine whether subparagraph 8(b)(ii) is necessary. If it is necessary, we would recommend that the formulation of the criteria be determined with broad public input.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Any further questions?

The chair would just like to put a quick supplemental question. Can you share with us your understanding of a genuine parent-child relationship?

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: I think that's the concern we have. We don't know what criteria would determine a genuine parent-child relationship, so we're asking—

The Chair: What would you like to suggest to us?

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: We'd like to suggest that the section be deleted.

The Chair: No. The committee is trying to seek help. How would you define a genuine parent-child relationship? Can it be defined or not?

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: It seems really difficult. How do you determine objective criteria? There's conflict in many parent-child relationships, so how do you determine whether there's love, whether there's harmony? Objective criteria like financial supports may not exist in every parent-child relationship if there's been some sort of conflict. So I don't know, unless the other...

The Chair: Ms. Murawsky.

Ms. Karen Murawsky: It's our thought that it may not be proper to define that at any point.

I remember hearing one time a person of authority asking a group of children what they did on the weekend and what their mother did for them. I was a bit frightened, because depending on what happened that morning with the parents... It varies. Children who are adopted, children who are in blended families—I'm not sure it is proper ever to actually define it.

The Chair: Ms. Watts, do you have any view?

Ms. Diane Watts: Our organization does have a definition of the family: two persons or more—

The Chair: No, the parent-child relationship.

Ms. Diane Watts: As Justice La Forest mentioned, there's a biological relationship.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Ménard.

Ms. Diane Watts: There's always the biological relationship. Every child has a biological relationship with a parent. It's not superfluous to say that. I think it's strange that we should even be asking that question.

The Chair: Yes, I heard you. I cannot pursue my questioning further because the chair's privilege is short here.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to join with our chair in welcoming you.

I share one of the views you're expressed. I'm referring to the idea that Parliament should debate the concept of "spouse". I cannot say that I think our definition shows tolerance, openness, generosity and a progressive attitude, but it is one of the positions that exist in Canadian society and it must be respected.

I'm sure Ms. Watts knows that a few years ago I tabled three bills on the recognition of same-sex spouses. I very much believe that one man can love another man, just as one woman can love another woman, and that that does not make us any less authentic as spouses who are committed to relationships based on love, solidarity, and those other qualities that may exist in heterosexual relationships.

That said, the term "spouse" should not be defined in the regulations, and I can assure you that I have asked almost every witness a question about clause 43. Some are concerned, and others are not. I'm one of those who is concerned. In the review of the case law, Ms. Watts omitted a number of decisions. Of course, I understand that we may often be selective, and I do the same thing in presenting my views, but I'm sure at some point you will find the time to read the Rosenberg decision. I'm sure Ms. MacDonald is familiar with this decision, which overturned some provisions in the Income Tax Act and acknowledged that the definition of "spouse" should include same-sex spouses. I think this is inevitable. It would be discriminatory to say the opposite. I fail to see how some of you can maintain that love between same-sex partners is not genuine. That is my first comment. I know we will never agree on that, but you represent a viewpoint that exists in English Canada, and you must be given an opportunity to state it.

• 1850

I come now to my second comment. I'm very sensitive to your comment about conscientious objectors. The Bloc Québécois will be presenting an amendment, and I would like to know what you think. Would the word "promote", rather than "defend" be acceptable to you?

Those are my two questions.

Ms. Diane Watts: May I answer?

Mr. Réal Ménard: I expected no less from you, Ms. Watts.

Ms. Diane Watts: You have said that this is an English Canadian point of view. I am a Quebecker. I live in Quebec, and I was born in Quebec. There are currently many Quebeckers who have the same view of the family as our organization. In the history of Quebec and Canada, citizens have viewed the family as being the basic unit of society. Quebeckers and Canadians recognize that this is a distinction between the family and other groups based upon friendship. So this is not only an English Canadian point of view.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Let us not confuse the terms. When I have a life partner, which in this case, is a man, I do not claim that we constitute a family. I do not think that families exist without children. In this case we are talking of spouses. When you are involved in a childless relationship, be it in a same-sex or different-sex couple, in my opinion, this is not a family.

I feel quite comfortable telling you that I think two men or women may have parenting skills, assume the responsibilities of family, and raise very balanced children who will be very committed citizens.

In your definitions, you did not make a distinction between "family" and "spouses", and I think that this must be done. You are correct to say that your definition of the family also has some support in Quebec, I think that there is a range of tolerance in Quebec—because this is what we're talking about—that is less apparent in English Canada. According to the opinion polls—I'm sure that your organization has them, if not, I would be pleased to share them with you—65% to 70% of Quebeckers agree to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation and to recognize same- sex spouses. On the issue of adoption, there is less support, since it does not reach 70%. I think that your respective organizations must make a distinction between the family and spouses. Do you share my point of view, Mr. Watts?

