CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 0914

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): The meeting is called to order.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): May I give a speech?

• 0915

The Chair: So long as it is pursuant to an order of reference from the House dated March 1, 1999, a study of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship, to the extent that you can use your creativity and imagination, you may, with the consent of Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I apologize that Mr. Ménard's birthday card is only in English.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, that is why it was not circulated during the actual proceedings, because you may object to it; it's unilingual.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all my colleagues. It's a pleasure to work in such a climate and I can assure you that the Opposition will cooperate this one time, this one day. Thank you very much. So, let us begin if we hope to get through it.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for the spirit.

I would like to inform the members that in yesterday's clause-by-clause debate on the bill, we stood clauses 2, 6, 11, 14, 19, and on clause 28 the amendments have been stood as well. We were on clause 43 last night. We were discussing Mr. Benoit's amendment. His first amendment to clause 43, line 38 on page 21, was stood. We were debating another amendment to clause 43, and the debate will continue on that.

Mr. Benoit, you had the floor when we adjourned. You may proceed.

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

The purpose of this amendment, and then the few following, is to ensure that Parliament will scrutinize and approve regulation before it is enacted. That's the purpose of these amendments. This amendment to subclause 43(b)—I think I have actually already read it—will just ensure that Parliament approves regulation regarding who may act on behalf of a minor in this act. That's the intent, and that's the amendment.

One of the members opposite, or maybe two, had some concern about the language. I'm no lawyer. This was drawn up by the House of Commons legal counsel. I've looked in the dictionary, and to me, “resolution” seems to be exactly the right word. In fact, I have the definition from the Oxford dictionary, and “resolution” is defined, among other ways, as “a formal expression of opinion...of a legislative body...”.

I think that's exactly what I'm looking for, the formal expression of an opinion of a legislative body. I'm looking for an “affirmative resolution,” which means that the legislative body would have to review the regulations and pass them before they come into effect. So if Mr. Bryden has a problem with that and doesn't believe this amendment would in fact cause that to happen, I'd like to hear his comments as to why.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney was seeking the floor. Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to speak to the amendments. I don't have a problem with the language at all; I have a problem with the issue. I think you would lead us down a slippery slope of gridlock if we were to ensure that every time a bill is passed, the regulations would only come into force and effect after some kind of debate on a resolution in the House of Commons. That's what we have these committees for, and that's what we have our staff for, to do those regulations.

I've been at one level of government or another for the last 20 years, and I've never seen that kind of process put in place. My concern to Mr. Benoit would be let's assume we're dealing with a reasonable Parliament. That is not always the case. There may be people with different agendas and a different axe to grind at a given time, something that none of us can control. So when we're putting into place a law, I think it's important that we look at the bigger picture.

• 0920

I think the amendments are in order. I have no difficulty with the wording. I have no difficulty with the concept of Parliament debating a resolution on a particular issue. It's standard stuff. What I have difficulty with is a body of 301 or more parliamentarians getting into the detail of the regulations.

I would use this example. In years gone by I've been involved with a non-profit housing corporation in building affordable housing. We didn't select the drapes, the colour on the walls, or the types of appliances that went into the project, but we did approve the project and we approved the financing and the building contract. I think that's our role as parliamentarians, to approve the big picture and allow our, I assume, reasonably well-paid and talented staff to get on with the job of drafting the regulations.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As a result of that, I would vote against this.

An hon. member: Very good.

The Chair: I will give the floor to Mr. Bryden, and then I will go back to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I want the floor.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

Mr. John Bryden: No, I'll take the floor. I take Mr. Benoit's point. It was late last night, and perhaps I'm not as smart as I think I am sometimes. That is possible.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What about the two bottles of beer, Mr. Bryden?

Mr. John Bryden: I think I have lost a wager here, which probably grieves me more than anything else, particularly the nature of the wager. However, I do take Mr. Mahoney's point. I don't think one can proceed by going back to Parliament. I think our job here is to resolve the legislation and regulations on the spot as best we can, leave as little to regulations as we can, spell it out in legislation and be done with it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want to respond.

The Chair: Yes. I'll go to Mr. Ménard, and then I'll give you the opportunity.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree that it is not the job of parliamentarians to examine the regulations. Moreover, I share Mr. Benoit's concerns. Yesterday, I had the chance to talk to officials about the fact that some aspects of the regulatory power that will soon be passed into law should be the subject of a definition.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am announcing that we too will be moving amendments to clause 43 at report stage in the House of Commons, because we believe that some definitions should be written into the legislation.

As for the principle, I agree that it is not the responsibility of parliamentarians to pass regulations, but in my opinion there is something improper about clause 43.

[English]

The Chair: Before I yield the floor to Mr. Benoit, Mr. Bryden, actually any opportunity of this committee is an opportunity for post-graduate education. Mr. Mahoney was right. The point was in order. But for the greater information on this thing so that we can use it as a basis in the future, that expression, “subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons,” is truly in the statute of the interpretation of laws.

What it means, for greater clarity for the members as we debate the substance of this amendment, is that when the amendment is passed it shall cause the House of Commons.... It shall trigger a process that within 15 days of the regulation being finished it shall be brought to the House of Commons, and only after the House of Commons has deemed it passed and resolved will it take effect. So that is the impact of this amendment.

Mr. Benoit.

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

Mr. Bryden, I will enjoy the two bottles of beer, and I'm sure I'll enjoy the company I will have them with, too. I assume you'll drink them with me.

I would like to say that to me these amendments are very serious. Mr. Mahoney has said leave the detail to the department. The detail we're talking about here in fact is the definition of “spouse,” which has been before the courts. It should be before Parliament. It hasn't come before Parliament for definition. It's clearly something that should be put before the Canadian public for wide debate before it is acted on, even by Parliament. To let this spouse and parent-child relationship and the other....

I'm only referring to about four subclauses on which we would review the regulation. I'm not suggesting we review regulation for the whole act. I want that to be clear. On such important matters as this, if you don't think we should review regulation, then for God's sake put it in legislation, which is what I've been calling for since this legislation was first tabled.

• 0925

So let's define clearly in the legislation how “spouse” will be defined for the purpose of this act, and how “parent-child relationship” and those other areas will be defined. So one or the other, Mr. Mahoney.

I am shocked by your cavalier attitude that you're just going to let the department define things as important as this, and that's why I have these amendments. I would be happy to withdraw these amendments if the government would put forth an amendment that would define “spouse”, that would define acceptable parent-child relationship for purposes of this act, and those other three subclauses I have proposed amendments to. But we have to have it one way or the other. Allowing departmental officials to define these important things that the courts say should be defined by Parliament is absurdity, and I think you all should be ashamed to suggest that this should be done in that manner. It's process I'm talking about here.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Mahoney is right and wrong at the same time, which is a frequent state Mr. Mahoney finds himself in.

Generally speaking, all bills have regulations and all bills are subject to the committee's scrutiny of regulations. However, it is a bit of an unusual circumstance where a regulation is, if you will, allowing a definition of a concept, and this is where in several instances, (i) and (j) in particular, we are going over the edge from a regulatory idea to a legislative idea. I think frankly (i) in particular is out of order; (j) might well also be out of order, that it is in fact not within the purview of the Governor in Council, or the minister or the minister's officials, to define what constitutes a spouse or define what constitutes a parent and child. I think these are, in technical language, ultra vires of a minister, ultra vires certainly of the minister's staff, ultra vires of a Governor in Council, and clearly show a willingness on the part of the government to defer issues to areas where they should not be deferred.

I was very persuaded by the testimony of Mr. Jervis and Mr. Benson and I think there were several others on the issue who felt that it was the prerogative of Parliament to enter into these definitions. So in my view, the only way in which these things can be acceptable is if they are deleted so that the ministry, the minister, and the Governor in Council are bound by the definitions that currently exist in law and in legislation. There can be no—how shall we say—freelancing on the part of the minister or Governor in Council or staff officials to expand definitions of spouse or parent or child beyond what currently exists in legislation.

As these witnesses noted, the leading case on the issue comes from Egan, and the judges deferred to Parliament. They didn't defer to the government. They didn't defer to the minister. They didn't defer to the Governor in Council. They didn't defer to officials. They deferred to Parliament. This is what they said, and this is on the particular issue of spouse:

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

• 0930

I can't imagine a clearer statement on the part of the court to recognize the authority of Parliament in this area. So frankly, this particular issue strikes me as a way, if you will, to go around what the Supreme Court has said. I don't think it's appropriate, and I don't think it should go through with this legislation.

I thought we were debating Mr. Benoit's amendments. I thought we were going to defer clause 43, but we seem to be debating the essential issues within the context of the amendments. I would have preferred to have debated the issues within the context of the overall section. But if we're going to get into the debate, let's do it. Are we dealing with clause 43? Are we dealing with the amendments?

Having said that, I think those are the essential issues. This is a parliamentary decision. It is not an officials' decision. It is a parliamentary decision, not a government decision or a minister's decision.

The Chair: The chair would like to state that we have a bill constructed for us line by line. We have the procedure of the committee that we look at amendments as they are introduced with respect to a given line, and an earlier line of course precedes a later line. And because Mr. Benoit introduced his amendment to line 38, therefore that has precedence over the substantive issue to which he referred in his debate. That is the intent of his intent. When he mentioned the issue of spouse, he used it as an argument—and of course that's his privilege—to support his argument for his amendment. So there's a little complexity here, but I think it can be resolved if we ensure that the points we make are very well and clearly presented.

On that note, I will yield to Mr. Ménard and then go to Mr. Bryden again, and then Mr. Mahoney.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could tell us why the government did not choose to define the term “spouse”. There is a paradox here, which is the following: this evening, for example, in Bill C-78, we are giving effect to the Rosenberg decision by recognizing same-sex spouses for the purpose of public service pensions. This is a positive step.

Of course, we could hope that the government will use an omnibus bill to recognize same-sex spouses in all legislation containing a definition of “spouse”. Why do it on the issue of pensions but not for other laws, when the courts recognize it as a ground of discrimination? This is a debate that parliamentarians should hold, and we agree on that. What's difficult to understand is why the government is proceeding piecemeal. It is not up to officials to decide what the definition of spouse will be.

Mr. McKay clearly demonstrated to us that this should be debated by parliamentarians. The Reform Party is in agreement on this and we are too. Mr. Telegdi, why does the government choose in this case not to define the concept of spouse, whereas in January, when the minister released the Trempe Report, she promised that same-sex spouses would be recognized in the Immigration Act? It will soon be done in that legislation, but not in the Citizenship Act.

[English]

The Chair: Just for a greater clarity, because it's even getting a little more complex, the amendments word for word are identical to different lines. And we stood line 38 last night in debate. I apologize, I thought we were debating exactly the same thing until I noted that he was referring to.... We are now on what line?

Mr. Leon Benoit: On paragraph 43(b). It's line 40 on page 21.

The Chair: Line 40 on page 21.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, Mr. Chair—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I asked Mr. Telegdi a question.

[English]

The Chair: I will allow that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sorry.

