CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Art Hagopian (President, Canadian Ethnocultural Council)

Á

1115

Mr. Emilio Binavince (Honorary Legal Counsel, Canadian Ethnocultural Council)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Á

1130

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Á

1135

Mr. Art Hagopian

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Emilio Binavince

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Á

1145

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Art Hagopian

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Art Hagopian

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Mr. John Bryden

Á

1150

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Mr. Art Hagopian

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Art Hagopian

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Mr. David Price

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Mr. David Price

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Mr. Art Hagopian

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Emilio Binavince

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Emilio Binavince

The Chair

Mr. Art Hagopian

The Chair

Â

1210

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress)

Â

1215

Â

1220

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Â

1225

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Â

1230

The Chair

Â

1235

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Â

1240

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. John Bryden

Â

1245

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Â

1250

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Â

1255

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 015

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Okay, colleagues, I wonder if we could begin. We have quorum for the purposes of hearing witnesses.

    I understand that Lynn will be with us shortly. Unfortunately, some others, such as Inky, are still sick. I hope they are doing better. Madeleine and Diane can't be here, but we're going to start anyway. I see that the Liberals are pretty well all here.

    Yes, Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday I was asked to get back to the committee with a reply. Whenever it's possible, please let me know.

    The Chair: Yes, we will be dealing with it at one o'clock. Thank you very much for expediting the question posed to the committee with regard to 39(5).

    It's my pleasure to welcome to our committee once again the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. We have Art Hagopian with us, and Emilio Binavince, and Helen Lanctôt.

    Bienvenue. I am always happy to see the Ethnocultural Council. You've given us much advice and guidance in the past. It's always nice to see you here. I know you have a submission. You can take the next seven or ten minutes to go through it and summarize it. I'm sure we will all have some questions for you.

    Again, thank you, and welcome.

    Mr. Art Hagopian (President, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): Oh, that's great.

    Good morning, Chair. On behalf of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, we wish to thank the citizenship and immigration committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.

    My name is Art Hagopian, and I'm the president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. I'm accompanied by the CEC's legal counsels, Emilio Binavince and Helen Lanctôt.

    Before I start, on behalf of the CEC executive and membership, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, the recently appointed parliamentary secretary for the minister. It's always a pleasure to have one of the ethnocultural community being appointed in such positions. It's more than that for me personally, because he's a member of the Armenian community, my own community. It's a double pleasure for me to be here today and be present in these discussions.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I buy you lunch?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Art Hagopian: Not really. I'll take a rain check, so don't worry.

    Before I start, I'd like to give background to what the CEC is and where it comes from. Then between myself and our legal counsel, we'll come out with all of the details of the presentation.

    The CEC is a national coalition of 32 national ethnocultural organizations. Our member organizations are umbrella-structured themselves, representing in turn about 2,000 local and provincial chapters across Canada. The CEC was formed in 1980 as a coalition of organizations. Although each represents its unique cultural community, they all work collectively to promote understanding and acceptance of the multicultural reality of Canada. The CEC also works toward integration of ethnocultural groups through promotion of equal opportunity and through the fight against racism and other forms of discrimination.

    One of our greatest activities was to appear before the special joint committee on the Constitution in 1981, to press for the inclusion of multiculturalism in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsequently this was constitutionally entrenched in section 27 of the charter. Later this was legislated in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Multiculturalism has now been identified as a fundamental characteristic of Canada. It is also the first legislative act of its kind.

[Translation]

    Multiculturalism has long been the focus of many debates and discussions in Canada. Ultimately, there is no denying that we live and will continue to live in a multicultural society. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to create a culture that values the equality of persons and mutual respect, and to create conditions conducive to social cohesion within an increasingly diverse society.

    To our way of thinking, Canadians look upon multiculturalism as a defining element of our national identity, much the same way linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of Canada.

    Over the past decade, numerous public opinion polls have attested to Canadians' support for multiculturalism.

    The most recent Environics poll sponsored by the Association for Canadian Studies again confirms that Canadians respond favourably to multiculturalism. The findings show that the vast majority of Canadians dismiss the countless arguments advanced that suggest multiculturalism clashes with other important goals for Canadian society.

[English]

    The Environics poll showed that younger people are generally more favourable to developing multiculturalism, with 90% of those between the ages of 18 and 29 agreeing that the government should support the multicultural heritage of Canada. Youth strongly support the notion that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is helpful in ensuring that institutions respect cultural and racial diversity.

    I'll turn now to our brief.

    The law that determines Canadian citizenship is one of themost significant statutes in Canada. The enjoyment of certain rightsand privileges under certain federal and provincial statutes isconferred on citizens, but not on non-citizens even if they areimmigrants to this country.

    Although there may well be an argumenton whether a particular preference for citizens, established by law,may be discriminatory, such statutes abound. An example relates,for instance, to ownership of the media, lands in certain provinces,or more extensively, by nationalistic statutes exemplified by the nowrepealed Foreign Investment Review Act.

    The Constitution of Canada itself establishes such preferencefor citizens. Only citizens have the right to vote and be elected toParliament and the legislative assembly of a province, under section3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Subsection 6(1) of thecharter reserves to citizens the right to enter, remain in, and leaveCanada. Only citizens of Canada enjoy certain minority languageeducational rights guaranteed by section 23 of the charter.

    At theintemational level, Canadian citizens enjoy the protection of theCanadian government from the wrongful actions of foreigngovernments, or assistance in case of need.

    Secondly, regarding the elements of citizenship, Canada was, in 1946, the first Commonwealth country to enacta citizenship statute. In 1976 Parliament enacted a revisedCitizenship Act, which thoroughly recast themeaning and the method of acquiring Canadian citizenship. Thisstatute was amended in 1985.

    In over half a century, Canada and the world have changeddramatically. Canada should recast the Citizenship Act to reflect thedevelopments in the world and in our society.

    Internally, the mostsignificant factor is the increasing diversity of our country. Ourcultural, political, and other social values have also evolved. Ourracial representation has changed. Internationally, the mobility ofpeoples and the globalization of the economy are factors that shouldbe seriously factored into these revisions.

    Emilio, do you want to take over?

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Emilio Binavince (Honorary Legal Counsel, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): My name is Emilio Binavince. I would like to continue the presentation, because it will now become a little bit legal, but I would like to assure the members of this committee that, as a lawyer, I believe in the principle that lawyers do not have the monopoly on wisdom.

    It reminds me of a situation where a balloonist was lost somewhere in Belgium one day. The balloon was coming down and the balloonist asked a person who was working down below, “Can you tell me where I am?” The person said “Yes, I can; you are in a balloon.” And the balloonist said “Are you a lawyer?” and he said “Yes, I am. That's absolutely right.” And the man in the balloon said “I guessed immediately because your information is 100% accurate and 100% useless.”

    Now, I'm here before you today not to give you something useless, I hope. We will just debate with you a little bit of some of the assumptions and the political issues. I know you represent a very venerable institution, and we are just here to help you make your decisions for the country. We are not here to ask you to agree with us on every point, but we hope you can agree with us on some points. After all, that is what law-making is all about.

    The basic problem we have with the statute is not that it's not well written; it's perfect. I think it can probably pass the language of Fowler and the rest. It also expresses very nicely some of the thoughts we all share as Canadians. But we also believe it can be improved, and what we are going to do today is just give you a little bit of what we believe we can improve.

    The first one is that we have Canadian values we have to reflect, not only to ourselves, but to the world. The Citizenship Act is particularly an invitation to the world to come here, and it's also a declaration to the world of who we are. When we invite immigrants, we say “This is a good country. Please come.” When we give them citizenship, we say “You passed the test. You are one of us.”

    Therefore, these two statutes are complementary. And in my way of thinking, just like the picture of the world and the picture internally, we have to change with time. The most important changes, as Art Hagopian said, relate to the increasing diversity of our country.

    We have to be proud of our traditions, especially the two founding nations, the English and the French, and we have to preserve these values. We are not going to abandon them. On the other hand, we also have be more inclusive. In our view, today the debate on how far we should go in all-inclusiveness, and at the same time reflect our English and French Canadian culture, is a debate you have to decide. After all, the people will vote you out or in, depending upon the kind of decision.

    The first thing we would like to have is you have the perfect model in the Immigration and Refugee Act, and in my submission, you should reflect those kinds of objectives in that statute in the Citizenship Act. The Immigration Act says to people that they can come here because they share the following values that are enumerated in that act. When we give the citizenship, we have to say “You passed; now we can give you the card that shows you are a citizen.” We are going to test the immigrants that they really actually share those values for which they came here. Therefore, our first submission really is that section 3 of this bill doesn't adequately reflect what we have told the immigrant to share with us. In my view, we should probably change that a little bit.

    There is one thing among those that is very controversial. I think we should understand that the democratic tradition and the free democracy in this country is largely a western idea. It came from England, and we cannot violate that. Over time we have also to declare that we are proud of that tradition. But the question we have to debate now is, do we need the name of the Queen still in the oath of allegiance? I am proud that we come from an Anglo-American tradition, but the question is, how far do we have to declare our allegiance? I think the test is a reality issue. We can be proud, but we cannot annoy at the same time.