Ms. Diane Watts: If we use the word "distinction" instead of "discrimination", I think that the result would be very different, because I believe that Quebeckers recognize that the family is essential and very important.

Your first question concerned the Rosenberg decision.

[English]

I'll just speak in English because it's easier for me.

The Supreme Court has not spoken on this case. A provincial lower court made that decision. It's not binding in Canada. It wasn't appealed. We felt it should have been appealed. So there are many distinctions that we have to recognize in the various cases.

Ms. Sophie Joannou (National Director, Real Women of Canada): In the Rosenberg case, Ms. Rosenberg had the choice to designate her partner as the recipient of her pension, but obviously she had other things in mind when she insisted that this be registered as a spousal relationship. If her concern was only to provide for her financially, she could have designated her pension in her name.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your observations lead me to make two comments. First of all, the law is the law, be it for an administrative court, the Supreme Court, an appeal court or any other common law tribunal. Because the Supreme Court has not made a decision does not make it less valid. At best, how many decisions does the Supreme Court make per year? At best, it may make 70 or 80. The law cannot be reduced to a Supreme Court decision. This does not determine whether a decision is valid or not.

• 1855

Rosenberg is unquestionably part of the state of the law, and it is quoted in many decisions. The issue in Rosenberg was clearly the definition of "spouses".

As for the Nesbit-Egan decision, you are right. The Nesbit- Egan decision recognized three things. It was recognized that sexual orientation should be included as similar grounds, just as citizenship and matrimonial status were added. Also, this was the first time that a decision referred to the functional value of the family. Let's understand one another clearly. I was raised in a family, I do not come from planet Mars and I am not challenging the fundamental and sacred nature of the family.

I could count on my family. In my daily life, I have a twin brother who gives me a great deal of support. My parents are part of my family. My mother is a volunteer in my office. If you call my office, she is the person who will answer, as a volunteer. Being a homosexual does not exclude consideration of the family. I believe in the family. I value the family, and, as a legislator, I want the family to have an unquestionably sanctioned status, but I refuse to give it the restrictive, somewhat outdated definition that you give it. This is where we part ways. I think that we are going to have some good discussions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: There are two things. First of all, you're suggesting that the Bloc Québécois will propose an amendment to use the word “promote”. We would concur with that. That would satisfy our concerns there.

Secondly, we could debate back and forth—Egan, Rosenberg. We are waiting for the Supreme Court decision in M and H, which will be quite a profound decision. It's taken them over 13 months now to decide, so who knows how complex it might be.

I think that speaks to our point. The issue before this committee is whether to delegate that issue to governor in council or not, not to debate what the definition of spouse should be. Rather than go to governor in council, I would prefer that your bill be debated, or a similar bill be debated, where we can actually focus on the issue of spouse itself, and that all the groups in Canada that want to speak to that issue can discuss... where we can look at alternative arrangements for a variety of relationships. That's the context for not having it here.

So while I would like to debate with you and disagree with you on a number of things you have said, I think the point we're making is this isn't the place to do it, because this is dealing with sending this off to some group behind closed doors, and it should be brought back out so that we can do that in this kind of context.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree with you. I share your point of view. I think that the lady here wanted to express her point of view.

[English]

Ms. Karen Murawsky: I just wanted to say that you mentioned that we had a definition of spouse, and I have to take issue with that. We very clearly did not give a definition of spouse. We are not asking for a definition of it. What we are worried about here is process. Again, I would echo what Mr. Clemenger said. We worry that the process of sending it to governor in council would cause more problems. We don't fear debate. We want debate on any of these contentious issues, and that would be our preference, by all means.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: First of all, let me say that I agree absolutely with you that it isn't good enough to put this issue into the regulations and order in council. It's an issue that has to be debated. I'm very much on side with my colleague here. I suspect the reason why it's being relegated to the back of the bill, as it were, is that it is an issue that deserves full parliamentary debate, and unfortunately, if it were advanced in this bill as a definition, say in the front of the bill, it would probably dominate the debate. But like so many things in life, perhaps there's an easy solution, a simple solution.

I was looking at the bill as you were discussing it, with the assistance of the parliamentary secretary, and it appears that the word “spouse” is only used in two clauses: subsection 6(2) and subsection 19(2). It's used there because it pertains to the residency requirement for people who may be in dependent relationships with Canadian Forces personnel or diplomatic personnel abroad.