The Chair: I'd just like the line.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I asked the parliamentary secretary a question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, I will let the parliamentary secretary speak, but I would only like to focus the line we're on in debate.

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could mention again, for any of you who might have copies of this amendment that you haven't changed, there was a typographical error in the amendment. The word “alternative” should be “affirmative”, and it is in the other similar amendments later. And we're referring to line 20, page 21, clause 43.

• 0935

The Chair: We are now on line 40. Is it clear to everybody that we're debating the line 40 amendment? Is that clear?

Mr. Telegdi, could you respond to Mr. Ménard?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I can say to Mr. Ménard that this is the Canadian Citizenship Act we're dealing with, and it's not the purpose or intent of the minister to have us define a term that's being worked on by the government. Hopefully we're trying to establish a situation in which we will have consistency, but it's not going to be this committee that's going to be defining it. But the framework's in place to go with the definition once it has been established.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Telegdi, you who are very close to the government, you are telling us that it is not unthinkable that an omnibus bill could be tabled in the coming months, and that this bill would recognize same-sex spouses in all definitions of “spouse”, similar to the one I tabled in 1994 and for which 53 MPs voted, including the Environment minister at the time, who is now the Heritage minister. It's not unthinkable that this could happen?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Who knows? I probably did myself too, Mr. Ménard.

M. Réal Ménard: Pardon?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think I probably supported you too.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, you are my friend.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I thought Mr. Bryden was next.

The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Benoit is very fast—

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: There are several things, Mr. Chairman.

I want to support what Mr. Ménard said.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have no chocolate for you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Order, please. Mr. Bryden has the floor.

Mr. John Bryden: I was going to say that I very much support what Mr. Ménard said. I think we find ourselves in this difficulty because we do need new legislation that directly attacks this problem of defining a spouse in the context of same-sex relationships.

However, what's occurring in this bill is not the answer. I mentioned in testimony before that I believe in order to put off the decision with respect to how we do indeed define “spouse”, rather than doing it in this legislation, which would effectively derail this legislation from its true intent, the government has chosen to give the Governor in Council the power to define “spouse”, I think in anticipation of a definition that may come down in due course by omnibus legislation.

I agree with my colleague that it is improper to allow the Governor in Council to define “spouse”. It is the proper purview of parliamentarians to do this in legislation. My difficulty with Mr. Benoit's amendment is that this is not the preferred way to go about it, in my view. I am sympathetic. I heard him say that he would withdraw it if he thought there was another solution. I don't know that there is another solution.

The preferred course I would like to see is to have this entire problem be addressed in a report stage amendment. The reason I say that is because the only reason why a paragraph 43(i) exists in this legislation is to address the situation described in subclause 6(2) and subclause 19(2) when the legislation is providing for residency requirements for the dependants of citizens who are in stations abroad. This is chiefly diplomatic personnel and military personnel who may find themselves.... There was actually a case involving a same-sex couple; it was a dependent relationship, and of course the person wanted the residency opportunities that would normally accrue if it were a normal spousal relationship.

I think there's a very real issue here. I'm very sympathetic to the issue. It needs to be addressed.

• 0940

I think what should really occur is that subclauses 6(2) and 19(2) should be amended as I suggested during the testimony; that is, the word “spouse” would be replaced by “person in a dependent relationship” and paragraph 43(i) would be struck entirely. That way we can defer the debate and the definition of “spouse” to proper legislation, where it belongs.

So my feeling, Mr. Chairman, is that I cannot support what Mr. Benoit is doing, although I'm very sympathetic. I'm hoping that the members of this committee would allow the minister the opportunity to respond to a report stage amendment, which could be put forward by any one of us.

Thank you.

The Chair: Before I give the floor to Mr. Mahoney, I want to ask Mr. Telegdi a question. Is the government predisposed to have any amendment relating to the definition of spouse in paragraph 43(i) as alluded to in the argument?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No.

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

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm just wondering if you're at a stage where you're ready to vote. If you are I will pass, but if you're not....

The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion? Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So you're not ready to vote.

The Chair: No, not yet.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: All right. Thank you.

The Chair: Then I'll go to Ms. Folco.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I thought I was on.

The Chair: You were on.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I said that if you're not ready to vote, I—

The Chair: I didn't see any hand.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry. To be lectured by Mr. Benoit is always a treat, and to be corrected by my colleague through some mythical legal training is indeed a treat as well.

The real issue here is only one issue, and for Mr. Benoit to put four or five amendments forward on this part of the bill is clearly an attempt to hide the fact that what the Reform Party wants to do is to—

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Oh, let's not get into this.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, he got into it. You weren't here, Mr. McNally. He made the comments directly at me, and I will not sit here while Hansard is recording our comments and take those kinds of shots.

The real issue here, Mr. Chairman, is only one issue: the definition of “spouse”. In a perfect world, if Parliament could convene today and somehow miraculously solve the problem that has been around legislatures and parliaments for many, many years, then it would be clear. But the thing about governing, the thing about legislating, is that it's not always clear. I am reminded of the analogy by Mr. Sabourin of making law and making sausages. It is always a difficult and sometimes ugly process.

The reality is that there is no reference whatsoever in this bill to the word that sends shivers down the backs of people who are upset about this issue, and that word is “conjugal”. That word will be in Bill C-78, which we're dealing with later, but it's not in here.

What is in here and what the amendments deal with is who makes an application on behalf of a minor and the constitution of a relationship between a parent and child. Those are not the issues Mr. Benoit and his party want to get at. If they would have come forward even last night when the issue was put on the floor, we would have had a more clearly defined debate. There's only one issue they want to debate here, and it's the definition of “spouse”. It's like debating in an echo chamber.

It is my view that the government cannot be put in a position of being stalled and having all its legislation put on the back burner simply because all of us as parliamentarians have not come to an agreement or an understanding of the definition of “spouse”. I certainly have my feelings on it, and they will absolutely be debated in the place they should be debated in, not in a regulations-setting atmosphere and in a bill where the responsibility....

I was accused of having a cavalier attitude and wanting simply to hand over the responsibility. What utter nonsense. There is nothing cavalier about doing our job, which is dealing with the details of legislation, and them doing their job, which is writing the regulations to enact them. God forbid we would ever turn a serious technical problem over to a group of parliamentarians. We would have a mess. We would wind up in absolute gridlock, and all of our legislation would become suspect. You'd have one lawyer giving his opinion and another so-called lawyer giving the other opinion, and we'd wind up in a constant state of legal debate. I'm not a lawyer, and I have no desire to get into that level of debate.

• 0945

What is important here is that we debate it from a political perspective, because that is what we are. We are politicians. And our job, clearly, is to deal with this bill and not get hung up on stuff that isn't here. Quit looking for ghosts. I do not see the word “conjugal” anywhere.

What I see is a bill being brought in where there will be a requirement to define certain things in regulations. There'll be a requirement in regulation to specify who may make an application under this act on behalf of a minor. You want that debated on the floor of the House of Commons. That is ridiculous. That is a waste of process, that is an abuse of process, and that is nothing more than a power grab by politicians who somehow think they have all the answers.

We don't have all the answers. Mr. Telegdi has clearly said that the government is working on the issue of defining “spouse”. I don't need lectures from anybody over there or on my own side as to what my opinion might be with regard to this issue.

The amendments that are before us today are, in my view, wrong-headed and should be defeated.

The issue of the definition of “spouse” will indeed surface on the floor of the House of Commons, and we will all participate in a debate at that time to our detriment or to our good.

Mr. Chairman, I think we should be voting on the amendments and that they should be very clearly defeated. This part should go forward when the definition of “spouse” is ultimately agreed upon. All pieces of legislation that run the engine of government, Mr. Chairman, will conform to the definition that will be set by Parliament. But you can't close shop and go home and say, forget it, we're not going to bring in any new legislation until we resolve this one thorny issue.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mahoney.

I have just been told that the committee in the next room has requested us to lower our stentorian voices, and I hate to say that, because I have enjoyed those stentorian voices.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would tell you to take the message to the committee in the next room that we're very passionate individuals, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: But let me add, Mr. Mahoney, that the making of sausage and laws by lawyers may be messy, but it doesn't at all make them any uglier.

Ms. Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval-West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The messier the sausage, the better it is at the end, quite frankly.

[Translation]

I simply wish to bring up a point that seems important to me, although it's not of a constitutional nature that would take precedence, and I understand that. What we are dealing with here is immigration. When we are dealing with immigration and citizenship, we are also dealing with people from different cultures and different countries. In the definition of spouse, we may also provide for the possibility that a person having several spouses may request citizenship. Although the issue of same-sex spouses is important, I would simply like to remind the members of this committee that this is not the only variation on the concept of different-sex spouses; it is also possible for a man to have more than one legal spouses in his country of origin. We must keep that in mind. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I'll give the floor to Mr. Benoit, followed by Mr. Ménard and Mr. McKay. Then I will close the debate, and we will put it to a vote. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, what we're talking about here is in fact paragraph 43(b), which makes no mention of “spouse”, as far as I can see. I don't know where Mr. Mahoney is coming from on this.

The Chair: But to be fair, Mr. Benoit, I think in your debate you alluded to that. Anyway, go ahead.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's to come. We can debate that when we get to it. But to say that's what we're focusing on here....

What this paragraph deals with is who may make application on behalf of a minor. In this country we have sweatshops with children working in them, we have sex slaves, and we have prostitute houses set up. And many of them have been set up because of who could act on behalf of a minor when it comes to our immigration system, and this related issue of citizenship eventually comes into play. So for Mr. Mahoney to say that we're looking at this for one particular reason is complete nonsense. I do think it's important. He can't see the importance in it. I can see some possible very important implications of not having proper scrutiny of the regulation dealing with these issues.

• 0950

My amendment will allow Parliament to scrutinize and approve regulation only for this subsection. That's what this amendment is about. It's not the whole piece of legislation. So let's be clear on that. This is such an important issue that I believe it deserves no less than the scrutiny and the approval of Parliament before it's enacted.

If the government wants to have the guts it should have, quite frankly, and come out and clarify these things in legislation, then there would be no need for this amendment. But because of the reality of what we have before us here, legislation that's so loose that you can't possibly know what it means until you apply the regulation, it's necessary. I say that if you vote against this, you're going to have some answering to do to the general public as these things are uncovered, these things that result from this legislation being too loose.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard. Can you focus on the amendment itself?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to remind Mr. Mahoney, whose talent as an orator I fully appreciate, that there is nevertheless some cause for concern. It is important to realize that the real issue is that we are being asked to pass a clause in a bill that does not define the very important concept of spouse. If we were to ask officials whether there are many laws which provide for the concept of spouse to be defined by means of regulations, I am not convinced that they would tell us that this definition is normally found in the regulations. We ought to have a debate on this concept in the House of Commons, regardless of whether we are for or against recognition of same-sex spouses. It is to the government's credit that it has not defined this concept.

I am announcing that at the report stage in the House, we will table an amendment that will define the concept of spouse and, of course, recognize same-sex spouses. I like to think that I will have the support of some colleagues on the government side at that time.