Á  (1120)  

    Therefore, our declaration of the inheritance of the English tradition must not necessarily annoy others. The time when we can say it's time to declare but not require it has come. We can declare that we have an English tradition, but we do not need to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen because we have to be practical. If there is a statement made against the Queen, technically speaking, that's treason and you can be prosecuted. But does anybody believe that we are committing treason, like Mr. Manley when he said “Let's abolish the monarchy”? I don't think so. All of us around the table believe the monarchy is useful, but it is not political disobedience to say it's time to abolish it in favour of our own institutions. So we would like to suggest that we don't need to mention the Queen any more, although we have to be conscious that the monarchy is an important part.

    The other one, which is a lot more important, in our view, is this idea of physical presence. Since 1985, we have always believed that this so-called physical presence in Canada was important. We have justified that on the basis of the fact that it shows the value of Canadian citizenship.

    We disagree. The value of Canadian citizenship is not derived from the fact that you are here. John Milton said “They also serve those who only stand and wait”. But waiting and standing alone are not a declaration of the values we share.

    I think we are being too harsh on very important people who have contributed to the integrity of this country over time. If you are going to take the test of physical presence, you are going to deny John Galbraith, one of the best economists in the world, due to the fact he has not been here in this country for a while. You are going to talk about Shania Twain, who is now in Switzerland. You are going to deny Céline Dion. You are going to deny Peter Jennings. You are going to deny Alex Trebek.

    But if there is anything that is clear to the world today as to why we are known, it is because we have contributed to the world culture with these great personalities. Let us not make presence in Canada too harsh. Their absence can be justified. We have to give room to those important Canadians who make us look so good in the world, and not penalize them.

    So we disagree with at least two sections of this act: the automatic removal or loss of citizenship, and in the case of acquisition by means of an application under section 7.

    The other one we would like to suggest to you is that we should also declare our faith in the justice system. Let us not politicize the acquisition of citizenship too much. I agree there should be occasions when the minister and the Governor in Council should exercise extraordinary powers, but we should have a greater reliance on the judicial process, because when you take away citizenship, you take away a constitutional right. You also take away some legal rights that are recognized.

    Do not look at this bill only as a law that declares the status. It is a law that confers constitutional and legal rights, and you have to be very careful with that. Ask yourself, are you going to trust the minister and the Governor in Council to decide such kinds of decisive issues? I submit to you that it is a lot better to put them in the hands of neutral powers like the courts.

    We agree that there are occasional situations when the minister may have to act very fast, but you can do that. We do it now in the Income Tax Act. You can go to the court for a summary judgment, get it in 24 hours, and throw out the person. We do not need this in the hands of the minister or Governor in Council. So we propose that you look at your provisions, especially under sections 21 and 22 of this bill, and see whether they are absolutely necessary. I think we should have faith in our judicial process and leave it there.

    This brings me to the next point. It is for you to decide who should become a citizen. It is for the administration, like the minister, to decide whether the requirements for citizenship have been fulfilled. The courts should decide whether that citizenship has been lost. That is what democracy is all about. That is what the rule of law is all about. And in the CEC submission we say we should ratify it along the way. The making of the law is the democratic process. It is for you, as parliamentarians, to decide.

Á  (1125)  

    The acquisition of citizenship is an administrative process; it's the minister who decides. But when you start taking away rights, let us judicialize it, because that's part of fundamental justice. So judicial review, in our thinking, is an important process.

    The same is true with the loss of citizenship.

    Let's look at two things that have happened with this country: increasing diversification in our changing values and the greatness of this country outside the world, in our mobility. Let's not be too afraid and keep our people inside. This country is not supposed to be looked at as a jail. We have the right to leave and come in. And the greatness of this country will be reflected in the world if we give a chance to those who become great to go and spread the gospel.

    That's our submission. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Emilio and Art, for your insight and great affection, especially when you are talking about the values of this country and the inclusion and contribution of the ethnocultural communities.

    We have some questions. We'll go to Sarkis first.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

    I would like to thank Mr. Art Hagopian for his wonderful introductory comments about me, but I'm sure the committee--

    The Chair: Don't put it to a vote, though.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I will do it tonight.

    My question regards the requirement for a physical presence of three years. You mentioned that it should not be so stringent in requiring potential citizens to be here a minimum three years in a five- and six-year time period. What would be your limit? One month?

    I know some people who come here for a week, get their papers, then fly back to where they came from, and three years later they come with some explanation. So again, they come to my office and tell me: “I had to leave”, “My mother was sick”, “My father was sick”, “Business was no good”, “I couldn't come here”, whatever. But the law states that if you are out of the country, you should inform the embassy that you will be away for more than so many days, and that will be taken into consideration. If you don't report to the embassy, you lose your status as an immigrant.

    I would ask you to compare our requirement that you have three years physical presence here to that of the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that have immigration policies similar to ours.

    From my point of view, citizenship is not something that we give away. They have to earn it. I think there is a value to being a Canadian citizen. That value has to be cherished and protected. And if I drop the threshold from three years to three months, then it wouldn't be fair to all the Canadians who went through it.

    I'd like you to comment.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: We're not talking about an absolute number of three months or three years. We are asking you to consider that if there is a reasonable explanation for the absence of three years, you'd better accept it. As is the case, very often there is a reasonable explanation. You cannot “absolutize” it.

    The problem with this bill is that it wants to mechanize the thinking, automatic job of the civil servant. He has to decide his constructive thought and judgment. You can make it easier for the civil servant by doing some kind of a check list saying service by A, B, C, or D, and then sum it up.

    It's not the issue. The issue is “It appears from your application that you have been absent for three years. Is there a reasonable explanation for that?” Then you say “yes, that's a reasonable explanation”. It is for you to decide to give those kinds of reasonable explanations.

    I was personally involved in a case where a woman from Hong Kong married, had a child here, brought the mother, father, and a husband here, and then became unemployed. It's very difficult, because she's a physician. She cannot immediately qualify to become a physician practising in this country.

    What does she do? She now has four people to support. She goes to Hong Kong, practises medicine, and then tries to apply for citizenship. The department says she doesn't have three years. There are reasonable explanations for all of this. The absence is not a rejection of Canadian values. It is a credible necessity.

    We cannot make the law only because there are those who violate it, take the act, and say after one month they will go back. There are those who can be caught, and we have to catch them. On the other hand, you cannot mechanize it and refuse the judgment call that this person has to make.

    It is not three years, not two years, not six months. If you can justify three years, I personally think that is too long. I would say two years should be enough. You should at least give room for the ability to explain if the physical automatic mechanical test cannot be passed. Those people should not be excluded.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the individual is required, when he or she is overseas, to approach our embassy and inform them if they are going to be away from Canada for so many months, weeks, or whatever the case may be, because of A, B, C, or D. It will be taken into consideration.

    For those who abuse the system, we should not be reducing the threshold from three years to two years. With five years, we needed three years. Now you're asking us to make it two years. Next time, maybe ten years down the road, you'll ask for six months.

    We have to hold the threshold. If you are away, first you have to inform us as to why you are away and how long you'll be away. You inform not me, not immigration, but the embassy, wherever you may be. That tests that you follow our rules and regulations, whatever they may be.

    If you don't do that, don't come to my office saying “Sarkis, my mother was sick”. The law says when your mother is sick, you have to tell the embassy. If you have a business, you have to tell the embassy that you're going to be away from the country for so many years so we can take it into consideration. That's what I'm saying.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: I understand. I think we do respect that issue. Do not look at a Canadian citizen and act with a parental, very strict, kind of guidance. These are grown-up people. Why require this reporting system? It doesn't respect the individual.

    The other problem that you have here is you're assuming that there is always a place for Canadians to report. It's not true. We don't have embassies around the world. This is simply not true. Even assuming it's true, is it really worth the trouble?

    How many have you encountered today who want to become Canadians and cheat around those lines? It's a creation of so many administrative hindrances. It's irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant.

    Do you really think that Céline Dion, or whoever, is going to report to our embassies every year, or whatever, at your request? They don't, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they have bungled Canadian citizenship.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I would like to thank the Canadian Ethnocultural Council for their representation here today. Thank you both--I hope I say it right--Mr. Hagopian and Mr. Binavince. Is that right? Now you say “Wasylycia-Leis”.

    I have several questions. First, I really appreciate your comment on the need for us to ensure that this bill reflects Canadian values when it comes to our diversity and that in fact that sense of the world present in one country is clearly reflected in the preamble of this bill. You've made some suggestions. I'm wondering if you've thought at all about your version of what the preamble should look like in total and if you want to present any kind of a draft in that regard, or if that's not necessary, whether or not you've seen, for example, the suggested version by the Canadian Jewish Congress, who we heard from just two days ago, who gave us a whole new preamble talking about the diversity of Canada, referencing Nelson Mandela and talking about our rights and traditions, and respect, and need to focus on a country that doesn't tolerate any kind of racism or hatred and lack of tolerance.