• 1900

I wish you would actually look at subclause 6(2), because subclause 19(2) is exactly the same thing, and you might see that with a few changes in wording, we can get rid of the problem of spouse, at least for this bill, and do it in an entirely different way.

Instead of saying, as we have here, ”an applicant for citizenship is a permanent resident residing with the applicant's spouse who is a citizen engaged”, you could say “an applicant for citizenship is a permanent resident residing in a dependent relationship with a person who is a citizen”. All you have to do is take away the word “spouse” and replace it with “in a dependent relationship”.

Not only do you look after the problem—and actually there was a case of this, where there was a person in a dependent relationship in the consul abroad, in a diplomatic post abroad—but it also encompasses those instances where it may be a child or a niece, a relative, who has had to be in a dependent relationship abroad because the Canadian Forces personnel or diplomatic personnel had to move abroad and this affected their residency ability in order to get citizenship.

So by replacing the words “spouse” in both those clauses—because they're exactly the same—with “in a dependent relationship”, you eliminate spouse from this bill entirely, and we can reserve the debate of spouse where it belongs, in Parliament as an issue that we ought to be debating for its own sake, because it is a major issue and it shouldn't be allowed to cripple a bill that otherwise is very important and should move forward. It should not be compromised by the very real concern you've brought about with the way the word “spouse” has been used in this bill.

The Chair: Ms. Watts, would you like to respond to that observation?

Ms. Diane Watts: The basic observation we hold is that a spousal relationship is a cooperative relationship, not necessarily a dependent relationship. So once you have “dependent”, you could have anything at all.

The Chair: So you have some reservations about his proposition?

Ms. Diane Watts: We wouldn't go along with that.

Mr. John Bryden: You should think about it before you make a reply, because I think it actually solves your problem, if you don't mind me saying so.

Ms. Diane Watts: There is a distinction between a spousal relationship and a relationship of dependency. They're not identical, and this is why spouse is included here.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I have some reaction?

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I'm tempted to take your suggestion and think about it a bit before I respond. I understand the direction, and it certainly would satisfy the majority of our concerns by eliminating the term “spouse” and using another category, but I think it still will cause some problems.

First of all, who decides on a criteria for what is a dependent relationship and what is not? Is that now back to the governor in council?

Secondly, if I'm serving overseas, I'm unmarried, and I'm in a dependent relationship with someone, that would mean it doesn't have to be conjugal or a sexual relationship; it could be a dependent relationship of some sort. That person then obtains citizenship and comes to Canada. I think the previous legislation allowed that for married couples. It means if I married someone overseas, the residency requirement would be waived and they could be married here, which then would also establish obligations between me and the married spouse.

With a dependent relationship, say a same-sex, non-sexually active partner who I decide to sponsor, once that person is here as a citizen, there is no legal obligation for any type of support. So I wonder, once you establish a relationship and recognize it for a person's citizenship, how would that relationship be understood in Canadian law?

Mr. John Bryden: You see, I'm—

The Chair: John, I would first allow Mr. MacDonald to comment if he wishes.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. Excuse me.

Mr. David MacDonald: We couldn't agree with you more. We're on the same page. I don't think I can add anything further than to say we're in agreement with you.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me elaborate on that point, because I realize it's difficult to come to an absolute reply when one is proposing something so suddenly, but I just want you to know that it occurred suddenly too.

I caught from your testimony that your fundamental concern is about the definition of spouse, and where you want the debate is this whole issue of heterosexual relationship, children and marriage. All I'm saying to you is that by changing these key words and taking that issue away, what we actually do is open the door to being able to create citizens of, for example, people who may be handicapped or disabled, or people who may be even injured in a war zone in which a consular official, a diplomatic official, or a Canadian Forces person might engage in a dependent relationship.

• 1905

So I suggest to you—and I will leave it here because I think I've said enough—that not only does this put aside your problem in a legitimate way and put it to a debate at another time when it should be fully debated, but it actually opens the door to do a little bit of extra good.

Ms. Sophie Joannou: May I have a moment here? You say dependent relationship. I suppose that would include a wife or a husband?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

Ms. Sophie Joannou: I wonder if modern women of feminist persuasion would like to be called dependent. You might have a problem there.

Mr. John Bryden: I can't fix everything.

Ms. Sophie Joannou: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Martin is next on our list.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you for coming. I can sense that there are some very strong views on the issues you've raised on your side. I hold some very strong views in this regard too, but they're probably 180 degrees opposite to yours. I'll be up front with you.