[English]

The Chair: Again, please focus on the amendment. This is the last speaker before I call the vote on the amendment. I will yield the floor to Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Just to lower the temperature in the room a little, I thought the evidence that was before us on the people who spoke on this particular issue was pretty clear and pretty cogent. It was presented by a lawyer. I'm sure lawyers are going to take a terrible beating out of this, but frankly, in this particular issue, lawyers are irrelevant to the discussion. The relevant people to the discussion are parliamentarians.

I am frankly somewhat surprised at the reluctance of parliamentarians to engage in what is, if you will, a foundational or a fundamental debate in our society. I had thought that when I was elected that's what I was asked to do.

I appreciate that this decision may well be very messy. I appreciate that probably as much as anyone in this room. Having said that it's messy, I would have preferred a situation where the government had presented either an omnibus bill prior to the introduction of this legislation or had introduced a resolution for Parliament to debate, either a take-note debate or some other form of motion that gave the government guidance with respect to this issue, at which point we would know what a spouse means for the purposes of 1999 and the years beyond, so that these people, when they have to make these difficult decisions, which are difficult decisions at the best of times, have some guidance from Parliament.

• 0955

As it stands, this is completely open-ended. A spouse can mean whatever a spouse will mean for the purposes of this act, and there's no limitation on this.

To put the government's case at the best, my view is that the introduction of this is premature. I won't go to the worst, because the worst may cast aspersions on a government that I support.

I want to quote Mr. Jervis here:

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?

Then we will go into another round of parliamentarians feeling utterly irrelevant and sidelined out of the process.

For my part as a parliamentarian, my view is that we should debate it, and whatever the debate is will be the debate. Whatever the result is will give guidance to the government. Whatever the government chooses to take out of that guidance will then in turn and guide these people. In my view, this whole process is completely backwards.

The Chair: You've now heard a passionate debate. I will put the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3; one abstention) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Can we go back to your first amendment, then?

Mr. Leon Benoit: That one was stood. I have other amendments.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On a point of order, did we vote on all the amendments on that particular round?

The Chair: Not yet.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Isn't that what we should be doing?

The Chair: Yes. We'll go to the next amendment, then.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is the amendment with reference number 2909 the next one?

A voice: No, it's reference number 2897.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's reference number 2897. It amends line 18 on page 22. It says:

That Bill C-63, in Clause 43, be amended by replacing line 18 on page 22 with the following:

(e) subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons, providing for criteria to determine

That's the amendment. It goes on to say:

whether a person meets the requirements of paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d)....

The Chair: Before you start....

Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: After the reading Mr. Benoit has just made of his proposed amendment, I would suggest that we go directly to the vote, considering that the principles involved in paragraph 43(e) are, in my thought, identical to the arguments we had just previously.

The Chair: You have heard the request from the member. I will ask the Reform side to give a quick rationale for this change.

• 1000

Mr. Leon Benoit: Paragraph 6(1)(c), providing criteria to determine whether the person meets requirements.... For paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d), this is referring to scrutinizing again of regulations referring to paragraph 6(1)(c). This has to do with languages. These are quite different issues. This one has to be debated as well. What we're doing is saying that Parliament should scrutinize the regulation dealing with paragraph 6(1)(c), which says “has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” and”—

Mr. John Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Benoit, with all respect, is going in reverse. We dealt with and voted on one of his amendments that is similar to two others. And one of those two others deals with the spouse. We should vote on those things that we just finished debating, rather than going back to this amendment he's proposing that was deferred from last night that refers to paragraph 6(1)(c).

The Chair: No, actually it is not deferred from last night.

Mr. John Bryden: Whatever. We had a debate about “spouse” and we actually have not voted on that amendment.

The Chair: No.

Mr. John Bryden: So let us deal with what we just finished debating so that we don't lose track, and then go back to the amendment Mr. Benoit is dealing with now.

The Chair: This is an excellent suggestion. But the motion currently is now before us, and it would mean that we will again stand this first as a matter of procedure and then we will go back to it, which would be lengthier at this point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Let's just keep going with the amendment.

The Chair: What is your amendment? Succinctly, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So again what we're doing here is asking for scrutiny of regulation by an approval by Parliament, the House of Commons in this case, on paragraphs 6(1)(c) and (d). Paragraph 6(1)(c) again has to do with permanent residence and citizenship and it says.... You can read the clause yourself, but paragraph 6(1)(c) says it's a requirement that an applicant has “an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages in Canada”. So what I'm looking for here is to see the guidelines that will be put in place in regulation to meet that requirement, and then also (d), which is “an adequate knowledge of Canada”.

The Chair: You have heard the debate.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are we on clause 6?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, but the regulation refers to clause 6.

The Chair: I think the amendment—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Shouldn't we deal with clause 6 first, before we do that?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I see why you want it done. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I see why you wanted to stay that one.

The Chair: No, I think the debate has proceeded. You can make an independent decision on your vote. Whether we change the clause 6 is another issue. The amendment, if passed, will pass what will be amended. If not, it will not pass. So we can proceed on the vote on the amendment at this time.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 7; yeas, 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Next amendment please, for the same clause.

The Clerk of the Committee: This will be G-4. It's a government amendment.

The Chair: Government amendment, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Is something going on?

The Chair: The fourth amendment of the government, line 25.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I move amendment G-4. It's replacing line 25 on page 22 with “section 8 have been met.” It's paragraph 43(f) and having “section” replace “paragraph” and drop (b), so it will read “section 8 have been met”.

• 1005

Mr. Steve Mahoney: This is only in the English version.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: In the English version only. And this is basically a consequential amendment, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: The Reform has an amendment. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll move our amendment. This amendment is using the same reasons as the amendment to paragraph 43(b), which is that it should be the responsibility of Parliament to determine important issues such as this. In this case, what we're looking at here is the definition of a spouse, which in this bill has been relegated to civil servants in the department, when clearly, as Mr. McKay has argued so effectively, this is a decision that should be made by Parliament. That's the issue here.

This decision should not be made behind closed doors by departmental officials and should not be made by the governing party; it should be made by Parliament. That's exactly what this would do.

My first choice would be to have government define “spouse” and put it before Parliament for proper open debate, substantial debate, so the Canadian public could become involved and determine the issue. But the government hasn't got the guts to do that, so this is the best I can do, at least at committee stage, which is to allow Parliament to scrutinize and approve regulation before it's enacted. And that's exactly what this will do.

The Chair: I'd like to advise the committee that the debate on this motion has taken place earlier, and I feel that the committee would be prepared to take it to a vote.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I can count, and I can even do Reform math, but I think there may well be a motion at report stage.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There probably will be; I guarantee it.

The Chair: Taking into account your own thinking on the matter, please vote accordingly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: The amendment is lost. Next amendment to be closed?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll move the amendment. The next amendment is to (f), and it's the same argument.

The Clerk: We don't have that.

The Chair: Just a second, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's (j); pardon me, (j). It's reference number 2913. It's amending paragraph 43(j).

The Clerk: We don't have it.

The Chair: Is it the same thing? On the same clause?

Mr. Leon Benoit: There is the same basic purpose for this, except in this case it's to define the relationship between a parent and child. Again, it's something that shouldn't be done by bureaucrats behind closed doors. It's something that has to be done by Parliament. We should have these kinds of things dealt with very openly by Parliament and determined with involving the Canadian citizenship in the debate. I think that's crucial, and I don't think there's another proper way of dealing with this. I encourage you all to support this, or do what should be done, which is to have this relationship clearly defined in legislation, which we don't have. So this is the best we can do at committee stage.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, for greater clarity, I understand that definitions of “spouse” may vary. With regard to the definition of “relationship of parent and child”, I don't know whether, in law, this could be considered to be an ambiguous concept. I would be curious to have Mr. Sabourin's opinion in this regard. We can see that it's not defined in the bill; however, I think that it is not an ambiguous concept.

• 1010

Mr. Norman Sabourin (Director of Citizenship and Citizenship Registrar, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chairman, there must be parliamentary authority to avoid situations in which, for example, a surrogate mother, a mother who has provided genetic material and a biological father could all three claim to have a relationship of parent and child for the purposes of passing on citizenship to a child born of different genetic material. We must therefore set out the cases in which a parent, in the biological sense, could be excluded from the definition of “relationship of parent and child”.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is a fertile comparison, but what you're saying, basically, is that we need a definition.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's right.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Benoit is correct then.

[English]

The Chair: There being no further debate, I call the vote for the motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3; one abstention)

The Chair: Are there any further amendments to the clause?

Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, is abstention the same as abstinence?

The Chair: I would suggest we revisit one amendment that has been stood to clause 43 so we can dispose of clause 43 to its finality. It is the amendment we stood last night, proposed by Mr. Benoit.

Yes, Madam Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Just as a point of information, reference 2892 on clause 43, have we discussed that?

The Clerk: It's what we're speaking about now.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Oh, is that what we're speaking about.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.

The Chair: I think the argument would be the same, but we have to go through the formality of the process.

Mr. Benoit, we would like to proceed now with the clause you moved, which we stood last night.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Actually, we have to deal with amendment 6 before we deal with that, don't we?

The Chair: No, I think the chair has made an observation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That one had to do with some other amendments that I was considering bringing forth. But I'm not bringing them forth, so I'm dropping that one too. It was actually to do with another series of amendments that I thought I might bring forth. I'm not going to now.

The Chair: Okay. So let me be clear on procedure. Are you withdrawing your amendment?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm withdrawing it.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

An hon. member: He's not withdrawing it, he's just not moving it.

Ms. Susan Baldwin (Procedural Clerk): It was moved, so it has to be withdrawn.

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Clause 43 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3; one abstention)

• 1015

(On clause 44—Delegation of authority)

The Chair: Mr. Benoit has one quick question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd just like to get from departmental officials a bit of an explanation and examples of how this might be used. The last part of subclause 44(1) says:

by any person that the Minister, in writing, authorizes to act on the Minister's behalf, without proof of the authenticity of the authorization.

I'd just like to know why “without proof of the authenticity of the authorization” is in there.

Secondly, under the current legislation, just what level of person might be designated by the minister to act on her behalf? And how many people have been designated by the minister to act on her behalf?

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are some 180,000 applications for citizenship that will be approved this year, and some 50,000 applications for certificates of citizenship and another 50,000 or 60,000 applications for a search of records. The minister in all her diligence cannot sign all those applications to approve them, so the authority is delegated to some 300 citizenship officers across the country. It's the same provision that exists in current legislation. The last portion of subclause 44(1) is to ensure that when we are going to court on whatever case, there isn't an extensive procedure to verify whether or not this truly is the minister's signature on a document that purports to have delegated her authority to someone.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So then it's strictly the proof of the authenticity of the signature that you're talking about here?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

(Clause 44 agreed to)

(On clause 45—New citizen's name)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a question. Is it actually the authority to disclose the identity of new citizens that is delegated to the Speaker and that allows MPs to receive a list of their new fellow citizens?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's right.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If a provincial government requested it, could this information be disclosed to a legislature?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: No, because the information is protected by the Privacy Act.