    That's one question. Maybe I'll leave it at that and see if the chair will permit me two others.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Art Hagopian: Emilio can handle that one. That isn't so much a legal thing, but more a generalized area.

    First of all, I have to mention one thing quite clearly here--with the presentation, with two lawyers from the CEC, maybe some explanation other than that the CEC has a large budget to be able to hire lawyers to do this thing. I appreciate and publicly thank both lawyers, Emilio and Helen. It's pro bono work they're doing for us. We appreciate it very much, every time we're given an opportunity.

    I don't want to go into detail. Last year, in this kind of environment--I think it was in the other main building--we made a presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance. Over there, we were much more detailed about the financial situation of multicultural organizations, especially the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and each one of its tertiary organizations. They're in very dire need of continuing their operations. As you know, core funding has been cut back completely, and these organizations will have difficulty surviving.

    The whole world looks to Canada to emulate its multicultural policies and acts. I've been interviewed by German newspapers and Dutch newspapers about how Canadian multiculturalism is moving forward. On the other hand, in Canada itself in the last five or six years, we have been going backwards. So I had to make that comment.

    Again, to respond to your issue, we haven't had much time. When we got involved in this process, we got some viewpoints from the different organizations and passed them along to Emilio and said “Emilio, this is what we have; you put it together and make the presentation from the legal context.”

    But your issue is quite clear. What we will do, if we have the time, is to go back and try to modify or present a potential preamble, what you'd like to see in the preamble, because the Canadian values that we're talking about here, of this country, have changed so much.

    Let's take the latest statistics. In Toronto right now, the bulk of Toronto is over 55% ethnocultural communities; 44% are born outside the country, of which most will be ethnocultural groups. If you add to that those who are born in this country, we're over 55%. So this is the GTA.

    In two municipalities, Markham, Ontario, and Richmond, B.C., they're at about 58% or 59%. I think Markham is 56%, and Richmond is 59% visible minorities. This is the kind of country we're living in. This all has to be recognized in this environment.

    Yes, we are willing to work on it. I'm sure Emilio will put it together, and, based on our understanding, come back with a preamble.

    Do you want to add to this?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: No, I think you have given the answer, except that I just want to comment....

    I'm very pleased that he acknowledges that I'm just a mouthpiece here, working together on what they think is right.

    So don't blame me for any mistakes. You know who is guilty. The legal part is yours.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Though the chair will rule me out of order, I'd love to pursue your comments in terms of funding and the cutbacks the council has seen. But maybe we'll save that for another time, another committee or a private chat.

    I have two questions on your other specific recommendations, on clause 7, the residency requirements. We've had a previous representation on this issue, and it was suggested--I think it was the Canadian Bar Association--that there should be flexibility in this section to reflect the points you've been making about particular circumstances facing Canadian citizens abroad and their obligations and commitments internationally, and also that we should have some way to recognize those who are employed by a Canadian employer and whose business takes them out of the country for significant periods of time. So we've been asked to put flexibility back into the bill.

    Is there anything more specific you could give us in terms of how to do that?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: In fact I have worked out something, but I did not think we were going to do drafting in this committee, other than discussing the policy.

    If the committee wants, we can give you a little bit of an idea on how we would like to see some of the provisions structured. We would be pleased to do that for you.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: This is the very committee that is in charge of amending the bill. There is no other committee. We're it, so any ideas you have specifically--as Judy asked you--about specific amendments, that's when we're going to do it.

    We won't do it now because we're travelling across the country in a couple of weeks, so it will be two or three weeks or a month before we get to clause-by-clause. If you want to forward any amendments, they would be most welcome.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The last question I had was with respect to the issue of denial of citizenship and clauses 21 and 22. Others have recommended that we work to delete these two clauses entirely and try to address the spirit in this clause under an additional clause or under clause 28. It was suggested clause 28. I just want clarification on whether you support the idea of deleting clauses 21 and 22 and dealing with it in another clause in another way.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: We really support the judicialization of those taking away citizenship. But you see some people who appeared before you want to use the criminal law system under clause 28 and following in order to protect certain kinds of rights.

    I think the criminal law system is too harsh. We don't need to put in prison somebody who lied, necessarily. There is another criminal law that already takes care of that. Forgery of documents is under the Criminal Code, and if they really want to apply it, let them apply it.

    I think the Citizenship of Canada Act that you are trying to draft has to zero in on the real objectives. Don't use too much criminal law, because you are not here only to determine punishment and crimes. Use it in the substantive law.

    I totally disagree with the use of the criminal process in many of these things. I think there is enough criminalization as it is.

    You know what's happening today? There is not one single statute now passed by our Parliament where there is no criminal section, and this abundance of criminal cases is becoming a trap for many people. Not only that, but there's a multiplication of prosecutions.

    Let's get rid of those. Let's make them real law, working. So the use in clause 28 and following relating to eligibility, annulment power by the minister, revocation--or whatever it is--of a certificate, these are too strong. My proposal is to use your criminal power discreetly. Don't overuse it.

    The Chair: John Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I'm going to immediately follow up on that, because clause 21 concerns me enormously as well.

    In fact, the minister has absolute power to deny citizenship. We're not talking about revocation, but to deny citizenship when somebody applies, and the wording is, if that person “shows serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society.”

    My problem with that is that free and democratic societies vary around the world, and they condone actions that might be seen as criminal in international law. The example is extrajudicial killing. This is something that has been taken up by several--not just one, but several--free and democratic societies. And indeed, I see it as something that is spreading around in free and democratic societies, particularly with the threat of terrorism.

    I would ask you, as a lawyer, wouldn't we be better off, if we're going to give the minister this power, instead of saying vaguely, “the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”, actually referring specifically to Canadian law--not Criminal Code law, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Would it not give more force and more validity to clause 21 if we specified the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: I am glad that Mr. Bryden is asking the question, because the term “free and democratic society”, as you have said, is very vague. It has some contours in one country, and is so different in another. So we cannot generalize about that.

    The only thing we have by way of consensus is exactly what you're saying, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution of 1867. Why don't we just make them specific rather than make this “free and democratic” in general, which means that you then leave it in the hands of the minister to define what they are? Those kinds of definitions or powers have the ability of either restricting it and limiting the charter or expanding it so far that it could violate the charter.

    I think we have enough institutions here in this free and democratic society historically and constitutionally that we can use, and I totally agree with you, that's the way it should be drafted.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Hagopian, the human rights charters of the type that Canada has, are they typical of all free and democratic societies? Do they have equivalent charters to what we have?

    Mr. Art Hagopian: You're talking about the charters in context of what, section 27 or--

    Mr. John Bryden: No, a charter of rights and freedoms that spells out or forbids discrimination, that requires a certain standard of behaviour, respect for the rule of law, that kind of thing--

    Mr. Art Hagopian: I am familiar with some. I know that Australia has it, because I had the opportunity to work with my counterpart from Australia when I was part of the United Nations World Conference against Racism in South Africa, and I know they have it. As a matter of fact, if I can add this, they also have a much stronger cultural support system than we have, even though they learned from us.

    As for the others, I know that Israel has.... That's not an issue I'd like to talk about here today, it's a different subject, but I know that they have in Israel. The Netherlands is working on it, and Sweden has it. These are the ones I'm familiar with. As for other countries, we haven't had much contact with them, so I wouldn't be able to answer in general, but I know that four or five countries have it.

    The only one that has it in the context of our own environment and multiculturalism is Australia. The others haven't got it in the context that we have, which supports the diversity the way we do it here. They don't have that.

    Mr. John Bryden: That I think is the point, Mr. Chairman. While there are many that don't have it, others have ones that are tailored to their vision of their society, whereas ours is tailored to a multicultural vision of society and equality before the law.

    The Chair: By the way, the Minister of Citizenship and Multiculturalism of Australia will be here presenting before the committee on February 23.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Do I have time to pursue another question, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Sure.

    Mr. John Bryden: I'd like to make reference to your written presentation, to one paragraph. I really congratulate you on doing an oral presentation, but in the one paragraph in your written presentation you say:

In relation to the Oath of Allegiance, the CEC believes thatCanada has sufficiently matured that the reference to “Her MajestyElizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada” in the Oath of Allegianceshould now be abolished. Although, it is speculative, there isprobably more unnecessary resentment and damage to thesentiment of the various components of Canadian society than anyvalue of this phrase to the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. It ispreferable to make the new citizen to respect and uphold Canada'sConstitution.

    I'd like to explore two ideas there. When you say “Constitution” in this context, are you referring generally to the BNA Act in this context of the oath, or are you referring generally to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: To both. The 1867 act, which is the Constitution of 1867, already brings in the question of sovereignty and the Queen.

    Mr. John Bryden: I see.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: There's no need to be very specific about that. The charter, as you know, in the preamble speaks a little differently, because it says the rule of law and the supremacy of God. There are two values there that are expressed, which are not found in the 1867 Constitution. So it is really unnecessary.