Frankly, the underlying sense or the underlying tone of your comments frightens me, in a sense, because I do sense a real movement on your part to try to make sure that we don't move in the direction where we recognize same-sex couples and same-sex rights and full benefits for same-sex partners, and so on. I'm frankly very proud that we are moving in that direction finally.

I think the term “rights” came up a number of times in your presentations. I think the gay rights movement is one of the great civil rights struggles of this century, and it's finally coming to fruition, I hope, in the period of time that I'm in the House of Commons.

With the definition of family, anybody who has ever watched Sesame Street knows that families take all shapes, from same-sex parents to single parents to your more conventional home, like the one I grew up in.

I'm really suspect, in a way, about what some of the motivation is here, because, frankly, when you were offered an alternative that seemed to meet the problem you came with, you rejected it out of hand because it didn't go far enough, because maybe it didn't really address, I don't think, the idea you came in here with. But it did address the problem you voiced. That tells me that maybe there's more on the table here than meets the eye.

I think the one valid point on which I can agree with you—I'm not saying your other points aren't valid—is that the debate should be up front and in the open, and I think you've heard that loud and clear from everybody here. We would rather have this argument and debate once and for all in the House of Commons and make people stand up and vote and show their true colours on this rather than have things snuck in through the back door of any piece of legislation, because that's the whole theme here—that we're coming out into the open and we want to make it perfectly clear.

Having said that, I guess it's a comment more than a question. So thank you for the opportunity.

The Chair: Would you like to comment on the comments?

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I would just point out on our behalf that I did not reject out of hand Mr. Bryden's suggestion. I said it goes a long way in satisfying our concerns.

Mr. Pat Martin: I agree.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: Our concerns with that would be as with any definition. How then is it operational within Canadian law when you're creating new categories? But again, that's the kind of debate I think we'd like to have.

Our concern is redefining spouse. There are a variety of relationships in society that are characterized by economic and emotional dependency, and I think we need to have a full discussion on what range of benefits and obligations should be extended to a variety of relationships. But again, this isn't the place; there are other contexts in which to do that.

The Chair: Are there any questions from the members?

Ms. Watts, would you like to comment?

Ms. Diane Watts: Yes. To us, the notion of dependency is too simplistic. It doesn't really cover what the term “spouse” covers. It doesn't cover the family. There's complementarity within the family. To call it merely dependent is to oversimplify in a rather judgmental position of family, spouse, and families as we've known them traditionally.

The dependency model is not new to us, so we're not just reacting immediately and rejecting it offhand. We've thought about it, and it just doesn't cover the reality of marriage and a family. This is where Justice La Forest mentions the uniqueness of marriage and family and the position of the family in generating the next generation. So there's something unique there—

• 1910

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, they don't let same-sex couples get married. If they allowed same-sex marriages, would you then be satisfied that these two people are in fact married? Would you be okay with that then?

Ms. Diane Watts: Well, you couldn't equate the two—

Mr. Pat Martin: They would have the bond.

Ms. Diane Watts: You could call it something else, but we don't believe you could call it marriage. There's a distinction between the two. Our law has always recognized that, and I think we wouldn't be realistic if we didn't continue to recognize that—the distinction.

The Chair: Let me pose a question then. Let's begin with step one, a relationship between two persons. Do we all agree with that, that there can be a relationship between two individuals? Do you say yes?

Voices: Yes.

Mr. David MacDonald: Yes.

The Chair: Do I see any objection?

The relationship can be between a man and a woman. Is that right?

Ms. Karen Murawsky: Correct.

The Chair: There's no objection to that. Then the relationship can be with the same sex too.

Mr. David MacDonald: Absolutely.

The Chair: So for the purposes of the act, if we are able to define that relationship... because there has been full debate on the definition of a spouse, which is a type of relationship. Is that right?

Voices: Agreed.

The Chair: So if we can find a definition, or rather a word, without predetermining a relationship of spouse, which is now interpreted in a different way... You have cited jurisprudence, and I'm very sympathetic to that.

But along the line of Mr. Bryden's suggestion... I may disagree with him about it being a dependent relationship, but I'm sure Mr. Bryden just used that example at this point. It could be an interdependent relationship. It could be a partnership. But the idea that I see from your presentation, and I think I can sense from the group here, is that there is a concern that the definition of the spouse may be altered by regulation and be different from what exists in jurisprudence and in constitutional interpretation before that full debate has happened—that we should not allow that word to be defined in a way that has not been subjected to full public debate. That is the essence of your position.

Ms. Diane Watts: Absolutely.

The Chair: And that is why I detected from the coalition for life an agreement with the suggestion. It might not be the full thing, but I sense your agreement, right? I sense—what do you call this now—an agreement with some reservation, unless we clearly afford a delineation of that. And I can see from your group a more hesitant acceptance of the proposition. Am I right in that?

Ms. Diane Watts: It's an inadequate description of marriage and family.

The Chair: The issue of—

Ms. Diane Watts: It's not a hesitant acceptance.

The Chair: Okay, no, no—

Ms. Diane Watts: It's just a recognition of a distinction, a uniqueness, as Justice La Forest—

The Chair: I think I will agree with you that his definition of a “dependent relationship” is inadequate, or not equivalent or equal, to your definition of family or a wedded life. I can agree with that because we have just established, to begin with, that there are levels of relationships and definitions.

But the proposal here is for the purposes of this act, and since the act is not about defining it in a real sense, what Mr. Bryden was suggesting is that we find the proper terminology. It is very comforting that at least here, where there are three people with similar positions—all opposed to it being put here—two out of three are now, if I can say so, in agreement. That is very democratic, and very comforting to the chair, at least.

Am I summing that up, or do you still have reservations, Ms. Watts?

Ms. Diane Watts: Well, the act wants the governor in council to define spouse, and it doesn't even say whether it's once and for all or whether it's a different definition, depending on the case they're dealing with. So it's not the committee—

Mr. John Bryden: May I help you—

Ms. Diane Watts: —that's called upon to define the spouse.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: May I help you a little bit as you struggle with this? I don't think you quite grasp what I just did. My change is to take the issue of family, spouse, and all these things off the table entirely. Everything in your presentation is no longer relevant, because I have changed the rules of the game by making one small fix that reserves the really important debate to another time and will enable this act to go forward. Now whether “dependent relationship” are the words, I'm not sure. That is something the minister and her officials will have to consider. But the point is that we didn't need to use spouse in those clauses at all. It didn't need to be there. That gets you around the problem.

• 1915

Ms. Sophie Joannou: How would you change this in clause 43?

Mr. John Bryden: I'd take it out.

Ms. Sophie Joannou: Take it out. Okay. I wasn't sure what you meant.

Mr. John Bryden: It will go just like that.

Ms. Sophie Joannou: Okay.

Mr. John Bryden: It is there because of subclauses 6(2) and 19(2), which are only there because of the exceptional situation where Canadian Forces or diplomatic personnel are abroad and they have people in a partnership who are dependent upon them. They have to be there; they can't be elsewhere. And that affects their residence ability to get citizenship. It's only that one instance, and that's the only reason spouse is used in the bill. That's the only reason for that item you were concerned about.

Ms. Diane Watts: I would say it may not be the only reason the word “spouse” is in the bill. There may be other reasons it's there.

Mr. John Bryden: I can only go by what's in the legislation.

Ms. Diane Watts: Yes. The government may want the governor in council to define spouse without facing democratic process.

The Chair: Mr. Lowther, please, you have the floor.

Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Okay, great.

I've been listening closely to all this and it's interesting. I detect that we all wanted to have a nice public debate on the issue of legal recognition of same-sex spouses. I was looking through my notes, and on September 18, 1995, the House defeated a motion almost three to one after a lengthy debate. It read:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the measures necessary for the legal recognition of same-sex spouses.

Only a couple of short years ago we said, gee, we don't think we need to do that. So we have had a debate, a very recent debate I'd suggest, on this, and the House ruled. That's the democratic process, right?

I take issue with Mr. Bryden's approach. It seems to me that in order to park all the family issues over here—what a spouse is and what children are—he comes up with the brainwave of dependency. But speaking to Mr. Clemenger's point, it could cause more problems than it solves. It's a short-term fix to get away from a thorny issue that people are sensitive about to come up with something called dependency, which is totally undefined and will probably make the workability of the bill in the longer term almost impossible. So we all feel good that here's the magic answer, but it screws up the legislation so badly that it actually undermines what benefits Canadians. It's a strange approach.

But I want to come back to the bill. I'm wondering why we can't take a different approach here. If you look up the definition of spouse, it means either party in a heterosexual marriage—the man or the woman. So spouse and marriage are integrally related terms. If you change the definition of spouse, you have automatically changed the definition of marriage; they're tied together. We have all this history of what spouse and marriage is, and everybody is pretty comfortable with it. We've ruled on it in the House.

It seems to me the purpose of this legislation is to recognize that there are relationships out there internationally for people who may want to come to Canada who don't fit the Canadian definition of spouse, and I submit that's fine. Maybe we want to let them come. But I don't see why that necessitates us changing the definition of spouse. It seems to me we can let marriage and spouse stand as they are, but still give the minister the option to, in certain circumstances, when a case is made that is outside the Canadian law, allow that individual to enter or to immigrate, based on some sort of perceived intimacy of the relationship that that is warranted within the regulations.

• 1920

What I'm coming to here is that our Canadian law can stand and still allow for an override for situations that are outside Canadian law. Why are we necessitating changing our basic understanding of terms like spouse and marriage, just to accommodate situations that don't fit them? We can accommodate situations that don't fit them without having to change the cornerstones of public policy, by just giving the power to accommodate those situations that don't fit them. Do you follow where I'm going here?

The Chair: Yes. Would you comment on that? Ms. Murawsky.

Mr. Karen Murawsky: I understand where Mr. Lowther is going, I think, and I tend to agree with him very much. When we read the legislation, we looked at clause after clause and said “We can't disagree with that; we agree with that; that's good; that's not so good.” But when you see a definition of spouse, I think it raises a flag to people who are concerned about families.

Our first inclination was to wonder how you were going to define spouse. That's where our concerns with process came in. So we presented to you what we saw to be a problem with the bill. We certainly saw where Mr. Bryden was going and we're on track with that. But it could present problems in the rest of the legislation. I think it will have to be looked at very carefully, even though we think we're on track.

I still have to agree with Mr. Lowther that we can make exceptions; however, clause 43 would have to be removed because the process problem remains.

The Chair: I'm just thinking aloud here. This is very good that two members have made concrete suggestions. In a sense, if you put the two proposals together, the applicant's spouse or whatever one you wanted to define, you would include both without changing anything, because spouse is defined according to jurisprudence.

I don't want to debate with the witnesses, but I thought it was very premature, with all respect, Ms. Watts, when you said “Why would the government disregard?” How can you conclude the government is disregarding when in fact you have not seen the definition that will be articulated? It may well be the same.

Ms. Diane Watts: Why would you want to define it if it will be the same? Why doesn't it just state in the bill—

The Chair: Perhaps for greater clarity.

Ms. Diane Watts: —what the Supreme Court stated or what the UN Declaration of Human Rights stated?

The Chair: Anyway, I don't want to debate it with the witnesses. That is not the purpose of the committee. Our purpose is to hear many opinions. Because of some proposal, I do not know what will happen during debate on clause-by-clause. But we are articulating here, and we had one good approach and another good approach that I can see. I do not know how the committee will decide on this.

Let me ask you one question, and I will allow you to comment. You said you agreed with Mr. Lowther. Mr. Lowther, correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but I heard you say you would have no difficulty allowing, as part of that relationship, same-sex partner relationships, as long as they were not called spouses. Am I right?

Mr. Eric Lowther: Maybe it would be better if I reiterated what I said rather than handle that.

The Chair: Please do.

Mr. Eric Lowther: My point is that we in Canada have law and tradition as to what a spouse in marriage is. Our Immigration Act should line up with Canadian law. If there are exceptions that fall outside of Canadian law, give the minister power to deal with those exceptions, but don't change Canadian law to meet the exceptions. That just doesn't make sense.

The Chair: I hear you.

Mr. MacDonald, and then we'll go to Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. David MacDonald: I think one of the difficulties here is we're looking at this on a very simplistic level. Is this simply excluding homosexual relationships?

I think Mr. Martin has raised some interesting points, but even if one were to include homosexual relationships, would we simply say they were defined as spouses? What then would become the determination of what a spouse was? We can't simply arbitrarily decide to include this group.

• 1925

I would ask Mr. Martin how he would do that. I'm suggesting that even if homosexuals were included as spouses, what then would we use to define spouse, if not through the parliamentary process? Would we say, for instance, it would be possible here to have a marriage with several spouses?

It's through the parliamentary process that we've decided it's one person with another. Under this proposed legislation one could define it so it would include several spouses. So I'm saying we have to define it in Parliament.

The Chair: I just have to remind you that committees are part of Parliament.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Ms. Joannou, you mentioned that in modern times people might not want to be considered dependent. My wife is financially independent, but I think she's dependent on me and I'm dependent on her. There's an interdependence. That's a relationship that I think you'll find in all families, regardless of how you define them. So the word doesn't bother me. I don't think it would bother my wife because we're dependent on each other for emotional support, and all those good things families do for each other, whatever definition one throws on it.

I would suggest to you it wasn't any real plot on the part of the minister to put that wording in. I think the minister and the department were thinking of a situation where you have an officer abroad, be it with the military or the foreign service, working in the employ of this country. They could have a relationship with an individual of the opposite sex, which in Canada could be recognized as a common-law relationship. It could be just that simple. I guess you all came here and you obviously thought otherwise.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Telegdi. I just wanted to have the conclusion of some of your thoughts. I think I like it. On the basis of that premise, do you agree or not?

Ms. Sophie Joannou: I wanted to clarify that. I was playing the devil's advocate when I said some people would object to being called that, because I know for a fact that people of the feminist persuasion—not me—have objected to having family benefits because then they would be dependent on their husbands, even if it benefited the families. So I was playing the devil's advocate, to answer your question.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, proceed.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you. I think it could be that simple. I don't think there was any intent on the part of the government to try to bypass a debate, which is going to come at some time. It's a debate that will no doubt stand on its own.

The other issue I have was mentioned earlier by Ms. Hiemstra and relates to promoting or defending. I submit to you that you were here defending some of the values you believe in, as well as promoting. Nobody in this room thought about picking up a rifle or going to war, but we were having a discussion. So I tend to see defending somewhat differently. I think you would probably agree with that.

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: Defence isn't necessarily fighting or military, but it does have that connotation—it can frequently.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I suppose.

Ms. Beth Hiemstra: I mean the Department of National Defence isn't...

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You can promote wars and can do all those things as well. I just thought I'd throw that out to you.

• 1930

The Chair: I'll allow Mr. Clemenger... It's one thing to give commentary and another to reply.

Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: On the oath, I agree. We are defending certain things orally and it doesn't necessarily imply military defence. However, for a number of people coming into Canada who would like to take citizenship, they are concerned that the word “defend” has another connotation that could violate their conscience. If we could find an alternative word without that connotation, it would smooth the process much more for these people. For instance, we're thinking of Mennonites, a number of whom have immigrated recently from Mexico to southern Ontario.

So we're suggesting, keep the same thought, but just change the word because that would appease a variety of people.

Second, you asked whether it is so simple that perhaps what was meant by this definition of spouse issue was to extend it to common-law, opposite sex spouses. If that was the case, then again I go back to one of my first questions: why didn't the minister merely include a definition of spouse, say, from the Income Tax Act or from the Old Age Security Act, which defines spouse as either married or conjugal heterosexual? It's because they didn't choose the obvious route and decided to put in an order in council that we have to ask, well then, what criteria?

I was in this hearing earlier today with a different chair, and the issue of polygamy came up. And again, two adults... what happens if you're a civil servant working for Canada in a country that allows marriage with someone who is under 14? You have polygamy with two people, two adults, child-adult, same sex/opposite sex, conjugal/non-conjugal, long term/short term—all those elements of the definition of spouse seem to be up for grabs when you send it behind closed doors. You say, well, how are they going to determine?

If I can, I want to get back to Mr. Lowther's point. I agree our prime concern is that spouse not be redefined and that marriage not be redefined, and that if there are situations, whether they are exceptions or other forms of relationships, that we determine as a Canadian society are deserving of protection, then come up with alternative categories. Why deconstruct or reconstruct the terms “spouse” and “marriage”, which have a long-standing tradition in Canada, to accommodate other forms of relationships? There are other ways of doing that. There are other terms to use, or again, you can move through provisions of exceptions.

In terms of debate, I recall that there was a debate in 1995 and it was defeated. It's not that I think we should have a debate every year, but I am in favour of that kind of a process. There are a number of issues in Canada that many Canadians will argue are settled that we don't think are settled. We'd like to see them, and will be pushing to see them, pop up in private members' bills and hopefully as government bills to be debated again and again.

Though I don't want debates happening year in and year out, I think that's the proper process, rather than deferring this back to governor in council, where we'll notice if we happen to read the Canada Gazette that something has transpired. By that time it might be too late to mount arguments or explain why we think that was inappropriate or the wrong way to go.

The Chair: Andrew, one last question.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: First of all, I have a fair number of Mennonites in my community of Kitchener—Waterloo and I deal with a lot of people concerned about their taxes going to the military, whether it's peacekeeping or the situation we have now.

But one of the things we do, and it's very common, Mr. Chair—you'd be quite familiar with it, as I'm sure many of you would—is defending a thesis. I'll throw that in as a conclusion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I have a comment, Mr. Chairman, and then a final question, because it's getting late and you've all been very patient.

The comment is that we must remember that this legislation we are looking at has to do with citizenship, not with immigration. What it does is it treats everyone as an individual, and it defines one's right to citizenship, or route to citizenship, in terms of an individual, except for this one instance where there's an exceptional circumstance where people are abroad. I suggest to you that the reason the word “spouse” was used is because it was a situation where an individual does not have choice. That's why I used the words “dependent relationship”, because they have no choice. They're with that person, so they can't otherwise be elsewhere in order to qualify for citizenship.

So I'll leave that point. That's where we're coming from on this and we'll hope it works out.

• 1935

There's one question I would like to ask each group. I'm very concerned about the oath of citizenship. I think it's very inadequate as we have it before us. There are several issues to do with that oath, such as defining being Canadian.

The issue I would like to bring forward and ask you a very direct question on is that unlike the oaths of every other nation that grants citizenship, such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Britain, our oath of citizenship has no reference to God. There's no reference whatsoever. It was taken out in 1972. My question to you is, do you think we should consider putting God back into the oath in order to make it consistent with the Constitution Act of 1982? As the chairman pointed out, that does have an invocation to God and that's what our charter of rights says, yet we've taken it out of our oath of citizenship.

I would now like to ask the question in two forms. Should one put it in as an absolute requirement, or should one put it in and leave it as an option so that one can say at the end “so help me God”, or not, as the case may be? Would you each like to comment on that?

The Chair: We'll start with Ms. Watts, yes or no.

Ms. Diane Watts: Our organization doesn't have a position on that. We have members who belong to a particular religion and some who belong to no religion. I don't think there would be any strong objection to reverting to our tradition of including God in the oath. Many of our members were born in other countries, and many are very distressed over the way we are throwing out aspects of our culture that attracted them to Canada. So on that basis, I think that would be a favourable suggestion.

The Chair: Mr. Clemenger.

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I would suggest that you make it optional. To include it in the oath and compel someone who doesn't believe in God to swear allegiance to God would be a violation of what I would call their religious freedom or freedom of conscience. There are some people who believe very devoutly in God who also take an injunction out of the New Testament that behooves him not to swear for God, and I think they wouldn't say “so help me God”. If the oath started “before God, I swear to do this”, that would be fine, but to say “so help me God” would violate their own convictions. Actually, it's that segment that has pushed very hard to have options in federal and provincial courts so that they don't have to swear on the Bible, even though they believe very deeply in the Bible. So it's on that basis that they choose. For those reasons, I think for those who would like to, it would be a significant step.

Many people who come to Canada are escaping from religious persecution overseas, and being allowed to publicly take an oath of allegiance before God and to acknowledge that by word and have that accepted would be a profound experience for them as well.

The Chair: Ms. Murawsky.

Ms. Karen Murawsky: Very similar to Real Women, we in our organization have all faiths and all non-faiths, so as an organization we wouldn't have a position.

Personally, though, I would like to see it be optional, although we would have to be very careful as to what it would be. I don't have a lot of faith in oaths. We've been doing a lot of work lately on the Hippocratic Oath, and we've found that it's not taken in most places, and when it is, many times it's a farce. So it would have to be done carefully and presented properly to people so that they understand it, and it should be optional.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: On that point, Mr. Chairman, Mexico, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, France, and Germany do not have oaths. Countries that do not include a reference to God include Israel, India, and Latvia, just to name a few. I just put that forward because you seemed to indicate that everybody else has that in there and we're somehow unique by not having it. That's what I heard you say a number of times.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that the countries that were cited do not have an oath of citizenship. They don't accept new citizens. The four countries I cited are the major ones that accept new immigrants as citizens. Most of these countries do not provide for major immigration and new citizens.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No country proportionately accepts more immigrants than does Israel, so I think you are wrong.

• 1940

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I rest my case.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, you had better call this to a close very quickly.

The Chair: It is a given among us, I am confident, that we all uphold the Constitution of Canada. Is that right?

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: In the preamble before the charter, invoking the supremacy of God in the rule of law is already there. So when we say defend the Constitution, it is inherent that you're invoking every single level in the Constitution. Am I right? Are there any objections?

Mr. Bruce Clemenger: I understand what you're getting at. The preamble reads:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

I think an oath of allegiance would be a commitment to those principles. An indication of what those principles are is that they're consistent with the rule of law and the supremacy of God, but that does not require you to believe in the supremacy of God.

The Chair: We'll not debate it, because that's not the point. But the issue is that it is there.

We say in the oath now that we will uphold and defend the laws of Canada, and may I suggest that changing it to read “the Constitution and the laws of Canada” would be a way of approaching that issue as well. Mr. Lowther, would you agree with that?

Mr. Eric Lowther: I'd agree to adjourn.

Mr. John Bryden: Otherwise, Mr. Telegdi and I will come to blows.

The Chair: I thank you all for your presentations.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.