Mr. Réal Ménard: The only people who can find out this information are the elected members and the Chief Electoral Officer?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: In the first case, yes, if clause 45 is adopted. In the second case, yes, but only with the consent of the person in question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: And as far as the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's right.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay, thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My question on this is why should people be given a choice on not making public their names when they become citizens of Canada? What's the reasoning behind that?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think the reasoning is just to respect as much as possible the spirit of the Privacy Act, and also recognize that this is such an important moment and that the person becomes a full member of the Canadian community. It balances the need for privacy with the opportunity for a member of Parliament to extend congratulations to the person.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But doesn't it seem reasonable that all Canadians should know who has just become a Canadian citizen, joined the fold?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If we were to publicize the names of new citizens, it would be clearly contrary to the provisions of the Privacy Act. The privacy commissioner has told us this in very clear and certain terms.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you remember what part of the Privacy Act indicates that?

• 1020

Mr. Norman Sabourin: My legal adviser reminds me that it's covered in the definition of personal information, so it's in the preliminary sections of the legislation.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You've had a formal ruling on this by the privacy commissioner?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Why would members of Parliament have special access to this information, you know, that isn't given—for example, as Mr. Ménard referred to in his question—to their provincial representative?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it's a very historic and longstanding tradition. The reason for adopting it in legislation follows two recommendations, one by the privacy commissioner, the other by a standing committee of Parliament—I believe it was the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I'm not absolutely certain.

The Chair: Maybe it was the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this issue came up about five years ago—at least within my memory as a parliamentarian—and what was so shocking about it was that there had been a long tradition that MPs, as part of the citizenship process, acknowledge new Canadians by sending certificates or congratulatory telegrams to new Canadians. It had been going on for years. And when the privacy commissioner ruled that this was a contravention of the Privacy Act, there was naturally a move to stop this process. I think it's been sort of ambiguous. The process hasn't really stopped, but it has not been proper to carry it forward.

So this clause is, in my view, very essential, because I don't know about Mr. Benoit, or Mr. Ménard for that matter, as a sovereignist, but I consider it extremely important and a part of my ceremonial duties to have the privilege of congratulating new citizens on their citizenship. And I cannot do it legally unless we make this amendment, even though MPs have been doing it for many, many years. So I think this is a very important thing.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I received a list.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, you're supposed to receive a list. You receive a list. I'm sure you do. You shouldn't have that list, nor should I, but we still have it. It's been a little bit of a winking at the rules, because we are MPs, it's part of the ceremonial process to tell people that they're joining a country that is a democracy and in which the public official, the member of Parliament, has an opportunity to congratulate them.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify this, I'm uncomfortable with the words “winking at the rules”. What we have done is in each and every case we ask the prospective citizen to sign a consent form. We explain it to the citizen and ask if they want to have their name released to their member of Parliament, yes or no. If they agree, they sign a form, and on that basis we can release the information. So it's not “winking at the rules”. But it is a very cumbersome process.

The Chair: Once the consent has been obtained, is the duty of the minister discretionary, or obligatory?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Once consent is obtained, I think there's a duty to disclose the name under the current rules, because that's what the form signed by the new citizen does spell out.

The Chair: So even if the word says “may”, it is deemed a duty.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think in this new provision in clause 45 it is more of a permissive power.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. McNally.

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

One of the political ramifications of this is that members of Parliament, who represent political parties, get this information that nobody else gets, and have that information in databases from which they send out information—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, I know that it would be. I'm stating that.

The Chair: Let's not debate.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm stating that. I'm wondering if that can't be done another way, if it needs to happen this way. You have lots of ridings with large new immigrant populations, lots of people coming from different countries—countries in which, obviously, different rules apply to the government—and here you have a member of Parliament, who in the new immigrant's eyes is a person of authority representing the government, whatever the government is.... I'm not casting aspersions on the current government. I'm referring to the process in general. I'm wondering whether this is something that should be in place. So I have concerns about that.

• 1025

A new immigrant may sign a waiver to the question, do you want your member of Parliament to receive this information? But for somebody who's new to the country or who's becoming a citizen, if a government official asks them a question, a lot of them would tend to say, a government official is saying this, so I guess I should say yes.

I don't want to get into the motivations of all of that. I'm wondering if this is something that can be done by an independent source, rather than by those who represent different political parties.

The Chair: Before I call on Mr. Sabourin, Mr. Bryden will have the floor briefly, followed by Mr. Ménard.

Mr. John Bryden: I receive information from constituents in a confidential manner. I keep that information confidential, and I destroy it afterwards. I also destroy all my citizenship lists. So I would suggest to you that surely it's a matter of the integrity of the individual parliamentarian as to how he handles confidential information.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the position that is being put forward by our Reform Party colleagues. On the one hand, we want to enhance the role of Parliament and elected officials, and I find it entirely proper that we be informed of the names of new residents. I can send them a letter, probably not the same as one you would send, to invite them to take part in the democratic process. I find that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to receive this information. As long as there is no coercion and people sign, I don't see why we could not be allowed to obtain this information legally, since we are elected and represent them; otherwise, I wonder who will get this information and how they will obtain it. There should be no pressure brought to bear; if people don't want to sign, they won't. It is entirely to be expected that we would have this information in a democratic system. I don't understand why you are opposed to this.

[English]

An hon. member: Call the vote.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Sabourin has the last word, and then we'll call the vote.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It's strictly on a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The data that are forwarded to the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate are for one-time use only. That's clarified in the undertaking each MP must give before they receive the information, that is, to send one letter and then the information should be destroyed.

(Clause 45 agreed to on division)

The Chair: How many more minutes do we have before the vote?

An hon. member: We have to be in the House by 10.45.

(Clause 46 agreed to)

(On clause 47—Citizen of the Commonwealth)

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I have some questions regarding clause 47, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sabourin, is this the same provision as the one in the Extradition Act? If I remember correctly, the Association of organizations working in the field of refugee protection raised questions about the special status of Commonwealth Citizens. What can you tell us about this?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I'm not familiar with the provisions of the Extradition Act. I therefore cannot answer your question.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Why should special status be given to Commonwealth citizens in our modern world?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, are we waiting for the answer?

[Translation]

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, I believe that what we have here is a historical, freely granted status that explains the close ties binding citizens of Canada to those of other Commonwealth countries. There is no legal status granted, either in Canada or in other countries. This goes back to 1931. It's an established tradition in this area.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It doesn't give people anything more, except a kind of historical recognition. It's something of an anachronism, but it belongs to a certain collection of myths that are perpetuated.

• 1030

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Although I would not talk in terms of myths, I would say that it is in fact highly symbolic, not legal. At one time, it was very important for this provision to be included in the legislation because a number of Canadian laws made reference to the status of Commonwealth subjects. Now they are very rare, if any remain at all.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I appreciate the subtle distinctions that you so tactfully make. We are finally given to understand that this has little tangible effect on the enforcement of the Act; it has only symbolic value. Symbols are part of our daily experience, Ms. Folco, but not everyone is moved by the same ones.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's very true.

[English]

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

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It seems to me that probably the result of this is that for anyone travelling to a Commonwealth country, for example, a Canadian citizen doing so, or a citizen of a Commonwealth country coming to Canada, there's no requirement for travel documents in terms of a visa or any kind of entry permits that I'm aware of. That may be one of the differences. Is it?

It's not? Or are you agreeing with me? I didn't hear what was said.

(Clauses 47 to 50 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 51—Offences and punishment)

Mr. Leon Benoit: Clause 51 deals with the requirements of a corporation and the liability of officers of a corporation. I wonder how effective this has been in the past and in fact how many times this has been used, where the officers of a corporation have been charged under the Citizenship Act. Is it something that's very rarely used? Has it been used on occasion, once a year? I'd like to get some idea of how often this comes into effect.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I'm not aware, and neither is our legal adviser, of any proceedings under that provision. Clauses 49 to 53 deal with really the ability of provinces to legislate property rights with respect to citizens. I don't think there have been any proceedings under clause 51, none that I'm aware of.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What is its purpose? Why is it there?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If information were to come to our attention that there had been contravention, then obviously charges would be laid. So the purpose is a deterrent to make sure that people respect the provisions as they're set out in the legislation.

(Clause 51 agreed to on division)

(Clause 52 agreed to)

(On clause 53—Disabilities of sections 49 and 50)

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to ask a general question on clause 53. Could the officials express the purpose for this being in there?

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It's a clarification that even though lieutenant governors in respect of provinces have the authority to enact regulations regarding control of property, these cannot extend to holding office, owning a ship, and so on, as set out in these five paragraphs.

• 1035

(Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to on division)

(On clause 55—Pending applications)

The Chair: Shall clause 55 carry?

The Clerk: No, there's an amendment by Mr.—

The Chair: By the government?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I want to put this at report stage and not today.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll not be putting it, but it's the amendment members will recall from the Mennonite Central Committee that will grant them a three-year phase-in period. They're quite happy with that and they're quite happy to have it done at report stage.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, we want to cooperate on this one, but I'd request that if there are any modifications to the amendment we'd like to see it ahead of time as much as possible so we can carefully examine it too.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't anticipate any changes, but if there are any I'll make sure you'll know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Could I suggest, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Benoit, if you'd like to cooperate...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We always cooperate.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you explain the general meaning of clause 55?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, clause 55 is essentially intended to ensure a smooth transition between the current law and the coming into force of the future law. This clause establishes how the old law can be repealed and how the new act will come into force. It stipulates that a citizenship judge who is dealing with an application when the new act comes into force will continue to exercise the same powers with regard to the application. Lastly, this clause also stipulates that all applications, except those that I just mentioned, must be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the new legislation, that is, those of Bill C-63.

Mr. Réal Ménard: So this is a provision designed to facilitate the transition between the old and the new system.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Rest assured that we will make appropriate use of it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We are on clause 55 now, still?

The Chair: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

I have a couple of questions on clause 55. Under 55(3), referring to citizenship judges, dealing with the transitional period, it says that the judges will continue to hold office and keep the powers they have as judges. I'd like to know what the terms and conditions will be. What will happen with pay, which is dealt with, actually, in clause 56? We'll talk about that there. But in clause 55 here, I'd like to know what the transition will be here.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: First of all, the judge, sitting as a judge, is in a way only a legal issue. It doesn't have to do with appointment of any pay levels. As was pointed out, clause 56 deals with the status of judges on the date of proclamation. They automatically become commissioners and their pay levels will be determined accordingly.

What clause 55 does, at subclause (3), is merely to say if a judge has been seized he continues to wear that hat, even though he's no longer a citizenship judge for other purposes. He continues to wear the hat of a citizenship judge, and exercises those powers in relation to the one or more applications that are before him or her.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Which applications?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It will cover only those applications that are before the judge at the moment the new legislation comes into force. It's if a judge has been seized with an application, but not yet made a decision.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it's a very short-term thing then?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

(Clause 55 agreed to on division)

(On clause 56—Citizenship judge deemed Citizenship Commissioner)

The Chair: On clause 56, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Clause 56, along the same—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: We have to go for the vote now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: The meeting is suspended. We shall return soon after the vote is finished in the House.

• 1040

• 1121

The Chair: The meeting has resumed.

Are there any amendments to clause 56?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, but I would just like the officials to explain what clause 56 is there for.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 56 ensures that any person who has been appointed a citizenship judge before the coming into force of this act automatically becomes a citizenship commissioner until such date as their original mandate was set to serve as a judge.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What do you expect the pay to do? I believe it also talks about pay. No, that clause doesn't.

(Clause 56 agreed to on division)

(On clause 57)

The Chair: There are some consequential amendments to clause 57, I suppose just to ensure that, as we said earlier and as we will say later on, all are in congruence. Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to assist the committee, I should point out that clauses 57 to 68 inclusive are all strictly consequential to change the title of the Citizenship Act in other bills, except for clause 60, which deals with the current rules of the Federal Court regarding appeals. Other than that clause, all the other ones have to do with very technical amendments to reflect that a new act is being proclaimed.

(Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to)

(Clause 59 agreed to on division)

(Clause 60 agreed to)

The Clerk: There's an amendment to—

The Chair: Clause 61?

The Clerk: It's 60.1. There is a new clause.

The Chair: Clause 60 as printed has passed.

The Clerk: There's a new clause.

The Chair: There's an amendment, clause 60.1. There's a government amendment 60.1, Mr. Telegdi.

An hon. member: Wake up.

An hon. member: The birthday party's over. What could—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm not going to help you blow out that candle, Mr. Ménard.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I would like to amend by adding after the heading “Immigration Act” before line 3 the following:

Definition of “Canadian citizen”

and also by inserting the following:

60.1 The definition “Canadian citizen” in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act is replaced by the following: “Canadian citizen” means a person who is a citizen within the meaning of the Citizenship of Canada Act;

This is basically a technical amendment, Mr. Chairman, to correct an omission in the part dealing with consequential amendments.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, what would be the numbering of your amendment?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's 60.1.

The Chair: Is there only one amendment?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

The Chair: You have heard the amendment.

An hon. member: I don't have it.

An hon. member: Yes, you do.

The Clerk: It's amendment G-5.

An hon. member: Under the G, 5.

An hon. member: Bingo.

An hon. member: You guys understand that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, the chair is having some difficulty. You were referring to the Immigration Act. Clause 60, which we just passed, refers to the Federal Court Act. Is the intention to put it under clause 61?

• 1125

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, Mr. Chairman. This is 60.1. It's a totally new—

An hon. member: Is it 61 or 60.1?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's clause 60.1.

The Chair: Okay. Will it be labelled 60.1 under the “Immigration Act” heading?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

An hon. member: No, it would be before it.

The Chair: No, under it.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It says “after the heading `Immigration Act' before line 3” to put in the definition of Canadian citizen.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Telegdi, why are you introducing this amendment in this place? It seems to us that there is some inconsistency in the text.

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I didn't hear you.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You failed to listen to me once again. You certainly are unpleasant today on my birthday.

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't talk with your mouth full.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Mahoney—

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Didn't your mother ever teach you that?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: My mouth isn't full, but as for yourself, your head is empty. It's not the same thing.

Mr. Mahoney, I am asking your colleague why—

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's why I'm so relaxed.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr. Sabourin, the chair would like to ask you—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I really would have liked to have had the floor, Mr. Chairman. I haven't asked my question. I'd like to ask an intelligent question.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, but just before that, because mine is just the order of number—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay.

[English]

The Chair: My mind thinks in a simpler way than yours.

Mr. Sabourin, the amendment as proposed by the government is numbered 60.1., and it is to follow under the heading “Immigration Act”.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I've discussed this with the parliamentary secretary. It is an oversight. It should be the first clause under the heading “Immigration Act” because it's merely to change the title of the Citizenship Act in the Immigration Act to reflect the new title of this bill.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We'd better debate that.

The Chair: To the clerk, are you okay with that?

The Clerk: That's okay.

The Chair: The amendment has been moved. Does the amendment carry?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Has it been renumbered?

The Chair: The number is—

Mr. Leon Benoit: That doesn't make any sense. Don't you want to change the number?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: That will be done automatically in the editing process afterwards.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it'll be put under the Immigration Act later?

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin, would it be better to put it as 61A and the original clause 61 as 61B?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: It will be automatically renumbered. Don't worry.

The Chair: Okay. It will be automatically renumbered. Can we leave it to the clerk?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Good. There's unanimous consent.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 61 agreed to)

(Clauses 62 to 64 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: What is this clause 42 doing there?

The Clerk: Those are sections of the act.

The Chair: No, clause 64 has become clause 42. What happened?

The Clerk: Clause 64 is here.

The Chair: I know. I saw clause 42. We passed clause 64.

Who's the drafter of the bill? Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, clause 64 merely says that a new subsection 42(1) of the Immigration Act was enacted. Again, it's a purely technical change to reflect a new title and new numbering of the bill.

The Chair: Okay, good. Is that clear?

Shall clause 42 as printed on this page carry?

The Clerk: It's clause 64, Mr. Chairman.

• 1130

The Chair: Now, where do we go next?

We are on page 30, clause 65.

(Clauses 65 to 70 inclusive agreed to)

(On schedule to clause 34)

The Clerk: Mr. Bryden has an amendment.

The Chair: Oh, he has an amendment too. Does his have precedence? Who has precedence?

A voice: Mr. Bryden's is first.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Bryden's amendment is first.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: The clerk has advised the chair that we should revisit the clauses that were stood before we go to the schedule. So we go to the clauses—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we agreed that we would study the entire bill. And since, to my mind, the schedule is an integral part of the bill, I propose that before discussing the clauses we stood, we tackle the very important provisions dealing with the oath.

[English]

The Chair: I am persuaded. We shall now proceed to the debate on the clause.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, please make sure that the committee listens very carefully to the words of our colleague, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

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

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment out of respect for my colleague, the member for Durham, who at various times has appeared before committees of caucus. He has expressed his view that the Queen should be eliminated from the oath of citizenship. It is a position, Mr. Chairman, I have great sympathy with. I'll make my remarks brief, but I have to speak a little bit by analogy.

The Chair: Before you do that, could you restate your amendment, exactly?

Mr. John Bryden: Okay, well what happens in the amendment that I'm proposing out of respect for the member for Durham.... It's exactly the same text as the oath we have before us in Bill C-63, with the exception that I'm proposing the words “and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada” be deleted. The oath would read simply that “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada”, and then go on to say “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms...”, etc.

I can't speak for the member for Durham directly, but I can speak for myself on this issue. I would draw the chairman's attention to the fact that my ethnicity is British. You can trace my family back a thousand years and you'll find that my ancestors are all Irish, Scots, and English. Although I was born in this country, at the time I was born I was in fact a British subject, because I was born of a father who was himself born in England.

• 1135

Mr. Chairman, I had occasion as I grew up and grew older in life to visit Britain and the United States. I can say that in my experience of visiting both those countries, I found many, many things culturally similar to being an English-speaking Canadian. In Britain, I certainly found a political democracy that is very similar to the one we have here in Canada. In the United States on my various visits I found many, many cultural similarities—the use of language, the same type of entertainment, sports—many, many things.

I can say, Mr. Chairman, that in all my visits to both those countries, I always found myself in a foreign country. I did not find that the England, Scotland, Ireland, or United States that I visited was in fact the Canada that made me feel like being Canadian.

After many years of reflection, and certainly from my experience in this Parliament, I've come to realize that what defines me as Canadian is the collective experience of Canadians that has come down through the years. That collective experience has involved the people of Canada who speak French.

I think one of the things that has created the Canadian traits of tolerance, goodwill, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and that kind of thing—but especially tolerance and the ability to discuss things in a civil manner—is the fact that the great French-speaking peoples and English-speaking peoples of this country have lived together for hundreds of years. I believe it's because we started together in the wilderness, and the wilderness drew us together regardless of our differences in religion or language.

That has created a society over the years in which Mr. Ménard, for example, who represents a sovereignist movement, shall we say, can come to Parliament and contribute as vitally as any other member of Parliament. I think that, Mr. Chairman, is a reflection of what it is to be Canadian and what it is to be Canada.

I do not believe that attribute of being Canadian has anything directly to do with the Queen. So when I come to something like the oath of citizenship, and I consider people coming from other lands who want to join our country, as Canadians, I believe that what they are joining is a country that has defined itself in terms of tolerance, civility, and the belief in freedom and human rights because of the experiences we have collectively had as Canadians in all our differences.

It is not because of the Queen any more than the American culture is defined in Canada. I do not find that either the British tradition or the American tradition actually defines Canada. I believe we have become Canada as a result of the people of Canada, going back two centuries.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel that it is more proper, as we go into the next millennium, to celebrate through the oath of citizenship the fact of Canada and the fact of Canadians. I do not believe that in this celebration the Queen has a place any more than say an American cultural attribute that we may have inherited.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I propose that we amend the oath by eliminating the reference to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada.

Thank you.

The Chair: Before I give the floor to Mr. Telegdi, I have a quick question for Mr. Bryden. Is it not a fact of Canada that the Governor General is part of the Parliament of Canada?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. But I don't think when you take an oath of allegiance.... When you take an oath of allegiance to a country, you swear allegiance to all its institutions. You don't have to separate out or specify any particular institution, be it the Governor General or the Queen.

I'm not proposing that the Queen ought not to be the monarch of Canada. I'm not proposing lowering her position or role in the parliamentary life of this country. I'm merely saying that when you say Canada, the word is inclusive. The word is inclusive of all that we are, and it should not specify in that oath that one particular aspect of our political life.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

• 1140

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleague that we certainly are not amused with the arguments put forward.

Let me touch on a few points. I think it's important that we recognze that Canada evolved as a constitutional monarchy. As much as Mr. Bryden would like to refer to the situation in Quebec, let me argue that one of the reasons we have a bicultural, bilingual country is because of the devolution of the monarchy. And let me further say that when you look at the American republic to the south, all you have to do is take a look to see what happened to the French settlers who were down there.

I think the stability represented by the monarchy is something that is embraced by quite a few folk who come to this country. And I point to myself as one. Since I came to this country in 1957 we have had nine prime ministers, and we have had one monarch. And I don't feel that the debate on the monarchy itself should be handled in the context of a citizenship act. If there's an argument to be made, it should be made quite separate from it and dealt with in that fashion instead of within the context of this bill. So let me say, Mr. Chair, that the government's position on this is that we are opposed to taking the Queen out of the oath.

The Chair: For the record, Mr. Telegdi, before I yield the floor to Mr. Benoit, when you say bicultural Canada, part of evolution is that now it's multicultural.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Very multicultural, as you and I can attest to.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I'm very much opposed to Mr. Bryden's amendment.

I know that probably the majority of Canadians very much support the monarchy. Whether it's the majority or not I don't think is the issue here. It's very important to a lot of people to have the Queen as a figurehead and to have that position referred to in the oath. And I don't know why we would want to take it out when there are so many people who feel that strongly about it. I think the problem is that people don't see a figurehead in Canada who they feel they can look up to and respect, and the Queen provides that. For that reason, I think I can't support the amendment. I believe the Queen should be left in the oath.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

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

I find it interesting that the member moving the amendment would say, and I believe I'm quoting what he said, “the Queen doesn't have a place in Canada any more”, and then he goes on to say “I'm in no way trying to diminish the role of the Queen as the Queen of Canada”. I think those two statements are incongruent. How can an individual say let's remove the Queen from the oath as the Queen of Canada, and still say “I don't mean to diminish her role”? Because I think that's exactly what this amendment does: it diminishes her role. I certainly can't support the amendment for that very reason. Although I respect my colleague's opportunity to pose the amendment and to have reasoned debate on it, I can't support it.

The Chair: Now that Mr. McNally has used the argument based on geometry, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to speak to the amendment and ask the officials a few questions.

First of all, Mr. Bryden's presence here is extremely refreshing, and I hope that he will make it a habit to attend our meetings. Mr. Bryden is a man of letters and therefore is familiar with—

Some hon. members: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you are familiar with this committee's tradition of hospitality. That's why I hope that Mr. Bryden will make it a habit to attend our meetings. He is a man of letters and as such is well aware of the force of words. I'm certain that when he drafted his amendment, he weighed his words carefully.

Mr. Chairman, if we challenged the parliamentary secretary or any MP on the government side to find a public opinion poll that would support their position, they would be at a complete loss. As a sovereigntist MP, as well as an MP who respects Canadian institutions, I maintain that we do not have a majority of Canadians who want the oath to be sworn to the Queen. It is a symbol that is outmoded, obsolete, archaic, backward-looking and old-fashioned. That has nothing to do with the multifaceted identity of Canadians and Quebeckers.

• 1145

Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct one question to the parliamentary secretary and another to Mr. Sabourin, in order to support my point of view. I know that polls are conducted regularly to assess the significance of the Queen in Canada. Such polls have also been conducted in Quebec. Does the parliamentary secretary agree with me when I say that a very strong majority of Quebeckers, and even Canadians too, do not want to see any reference to the Queen in our oaths and in our symbols?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, a direct answer.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, the best information I have on this particular question is that at best the poll was split on the issue, so we can't really take refuge in that. But I can only say to the honourable member that I personally, and the government, support keeping the monarchy intact within the confines of this oath.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard, you have a question for Mr. Sabourin.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You must realize that what matters here is not so much the opinion of individuals, but whether the government is putting forward a bill that is in keeping with what the public wants. Just recently, polls were done in Quebec on this subject and the Minister was asked to participate in a phone-in. I believe that we would be unable to find any indications that a majority of Quebeckers and a majority of Canadians support the oath to the Queen, which has nothing to do with the respect that we owe to the workings of established institutions.

Mr. Sabourin, does this department, which you know so well, attempt, at regular or not-so-regular intervals, to gauge public opinion on the question of allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Some polls have been done, Mr. Chairman, but not a regular basis. My records only mention a survey carried out in 1998 by Angus Reid.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you agree to disclose its findings, if it turns out that they support my claims?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Since it is a public document, we can certainly provide copies to committee members.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What overall impression did it give you? Did this poll support the view that a majority of Canadians do not want an oath to the Queen?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I would leave you to draw your own conclusions from the figures. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, opinions were very mixed.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But don't you detect any basic pattern? Given your functions, you are surely more comfortable with words than with figures. Sometimes the patterns that come out of polls help legislators draw conclusions.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: The figure that stands out is that 40% of the people polled are in favour of the oath of allegiance to Canada and to the Queen.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We can thus conclude that 60% are opposed to it.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It only says that 40% of the respondents are in favour. Is it just the Queen or just Canada—

Mr. Réal Ménard: I wouldn't want to analyze it to depth.

Mr. Sabourin, no one around this table would want to minimize the significance, or the symbolic value, of an oath. We were discussing this very question with Ms. Folco a while ago. A sovereign Quebec, moreover, will certainly have its own oath.

As a general question, I'd like to ask you what inspired you in writing the oath.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Minister Robillard has made public statements on this matter on several occasions. She finalized the text of the oath herself. I think that such a question would have to be directed to her.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But did you not submit an initial draft to her? Did she personally draw on all her ministerial creativity in order to come up with this wording of her own invention?

• 1150

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Behind me, you will see 10 three-inch binders, each containing a series of documents reporting on the consultations, the internal documents and the proposals that were formulated concerning all the subjects related to the Citizenship Act, including the oath. It goes without saying that we took into account everything that had been published, everything that appeared in the newspapers, everything that was done in 1987 when there were public consultations, and the work of the standing committee in 1994. All of this input was analyzed and summarized for the benefit of the minister, who at the end of the day developed and finalized the text you have before you.

Mr. Réal Ménard: It does suggest something of her personality, in all its gentleness and democracy.

Is the innovation, in terms of what we are being asked to decide as legislators, the fact that the part of the oath in which one pledge allegiance to the Queen's heirs and successors has been deleted? How do you think we should interpret this?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: The words "heirs and successors" were removed solely for the purpose of making the text lighter and they have no legal effect on allegiance to the Crown or to Her Majesty's successors.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay. It seems to me that the main theme of this new oath is this desire to act very ostentatiously regarding Canada's democratic values. Is this statement correct?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I would rely on the committee's wisdom with regard to the interpretation of this text.

Mr. Réal Ménard: But I'd like to draw on your expertise as a senior official in order to grasp the distinctions clearly. I'm not trying to play political games with you, I'm only trying to understand. The text of this oath is set out in a law. I understand that the oath reflects ministerial directions on which you are unable to give an opinion.

The bill proposes that heirs no longer be mentioned. You told us that this change has no legal implications, that it is mainly intended to make the text lighter, and that the committee should not read anything else into it. That's how the situation should be reflected. It could have been made clear that this was a new, revised edition of the oath. One would not be mistaken in thinking that, from a strictly legislative point of view, emphasis was to be given to “defending our democratic values”. Am I interpreting it correctly in saying this?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I'm not trying to dodge the question, but I would refer back to the statements I made earlier to the committee, to the effect that a person must take the oath before becoming a citizen, but that this oath has only a symbolic value and is not a legal commitment that would have legal consequences if its provisions were not respected. It is more of a moral and symbolic commitment.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Telegdi, this oath was basically not drafted by lawyers and has no legal implications.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Legally, the only thing worth remembering, is that a person must take the oath to become a citizen.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Apart from the exceptions you mentioned, such a child under 14 years of age, people exempted by the Minister and others.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. Réal Ménard: As you can tell, we are listening closely.

Mr. Telegdi, do you agree with the argument made by the conscientious objectors who testified and who said that the word “defend” might have military connotations and would rather replace it with the word “promote”? Is the government open to such an amendment?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think that was regarding the “uphold” versus “defend”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It was suggested that the oath read as follows: “I promise to respect our rights and freedoms, to defend our values...” The conscientious objectors said that the word "defend" had military connotations and that it should be replaced by the word “promote”. The Bloc Québécois will propose this amendment during report stage. Will the government agree with the amendment? Mr. Mahoney said that it would.

[English]

The Chair: I am told that there is an amendment.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: There's an amendment there to that effect, Mr. Ménard, and you should have it.

The Chair: So can we defer further discussion on that to when we come to it?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm sorry, but I don't have it.

[English]

The Chair: So the answer was yes, there is a forthcoming amendment.

Mr. Benoit, do you have a point of order?

• 1155

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, Mr. Chair. I have an important meeting at noon. It's 11.55. Yesterday we gave a break for the government members to sort things out on a couple of occasions. I would like to ask that the committee adjourn now until this afternoon or whenever we're going to start up again.

The Chair: The chair is at the pleasure of the committee. I thought we were moving almost to the conclusion, so who will respond to that for the government side?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I suggest we finish the oath situation. I don't think that should take very much time. There are two amendments, Mr. Bryden's and a government amendment, and then we can discuss that. We could do it in 60 seconds.

The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?

The Clerk: No, the amendment, Mr. Bryden's amendment.

The Chair: I'm sorry. My apologies.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: A recorded vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I would like to move amendment G-6, which is to replace “defend” with “uphold” in the oath. You have the amendment?

The Chair: Yes. I suppose it is explanatory. Any further debate on that?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Ménard already gave the explanation of it. It's for the conscientious objectors who would feel much more comfortable with “uphold” than to “defend”it.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: My notes on the testimony indicate that the Mennonite Central Committee suggested this, as did the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. I think it's a good amendment and I think we should support it.

The Chair: Unanimous? Carried?

Some hon. members: No.

An hon. member: You must be kidding!

Mr. Leon Benoit: We need the amendment in front of us.

The Chair: You don't have it with you?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, we'll have it here somewhere. Mr. Chair, an oath should mean something, and I believe “uphold” is really weakening the language in the oath. I think “defend” is really the appropriate word for this. To deal with the oath as a whole, though, the thing that bothers me, and it has been expressed by another member here, is the improper process that led to the development of this oath. The oath itself might not be that bad, in my opinion, but what's important is the opinion of Canadians.

I know that the officials talk about the consultation process, but I've heard from literally dozens of new immigrant groups, and people from new immigrant communities haven't heard a thing about this. I've been in Toronto a lot lately working with people from these groups, and they haven't heard about it. And if people from immigrant groups who work with immigration all the time and citizenship all the time haven't heard about that, then clearly there wasn't proper consultation. That's my concern. And directly in terms of the amendment, I think it's weakening the oath in an unreasonable way.

Mr. John Bryden: We should have a recorded vote on the amendment.

• 1200

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Schedule as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: Now we'll return to the consideration of the clauses we have stood.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, Mr. Chairman, it's noon and the meeting should be over.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I believe I'm going to put a motion on the floor, because I think there is a great deal of difficulty in accommodating everyone's schedule, and it is indeed the government's desire to have this clause-by-clause finished and have the bill reported to the House. Clearly there are only a few clauses left, so I'm going to move that this committee continue until two o'clock today, at which time the clause-by-clause review of the bill shall be deemed to be complete, and that the chair report the bill to the House on Friday, May 14.

The Chair: You heard the motion. Debate on the motion.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, invoking closure now on clause-by-clause to deem that it's complete at two o'clock is nonsense. Furthermore, we had a time schedule set out for these meetings, and the meeting was to end at noon. I have an important appointment, and as the chief opposition critic I think the government should show the respect to honour the time schedule they themselves have put in place. I think this is completely unreasonable, and it shows contempt for this committee to suggest that we're going to say to heck with the plans I've made because government members have made some plans of their own and just go ahead and push it through. It's nonsense, Mr. Chair. We should end this now. That was the time we'd set. Let's come back later.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will support the motion. I would like to remind Mr. Benoit that yesterday we were willing to stay until 11 p.m. and even until midnight, because I told the committee that it was extremely important for me to return to my riding. Mr. Benoit, everybody agreed. In politics, you take someone at their word. You can't always agree with everyone, but you take them at their word. You did not live up to your word. I think we should stay until two o'clock, as we agreed yesterday. Reneging on a commitment is not how you do politics. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put the matter to a vote so that we may continue.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I'll allow very briefly Mr. Bryden the floor. Then I will allow Mr. Benoit and then I will allow Mr. Mahoney, and I will conclude and put it to a vote.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I seem to recall last night members pleading with Mr. Benoit not to break quorum at 10 o'clock, as he did. Had we not broken quorum we would be well advanced, and we would be able to finish this by noon today. So it is really Mr. Benoit's responsibility for leaving us behind at noon today.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, that is complete and utter nonsense. We had that meeting scheduled to 10 o'clock last night. I stayed till 10.05 p,m, to accommodate the completion of that particular clause. I think the members ought to respect my schedule. We were scheduled to end at 10 o'clock. I had important things I had to do. It had been a long day. The members across the way were obviously tired, as was I. We had completed the time we had intended and that was scheduled to be completed. To try to put the blame on me because some of them want to take off this afternoon or something is completely ridiculous. So let's stick to the schedule we had set, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I would like to advise members that.... I'll call you, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this is not about blame. This is about the government doing its business. I understand that. I'm not blaming anyone. In the original schedule of this committee, you will recall, we had a motion last week that we withdrew to allow for a full seven days' additional time for the Reform Party and anyone else to put forward their amendments in the hope that we could give them time to do this and we could work together. We agreed this week that we would meet, and the agreement was we would not meet on Tuesday because that was not convenient, I believe, for Mr. Ménard. We agreed to that, and we agreed to meet to 10 p.m. on Wednesday and, if you will check the schedule, from 9 p.m. unil 10 p.m. this evening. Now we've been told that Mr. Benoit has a commitment between 12 and 4 p.m., or something like that, and Mr. Ménard has a commitment after 2 p.m.

In essence, the committee is being strangled and prohibited from doing its business not as a result of the blame of anyone but as a result of the busy schedules of the members.

• 1205

If you are unable to be at a committee, you get a sub. Mr. McNally is quite conversant with this bill. He's been here for most of it and is quite capable, in my view, of carrying forward the arguments. I would prefer.... Mr. Benoit could have rearranged his schedule. There's nobody taking off. We have a number of votes tonight. Nobody's going anywhere. The reason to close the debate at two o'clock is because we have tried to accommodate all schedules, and Mr. Ménard cannot be here this afternoon. So it seemed to me the fairest compromise was to carry on through lunch.

We're very close to completion. The number of amendments that would need to be deemed to have been carried would be very small. I understand that the job, which is to get this bill into the House, is contrary to the wishes of the opposition. But our job is somewhat different.

I want to clarify that the motion—and I thank the staff for pointing it out—should read that we continue until 2 p.m. today, at which time all outstanding amendments and clauses shall be put without debate, and that the chair report the bill to the House on Friday, May 14. I would ask if I stated that correctly.

The Chair: Could you read the amendment again? Just wait for a second, please, and then try to insert the words, if it's possible, slowly.

The Clerk: Yes. If I miss anything.... The motion is that the committee continue until 2 p.m. this day.... I think I'm missing something.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: At which time all outstanding amendments and clauses shall be put without debate, and that the chair report the bill to the House on Friday, May 14.

The Chair: We'll allow Mr. Benoit this.... I hope we will try to accommodate ourselves. Just for information of the committee, we have about seven clauses to go. So I think it is doable if we could show a resilience of our hearts and minds.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Pagtakhan, you know invoking closure at committee is completely unreasonable. All clauses will be passed without debate at a certain time—that is closure. Call it what you like, I don't care. This completely ridiculous. Mr. McNally and I both have appointments at noon, which I'm late for now, and it's important that I not be late. I am the chief opposition critic. You won't accommodate my schedule at all, yet you accommodated Mr. Ménard for Tuesday and now for his birthday. This is just absolute nonsense. Let's get serious about this.

The Chair: Is there any further debate on the motion? If not, I shall put the motion to a vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

• 1210

The Chair: We shall proceed with the consideration of clause 2.

I would like to quickly announce that we can have a five- or ten-minute break to pick up our sandwiches so there will be no possibility of gastric ulcers or duodenal ulcers. The food is open, so the chair will suspend the meeting for five to ten minutes for lunch.

• 1211

• 1229

The Chair: I would like to resume the meeting of the committee. We are reverting to clause 2.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to paragraph 2(2)(c) on page 2. I would replace lines 20 and 21 on page 2 with the following:

(c) a person resides in Canada if the person

The Chair: Do you have the amendments in front of you?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Which number?

The Chair: Paragraph 2(2)(c).

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: We're on clause 2. It's a loose page. Can you provide me with a copy, please, if there's an extra one?

Ms. Susan Baldwin: We don't have any extra. We've run out.

The Chair: You can use my copy. Réal, do you need my copy? Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: What is the objective of the amendment?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, could we have a brief explanation?

• 1230

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Basically, I personally think it just reads a lot better.

Mr. Grant McNally: Did you write it?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I said it reads a lot better. I didn't say it's written a lot better. If you want to talk about whether it's written better, I think it's written better as well. If Mr. Sabourin wants to respond to it—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, this is an amendment to the wording which has no legal implications; you are doing yourselves a favour.

[English]

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment reflects the discussions of the committee yesterday, when it was felt that the wording of the English version was very ambiguous, and that the French was clearer and we should reflect the French better. I think, to reflect what the parliamentary secretary has said, it's just better written.

The Chair: It's better written on that basis.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 6—Adults)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I'm going to give a word to my colleague. My colleague is going to move this amendment.

The Chair: Ms. Leung.

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

On page 4, paragraph 6(1)(b), line 7, we've removed the five years and replaced it with six years.

The Chair: Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is a very important amendment. It refers to the reference period; it means that a person will have to physically be in Canada for 195 days, but that it will not be spread out over five years anymore, but over six years. You've changed the reference period to give potential immigrants a fair chance. Several witnesses asked us to do this. It's a good-hearted amendment.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We should have proposed it.

(Amendment agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: Is there a government amendment to the clause, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I could read all this. The next amendment is that Bill C-63 in clause 6 be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 4 with the following:

citizenship, resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days, calculated in the following manner, namely,

(1)the person is deemed to have resided in Canada one half of a day for every day that the person has resided in Canada—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me. Can you start over once again? What amendment are you talking about? The interpreter missed it.

The Chairman: G-1.

[English]

Mr. Telegdi, would you please speak to that?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: This is page 4, clause 6.

The Chair: Proceed, Mr. Telegdi.

• 1235

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The amendment states that Bill C-63, in clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 4 with the following:

citizenship, resided in Canada for at least 1,095 days, calculated in the following manner, namely,

(i) the person is deemed to have resided in Canada one half of a day for every day that the person has resided in Canada, up to a maximum of 365 days of deemed residence, during the period

@ti88 (A) beginning on the day on which that determination was made and ending on the day before the person became a permanent resident if the person has, under the Immigration Act, been determined by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to be a Convention refugee, or

@ti88 (B) that the person is a visitor or a permit holder, as the case may be, if the person is a visitor or has a permit within the meaning of the Immigration Act, and

(ii) for every day during which the person has resided in Canada after lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence, the person is deemed to have resided in Canada for one day;

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, we know that you certainly do not want to violate the principles of natural justice by not being objective.

Is this amendment the one which was demanded by the issue table of organizations which work with refugees, and who wanted the government to count time spent in Canada before a person obtained permanent residency status? Is this what we're talking about? For one day of physical presence before permanent residency status is obtained, a person would be allotted a half-day?

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Up to one year.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is that correct, Mr. Sabourin?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: To clarify that point, it does not apply to everyone who has lived in Canada before obtaining permanent residency status, but only to people who were mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, such as a refugee, a visitor and so on.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Who is excluded?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: People who are in Canada without any legal status.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You mean the people who filled out a personal information formula but who were not assigned any status. People waiting for a status designation by the IRB would not be affected.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct. People waiting for their status, that is, people who are here but who don't have a status, are not covered by the provision as worded.

Mr. Réal Ménard: All right.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if I could ask the officials something.

It looks as if the reasoning behind (i), (A), (B), and (ii) is to have further definition of the word “resided”—who qualifies under the definition of that particular word, or in the calculation of that.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If I could clarify that, Mr. Chairman, the point of this proposed amendment is to reintroduce what groups before this committee call half time, and what we colloquially in the department call half time; that is, the time a person spends in Canada before becoming a permanent resident. As long as they have a legal status, as enumerated in this clause, it will count for one half day for each day that they are in Canada up to a certain maximum of 365 days.

Mr. Grant McNally: I understand that. I'm just wondering, it looks as if we're going into quite a bit of detail here to actually spell out what's meant by the word “resided”. Is that right?

Mr. Normal Sabourin: The detail is more to spell out who is here with a legal status to ensure that a person who is here illegally cannot count that time in Canada for purposes of residence.

Mr. Grant McNally: It seems odd to me in some regards, not that we have this amendment, but that there's so much detail put into who qualifies under “reside”, what a “whole day” means, the fact that the day the person leaves is a half day and we don't count the other day, and all that stuff we went through the other day. We're going through quite a bit of detail to get that ironed out, because there was a lot of debate about that. Yet when we talked in our earlier debate about the term “spouse”, that is being left to determination and regulation.

I see certainly that this is an important point, to figure out what we mean by a person “resided for a day”, and we've reflected that by going through and rewording this and making an amendment. Yet with that word “spouse”, which has a huge meaning and impact, there seems to be some incongruity—there is my word of the day—that it would be put off to regulations, when we're going to define this particular word in such detail.

• 1240

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): The difficulty here is that the definition of the half-time provision that's here is crucial to the actual concept, as opposed to being a detail of how it would be interpreted. It's easy enough to say half-time won't count, but the difficulty is that when you determine then to whom it will apply, it has to enumerate each of the categories you go into. So it's central to the actual concept of half-time, as opposed to a detail that you could leave to regulation.

Mr. Grant McNally: Well, I would use the same argument for a definition of “spouse”. That's also.... You can use that same argument. We didn't do that on that particular clause and that particular word, yet we're doing it here. And to me that seems incongruent. If we're doing it here, then we should do it there as well. If we're not doing it there, we shouldn't do it here either. Either we're going to leave that to a regulatory decision and the development of that process, or we're going to do it in the bill.

But here it looks to me that what's happening is that this is an issue we've spelled out in the substance of the bill; the other one we're leaving to regulation. Why not have...?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I appreciate the point. But without this amount of detail in the clause itself, you could not understand the intended meaning at all of the basic provision.

Mr. Grant McNally: And I use the same argument. Without the same detail spelled out in the definition of “spouse”, you would have the same misunderstanding as to what's intended by that. Again, I think my argument holds on that point. I won't get into a lengthy debate there. I'm just saying that as a committee, if we're doing that here, we need to be aware that we're not being consistent. I see an inconsistency here. We're willing to do it here—for very good reasons, as you state. But that other clause we talked about also has huge impact and ramifications, and we should take the time here in committee, or have the government bring it, as Mr. McKay said, in a motion before the House for debate, rather than leave that open.

I just want that on the record as an inconsistency that I see, not that I necessarily disagree with the substance of this amendment.

The Chair: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay: Just for Mr. McNally's edification, a professor of mine used to say that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. In this particular instance, consistency is not necessarily what's in the bill.

Having said that—

An hon. member: That's a big word: “hobgoblin”.

Mr. John McKay: We'll write it out.

Mr. John Bryden: Where did your professor get that line?

The Chair: Mr. McKay, is what you're saying...? Would you agree, Mr. McKay, that consistency is a virtue when it's consistently right?

Mr. John McKay: Consistency is a virtue that is not necessarily enjoyed in this bill.

Anyway, I'll get back to the point, the point being twofold. One is that my colleague Tom Wappel, member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest, was concerned about a person who was landed as a convention refugee in September 1997 and would have a retroactive application of this law, and therefore would in effect lose one year's credit. I take it that addresses that issue. In other words, you're giving credit now of a half day for every day they've been here to people who have claimed a refugee status and are now landed. Is that correct? Have I got that right?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct. And with the motion that the committee already approved, the reference period becomes six years instead of five. So if the person to whom you refer applied in the year 2000, we would go back to 1994 to look at days spent in Canada in order to calculate accumulated residence.

Mr. John McKay: For the sake of my colleague, let me read this to you and see whether this addresses the issue. His example is:

A constituent of mine arrived in Canada in 1992 as a refugee claimant. He was accepted as a convention refugee. He obtained his landed immigrant status on September 24, 1997. Under present law, he can apply for Canadian citizenship on September 24, 1999, as he gets credit of one year for the time he resided prior to his landing.

• 1245

I'm reading this amendment as if you are in effect taking “ordinarily resident” aside and moving to the concept of residency. Ignoring that issue for the time being, his constituent is not losing anything with this amendment.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Maybe it wasn't fully clarified, but as I said earlier, the time will count only once the person acquires a status. A person who is here waiting for determination of status cannot count their time in Canada. So if they're waiting to see if they're going to be a refugee, or they're here illegally or whatever, that time will not count.

Mr. John McKay: That's fine. We're not arguing about that.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: But once the person becomes a refugee, every day in Canada counts as half a day. If the person is a visitor or has a minister's permit, it's the same thing. Once they become a permanent resident, one day spent in Canada equals one day of residence. All these half days or days are counted within the new frame of reference of six years, going back from the date of application. Perhaps I can clarify your example.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, use the example, because Mr. Wappel is concerned about the retroactivity of Bill C-63. I thought you had addressed it until you got into the explanation. Now I'm not sure.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I will give you a hypothetical example. A person came to Canada in 1992 as a refugee claimant. They were determined to be a refugee in 1994. They became a permanent resident in 1995. Between 1992 and 1994, the time they spent in Canada did not count for citizenship purposes. Between 1994 and 1995, that one year in Canada equated as six months of residence for citizenship purposes. So that's how it would work for those people.

In terms of the retroactivity, I think it covers most situations. The only people who will lose something, so to speak, are people who are here today without status—they're here either illegally or waiting for determination of status. They can count that half time up to a period of a year. We are excluding the people who don't have legal status in Canada for reasons—

Mr. John McKay: So the people with absent status get no credit at all under this bill. Is that different from current legislation?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That is correct. Today, if you're here illegally, you get a half-day credit for each day here. If you're waiting to get your determination as a refugee and you're here one day, you get credit for half a day.

Mr. John McKay: So this bill will have a retroactive application for people who have no status.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I have difficulty with the word “retroactive”. It certainly is retrospective. For the person who applies after the bill comes into force, it's always retrospective if you look at what happened in the five or six years before they applied. So it's retrospective but it's not retroactive, in my humble opinion.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, it's retrospective. I agree with you it's a better choice of words. So in Mr. Wappel's example here, I believe he was only counting time from the date of this person obtaining a status. Under present law he can apply for Canadian citizenship after two years, because he gets credit for one full year. So this individual will lose all of that time prior to obtaining status. Is that correct?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That is correct.

Mr. John McKay: So Mr. Wappel's interpretation on retrospectivity is correct.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It is correct in the way you have explained it. But as I explained when Mr. Wappel was here in this committee, the only way to address that point would be to have two independent systems in place for a period of up to five years—until anybody who is in Canada the day before the legislation comes into force has been here five years.

• 1250

My colleague, Mrs. Pressé, has reminded me that she's familiar with the specific case Mr. Wappel has raised and that he would be okay.

Mr. John McKay: Sounds like a specific blessing here.

Before we move on, any time you're affecting the rights of—I was going to say citizens, but obviously not citizens—of persons on this soil, whether they're with status or without status, we should be a little careful about that. Am I to interpret your evidence as saying that prior to a person obtaining status under old legislation they would get credit for time but under this legislation they will not get credit for time? Is that correct as far as I go there?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That's correct.

Mr. John McKay: And when this bill is proclaimed in force, will that have application to all persons, with or without status in this country?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It will have application to all citizenship applicants without exception.

Mr. John McKay: I'm talking about the persons down the stream. We're way before applications. So will there be an impact on people without status by proclaiming this bill? I want to clarify that. I don't know how many other members were aware of that issue, but I think it's a fairly significant issue and potentially affects a significant population.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Madam Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to page 5, line 41, paragraph 11(d), which now reads “has resided in Canada for a least 1,095 days during the five years...”. I would amend that to six years, instead of five. So line 41 would now be: “days during the six years immediately”.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Regarding the consequential amendments based on what we already have passed, can we take it for granted that those votes would also apply to these amendments so that we don't have to go over them again?

I propose that all amendments relating to the six-year provision should be deemed passed by the same vote. If the Reform Party objects, so be it; as for us, we support the idea. That way, we will not have to begin the debate all over again, because we will have adopted the six-year amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent that anything that relates to the change of years, which we have debated, shall be deemed adopted? Is there unanimous consent and shall it be recorded by the clerk? Is that okay?

The Clerk: I'm not clear on that.

The Chair: The clerk is not clear.

The chair will make a proposal. Let us go to the amendment, and when we realize it is exactly on the same substance, let us just say carried, pass it.

The Clerk: Exactly.

The Chair: The clerk requests that for purposes of recording.

The motion before us is to clause 6, by replacing lines 14 to 18 on page 4 with the following: “citizenship.”

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 6 as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: So now we go to clause 11.

The Clerk: That's right.

• 1255

(On clause 11—Statelessness—bloodline connection)

The Chair: On clause 11, the government has an amendment and the clerk will read it, quickly.

The Clerk: It's that clause 11 shall be amended by replacing line 41 on page 5 with the following: “days during the six years immediately”.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, when an amendment is read, can you or the Clerk tell us what number it is so we can follow the discussion?

[English]

The Chair: Page 5, government amendment 2. Is it clear, Mr. Ménard?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's okay.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 14—Automatic loss)

The Chair: Will the clerk read the amendment, please?

The Clerk: It's G-3 on page 6, moved by Mr. Telegdi, and it says that clause 14 shall be amended by replacing lines 14 to 17 on page 6 with the following:

of a parent having, at the time of the person's birth, citizenship either as a result of the parent's birth outside Canada after February 14, 1977 or as a result of the registration under prior legislation, after that date, of the parent's birth outside Canada loses citizenship on.

The Chair: You have heard the amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, can you tell us what the legal implications are?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi or Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Obviously it's an amendment to reflect the original intent, and to clarify and to define the categories of persons subject to loss.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Doesn't that have to do with the representations which we made regarding the February 14, 1997 timeframe?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin, would you like to comment?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm just making sure I have the proper amendment in front of me, because we don't have this numbering that you have.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: It's amendment G-3. Would you like to go over it?

[English]

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I have it now, Mr. Chair.

The purpose behind this amendment is to make sure there is consistency between the groups of people who are entitled to be registered between 1947 and 1977 and those who obtained that right automatically after 1977. In the wording of the bill as it is now, people who would have been born abroad after 1977 are automatically losing their citizenship at age 28, whereas those born before then would not. That is an obvious oversight, since under the current legislation such people are subject to loss of citizenship at age 28 unless they satisfied the criteria for retention of their citizenship.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not sure I understand. I'm sorry. I'm usually quick on the uptake, but in this case....

So, it has to do with the deadline of February 14, 1977. Two categories of people may lose their citizenship: those who were born abroad—

Mr. Norman Sabourin: No.

Mr. Réal Ménard: —and those who do not apply for it by the time they are 28 years old and of the second generation. Are those matters linked?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: No. Before we talk about motions and amendments, I just want to say that the objective of this provision is to ensure that the people who, under the current Act, will lose their citizenship by the age of 28 will not be able to reclaim it, and that the others who will not lose their citizenship because they are not yet born, but who will belong to the second generation abroad, will also lose their citizenship by the age of 28, unless they fulfil the requirements to maintain their citizenship.

• 1300

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Sabourin, you don't lose your citizenship because you're born. But I think I understand, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: There's another amendment to the same clause. Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: This is starting to become very complex.

[English]

The Clerk: Amendment G-4 is on clause 14, page 6. It says that Bill C-63 in clause 14 be amended by replacing line 20 on page 6 with the following:

Canada for at least 1,095 days during the six

This is moved by Mr. Telegdi.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 19 agreed to)

(On clause 28—Ineligibility)

The Chair: Now we will proceed to clause 28. The first one is a government amendment done by Mr. Telegdi.

The Clerk: Amendment G-3 states that it is moved that Bill C-63 in clause 28 be amended by replacing line 16 on page 13 with the following:

sections 8, 11 and 20, no person shall be granted citizen—

This is a new one. It was handed out this morning.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Does this have anything to do with adoption? Hey, you never listen to me!

[English]

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: As Mr. McKay pointed out to us, we should probably include section 11 in there as well. We had the officials take a look at it, and they agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 28 as amended agreed to)

• 1305

The Chair: We will now revert to clause 1. The train trip is concluding.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill with amendments to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now I am told I must thank the witnesses, and I do.

Now I am told I must thank the members, and I do.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair: I certainly thank the research staff and the clerk and our emergency legislative clerk. I thank our interpreters and our microphone locator. I thank our staff manning the phone. I will reserve my thank you for Mr. Mahoney for a later date.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership, but I would also point out that in spite of the motion we passed at noon that instructed you on when you could report and when we would finish, we have finished over 50 minutes ahead of that schedule. I suspect that somehow that motion might have its head raised by a certain House leader in taking exception—or may not, I don't know. I think it should be on the record that we did this well in advance of the time allotted.

The Chair: That's one of the astute parliamentarians.

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.