    The moment you swear you are going to uphold the Constitution of Canada, you uphold the institutions behind it, including the supremacy of this building, this Parliament. It's not necessary to be so specific.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have another question, but I think I'll pass on it now because it might require an elaborate answer, unless you have--

    The Chair: No, go ahead.

    Mr. John Bryden: All right.

    The second thing I'd like to explore with you, with whoever would like to respond, is the statement where you say that there's probably more unnecessary resentment and damage as a result of having the Queen in the oath of allegiance. Can you elaborate on that? I understand that it's speculative, but you are a body that has an overview. Can you just put a little bit of flesh to that statement?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Mr. Chairman, if you want us to speculate, we'll be happy to help you speculate on this one.

    When I arrived in this country, it was the beginning of the FLQ and a lot of violence. You know, until today the Queen refuses to go to Quebec. That is diminishing somewhat. There's no question in my mind that for me when I read these events there has been a resentment in Quebec of the Queen. There is resentment in English Canada about de Gaulle saying “Vive le Québec Libre!” If we are going to say something about de Gaulle here, this is going to cause a lot more resentment.

    The other one is, I doubt very much today whether you can find 1% or 10% of the Canadians who come here to Canada who have ever thought about the Queen. I don't think so. When I came to this country, I never thought about the Queen. I came here because it's Canada. But this is speculation.

    In my way of thinking, listen, if we have to quarrel, let's quarrel about important issues. Let's not quarrel about these little things, because it's a part of our tradition anyway; it's there. That's our view.

    In any event, we have to have tolerance for differing views, but we do need to push the views and compel people to subscribe to it. There is enough room for us to be tolerant.

    Mr. Art Hagopian: If I can add to that comment....

    The Chair: I'd rather not talk about the Constitution at this time. With respect to the fact of whether or not in the oath of allegiance and everything else, and that's fine.... But I'm afraid, as Emilio said, there are far more important issues in this bill than whether or not we ought to do it. I'm afraid that the focus so far has been whether or not we ought to claim allegiance to Her Majesty and so on and so forth. To tell you the truth, I'd rather deal with the more substantive issues of this particular bill.

    Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I'm entitled to my opinion, too. I'm sorry.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, but Mr. Chairman, you're directing the witnesses. I take exception.

    The Chair: No, no. I've let him speak and I've let you speak on this particular issue. I say let's move on to something else.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I think the witness should be given an opportunity to speak on an important issue. I think it is, as you said yourself, in context to the oath of allegiance. The Queen is mentioned in the current oath of allegiance in the bill, and the witness should be entitled to comment on it.

    The Chair: But we can't change the Constitution of the country in this committee. That's what I'm saying. Let's be pragmatic. We can't change the Constitution of the country with regard to the monarchy. That might be an issue for who knows who and god knows when.

    Go ahead, Art, if you'd like to add....

    Mr. Art Hagopian: Just a very brief comment, Mr. Chair; I won't take too much time.

    What I was going to say is from our own environment, from the ethnocultural community, people are coming to this country from all over the world, from all regions. They come to a country, which is Canada itself. What we want to generate among them is a dedication and a commitment to this country and that it engulfs its whole environment, from its head of state to its government's rules and everything else.

    Having the queen of a literally foreign environment put in there, especially for newcomers, it might become a bit foreign. They will not understand it; they will not totally accept it. That's basically where we're coming from.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The chair recognizes Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.

    Thank you for joining us this morning.

    I see that you zeroed in on a couple of parts. I want to know, on our new Citizenship Act, is there anything else in particular that you had an interest in but didn't bother to make any kind of expanded submission on? Particularly, I would like to know what your views are on people becoming citizens because they're born here or because they're adopted by Canadian parents. I just want to know what your thoughts are on people who get immediate citizenship just because they're born here.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in this respect I think the bill is quite progressive. We see here very much the approach in these cases. There is just one little problem sometimes. For instance, in the case of a Canadian citizen mother and a father born outside of Canada, what are we going to do with this child? Are we going to give Canadian citizenship or are we not going to give it? It's not a problem if they are both Canadian citizens. It becomes a problem when there's a split citizenship. The moment they are born in Canada it becomes less of a problem because the law of the place can apply. That's what its purpose is. We exclude those who come here from other countries. So you have that in the statute. But the point of law is the two conflicting rules: the law of the blood, which is relationship, and the law of the place where you are born. You have to take them both into consideration in these cases, and sometimes they conflict.

    The approach of the bill to say Canadian citizenship becomes more valuable if we do the following things, we share that sentiment. But it could be too harsh in taking it away. We did not go into that in great detail. There are some differences, but those are matters of detail.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: David.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you very much, gentlemen and lady, for being here this morning and taking the time.

    I have just a couple of short questions. To follow up on Sarkis' discussion, as far as the physical presence is concerned, the three-year thing, I'd like to know if you have any specific suggestions on how this could be handled. Obviously, it couldn't be just an officer saying yes or no to whatever your story is. It has to be a little bit more specific than that.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: You have one requirement in the power being given to the minister as well as the cabinet, and that is reasonable grounds to believe. You can use that kind of formula in these kinds of tests, so that one doesn't need to prove the physical presence.

    Mr. David Price: So what you're saying is that these cases would individually go before cabinet.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Not necessarily the cabinet, but the administration person who is looking at it--which is now the minister in this bill, rather than the commission or the citizenship judge, as we used to have--should have an obligation to look for that. I would say that there should be a presumption. This is just a matter of a technicality of proving a case. So I think we should push these applicants and say “You have the obligation to establish it, because otherwise this period is going to apply to you. So you had better give me reasonable grounds to believe that we can dispense with this.” You use that in this statute.

    Mr. David Price: I'd just like your thoughts on this idea. After an immigrant has been in the country for a certain number of years, do you think it might be an idea to actually invite these people to become citizens? What happens today is that many people out there who are not citizens say it's just a bother, or they forget about it, and they never actually apply for citizenship.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: We believe that you have to take affirmative action in this case. In Italy right now there is a statute that says if you are of Italian descent living in Canada, please vote in the parliamentary election in Italy. They go that far. We're not doing that. We don't even take the trouble to say “Your three years or five years are up. Do you know that you now have a right to apply for citizenship?” These people are forgetful. You have to think about waking them up. It's very important.

    We cannot presume today that merely because they haven't done it, they don't want it. That is the problem with this bill. It's a little paranoid: You haven't reported to the embassy; therefore, you don't want Canadian citizenship. That's absolutely wrong--you haven't applied, therefore you don't want it.

    The truth of the matter is that like many problems of daily life, we assume that things are going well, and we don't do it. To make this country great, we have to tell them, you now have a right to apply; come on, I encourage you to do so. There's nothing wrong with that.

    Mr. Art Hagopian: Mr. Price, if I can add something, I think that's a very good point. The organization, as I mentioned, has about 32 national groups across the country. I can assure you of one thing. At the next board of presidents meeting, I'm going to bring that issue up myself and we can discuss it, with regard to all the immigrants who are here, so that they can, through publication through their news media, their newsletters, let their committee members know that those who haven't applied for citizenship should do so, and try to move in that direction. I don't think we've done it in the past. It's a good point, and I think we're going to take it up.

    Thank you.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Art, for that. That's the kind of partnership that would be very helpful. I think in this bill you will note that the change in the role of the citizenship judge and/or commissioner is to promote and encourage. But I think your idea, and David's, is to be proactive. If we could go in partnership with our ethnocultural communities, that would be great.

    I wonder if I could just ask a couple of questions. I'm a little perplexed, and I'll tell you why. The present law with regard to residency says, even though it doesn't have the words “physical presence”.... Of course the committee reviewed that under immigration, and we'll review it now, because I think there is a sense that one ought to take a look at how the world functions now. There are certain family, global, and business issues that need to be reflected in that “physical presence” definition. I think the committee has been thinking about that.

    The present law says as soon as you achieve 1,095 days in a four-year period, you can apply to become a citizen. It's an administrative act, but it also has some discretion, because a citizenship judge can in fact be a little flexible. In other words, if you were here only 800 days and could explain that you needed to take care of your mother or you had some obligations, there would be some flexibility there.

    I have a couple of questions.

    You say you want to move it down from six years, which is what's proposed, to five, and that's more restrictive. I'm not sure you understand how this works. We're moving it from four years to six. So after a three-year period out of six years, you can apply. You're saying go from six years down to five. That doesn't make any sense, based on what you just argued. I'm a little confused as to why you would be arguing a five-year period when we have offered a six-year period.

    Second, with regard to the administrative function, that the conferring of citizenship should be administrative, I would agree. The problem is that right now we have a quasi-judicial administrative function, where a citizenship judge will be able to have some sort of discretion--sometimes positive, sometimes negative, but mostly positive. We're taking that away, and we're going to leave it to a bunch of bureaucrats to say if you don't get 1,095 days in a six-year period, you ain't comin' anywhere or you can't apply.

    Again, you're saying one thing that I like, but you're arguing the other way. Perhaps you could explain to me what you mean by wanting an administrative function with absolutely no discretion, and why you want to restrict the time period during which you can apply from six years down to five. I don't understand that logic.

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Let me deal with the last one first, this administrative function.

    There is always an exercise of discretion, even if it's being done by a messenger. There's no mechanical thing being done by civil servants. I totally disagree with the definition of civil servants as automatons. The truth of the matter is they make judgments. They weigh the evidence. They do that. And there's not a big difference today between the citizenship judge and what you are proposing should be a civil servant to do the job. I have been so many times before the citizenship judge, and I can tell you it's almost the same as dealing with a civil servant.

    The beauty of having your change today is it's a lot more informal. The person can talk a little bit more. They can feed more evidence. And there is greater flexibility to establish trust. The problem with a quasi-judicial process, which you now have, is there is a sense of formality, but it's only appearances. It doesn't really work. The citizenship judge says “I'm neutral, you'd better pick this case.” Actually he's really doing his job, which is almost like that of a civil servant.

    To tell you quite frankly, when I'm dealing with a civil servant I can be a little bit more creative. Rather than just sitting there and saying they're only going to make up their mind for anything you can bring up, the civil servant has a duty to search for it. That's important. That's very important. That's why I welcome this change really.

    As for the other one, with respect to the five or six years, as you can sense, we have some difficulty with the physical presence issue of three years. In fact, I even doubt whether physical presence of two years is really that.... But it's up to you to make up your mind on what you really thing is a good test. I think it's already too far to say three years.

    With respect to the total presence issue, three years plus in a six-year period, you are quite right, it seems to be a contradiction. But you have to bring them both down, not only one. So in my way of thinking, if you are going to say five years, but two years physical presence, provided that in those cases where it's doubtful and you cannot prove that, they're willing to listen to a reasonable explanation, that's good enough. That's all we are really saying.

    Let's not make it too hard, because whether we like it or not, we are not attracting to this country today Canadians because they are scared about becoming citizens. No, they come here because this country is great. That piece of paper that says they are a citizen is just a certificate that they have now become integrated to this great country. And let's hurry it up, because they can contribute a lot. Don't make it too long. This value to the citizenship paper by a longer time is nonsense. It doesn't gain any more value.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: I have an additional question with regard to the judicial system that we ought to follow with regard to the revocation. You say in judicial review, in the view.... Are you talking about every aspect of once you have citizenship, you've been conferred citizenship, that a judicial system should be the system by which it should be taken away, with all the appeal mechanisms put in place?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: Yes.

    The Chair: Even if citizenship was obtained by fraudulent means and misrepresentation initially on the application and everything else? You think we should allow that whole judicial review on the basis of fraud, proven fraud and misrepresentation?

    Mr. Emilio Binavince: The judicial review and the way you look at it now is twofold. If you are turned down you can go and have that reviewed. That's one thing.

    The next question is you have your citizenship and I take it away. Now the question is should it be a political decision, should it be administrative, or should it be judicial? Our submission to you is that taking something away is a lot more intrusive than saying to a person you don't even have it.

    Now, in the application process there is a judicial review ultimately. In taking it away you can make it a political decision, which is very inconsistent. For the more intrusive one you don't want to have a judicial review. So it's absolutely inconsistent.

    So our proposal to you is be consistent. Make the judicial review really an element of everything.

    The Chair: No further questions.

    I want to take this opportunity again of thanking you, Art, Emilio, and Helen, for your submission. And we'll look forward to your preamble. It can be in poetic or music form if that is what you would prefer--I think John would--and I thank you again for your great insight and the great work you do on behalf of a great country. Thank you so much.

    Mr. Art Hagopian: Thank you very much for inviting us to attend this session.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much for this opportunity.

[English]

    We wish you success in your future work in this area.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, I wonder if while we're waiting for photocopies of the CLC's brief we could deal with this administrative matter that we were going to deal with, or do we have to give notice to Rick Borotsik? Yes, he wants to be here for that.

    I wonder then if I could talk for a couple of moments while we're getting copies about the administrative matters that, as a committee, we need to do because of our travels, which will be not next week but the following week. As you know, it's not the whole committee that can travel. Therefore, we're going to ask for cooperation between members, and if they have particular preferences to be in a particular area, west or east, we ask that they share that time with their colleagues.

    Secondly, as you know, there is a big debate about budgets and funding for travel, and I would encourage those who can, especially coming to and from Ottawa, to use their point systems in order to do this parliamentary work. If there is latitude in your travel point system, we would hope you could do that.

    I don't know whether we have full complements.

    Bill, perhaps you could just give us a quick rundown of who's requested, and who's what, and what it looks like so far.

  (1210)  

    The Clerk of the Committee: For the west, it's yourself, Mr. Chair, Mrs. Yelich, and Mr. Price or Mr. Assadourian--

    The Chair: Or both.

    The Clerk: That's been requested. I think Judy can speak and see where she can come. I think she can come to Winnipeg. There's been only one person. I have a call in to the Conservative whip's office to see if they can put somebody in here and there for Mr. Mark. For the east, Mr. Pickard will be the vice-chair. Madam Dalphond-Guiral will be going east. Also, there's Mr. Charbonneau and Madam Ablonczy. Those are the ones, so far, who we have.

    The Chair: I think John might want to go for portions of the east, so we'll work it out, because the Liberals are only entitled to send two on each leg, and the other parties are only sending one each. That was the arrangement we had.

    Anyway, as you know, it starts not next week but the following week. We will be, in some cities, obviously, busier than others, but we have an awful lot of work to do, so I want to make sure that if there's an opportunity to spread the workload and/or help one of our colleagues who represents a particular area, you are sensitive to that.

    The Clerk: I wonder if the members could get back to me by tomorrow, because we have to book the planes and things of that nature. We need to know if you are using your points, because then we wouldn't have to take care of it, and we'd like to know what cities you are going to, say if there are three Liberal members going different places in the east and the west.

    The Chair: We'll take as many members as we want who might want to attend the hearings. We just won't pay for their food or rooms, that's all--nor can we.

    All right. I wonder if we can get back to our witness list.

    I want to welcome the Canadian Labour Congress. Hassan is here, as well as David and Shelly. Again, the Canadian Labour Congress has given us some great insight into our previous bills, and I want to thank them again for taking the opportunity to come to talk to our committee with regard to the citizenship bill.

    I know you have a submission. What I've told everyone, and I think it is the same drill that I told you before too, is can you just summarize what is in your submission so that we can ask questions. We are taking photocopies, obviously, for future reference and/or interesting night reading. So could you summarize the points and give us any suggestions? If you need to and want to submit amendments to the committee, of course, that would be most welcome.

    Hassan.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First let me thank the committee for the opportunity for us to come here and present to you on your deliberations.

    Again, we value the work you're doing. I think the fact that the committee is going to travel somewhat to hear Canadian views is important. This is a very important issue to our country in the context of how citizenship is arrived at. The question of the provisions in the legislation and how people could lose or not retain their citizenship is of great concern.

    We will be submitting a more detailed brief within the next two weeks, which will elaborate on specific sections of the legislation. However, we want to make an oral presentation here today and discuss broad human rights, rather than debate the finer legal points. I'm sure you're going to get a lot of lawyers arguing here about the terms or way in which the legislation is drafted.

    Just quickly and briefly, we represent two and a half million workers and their familes across this country. Many of them are immigrants themselves, and subsequently will become citizens. Many of them are refugees who will also subsequently become citizens. It is, of course, an organization with membership from all walks of life and all parts of the world.

    We know that Bill C-18 represents an earlier version of the Citizenship Act. Amendments brought to the House as Bill C-63 and Bill C-16 were discussed in the first and second session of the 36th Parliament. We also are aware that Bill C-16 died in the House, due to the elections. We have followed the public debate on the issue of citizenship, even though we did not submit a formal brief in response to the earlier bills.

    The CLC is here today because we believe it is important now more than ever, because there is an attempt to create false classes or categories of citizenship.

    The recent anti-terrorism responses by Canada and other countries, such as the United States, give us some great concern, particularly the actions by the U.S. undermining our citizens by deporting Canadians of Arab descent to Middle East countries, instead of sending them back home here to Canada.

    The CLC is also concerned there are provisions in Bill C-18 that, in our view, undermine the principle of due process, which is held dearly by the Canadian labour movement.

    As for equality and valuing all of our citizens, it is worth repeating that Canada was built by immigrants, and will continue to be built by immigrants. To take note, the last statistics confirm the changing face of Canada, in which case any new Canadian legislation should reflect this reality in spirit and content. I'm referring to the most recent data from Census Canada, which tells us about the shift in demographics. The two million Canadians who arrived in the last decade alone should give us some sense of what's happening in our country in terms of changes.

    Clause 12 confirms the equality principle by saying that all citizens have equal rights and obligations, no matter how they acquired their citizenship. We think this is an important principle in the context of the legislation.

    However, other clauses do not reflect the equality principle fully. In fact, some clauses elsewhere in the legislation contradict this principle. For example, some citizens do not have the right to fair process or due process under the law. Also, some citizens do not have the right to pass on citizenship to their children.

    Because of globalization, more and more workers will be travelling to look for work or to visit their families outside Canada. They should not be punished through administrative barriers involving arbitrary residence requirements, which require them to prove their connection to Canada.

    As for loss of citizenship, we are concerned that a baby born outside of Canada to a second-generation Canadian citizen who was also born outside Canada could lose their citizenship. We are also concerned that Canadian citizens born abroad could lose their citizenship if their own parents were born abroad. This provision could also affect Canadians who have lived in Canada most of their lives.

    The three-year residency requirement is not a fair means of judging one's attachment to Canada. We can make some elaborations on this for the committee if it's raised.

    Our first recommendation is to include a provision stating that a person is a Canadian citizen if born outside Canada to a person whose application to retain citizenship under clause 14 was accepted.

    As for revocation of citizenship, if Bill C-18 is passed as it is, it will allow a Federal Court judge to revoke a former immigrant's citizenship through a certificate process without the citizen being permitted to see the evidence against him. The decision to revoke citizenship by a judge cannot be appealed or judicially reviewed. Clause 17 states that a former immigrant's citizenship can be revoked by a Federal Court judge by issuing a certificate. The evidence may not be disclosed to the individual who is affected. No appeal is permitted or no judicial review will be granted.

    This is very much contrary to the equality principle the act talks about in clause 12. With this clause, there will be a group of citizens who will be denied the basic right to due process and a fair hearing.

  (1215)  

    On annulment of citizenship, Bill C-18 gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration new powers to annul and revoke citizenship. This may lead to Canadian citizens who have been granted citizenship after immigrating to Canada losing their citizenship without due process and without a right to a hearing.

    On section 18, according to this clause the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be given new powers to annul citizenship, within five years of an individual obtaining citizenship after they have immigrated to Canada, for using false identity documents. This is again without due process and without the right to a hearing. They are not entitled to see the full evidence--only a summary of the grounds for the proposed order. The minister does not even have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but only satisfied with the evidence.

    This not only sets a low standard of justice, but the right of the affected individual is violated when the person is not granted the opportunity to defend himself or herself. Placing such an important decision outside the judicial process does not in any way guarantee that individual rights will be protected against false and malicious accusations.

    Recommendation four is to amend the bill to provide that a decision of annulment be made by an independent decision-maker, with a right to a hearing and full due process, including the right to notice, to disclosure, and to counsel.

    On refusing citizenship, clauses 21 and 22 grant broad powers to the cabinet to refuse citizenship on the basis that a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the democratic principles and values underlying a free and democratic society. The powers granted to cabinet under clauses 21 and 22 of Bill C-18 are problematic because the interpretation of the principles and values is subjective. Again, there is no due process, since the decisions are made in cabinet behind closed doors.

    The CLC is concerned that some people could be denied citizenship because they were convicted of trumped-up charges in a foreign country. Also, the lack of due process for adequate remedy, which is a principle of a free and democratic society, is of great concern. Our recommendation five is to delete clauses 21 and 22.

    Clause 28 describes a long list of prohibitions for denying citizenship. Paragraphs 28(c) and 28(d) deal with charges and convictions outside Canada. This is of serious concern for refugees fleeing persecution, false prosecution, and unfair conviction. Sometimes the ruling party of a country trumps up charges against its political opponents and falsely convicts them of serious crimes. In Canada, we grant protection to such individuals and grant them refugee status. Therefore, it is quite contradictory to say that these people may be denied citizenship because of some trumped-up charges or false charges in their home countries.

    In conclusion, I want to thank members of the standing committee for allowing us the opportunity to present here today. We hope you will make the necessary amendments to Bill C-18, in order to support the principle of due process and reaffirm the principle of equality for all our citizens irrespective of where they were born.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Hassan.

    Lynne.

    Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you for joining us this morning.

    I have one question on your item three, loss of citizenship. You have some concerns about the three-year residency requirement. You say it's not a fair means of judging one's attachment to Canada. Would you care to explain that, please?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I know there are situations where, for instance, business-class immigrants come here, and because of the amount of money they need to obtain citizenship, they may just be transient in the country. They may not stay here, and may just pack up.

    There are individuals with families in other countries who may, from time to time, have to go back to visit them. They may be out of the country for a period of time to look after their family because that family cannot emigrate to Canada.

    There are situations where a lot of young people in our country these days, including new immigrants who have become new citizens, are travelling as a result of work. It could be to the United States or to other countries. Because they are actually out of the country for a period of time, it is not fair to deny them the opportunity and say they don't have an attachment to Canada. I think it's reasonable to suggest that a lot of Canadians, whether foreign-born or born here, are moving around with the global economy these days, and may be out of the country for quite some time. So I don't think that's a fair way to distinguish them.

    Of course, I know there are incidents of abuse of the system that need to be addressed. Simply having an arbitrary three-year continuous residency rule ensures that some people will lose their citizenship for reasons we do not foresee or contemplate. There is no way for them to get an appeal process so they can say “I was out of the country because I took a job that would give me greater knowledge to strengthen the economy of this country”. There is no requirement for that.

    There are people who abuse the system, and I know that for a fact. We allowed a large group of immigrants to come in from Hong Kong who didn't have any attachment to the country. They got their landed immigrant status and subsequently left.

    There is a need for balance and a need to look at this clause to see how we can create that balance.

    The Chair: John.

    Mr. John Bryden: Just following up on your comments on clause 21, this is the part saying that the minister has the power to deny citizenship if there's a “flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. Would you be more comfortable with this clause and the powers it confers if it were specific, saying “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”—which spells out in Canadian terms not only what we're all about but also basic elements of law—instead of the “principles and values underlying a democratic society”? Would this help?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Again, I think this would be a reasonable change.

    Maybe I'll make this point before I give you a final answer. Maybe it's not the best argument, but it's certainly a good scenario. You could take the case of Nelson Mandela and his history and the charges he faced and was subsequently imprisoned for. Given what we know about him today, and of course his trouble in bringing democracy in his country, if any of this was in place, a person like Nelson Mandela would have never been able to become a citizen of our country. Of course, he never did anything wrong. All he was doing was fighting for fundamental and democratic human rights principles.

    So there's a need to balance this, especially when we're taking evidence from foreign intelligence and foreign countries. It is pretty subjective. Again, those countries could make a decision that they want to get rid of certain groups because they don't agree with their views and aspirations. So I think it's critical to weigh this in the light of what we know of our own history and struggles to attain democracy and human rights in our country.

    Mr. John Bryden: I think that's a very interesting point.

    I would submit to you that Nelson Mandela was certainly fighting for the principles existing in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I guess none of us are lawyers on this question. But I would have thought that by specifying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this clause, then Nelson Mandela would be permissible as a Canadian citizen, because history has demonstrated that he was very definitely fighting for the very principles our Charter of Rights and Freedoms stands for.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think it would help, because the equality section in our Constitution is certainly a very high test. All of us need to ensure that's what we want to continuously achieve in legislation in this country. In looking at this clause, I would again ask your colleagues to consider being much more generous, because there are too many people who are falling through this crack.

    If the minister has the power to decide without some opportunity to appeal or challenge the evidence, I think it's fairly subjective and fairly arbitrary. If the minister has good evidence that he or she happens to believe could stand the test of the courts, then they should not be afraid to subject it to the courts.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think the example of Nelson Mandela is a good one. Here's a case where Canada provided him with honorary citizenship, even though it's very unlikely that he would pass the test of muster under this act, or more broadly under the new Immigration and Refugee Act, and be seen as a citizen or as a person making a legitimate contribution to the pursuit of freedom, peace, and justice around the world, if he were to go through this process today.

    I think it's a good starting point. In fact, surely this is the lens we apply to this bill and to any piece of legislation before the House today.

    Hassan, you mentioned the need to achieve balance between ensuring we have a system in place to actually deal with people who are frauds, genuine threats, and corrupt, without casting the net so broadly that we in fact put a whole lot of people at risk in terms of normal pursuit of justice and freedoms.

    I think I know your answer to my next broad question, but I would like to hear it again. Does Bill C-18 represent to you any semblance of balance in terms of the issue of citizenship? If you were here while we amended the bill, what would be your absolute bottom lines for changes to make it somewhat more balanced?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think there are two very important points. I said it in previous presentations before this committee on other matters on immigration and I'll say it again. We're going to do tremendous damage to our country both in the present and in the future, because, it is my assertion, we're creating two classes of citizens in our country. There is a perception that those Canadians who were not born here have citizenship of less value than that of those who were born here.

    Given the fact there is such a strong reliance on immigration to continue to develop and grow this country, I think we end up sending mixed messages across the country and to new Canadians as to their worth. It's critical to insist that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is actually the highest test and that every piece of legislation in this land meet that test no matter what. Otherwise, you will have people sort of sitting and saying “Why would I want to become a citizen in a country where I could lose my citizenship on a whim, this when more importantly, if I had been born here, that would not even be the case?”

    We draw attention of course to the recent situation where a Syrian Canadian was deported back to his country. His country is Canada, by the way. He was deported to a country that is not his country, and the fact is, there was not a big uproar. This is a fundamental challenge to our Canadian mosaic. Our legislation as it develops has to assert that we don't have two classes of citizens in this country, we only have one class: you're a Canadian, you're a Canadian, you're a Canadian.

    Taking on citizenship is a serious responsibility; it's not a trivial one. I think, yes, people should meet the test. Once they meet the test, they should not be treated as if they are second-class individuals.

    There have been two aspects in our legislation I've seen that more or less undermine what I would call a unique principle of citizenship in this unique country. That is that we are like all Canadians who are here--through immigration of course--who want to apply themselves and take up the challenge so we can build a society and so people actually feel “This is my home, this is the place I want to strive and develop, and I have a strong attachment to it”. Then they won't have the thought, “Should I retain a connection to another place because there's a possibility I might lose...?”

    Of course, you may not feel it, but Muslim and Arab Canadians especially are more under the gun lately because most of the legislation we're talking about has had the effect of putting a higher degree of magnification on them. They recognize that, well, we need to be concerned that we may lose our citizenship, so the question is, where do we go, and should we hedge our bets?

    I think there is a need for this broader perspective in the legislation. Are we sending that message? Are we creating that kind of understanding among individuals in this country? If we don't challenge that and assert the true value of Canadian citizenship, we are going to leave a lot of vagueness and people are going to hedge their bets as to whether or not this is the place where they really want to plant their feet firmly. So, Judy, yes, I agree with you.

    The other point in regard to the equality provisions in the Charter of Rights is that they have to be fundamental to this legislation. If they don't meet that test, then the legislation is obviously not worth the paper it's written on. I think you have to hold the legislation to a higher standard, not a lower standard.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Hassan, I think you said it very well in terms of making sure that we don't create two classes of citizenship. Obviously, your input, particularly the way you have expressed it, is very, very important.

    As far as the uproar goes, I can only tell you that our foreign minister, our parliamentary secretary, our Minister of Immigration, and the chair of this committee have been trying to get through to the Americans to straighten them out on a number of points with regard to the value of citizenship and the fact that Canadian citizens shouldn't have to be concerned about where they came from when the fact is that they're holding a legitimate Canadian passport. That for us is good enough, and it should be for them if in fact they respect international rules and laws, and we're trying to deal with that as best we possibly can.

    If I can, I'll just follow up on Judy and the questions so far. There are three things you have indicated with regard to refusing citizenship. I think John has pointed out or we've heard that “free and democratic society” is perhaps too broad, and therefore it could cause an awful lot of problems. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been used as another bar by which we can put....

    The other one of course is that the administration in our first look at this said it's very, very specific, concerning hate-mongering, for example; they're very, very specific sorts of issues and so on. A whole host of people have said that we ought to narrow it down to say exactly what it is we mean and therefore restrict it to only hate-mongering and two or three other issues so the grounds for refusal or denying are pre-restrictive.

    You suggested getting rid of clauses 21 and 22 altogether, which would essentially mean that we wouldn't have the necessity, and perhaps using clause 28 as the only section dealing with the exemptions. Of those four options, you've indicated getting rid of clauses 21 and 22, and you've indicated that “free and democratic” is too broad and that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought to be in there. Or would you prefer a very specific definition so you take the subjectivity out of the equation?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think the point was made by our colleague about the Charter of Rights. It leaves it, again, rightfully defined, because those are Canadian values. If you try to give your own preference or bias as to what Canadian values are, I think you'll do a disservice to the charter. Our colleagues who drafted the Constitution were very clear, and most of us, as Canadians, take extreme pride in that section of the Constitution.

    So I think, at the end of day, I would prefer that we rely on the charter as the ultimate test rather than try to second-guess as to what may be a lower test, because whatever you do, it's going to be a lower test than the charter. To try to narrow it to a way that we can agree...we can probably never agree. We'll argue until the cows come home, and especially if you get some lawyers in the room, you might be arguing even longer. So I think it would be more conducive, at the end of the day, in trying to at least ensure the department and other administrative people recognize that the charter is a pretty high test, and if you can't meet that, then obviously you should not have those powers to deport or to renounce people's citizenship.

    So I would submit that the charter is a better route, rather than trying to define it in more narrow, agreeable terms, because we already agreed in our Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms really is explicit for every person, and it shouldn't be any less so for people from whom we want to revoke citizenship.

    The Chair: Sarkis, and then John.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

    Yussuff, you mentioned that there is no uproar on Syrian Canadian.... My colleague explained to us that there is a lot of uproar.

    For your information, I'm the only member of Parliament who can be fingerprinted when I go to the States, because I was born in Syria. I'm not like everybody else. I am different. I'm distinct.

    In that case, surely no day has passed in which I have had no contact with the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Solicitor General--even though I raised this issue with Yussuff when he was in my office back in November. But there are cases. So things are being done.

    Just because it's not publicized does not mean there is no concern. There is an uproar on any criticism, wherever it may be, wherever it may come from.

    On page 3, sir, where you mention “The three-year residency requirement is not a fair meansof judging one's attachment to Canada”. Tell me, please, why it is not, and what would you replace it with to demonstrate the attachment of a person to Canada?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: First of all, I believe any individual who obtains Canadian citizenship, or at least is attempting to obtain it, should demonstrate their attachment to this country. There should be a test. But I say this with a lot of regard in terms of what I understand to be true predicaments that individuals are facing.

    We have a lot of young people in society today who, because of employment, the kind of work they're involved with, are required to travel, and sometimes they go off out of this country for periods of time--not that they're not attached to Canada, but they have to travel because they have skills that they're selling in the global market in which they participate. They do come back to our country, and ultimately they bring the skills, and hopefully their wealth and energy, to keep developing this country. I think there is a fine balance there.

    I do recognize that people have abused this section of the Citizenship Act. I know for a fact, when we had a large influx of people from Southeast Asia, from Hong Kong and other places, people actually got their landed immigrant status, qualified for citizenship, and never had any attachment, because there's no requirement. But there needs to be a balance here. There are also a lot of people who can't bring their families, through immigration rules. They have to go back to their own country sometimes to deal with these matters.

    I think there needs to be a balance here. I don't know what the exact balance is, but there needs to be a balance instead of simply if you don't meet this test, you will automatically lose your ability to retain or to access Canadian citizenship.

    I do believe there should be a test, and people should demonstrate their attachment to this country. After all, citizenship is a serious matter. But we do have people in our economy, to a large extent, who will be travelling and will be in other places for periods of time.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How would I demonstrate, as a new immigrant, my attachment to Canada if I'm not here? How else would you measure my attachment to this country, that I want to be a citizen?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Well, there could be other attachments--

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Like what?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: --such as maintaining residency, maintaining family contact that they're involved with. People may be out of the country for a long period of time, but they may come back and visit, so it's not continuous. The question is how you define that.

    An hon. member: How about taxes?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuf: If you are registered, obviously if you go out for a period of time, you would have to pay taxes. There are ways of measuring people's attachment to society, other than simply saying, physically, were you in the country or out of the country for this period of time? I am saying this because otherwise you may also lose a lot of our brightest and best energy in this country because you have made the decision that they can't obtain or maintain their citizenship because they happened to leave for reasons that have to do with work.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When I came in 1970, you were required to have been here five years to become a citizen. In 1975 I applied and I became a citizen. Now it's down to three rather than five; we made that three and not six. Are you asking us to make it lower than three?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I'm suggesting that you need to have some provisions within the act so it does not become an arbitrary number. There have to be, I think, other tests that could be achieved.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: What suggestion would you make?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It could be physical. The person may maintain some form of residence. They may still be paying taxes even if they're not in the country on a permanent basis. I'm just saying that there needs to be a balance in this regard; otherwise, you're going to lose a lot of talented people who have a lot to contribute to the economy.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Do you believe, sir, that citizenship must be earned or that it should be given away?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Oh, I think it is earned. It's no different from immigration status. You don't just get a right to immigrate to Canada, you have to earn that right. You have to demonstrate you have skills and whatever to meet the demands of the Canadian job market. It's always been earned, hasn't it? If you commit certain crimes, you get deported before you can attain citizenship, so I assume it's earned. It's always been a recognition. If it were a right, I think we would not even be having this discussion. All you would have to do is meet the minimum requirements.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thanks.

    Mr. John Bryden: I'm very interested in the situation of that fellow who was sent back to Syria when he was picked up in the United States. Would the cure to that situation be...? I presume what happened to him was that he was a dual national: he had Syrian citizenship and Canadian citizenship. What's your thought about curing that situation by providing in this bill the opportunity for a declaration of revocation of previous citizenship so one could voluntarily become only a Canadian citizen?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: The problem is, I think, that if we are trying to simply deal with the United States government's concerns when they interact with our citizens at the border or what have you, then I'm not sure that's going to meet their tests. I don't even know what their test is to begin with, so I wouldn't even contemplate trying to meet the test of the U.S.

    We should assert our sovereignty and say that the rights of our citizens, when they interact with the American immigration system, ought to be respected unless the United States has reasons to suggest that the person's citizenship is not truly Canadian. Then it's for them to contact us. There's no reason for them to assume that a person should be sent back someplace else.

    I think some people do that, by the way, in some places. They decide to take out Canadian citizenship and they revoke their former citizenship. To a large extent, individuals do that on their own. But I'm not sure that even if you were to have that provision, it would satisfy what's happening at the borders with “Arab Canadians and Muslim Canadians”.

    Mr. John Bryden: I do believe, though, that the United States, even under American law, can't deport someone back to a country of which they're not a citizen. He was sent back to Syria because they were aware that he was a Syrian national. I think it's understood anywhere that whenever you move in the world with dual citizenship, you can be treated according to one citizenship or the other when you're in trouble with the authorities in a foreign country.

    Let me rephrase the question, then; let me try it another way. What's your thought about requiring single nationality? It's going back to the old days, when if you became a citizen of a new country you automatically had to revoke your citizenship of the previous country. Do you have any thoughts on that?

  (1245)  

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think we need to be honest in this room about our individual heritage and background. If the test is going to be that you have to renounce your former citizenship, I think sometimes people hedge their bets. I've talked to Canadians.... I have a brother who's much older than me, and every time I talk to him--though he hasn't been saying this in the last little while--he would always say “I'm going back home”. And I look at him and say “What are you talking about?” He never will go back to where he was born, but he keeps saying it. That attachment is sometimes very unique and special because of their experience, history, and place of birth.

    I don't think we want to subject new Canadians who we want to encourage to become citizens to this, and we don't want to create a hierarchy and say in order to get to this level you have to do the following.

    I think we want to ensure that people have an attachment to our country, that they're committed to building our society, and more important, that they share the values Canada is all about. I think to create an artificial recommendation that you would have to give up the following in order to achieve citizenship may lead to having fewer people taking that oath than we have currently, and I think we want to have more people taking that oath.

    So again, I say this with a lot of regard to each one of you around this table, because people have a lot of connection to their former country for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes it's family, sometimes it's history, sometimes it's culture, sometimes it's the fact that they just want to have in their head that there is a place they could go back to one day if they chose to. Most of the time it never happens, by the way.

    But to make that requirement would, I think, do more harm rather than encourage new Canadians to become citizens.

    The Chair: Well, fortunately Canada is not one of those countries that asks you to renounce where you came from or your citizenship. There are fewer and fewer countries demanding that, and hopefully they will be enlightened too--for example, the Americans, who ask people to choose.

    With regard to the annulment of citizenship, section 18 gives the minister the power to annul a citizenship within five years for reasons like using false identity and documents, and so on. I think one of your recommendations is to amend the bill to provide for decisions on annulment to be made by an independent decision-maker, with a right to a full hearing.

    When you say “independent decision-maker”, are you talking about a judicial system, a judge? Also, could you elaborate on some of your concerns? Is it because the minister has sole authority, is it the five-year period, or is it the nature of the charge that causes problems? There are three distinct components to that section. Is it one of the three, two of the three, or all of them?

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think it's the fact that there is no due process built into the system. I think if you're going to annul someone's citizenship, if we have strong evidence, maybe it should be subjected to the judicial system. By all means, if the evidence indicates and it can stand the test of the courts, we will achieve our objectives.

    The Chair: What's your opinion on the five-year period? Some people have said it's much too long; some people have said it's too short.

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It seems to me that once we grant citizenship, there's been a series of tests you had to meet in regard to your application. I think that in itself speaks to the importance of issuing citizenship, and I think when individuals meet that test, we should not have another provision to revoke people's citizenship unless we have strong evidence that can be subjected to the courts.

    The Chair: So you're in favour of revoking if there is good evidence that when put through a judicial system finds that citizenship was obtained through fraudulent means. Should that go on forever? What if 20 years from now we found out that somebody, because of their circumstances, lied on their application form--for example, instead of being away for a week, they were away for five weeks, and they wouldn't have achieved the 1,095 days? Somebody could bloody well bring up anything and you'd lose your citizenship, which I would agree is probably the most significant thing that one can obtain from a country. And you have to earn it, yes.

    So is it open-ended forever, and after the five-year period you can't do it under that provision, you might have to do it under something else? I'm just trying to get you to be a little more specific, if you could.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Well, I think it is important. We don't want to create stateless people in a society, because if they're not a citizen in this country, what country are they a citizen of? It depends, again, on what period of time. I think the three-year provision to obtaining citizenship should be a test. Anything beyond that, regardless of what we say here, is going to go to the courts anyway.

    I think there should be a recognition that if you're going to take someone's citizenship away, there are anomalies to this. I mean, you could have somebody who's been in this country since they were a child. If we discover that something happened, would we send them back to their country? They didn't grow up there; they don't have the values of that country.

    I think there's a responsibility for Canada to judge the person and treat him accordingly, but there has to be a timeframe. I understand the five-year thing. We're not saying you can't have it, just that the evidence must be subjected to the courts. You could maintain that as an end point, and after that, I think you'd treat people accordingly and prosecute them accordingly.

    The Chair: As usual, Canadian Labour Congress, thank you very much for your great presentation.

    I know you said a more detailed one is coming in two weeks, and we thank you very much for that. Again, keep up the great work.

    Colleagues, I'd like to welcome Rick Borotsik, but not as a permanent member of the committee, I hope. I've dealt with Rick before; he's a great parliamentarian.

    Nice to have you here, Rick.

    Colleagues, as you know, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), we received an order from the House regarding question 72 of our colleague Inky Mark, who we hope is doing very well and can rejoin us soon. I know there was a question put to the parliamentary secretary the other day with regard to what's happened with this question, which was supposed to come back to Mr. Mark within 45 days.

    I wonder, Rick, if I could ask the parliamentary secretary to respond. We do have some information that the question is being tabled in the House tomorrow, but there is an explanation as to why it's gone beyond the 45 days.

    Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Chairman, this is my very first job as PS, so I want to make sure the job is done right.

    First of all, the question was put November 21, and the answer was due January 5. As you know, on January 5 the House was not sitting. The minister was here on Monday, after being away for a week in Algeria and Egypt. He came back and signed the document on Monday. It has been translated, and everything is ready to be presented in the House tomorrow. It's going to go over to the PCO to finalize the answer. So everything has been done.

    But as I said, the minister was away. It was not intentional. This is the first time, I believe, it went over 45 days. Next time it happens, let me know on the 44th day and we'll make sure it's done on the 45th day.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Sarkis.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the introduction and the welcome. I can attest to the fact that I will not be at your committee on a regular basis. Mr. Mark takes his responsibilities very seriously at this committee and certainly does, I believe, an extraordinary job.

    As for the question that's on the order paper, I know Mr. Mark was adamant in getting answers. I do appreciate the response, and I will pass that on.

    By the way, just for your information, I tried to get hold of Inky today. He is convalescing at home. He will probably be another six weeks away from the House of Commons. I know all of you wish him your best, and I'll pass it on to him.

    This was only one question that I questioned on the order paper; there were ten others, actually. I'm sure the parliamentary secretary responsible for the House leader will get back to me on those as well.

    I do thank you, as the new parliamentary secretary. I congratulate you, first of all--or perhaps I offer my condolences, I don't know which. I just hope the other PSs react with the same speed you did, Mr. Assadourian.

    I thank you and the chair.

    The Chair: As you know, the committee has a number of different powers. I've sat with you on procedure and House affairs, the modernization committee, and a whole review, and it may very well be that this is an exceptional circumstance.

    It seems to me that when these questions are posed and then all of a sudden Parliament doesn't return, there's a problem getting them done before the 45 days. I take it you're satisfied with the parliamentary secretary's answer, and the committee doesn't need to do anything else.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, I'm satisfied. I would let Mr. Mark deal with this. In fact, if the answer is not sufficient for him, he can obviously again table a motion at this committee, ask for witnesses, and all the rest that's at his disposal. But at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I would be more than happy to report this back to Mr. Mark.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I'd also like to take this opportunity to please pass on my and the minister's good wishes for Mr. Mark, because we need him back here healthy.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, I more than you. He's a very valuable member in the House, and he's certainly a very valuable member of the committees that I make sure he sits on. As the whip, it's my responsibility to cover off now. I'm not happy about this, so he will be back sooner than later, I assure you.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll see you next Tuesday and Thursday. On Thursday we will have the minister back, so I'm sure you'll want to come and join us, Rick, for that great event.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The minister will be here?

    The Chair: Yes, on Thursday of next week.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Someone will be here, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned.