CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 10, 2003

¿

0940

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Mr. Charles Bosdet (As Individual)

¿

0945

¿

0950

¿

0955

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

À

1000

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

À

1005

Mr. Charles Bosdet

À

1010

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

À

1015

Mr. Charles Bosdet

À

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

À

1025

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

À

1030

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet

À

1035

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Charles Bosdet

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Don Chapman (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Don Chapman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

À

1045

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Charles Bosdet

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Charles Bosdet

Mr. Don Chapman

À

1050

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Mark Fernando (As Individual)

À

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Dick Smyth (Vice-President, Nova Scotia, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters)

Á

1100

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Mark Fernando

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Á

1105

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Á

1110

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Smyth

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Dick Smyth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Á

1115

Mr. Dick Smyth

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Dick Smyth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Á

1120

Mr. Dick Smyth

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Mark Fernando

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Dick Smyth

Á

1125

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Dick Smyth

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Dick Smyth

Ms. Wendy Lill

Mr. Dick Smyth

Ms. Wendy Lill

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Á

1130

Mr. Dick Smyth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Dick Smyth

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 019

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0940)  

[English]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, the committee is here and our witnesses are here, so I'm going to call the meeting to order. We're a little slow getting under way, but I think we'll try to move the agenda along quickly.

    We as a committee of the House of Commons are very pleased that our witnesses could come forward today and do a presentation with us.

    There is a bit of an issue with regard to language. Oftentimes the committee rules suggest that any documents put in front of the committee are to be in both official languages, but all of the members have been kind enough to accept the fact that...and we will accept your presentation.

    All House committees are really trying to operate in the best way we can with people, but at the same time, it does make it better if all material is submitted in both languages. There are some folks whose first language is French and communication there is a little easier for them. For other members, English is their first language and communication there is a little easier.

    If you would keep that in mind if you are bringing testimony in the future, and I know that sometimes it's not easy, we would very much appreciate that.

    Welcome to our committee. We really appreciate you coming. I'm going to ask you to summarize the points that you have put forward, giving us a perspective of the most important issues as you see them. Probably you could do that with approximately 10 minutes, and then that will give us time for the rest of the committee to ask any further detailed questions of your presentation.

    The floor is yours.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet (As Individual): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for an opportunity to comment on this important citizenship legislation, Bill C-18.

    I'm a fifth-generation Canadian who also holds American citizenship and wishes to return to Canada from California as the Canadian citizen I believe I am. Currently I own a home in Nova Scotia, where my ancestors landed around 1842.

    You have a colour flow chart turned in as an exhibit--let's call it exhibit A for the moment--that pretty much summarizes my family history, which goes back eventually to France.

    I applied to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for a citizenship card in February 2001, and at the time I understood that was a seven- to twelve-week process.

    The government disputes that I am still a Canadian. What is important here is not merely that my Canadian citizenship has been denied and my birthright has been denied, but how that birthright was denied. I suppose in part I'm here because the how suggests to me implications for others--in fact for everybody in this room.

    I want to touch on two issues, birthright inequity and what appears to be an adversarial approach to citizenship proceedings.

    First, Bill C-18 appears deliberately not to correct a glaring Charter of Rights omission in the 1977 citizenship law, an omission that is well known to CIC, affecting children born between 1947 and 1977 whose parents removed them from Canada, as mine did.

    I will leave it to the next witness to explain this in more detail, but the effect of the problem is that the current law in Bill C-18 protects the citizenship birthright of some children while in effect saying to others, “Tough luck.”

    On the issue of the approach to citizenship, it appears to this witness that citizenship evaluators do not look for reasons that you are a citizen, they look only for the check-box reasons why you are not a citizen. It's an adversarial approach that seems to be much more in tune with immigration proceedings than with protecting the rights of one's citizens.

    Let me illustrate for you how this played out for me, and you can decide for yourself how it might apply to you--because it might.

    Canada's 1947 Citizenship Act protected the citizenship of minors whose primary parent changed citizenship without changing the child's citizenship at the same time. Usually the primary parent was considered to be the father.

    My father became a Mexican citizen without changing my citizenship at the same time. From a citizenship perspective, then, my father became a foreigner who could not later renounce my Canadian citizenship, as he did when my mother and he became U.S. citizens nine years later.

    Yet rather than acknowledge this seemingly straightforward situation, although the facts are a little more complicated, my citizenship evaluator went to great lengths, over the course of some 18 months, to deny my birthright at every turn. She was described as a senior and highly respected evaluator in the Sydney office of CIC, where all of the citizenship evaluators are located, I'm told. At first I thought she was just being thorough.

    Right now it's important to note that what you are about to hear transpired while the evaluator's desk was piled high with government-issued family documents, eventually more than 50 of them, plus translations, including Canadian and Mexican passports, registration as British subjects, government identity cards, Canadian military enlistment papers, and the like. In fact, right at this moment this binder represents the exhibits turned in, in my case, to substantiate my citizenship.

    First, my evaluator thought to declare somehow that my father was a Mexican citizen as a child, when his Canadian father was working in Mexico, and this would have had the effect of stripping me of my citizenship right away. I explained to her that under Mexico's 1917 citizenship law, no one born to foreign parents could become a Mexican citizen until they registered for it as an adult. It was clear to me that my evaluator had never seen or read the Mexican citizenship law, which was about two pages long and very straightforward.

¿  (0945)  

    I thought she would take a professional interest in it. She did not. At first she denied my explanation, then turned defensive, told me she had been doing her job for a very long time and then tried to dismiss the whole thing--at least temporarily--saying that it didn't matter, that Canada treats nationality and citizenship as the same thing.

    To me it mattered very much. It meant whether I was still a Canadian citizen or not, and she was erroneously trying to interpret a foreign law to my detriment. It bothered me that this senior evaluator might have been superimposing Mexican citizenship on people for decades where, by law, not even the Mexican government itself would have granted it. It was written into their constitution and my evaluator had only to read it.

    I sent her a translation of that constitution, by the way. That's one of the exhibits submitted.

    She repeatedly asked that I seek a formal ruling from the Mexican government as to my father's citizenship status. A Mexican official--we talked to so many of them, we lost count--told me they didn't do formal rulings, but that they would try to help once, of course, they received a letter from the Canadian government as to my father's citizenship status. No such letter was forthcoming from Canada.

    My evaluator repeatedly demanded a copy of my grandfather's Nova Scotia birth certificate, which simply doesn't exist because Nova Scotia doesn't have any birth and death records for anybody for the period in which my father was born. It's about a 20-year span. And it says so in big, bold letters on the Nova Scotia government website.

    I faxed to my evaluator a copy of that web page. She demanded a formal letter of “no record” from the Nova Scotia government and said that this would allow her to consider what CIC calls “secondary” evidence, like the Canadian passport that said my grandfather was a Canadian from Nova Scotia.

    I produced the letter, but after the letter my evaluator did not consider the many government-issued pieces of secondary evidence, all of which said my grandfather was from Nova Scotia. And by the way, those government-issued identity documents came from the British government and the Canadian government.

    Instead, she suggested that perhaps there was no birth certificate because perhaps my grandfather was born somewhere else; in Pueblo, Mexico, for instance. She demanded that I search the records in Pueblo, Mexico, to see if I could find him.

    I didn't even know where Pueblo, Mexico, was, and I immediately went through the family tree trying to find anybody from my family who might ever have been there--born there, worked there, whatnot--and I didn't find anything. I don't know where that came from.

    Once upon a time there was a British colony there. I understand there still is. Maybe that was the source of her request.

    Next, she speculated that perhaps my grandfather was born in Mexico because my great-grandfather, a Canadian engineer, died there. For this fact she cited his Mexican memorial notice, which I had provided to CIC the day I submitted my application. She did not mention, however, that under his name on the notice, it says he is from Nova Scotia.

    She dismissed my father's sworn affidavit that he had renounced his Canadian citizenship in 1956, but later she demanded that my father swear out an affidavit saying where his father was born. Why would somebody disbelieve a person's sworn account of what he did, but then imply that she would believe his sworn account of an event that took place decades before he was born? It didn't make any sense to me.

    My evaluator repeatedly demanded that I produce the supporting paperwork for my grandfather's passport in 1936, and for my father's Mexican citizenship in 1956.

    Canadian, British, Mexican, and American embassies and consulates all told me and my wife--and we called many of them, all over North America and Australia--that they simply don't keep those kinds of records. They record the fact that a document of some kind was issued and then usually after five years they destroy the supporting evidence. Surely this was known to my evaluator.

    In effect, throughout all of this, my evaluator was grave-robbing. She was dismissing evidence and challenging the evaluations and decisions made 50, 60, and 80 years ago by British, Canadian, and American government officials. She was doing so without to me a shred of a reason as to why she was dismissing all of this evidence, and I guess that's what disturbs me most about all of this.

¿  (0950)  

    Why should you, or I, or anybody else in this room go to bed tonight believing our citizenship birthright is safe, when the very evidence of your identity can be dismissed, set aside, or ignored? Where is the protection for the birthright that has been stolen from me and others? Who is looking after the birthright of children in Canada who are born in Canada, who lost their citizenship through no decision of their own? How can Canada say, as it does on the CIC website, welcome home? They're saying that to immigrants who have never been here, yet they deny that welcome to its lost children and then with a straight face assure newcomers that this is a country that will protect their rights.

    In the end, CIC rejected my citizenship for two reasons that had nothing to do with the evidence submitted and nothing to do with the law. They conceded the evidence and they conceded the law. Let me quote from the rejection letter. First, they said that it appeared that my father's citizenship was essentially to facilitate his move to the United States. I wasn't there, I don't know, and I don't know how they'd know that. But even if it were true, so what?

    Second, they said there was no record in their files of my father having formally renounced his Canadian citizenship in 1956. I have no doubt; to my knowledge he never filed anything, and there was no requirement to file a renunciation statement before 1977. It was part of the 1977 law, but I can't find it anywhere in the 1947 law.

    Finally, there is this: “It cannot be held that a loss of [your] Canadian status did not result.” I think that means, we don't know whether you're not a citizen, so we aren't really prepared to say that you are.

    Are there two standards of fairness in Canada? Was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms written to apply only to some of Canada's sons and daughters, as inadvertently seemed to happen in the 1977 law? What national interest is the citizenship department protecting when it expends great effort to prevent people like me from claiming their birthright of Canadian citizenship? Again, I was born in Canada to Canadian parents.

    This past week, the citizenship minister said our identity is the most important thing in our lives. CIC may not know who I am, but I know who I am. I'm a hard-working prairie kid from Manitoba who never turned his back on Canada, never asked for citizenship anywhere else, and was keenly hurt when my family removed me from Canada. My wife knows it, my closest friends know it, and now you know it too.

    I made do elsewhere, I did very well. I'm prepared to come back with some knowledge and skills to help the community that I want to move to. Lord knows, it needs help. My American friends and clients all know where I'm from, they know where I'm going, and they don't understand it, but they respect it because they respect me.

    What can we do about this? First, I suggest that Parliament can correct the birthright inequity of the 1977 Citizenship Act by amending Bill C-18 to include a short and simple paragraph from Bill C-343, a private member's bill by Mr. John Reynolds. That paragraph extends the current law of citizenship protection accorded to people born outside of Canada--like my youngest brother born in Long Beach, California--to people who were born in Canada, like me. I am not asking for something that is not mine. I am not asking for something that I don't believe, truly, in my heart, hasn't been mine all along. I'm asking for recognition of who I have always been.

    Second, Parliament could perhaps consider a legislative directive to CIC to ensure that people like me are not treated like enemies of the homeland when they apply for their citizenship card.

    Thank you very much.

¿  (0955)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Mr. Bosdet.

    Peggy Ann, are you ready to carry on?

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet (As Individual): Yes.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): If you could be a little more concise, I think that would help us. Everybody does have your documentation in front of them, and they can read it, so maybe if you could highlight the important parts, that would be helpful for us.

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: Exactly.

    I would like everybody to read the bottom of page 2, all of page 3, and the top of page 4. I will skip those. That is from a letter that Charles wrote to me.

    We've been married about seven years. I was trying to understand why he still considered himself a Canadian and he wrote me a letter that was private. Part of that is in here, and you are welcome to read it. I'll refer to it, but I'll not read those pages, and then I think I'll be through in time. Okay?

    My name is Peggy Ann Bosdet. I'm not a Canadian. I live in California with my husband, Charles, who just finished speaking, and I'm honoured to address this committee. As an outsider, I hope to add a different perspective to this debate.

    Charles has told you about a long and fruitless struggle to regain his birthright and to come back to Canada. Charles is a former newspaper journalist and editor, and now he is a business publisher. He can certainly speak to your minds on this subject, but I want to talk to your hearts, as Canadians and as legislators, about citizenship and loyalty.

    We are in a nightmare of a process. It continues to this day. People ask, “Why do you keep trying? Why is it important?” Well, for me it's very simple; it's important because it's important to my husband. But for Charles, the answer to “Why?” is more involved.

    If you talk to Charles, you'll immediately know you are talking with someone who admires, trusts, and loves this country and its people. I have read endless articles and debates on what constitutes Canadian citizenship, pride of country, and a sense of belonging.

    I read something a professor said in front of Parliament about how it was a struggle to teach your students the concept of citizenship and to find out what makes a person feel Canadian. They should just ask Charles.

    A few years ago he wrote this letter explaining to me why he'd never emotionally abandoned Canada. How I wished I could say in return that Canada had never abandoned him.

    You can read the letter yourself. Please remember, though, his words in the letter when you think about the exile of Canada's own children. Canada officially condones this ongoing discrimination, and nothing has still been written. As Charles mentioned, Mr. John Reynolds has written a bill that would remedy it, but there doesn't seem to be much notice given to it.

    It is often said that the U.S. tries to be the world's policemen, but that Canada is the world's conscience. What kind of being has so little conscience that it simply forgets some of its children are missing somewhere in the world? What kind of being turns its back on its prodigal children who long to return? And what kind of being, when the long-lost child does find its way back, rejects the plea to come in and locks them out? What do you call a country that abandons thousands of its children?

    Forgive me, I know I'm an outsider here. I don't understand, that's why I'm here. You welcome nearly everyone. You debate the moral implications of deporting people, Nazi war criminals, of revoking the citizenship of people who have done fraud to get in here.

    I have long admired Canada and its people for their stand on human rights and social issues, and I looked forward to being a member of this society, but lately I've had my doubts.

    Why does Canada fail to protect some of its own children while it champions the rights of others? In some cases, Canada's labyrinth of citizenship laws divides the offspring of the same parents: one child's a citizen, his sister is not; one brother is, one brother is not. This is absurd. Why are some Canadian-born children of less importance than others ?

    Canada stripped some of the children born in Canada between 1947 and 1977 of their citizenship for reasons that today would be unacceptable. So why are they still excluded? Why does the charter not apply? Why was this not resolved years ago? Other inequities were resolved; all of these inequities having to do with women have been resolved on three separate occasions. And there is a new exception in the new Bill C-18.

    It's not that no one knew about this. I assure you that Don Chapman, whom you met in testimony two weeks ago in Ottawa, has done his darndest to get this story out. Magali Castro-Gyr has been fighting this in court, and John Reynolds tabled a private bill once before, but nothing happened.

    Minister Coderre was interviewed on TV two weeks ago after these hearings in Ottawa. He told the reporter he was not going to deal with this issue except on a case-by-case basis.

    Why should you as governing members of this land not get furious that Minister Cordere appoints himself the final authority on this group of children? Would you accept this discrimination from the government if it was directed against any other minority?

    Parliament must direct CIC to do something to remedy this once and for all.

    I don't for a minute believe Minister Coderre is going to decide favourably, by the way, for any of these kids. My husband's file has already been turned down. Why? We think it's because it's the policy to do so.

    Canada allows the Benner children of the world, which are the kids born outside of Canada to Canadian mothers, to claim citizenship on request, even if they have a criminal background. They gave it to Mr. Benner, a criminal, because he was born outside of Canada to a Canadian woman. It has been refused to a decent man because he was born inside Canada to a Canadian woman.

À  (1000)  

    Does this make any sense to anybody here? Is this really for Canada's greater good?

    Unlike Mr. Benner, my husband is not a felon. He has secret security clearances. He's highly respected in his field. Any number of countries would be happy to have him call them home, but this country, his homeland, does not.

    In ending, I only want to tell you a story. During Charles' first year in California as a child, when he'd get lonely for home, he'd take out a large hand-sewn Canadian Red Ensign--it was the flag in those days--that he brought with him from Winnipeg and would look at it to make himself feel better.

    On the first Fourth of July holiday in the States, his folks took him to a parade. When a marching band went by, Charles pulled his flag out from his sleeve and waved it in the air. His dad was mortified. He wasn't a bit amused and he became angry with Charles. Charles still has the flag. He's always going to keep it. It was a comforting friend to him when he was lonely as a child in a far-off land.

    When I arrived on this trip, I came ahead of Charles to Halifax. I wanted to surprise him. He has had this dream for years to come back as a citizen, not a visitor, wearing his little maple leaf pin. It hasn't happened. When I picked him up at the airport, I brought the old faded flag to the arrival lines. When he came down the ramp, I waved it as high as I could. He was embarrassed, but he was happy, really happy.

    To end, if Don Chapman, Magali Castro-Gyr, and Charles Bosdet are not Canadians, then exactly what is a Canadian? If these three examples of your lost children weren't loyal enough, then who was? If these three aren't good enough, who is? If these three haven't sacrificed enough financially, time-wise, or emotionally, then who has? If these three hadn't had the courage, strength, and resolve to continue their fight for all of the lost children of Canada, would Canada forever have let this injustice stand?

    Now that you know about this, you can't let it stand. Please include the Canadian-born lost children in this bill and give them back their identities. Let those who wish to do so come home, in the same way that they were taken out, as Canadians.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you both for your presentations. It is very much appreciated.

    Diane, would you like to start off the questioning?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too would like to thank you, Peggy, for your eloquent intervention before us today. I dare say that very few people who are Canadians, in the sense that they've never had the struggles that you have had, have ever written such a poignant letter as Charles has. The whole situation, as you describe it, gives “bureaucratic nightmare” a whole new meaning.

    It's one for the textbooks, I think, Mr. Chairman. There's especially a new twist on passing the buck. To go back and let Mexico prove that citizenship was not given is kind of interesting.

    I think, though, the most telling point that you hit upon today was the fact that identity is the most important thing in our lives. That was emphasized by our immigration minister before this committee last week. When we heard from Magali Castro-Gyr and Don Chapman, they too gave a living testimony to the fact that it is so.

    I find it interesting that Canada automatically extends citizenship to children born to Canadian parents outside Canada, but does not automatically send citizenship to children born to Canadian parents inside Canada who wish to retain that citizenship. The principle I believe we should be operating on is that citizenship should not be stripped from anyone, except by their own decisions or by their own actions in abrogating their rights to Canadian citizenship.

    You have done neither, Charles. My question for you is the following. I would like you to comment on two things. The minister, in responding to this situation, has suggested that this be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Why wouldn't that be appropriate since every case is somewhat different? You have “wrinkles” with the Mexican connection, shall we say, that others don't have.

    I have a second question for you. Do you think there would be any disadvantage to Canada in doing as you suggest? In other words, write into this new citizenship act a provision that rectifies the regime that was in place during the operative years, when a Canadian parent giving up citizenship automatically affected the children's citizenship. Apparently, by the best estimates, about 10,000 children were affected by this provision.

    Can you discuss what you think might be the problem with us recommending this provision?

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: Extending citizenship to the 1947 to 1977...we'll call them the “lost children”, just to make the discussion easier.

    First, on the case-by-case, I don't believe the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which embodies the values we care about, was written with a view to parcelling out citizenship like party favours to those who were fortunate enough to get it in some circumstances and not to others. I don't think it was written with an eye to....

    Excuse me, but this is kind of a sore topic.

    I don't think it was envisioned that rights should be extended case by case to an entire class. I don't know how the difficulty with the 1977 law came about, or why the decision was made that my youngest brother, for instance, would have an easier time getting his citizenship back than I would. It clearly seemed to be something that fell through the cracks. Why should some people born outside the country be citizens and others born in the country...? It makes no sense to anybody.

    There isn't a person we've talked to across this country who hasn't thought this was just a really bizarre situation. In fact, the moment you say you were born in Canada, they just assume you are Canadian for all time. It's a rude awakening for some people when they find out that they are not. In Magali Castro-Gyr's case it was a really rude awakening when that time came much later in life and they were not expecting it at all. She went to apply for her children, as I recall, and all of a sudden she got a letter saying, “Hey, don't worry about the kids, you're not a citizen either”. What was that all about?

    On a case by case...I looked at my own case. My case has been up the chain. What set of facts would make the evaluators happy to extend citizenship to somebody, just what would it take? I have more documents in this binder than probably most people can ever hope to lay their hands on. In exhibit B here you have a list of what those documents are and what they show.

    The problem I have with doing this case by case is that it's not only incredibly time-consuming and frustrating, the result is anything but certain no matter how good the evidence is. I fear that in my own case evidence had nothing to do with this decision. The conclusions in the letter of rejection weren't based on the evidence. They were reasons I could argue with, but in truth applicants for citizenship cards are on the short end of that stick and they can easily be waved off.

    I'm told that a good many people would have quit long before I did, and have, trying to get their citizenship back. I hear that from lawyers on the outside. I hear that from some parliamentary offices.

À  (1010)  

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: Could I speak a moment on the case-by-case issue?

    I feel very strongly that if you have an entire group of people who are excluded from a particular right that's granted to other people, the idea that you can look at them, case by case, and say, “Okay, you're good enough, but you're not” makes no sense to me. I don't think any of us in this group objects to security clearances. It's only sensible in this world. I know they didn't put that into some of the things they rectified in the past for other children, but in this day and age, we don't have a problem with that. The problem is being told that you must come back, if you qualify to immigrate, go to the bottom of the immigration line, wait the years out, etc.

    In Charles' case, he was told by clerks at CIC that because of the, as you call it, “Mexican problem”, he had never lost his citizenship. We believed it ourselves, from reading the law and consulting lawyers. Therefore, instead of applying for immigration, we applied for his citizenship card. We were told that was the thing to do, because that would verify whether or not he had lost it. He hasn't mentioned it, but eventually, his case was taken away from the evaluator in Sydney because she just kept asking for things like this missing Nova Scotia birth certificate. It doesn't exist, according to Nova Scotia.

    Finally, a senator, an MP, a former registrar of citizenship, and a former prime minister wrote a letter on his behalf to Minister Coderre. The file was taken from this evaluator and given to someone in Ottawa in Mr. Coderre's office. Her mandate was to go through all this evidence in five days and decide if Charles was indeed still a citizen.

    I got the first phone call from her, and I remember it very well. She was all set to decide that, no, he wasn't, because the evaluator had sent only about a third of the evidence. So I talked to her for a couple of hours on the phone and finally faxed her about 110 pages of things, plus all the correspondence that she hadn't received from the Sydney evaluator. After five days of phone calls back and forth, she determined that Charles indeed had never lost his citizenship.

    That, in turn, was to be put on Minister Coderre's desk. Someone else in Minister Coderre's office saw it and said “Wait a minute, I don't know about this. We'd better have a committee meeting. We don't think we can make him a citizen. We don't agree with this.” So we waited another few weeks. They had a committee meeting. We don't know what happened at that meeting. There were five people present, we were told. And when that meeting ended, we got a very pleasant letter from the woman in Ottawa who had done this, saying she was really sorry--and I think she really felt badly, because she agreed that Charles had not lost his citizenship. But she said the committee had decided against us and we could take it to court.

    At that point, we could go to court. But if we were to go to court, as I understand it, we wouldn't be able to apply for immigration or something in the meantime. I don't know, the lawyers are a little iffy about that. So where are we after nearly three years of him trying to move back to his homeland? We are now at the bottom of the immigration pile, because we've been waiting for the citizenship thing to be resolved, and you don't do them both at the same time. So now we will be another couple of years at least in the immigration line.

    I look at all this and I say no; on a case-by-case basis, you're asking one person to decide “She qualifies, but I don't think I want her. I don't think I want you. But him, he's okay.”

    Why should that be when the reason all four of you aren't Canadians is the same reason? It makes no sense.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Ms. Bosdet.

    Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am very moved by what Mr. and Ms. Bosdet have told us; this is not something that we often hear in the course of our committee work. It is an example of the personal hardships people can experience when dealing with the bureaucracy.

    I would like to know whether or nor there is some type of appeal process for cases related not to immigration but rather to citizenship. Is there anything of that nature available at this time?

À  (1015)  

[English]

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: Yes, there is a process, and for this I rely on the policy manuals of CIC. We have both read their citizenship policy manual a couple of times. In theory, at any rate, for passing judgment on a citizenship application there is a citizenship judge who evaluates the case based on the summary prepared by the evaluator.

    I suppose that's the catch here, that you have to depend on the evaluator. I try to look at my own case as objectively as I can, and I say that this is completely without an explanation that makes any sense to me. It most definitely appears to be a case where the system somehow ran amok, yet this person's summary of my case would have been the summary that appeared before the citizenship judge.

    As I understand it, the judge does not get the entire file. The judge only gets the file if there's something that piques his or her interest and he or she decides to ask for the file. A decision could be made just like that on the basis of the summary, and depending on how the facts are laid out, it may be an objective summary or it may not.

    When my case went to Ottawa, we had the distinct impression the phone call from the Ottawa evaluator was going to be a perfunctory, five-minute thing to tie up a couple of loose ends before they decided, you're no longer a citizen. But bit by bit it became apparent she wasn't aware of this crucial document or that crucial document. She said, wait a minute; I don't know about this, tell me more. So we told her. One thing led to another, and the next thing I knew, I was sending her this fax. This is the stuff that did not come in from Sydney.

    Why should somebody's birthright be left to a process like that? I don't think it's fair, and I think it's dangerous. I also think it's expensive. Yes, there's recourse to the courts. Yes, it can eventually wind up in Federal Court, but the question is, why should it? Why should it just because it's possible for someone in the bureaucracy at whatever level they are to take and dismiss evidence issued by the very government they work for?

    It just boggles my mind. It says that same person could come back to any member of this panel, look at one of your ancestors, and decide that maybe their Canadian passport wasn't good enough proof of their citizenship; therefore, your citizenship is in jeopardy. I don't know how anybody could sleep at night in a system like that, yet that's what we have. It's just that it doesn't get any press. Not many people know about it though it's not new.

    I'm well acquainted with Magali Castro-Gyr now. You probably haven't heard this anywhere, but when the crown attorneys showed up on the first day of court on her case, they apologized to the court for even being there. They said they had recommended that she be a citizen, but they were directed to take the case to court. Is that fair? I have my doubts. I don't know all the facts, but I know three people who were in that courtroom when the crown attorneys apologized, and they claimed not to know why they were directed to take that case to court.

    I don't want to go to court. Somebody inside CIC has told me, you have a winner, so go to court. I said, why? Why should I have to? I'm fighting to try to come home. I just applied for a citizenship card.

    There is a paragraph in the 1947 Citizenship Act, and if I don't qualify for it, I don't know who does. The appeals process is there, and there are a couple of avenues one could go through. I guess my question is, why do we have to use it much more often than we should at all? These cases would go away if lost children born earlier were treated the same as kids born from 1977 onward. There wouldn't be any cases to go on appeal.

À  (1020)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Charles; good morning, Peggy Ann.

    I have a number of questions to ask, but before proceeding, I would like to tell you about a case involving the day-to-day realities of citizenship. In Quebec, there are currently Haitian parents who do not have Canadian citizenship. They came to Canada and settled in Quebec with their young children and they were convinced that their children had become Canadian citizens. But that was not the case; they would have had to apply for Canadian citizenship. Children are not automatically granted citizenship in Canada. This is something that is voluntary.

    You were born in Canada, but your parents emigrated to another country, which they were entitled to do, as far as I am concerned. You want to return but you are considered undesirable, in a way.

    When your parents applied for American, or Mexican citizenship, did the children automatically come Mexican or American, or was it necessary to apply for citizenship for them as well?

[English]

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: When my father first changed his citizenship in 1956, he did not apply, and under Mexican law I did not automatically become a citizen. As I understand your Canadian laws, my citizenship wouldn't have changed when he changed his.

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: Nor did your mother's.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: My mother remained Canadian, and I and my brother remained Canadian.

    In the United States--and my parents took out U.S. citizenship in 1965--you have to apply for the children. The children don't automatically become citizens. The parents get something called a Certificate of Naturalization, and if they apply for you at the same time or somewhere down the line at any rate, children are issued something called a Certificate of Citizenship if they are minors. I believe that if they are adults, they get a Certificate of Naturalization.

    It's not automatic by any means that the child's citizenship changes with the father's under the 1947 law, and that's where that automatic loss of citizenship provision of the 1947 law comes in. It says that if your primary parent--who could be your mother if she was widowed, divorced, or something--changes citizenship without changing the child's, then the child has, in legal terms, survived the first opportunity to lose their citizenship and then, having survived that, cannot later lose it.

    So in my case--it sounds a little strange, but legally it works out--my father became a foreigner, and Canada's state interest is in that 1947 provision, which says that a foreigner cannot deprive one of our citizens of their citizenship.

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: That was nine years later.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: Does that answer your question?

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

    I have another question. Some countries, Belgium for example, do not recognize dual citizenship. If a Belgian becomes a Canadian citizen he loses his Belgian citizenship. If he wants to recover that citizenship, it can only be done by giving up his Canadian citizenship. That is how the law works in Belgium.

    However, unless I am mistaken, I think that Americans can hold dual citizenship. Is that correct?

[English]

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: They are now, yes.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do you think that the somewhat mistrustful attitude that we detect in Mr. Coderre's statement--and you raised that, Peggy Ann, although I have not read it--has something to do with September 11?

    There were, for example, terrorist acts committed in the United States before September 11 by people who were either born in the United States or had lived there for some time. Do you think that is why they have chosen a case-by-case approach rather than a legal provision that would apply to a segment of the population?

À  (1025)  

[English]

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: No, because most of what you have heard in my testimony was well under way before September 11.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, of course, but Mr. Coderre became the minister after September 11, and, like it or not, we have a different way of seeing things now. There might have been less resistance, had we been examining C-18 in 1999.

    I believe that we will have to consider things very carefully before ever thinking of adopting a position along the lines of the one that you have put forward. We have heard some surprising testimony. In other words, we have a lot of work to do.

[English]

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: I understand that it could pose a problem. Considerations from September 11 pose a problem. The only thing that the government is going to do in cases of immigration is run a security check. They'll do that for immigrants, they'll do that for returning ex-patriots, whatever, and there's no problem with that. There's nothing that bars them from doing that.

    I don't really believe that September 11 had anything to do with my case.

    Born to Canadian parents in Canada...they didn't know anything about me. They didn't know I held some level of trust in the U.S. government, I was cleared for certain work. Nobody bothered to ask, either. In fact, it was astounding the number of questions that were not asked.

    And yet one feels free, on the basis of complete ignorance of the person, to go ahead and pass judgment on whether that person is a security risk. That doesn't make sense to me.

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: Can I say something about that, too?

    I really don't think it has anything to do with that. Had they said, “Well, have a security clearance, have the best one you can”, I think everyone that I know who wants to come back in this boat would have said, “Fine, we agree with that. It makes sense.”

    So, no, I just don't think it does. I think they have a different reason that they simply don't want to change this law.

    One tiny example of what I think illustrates that is another document problem that we had, aside from Charles' grandfather's birth certificate, and this was Charles' grandfather's wedding certificate. After finding out that his father and his grandfather were really Canadians--they finally capitulated, his grandfather was born in Nova Scotia--she then tried to make his father not a Canadian by questioning whether his grandparents were legally married, and thus, was his father illegitimate or not?

    Well, we had all kinds of documents that they had. And this is how ridiculous it gets. This is why I don't think it has to do with September 11. We already had documents and death notices that kept referring to his wife, her husband, his wife, her husband, and we had sent in the religious marriage certificate from something like 1887. The evaluator insisted that we find the civil marriage certificate. It was hard enough to find the religious one. One of the relatives in Vancouver still had it, thank goodness. We had to find the civil marriage certificate from back then to prove that they were married, and this took quite a while.

    I can't imagine how you would feel if suddenly someone said, “You applied for a passport. I'm going to need your grandparents' civil marriage certificate to prove that you're really a Canadian, because perhaps you're not.” It was a crazy thing.

    September 11 is a smokescreen, in a way. Do a security check and put it in with the law. It makes sense.

À  (1030)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much. I'm just delighted to be here to listen to what you have to say. I'm filling in today for Judy Wasylycia-Leis, the member for the New Democratic Party who sits on this committee.

    I don't pretend to be as well versed as everyone here on this topic. As an MP, though, I do see over and over again in my own office other situations of people coming in trying to get some kind of assistance from the immigration department on cases that, although not parallel to this, are also stunning in the assumptions they seem to be putting forward that seem to go against what this new immigration act is supposed to be about.

    This act is supposed to be about setting a tone, providing a welcome, establishing a vision of what Canada is. It should be welcoming, it should be inclusive. We need immigrants to this country. Clearly we do not have the population to sustain our numbers unless we really do walk the walk, talk the talk, and be an open country to immigrants.

    Now, that said, that's not the situation we're dealing with at this moment, because Charles is a Canadian. He was born here, and he has every reason, as far as I'm concerned, to be able to come back here with all of the various things that have been discussed today.

    I'd like you to elaborate, Peggy, on what we were talking about beforehand. My question is, what are the costs of not allowing these lost children into our country now? By that I mean the economic, cultural, and social costs we're going to pay unless we change this policy to allow lost children back into the country.

    Maybe you can talk about some of the things you were saying to me before we began the hearing.

    Ms. Peggy Ann Bosdet: Yes, I think that's a good question.

    We have a theory, which ties right into this, that the reason the government does not want to change this one inequity that's left in that law is that they're worried about cost. They're worried that these children born between 1947 and 1977 will want to come up here and live off the system--collect free medical, collect whatever you collect up here.

    My contention, and Charles' and that of everyone else we know in this boat, is that you have to be in a certain position, unless you really just want to come live on the streets or something, to move back to Canada. It costs a lot of money to change your country. It costs a lot of money to move your business. Charles has a very successful business in California. His intention was to bring it to a very depressed area of Nova Scotia, where he would be employing people and making money. Oddly enough, his business is business proposals. Charles is an expert at business proposals and getting new business contracts for both huge and small corporations. Certainly Nova Scotia, of all of the provinces, could use some help along these lines.

    I think the cost is far more than they can imagine. It almost bothers me when I think of it. Compared to what they're afraid we might do--go on the medical or something, I don't know--they're losing employment, at least in his case. They're losing our dollars; they're losing our taxes.

    I write books. I've been informed that I am not allowed to publish my next book with a Canadian publisher. I was told this when I came in through customs, because I had a little computer with me and they wanted to know, as a non-resident, if I was going to do any work here. I said I was in the middle of a book, because that's what I do for a living. The man asked who was going to publish it. I said my publisher in the States. He said, “Well, good. I guess you can write here, because you own a house and we can't keep you from writing, but you cannot get that book published here.” I said to him, “Have you any idea who makes the money? Do you think authors make the money? Publishers make the money.”

    My last book made at least $500,000 for my publisher in America. Wouldn't it really make more sense to say, “Gee, come on up with your husband. He's going to have a business; you write books. Have a Canadian publisher do it.” My audience will buy the books, whoever publishes them.

    This is the kind of nonsense that I think they're dealing with. When we talk about letting people in and being afraid of 9/1l, keep in mind what they looked at with Charles. They don't even know what he does for a living. They looked at his father, his grandfather, his great grandfather, his grandfather's school records. Why don't they, if they're worried about the 9/11 issue, look at what the person is themselves? Are they a terrorist? Have they been any trouble? Are they a criminal? Have they a record? Is there any reason not to let them in? Perhaps there are all kinds of reasons to let them in.

    My contention is the people who want to return are doing so at some financial cost to themselves, at some emotional costs of leaving the country where they've been, that sort of thing. You can't imagine how much money we would have probably spent here in Nova Scotia during this whole process. If there were a couple of hundred of us, how much would that be, how much could it have brought to the economy? It makes no sense. The financial level is just a crazy thing. But mostly, think of it in terms of simply rejecting people without knowing who you're rejecting. That makes no sense.

À  (1035)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Charles and Peggy.

    I believe every member of the committee applauds the efforts you're putting forward in order to bring the case to us. You referred to Don Chapman and Magali Castro-Gyr and their presentations last week, and certainly those presentations were taken very seriously by the committee. We must look carefully at what is being done and try to come up with a solution that will meet the need for all Canadians and all children born of Canadian parents to get fair treatment. There's no question that every committee member voiced that opinion last week, and the members around this table are voicing that opinion today. So we must pursue it and try to come up with a solution.

    Obviously, your testimony will be taken very carefully and considered in our final deliberations. We do appreciate the efforts you have made to come forward and we applaud your major effort at making sure your point has been made, not only to this committee but also to the Canadian public.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I think the next witness is scheduled for 11 o'clock. It's a bit before that time. If you'd like to have a bit of a break for ten minutes, we'll then come back and start off with our next witnesses.

À  (1038)  

---

À  (1040)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Don, if we give you five to ten minutes and you can put forward the information that you wish to, we'd appreciate it. Try to be as precise as you can. Thank you.

    Mr. Don Chapman (As Individual): Thank you. To answer your question, I don't like doing this too much, because this is not about money. You asked a specific question on what we offer to Canada.

    Yesterday in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, I went to visit my great-grandparents' graves, my great-great-grandparents' graves, and my great-great-great-grandparents' graves. My great-great-grandfather was the co-founder of St. Francis Xavier University. Another great-grandfather founded the University of Toronto.

    I am the head of a charitable foundation where we give millions of dollars away. Canada has been quite the recipient. I have letters from the chancellor of the University of Toronto, the president of the University of Toronto, the former president of the University of Toronto, and the president of the University of British Columbia.

    I addressed this committee 10 or 15 days ago. I have often gone to British Columbia and have passed out scholarships to many Canadians. There are people all over Canada going to school because my family has provided scholarships for them. We did not turn our backs on Canada.

    There is the Chapman Chair in Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, at the University of Toronto. There is the Chapman Learning Commons, and a $2 million donation given to the University of British Columbia. It was $1.5 million to the University of Toronto.

    That is only the start. I have letters here in front of me from Canadian people asking for donations. For the very first time this year, I answered no.

    Canada turned its back on me. It's incredible. My aunt was the number one businesswoman in Canada.

    Mr. Pickard comes from near London, Ontario. My uncle was chairman of the board of the largest employer of that city years ago.

    I have a huge background on that. We give a lot more than we take. Everybody in this position that I know of is not coming here for money. It will cost me a great deal more. We're coming here because we're Canadians.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Don. We do appreciate it. From the testimony that you brought forward at the committee in Ottawa, we do appreciate the efforts you've put forward.

    I'm certain the chair, at that point, indicated to you that it is an issue that all committee members have some serious concern about. We will deal with it.

    Mr. Don Chapman: By the way, I have been turned down, just like Mr. Bosdet. I've gone through every process. I've gone through minister after minister. My ordeal has been going on for 30 years. I've been turned down at every step of the way.

    This isn't about September 11. I, too, hold a security clearance with the United States. I can't get in because they don't want me.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    Yes, Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I would just like to make an observation that might be helpful to us. As you know, the committee travelled last year to our missions abroad, and I happened to be on the Asian part of that tour. Our officials abroad told us that due to the volume of applications they must make about 100 decisions or more a day on whether applicants will be accepted or not. So these decisions are made very quickly, after a pretty cursory look at the documentation before them.

    I'm simply amazed at the amount of time and effort that has been put into Charles' application. It must have taken this woman months to comb through every possible...like a Philadelphia lawyer. Well, maybe your grandparents weren't married. I mean--hello? It just seems to me, on the basis of proper application of our time and resources as Canadians, this is a foolish exercise.

    As far as the number of people who might, if we rectified this situation, apply to reinstate their Canadian citizenship or be recognized as Canadians, I think it would probably be pretty small. For example, for those people who became Canadian citizens between 1947 and 1977, the United States now says if you came up here, became a Canadian citizen, and renounced your American citizenship you can reapply and get your American citizenship back and have dual citizenship. Yet I know quite a number of people who haven't bothered to do that.

    I think a limited number of people would want to be reinstated in good standing as Canadian citizens, so I doubt we'd be dealing with a huge flood of thousands and thousands of people suddenly coming forward if we rectified this situation in the new act. Even if they did, goodness knows, if we can spend the kind of time and effort that has been spent by our department in trying to deny Charles' application, we could surely apply those resources to the people who would be reapplying under a new situation.

À  (1045)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): There are very clearly many issues here. Why does a whole class of people have to have personal approval or non-approval? That was raised very clearly, and I think Charles made the point very well. Don and other witnesses have also raised it.

    Second, I think there is inconsistency with a person who is of Canadian descent, having Canadian parents, either father or mother. Quite frankly, in some respects why should the father determine everything anyway? That's not a Canadian principle, but I guess that's what we did in the past.

    Third, when you're born abroad of Canadian parents, why should you be treated any differently from those who were born in Canada?

    There's a myriad of things. When we start looking at appeals or decisions that are coming back, what is the set to evaluate? I believe Charles and Peggy asked those questions very clearly.

    So there are a lot of things this committee must get back and re-examine to come up with some type of reason why this is happening or what alterations should happen in order to make sure that fairness is there. So I think that's critical for us. We do appreciate your viewpoints and we do appreciate the committee's concern here.

    Mr. Don Chapman: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: May I add to Ms. Ablonczy's question?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Okay.

    Mr. Charles Bosdet: The question arose as to the cost of allowing people back in, but I assure you there are costs at both ends. I'm self-employed so I have to keep my time in mind, because my time is what my clients buy. By my estimate, in the process I described this morning we have well over several thousand dollars invested in chasing down documents and talking to government officials in several governments, trying to find out who to talk to. The list is staggering. Let's just say that financially it has cost us a tremendous amount already.

    It's not as if this decision was made on the spur of the moment. In the end, we wound up with a decision that was made without any sense of me as a person. It basically came down to checking boxes, and I can't fathom what it takes to satisfy this system.

    Some people rightly worry about the cost of some citizens returning. I'd just like to point out for the record that there are costs at both ends.

    Mr. Don Chapman: Here's one last thing from me. I travel all over the world; I'm an airline pilot. I don't find Canadian vagrants anywhere. Canadians can be very proud. They've done well for themselves all around the world.

    Thank you.

À  (1050)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, folks.

    Folks, I do believe we have one of the next witnesses here. Ladies and gentlemen, we have Mark Fernando, who is going to start with a presentation. Dick Smyth, divisional vice-president for Nova Scotia of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, will come in. When Mr. Smyth arrives, we'll just bring him to the table and continue.

    Thank you very much for coming, Mark. We certainly appreciate your coming to bring your views before the committee. I'll turn the floor over to you and ask you to give us a brief idea of your thoughts. Many of the issues can probably be dealt with as committee members ask questions.

    So, Mark, welcome, and go ahead.

    Mr. Mark Fernando (As Individual): My name is Mark Fernando. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. I especially want to thank my MP, Peter Stoffer, and the staff in his office for informing me of this event.

    I have been working in the area of immigrant settlement about 10 years or so myself. I'm an immigrant. I came to Canada about 14 years ago, and over the years I have had some experience accompanying new immigrants doing their trade certifications and also in translating for them, that kind of activity, from time to time. So when I heard about this, I thought maybe I ought to bring forward a few areas.

    As for this provincial nominee program, when new skilled immigrants come as provincial nominees, are they going to work in the same area as designated or recognized by...? For example, we know lots of skilled immigrants come to Canada and end up working as cleaners, dishwashers, and taxi drivers, even though they're engineers and mechanics and accountants. In this particular situation, we wouldn't like to see a cook end up being a dish washer and a welder end up being labourer. What kind of mechanisms are in place to recognize credentials and certifications? Some areas have certification opportunities and some areas don't, and who is going to oversee these kinds of activities?

    I have experienced some other concerns with some new immigrants with respect to employers. Are they practising safety standards and labour regulations and human rights legislation? Also, when you are selecting these applicants, are you going to look into gender and minority representation? Who would be monitoring these areas? What kind of support would there be for these provincial nominees and their families in terms of language, settlement, schooling, etc.?

    Since I only have five minutes, I think these concerns are the ones I want to bring forward.

À  (1055)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I believe we have Mr. Smyth here as well. Mr. Smyth, we're running a touch ahead of schedule, so if you're okay with it, you can just go ahead and make a brief presentation to the committee members, and then we'll open it to a question and answer period. So if you feel comfortable, you can go ahead. If not, we can carry on with questions for a few moments before you begin.

    Mr. Dick Smyth (Vice-President, Nova Scotia, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters): I'm the vice-president of the Nova Scotia branch of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and the first page of the presentation does give the background on the CME itself. It is a national organization, and we may or may not be appearing elsewhere in the country. We might be appearing in Manitoba and a couple of other provinces, as you go across. In Nova Scotia we have about 105 members. Some of them are local and some are national members.

    We have reviewed, I think it's at least two or three years ago now, the whole immigration thing from the point of view of skills. That's why I've added this other document essentially, which is a survey we do annually. It shows the need for skilled personnel. Therefore, a program like the PNP would be very useful for our members, essentially in acquiring skilled people through immigration.

    Right now there is an impact on many of our members in that tradespeople are actually becoming a fair bit older. They average probably about 50 to 55 years of age, and they will probably have to be replaced in the next few years. The only source would be from community colleges and other places in Canada, not just in Nova Scotia. Also, they would have to go offshore, and some of our companies are actually going on regular trips to the U.K. and to other countries to bring in skilled people.

    The PNP would be one avenue to get these people in and use them in industry, essentially. So there are jobs there in the next 10 to 20 years. It's just a matter of getting the right kind of person into the province.

    The work we have outlined in our document essentially is almost like a communal work, because we have worked with the Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association. I've been involved with them for the last ten years or so, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, in coming up with this document and the other two documents, which you may see or not see in the next few days.

    I'll move right to our recommendations, as we have a number of them.

    One recommendation was to set up a meeting of interested stakeholders to determine the appropriate immigration policy for Nova Scotia. This was a forum that met for about a year and a half and then was disbanded. Unfortunately, we are still trying to get the group reassembled, because it does incorporate a right mix of individuals involved with getting immigration settlement, immigrants themselves, plus industry and a few other groups, a number of federal and provincial government groups. So we're still waiting for that to be re-established, but it is almost like an immigration council for the province.

    The other one would be a policy that would encourage newcomers to come here, but also encourage businesses to employ these newcomers. We have to wait until we see the results of what the province is doing in developing the PNP agreement and delivering it, and then we'll be able to work with them on this thing.

    There is something about creation of a process for responsibility for immigration to focus on one government department provincially. It's now split between two departments. And from what I understand, it may even be split within one of these departments, so this is not very functional as far as I can see at this point in time. It would be nice if it was one department responsible for everything--that would be business, skilled, and other immigrants.

    There's also an analysis of specific skills that are required by Nova Scotia businesses over the next few years. We did a study a few years ago, working with a community college. It has now run out and needs to be redone. I hear a promise that's coming from a new branch in the Department of Education to do another skill survey to determine how many more millwrights, machinists, and other trade-type people we'll need in the next five or ten years.

    Of course, we do need a process to select these immigrants, and the PNP was signed last August. However, there is a bit of a problem in that there's only one person dedicated to this task of developing the procedure for the PNP, as opposed to other provinces. I'm hearing numbers like 40 in Manitoba working on their particular program. They have been fairly successful, from what I hear from talking to my counterpart in Winnipeg.

Á  (1100)  

    Essentially, my overall recommendation to the committee is for some sort of pressure on the provincial governments. I know they would hate to have this applied to them, but you have a PNP agreement, and why don't you get moving on the thing? It has taken something like two and a half years of effort to get them to the stage where they finally have the thing developed and signed, but how long is it going to take before it gets implemented? It is getting critical.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thanks very much, and thank you very much for being as concise as you were and for going straight to the recommendations.

    Diane, would you like to begin the questioning?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Fernando, thank you for being here.

    Would you just outline for us the main things you would like to see us do to meet the concerns you raised?

    Mr. Mark Fernando: Bring this concern to your provincial counterparts, and also create a body or mechanism to oversee some of the concerns in terms of safety standards, labour regulations, and human rights.

    If I'm an employer and I have a bad record for safety or labour standards, I'm still allowed to hire more people. Who is going to monitor those kinds of situations? I don't know the answer right now. Maybe somebody, some provincial government, the federal government, or some independent body, is looking into those kinds of things. Also, maybe a person, an institution, or an organization can track how to do those kinds of activities and find out this kind of information.

    I believe these things can be done easily in conjunction with the Department of Labour here and with the provincial government and education departments in those areas.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I think we on this committee are all aware, Mr. Chairman, that recognition of credentials and issuing approval to allow immigrants to take up their trade or profession in Canada have been a tremendous problem. This committee has been urging action for some time, and your appearance here today underscores the need to do that.

    I wonder, Mr. Smyth, whether your association has found this to be an issue as well, because I know your employers sometimes attempt to choose employees and bring them into Canada to fill specific roles. Have you found recognition of foreign credentials and trade certificates to be an issue as well?

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Yes, there is a problem. If you're talking about professional people, it's a little bit easier, because I think some of the groups such as the professional engineering society are actually bending over a bit more now and reviewing some of their decisions. As far as skilled people are concerned, that is a difficult issue. I believe there is a new branch in the Department of Education actually looking at skills and learning issues, and they are looking at this credential aspect. Delivery on the thing may take six months, a year, or two years; who knows?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Who knows, indeed?

    I have met with officials in Nova Scotia about the provincial nominee program, and I can confirm your observation that the planning and the scope of this activity are very much in the early stages. You mention in your recommendations that we at the federal level should urge our provincial counterparts to work more quickly in this area, but as you know, these studies always do seem to take time.

    I wonder if there are any suggestions from your group as to what you could bring forward to the provincial officials in trying to figure out what the main needs are in Nova Scotia as far as skills and employment are concerned and as to how we can start to fill those gaps with provincial nominees. Is there any way you can suggest for us to fast-track this process when we're talking to our provincial counterparts?

Á  (1105)  

    Mr. Dick Smyth: This is working in Manitoba, and my counterpart over there says it's very successful. It seems to be a Mennonite population they're after, so it's probably easier, whereas we're looking at the world here. At least there is a model there. The other one I know about is P.E.I., but they haven't moved very far. They only have a few staff looking at the thing there.

    There are already provinces talking to Manitoba and P.E.I., so they know what's going on there. I recently suggested you talk to New Brunswick, because they've implemented it too. I didn't get a good answer on that one, so that one sits there.

    We are willing to help. Anytime I am at meetings with the provincial person who is responsible, I say, come and see me anytime; the door is open. Actually, I just sent her an e-mail this morning urging her again to give me a draft of the program, because I haven't seen one yet.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I know, as you mentioned, that Manitoba has been extremely successful in using this provincial nominee program, and I understand B.C.'s program is very good. Other provinces have just signed on, as Nova Scotia has.

    Let me ask you this. If you were in charge of the program, where would you see the greatest needs to be in filling the workforce needs of Nova Scotia in your particular area or others?

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Well, we did do a study a few years ago, probably about six years ago now, with the community college, and it outlined a whole number of areas where people with certain skills were wanted. That one just ran out last year, so we need another stage of that to go for the next five years. That outlined exactly what the needs were, and it isn't just for our members, it's for all manufacturers in Nova Scotia. You just outline ten of this, twenty of those, and a hundred of those. Unfortunately, they're very small numbers, which is the bad part of the thing. We don't need hundreds of millwrights, we need tens of millwrights, essentially.

    But it will be carried out by the education department soon. It's one of our mandates, and we are working very closely with them as well.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I understand there is some frustration, not necessarily on the part of your particular segment of the industry but in other sectors where they attempt to bring in foreign workers to fill workforce needs in Nova Scotia. There's frustration with the time it takes to process these applications, to get individuals to come in and fill these needs. This is particularly in the resource sector, but there may be others.

    Are you aware of any processing snags that take place when workers are needed to be brought in? Can you comment on that at all for us, because that is something we could talk about directly.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: I understand that HRDC does have a fast-tracking process if you want to bring in someone who is a foreign national for a specific job, and that is just one way of doing it. The other way that's happened too is by going to your friendly senator and having things move a little bit faster. But there is a program in place, and part of the PNP here, the initial thing, will be to look at the current foreign workers who are in this province right now--I think there are something like 18 or 24 of them--as potential targets to be persuaded to remain here. It is an interesting group to look at first before we go further afield.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: You should start where you're at. That sounds good.

    Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yvon.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, we have noted the fact that immigration to Nova Scotia has decreased rather significantly over the past five years, or even three years. Between 1996 and 1999, the total number of immigrants went from 3,223 to 1,608. That is a 50% drop in three years. What can explain such a radical shift in three years? Were there any sudden changes in terms of how things were operating? I know that you are looking to find solutions for the future. But we don't quite understand your diagnosis nor do we know the causes for this sudden drop within a three-year period. This is not 10 or 20% over five years; it is 50% in three years. Something must have happened. Someone threw a wrench into the works somewhere along the line. What happened?

    Mr. Dick Smyth: May I answer in English?

[English]

    Essentially the numbers are still dropping. We're working on an upcoming partnership conference on immigration, and as near as we can figure it, it really starts off with the attraction, with making sure you have a certain base population here in this province. If you take a Russian immigrant, you won't put him in Digby, Nova Scotia, because he's going to be all alone. The poor fellow needs somebody to talk to. They have to have a certain base population there that they can converse with.

    Actually, we do have Russian immigrants, but they are here in Halifax because that's where it is.

    On the next set of questions, on the integration into the community, again it helps if there is a certain number of people of the same ethnic background in the community. Even my friend Fernando would agree with that. That's another one that has to be worked on.

    There has been some work done in that area. You may hear something on the settlement thing, helping people to integrate. The intention, of course, is that this is the province to be in, although any time people come in here, they move out totally because they hear about Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, and those are the places to go to.

    I've probably been responsible myself in the last little while...actually, because some professionals have come in here and their skills are just not required in Nova Scotia. They're required in Oshawa, but not in Nova Scotia. The guy will disappear. He'll go to Toronto. It's probably where you should go for your career.

    The three parts have to be worked out. We do have a conference coming up, probably in mid-April, to examine this whole thing and actually come up with some diagnostics and some way of handling the whole issue. It's a difficult one to explain and it needs to be heavily turned around next year, otherwise this province will die.

    The last StatsCan census essentially showed Nova Scotia as being on the borderline, actually, with very little growth, or a decline...essentially, 0.1%. That's not very much, as far as I remember, so we definitely need some new techniques.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I have a second question relating to this phenomenon. To your knowledge, does the same situation apply in all three Maritime provinces, that is to say, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, or is this limited solely to Nova Scotia?

[English]

    Mr. Dick Smyth: The population decline is from every province, actually. I would imagine they would be probably having the same problem around the immigration thing even in the other three provinces, and in Newfoundland. Perhaps ours is even worse, of course.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I agree that there is a decline in population, but does that apply to immigration as well?

[English]

    Mr. Dick Smyth: I think most of the immigrants are coming here, actually, from the numbers I've seen before.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Obviously, it is difficult for provinces like Nova Scotia and the other Maritime provinces to attract immigrants and keep them. I realize that you are more familiar with what is happening in Nova Scotia, but you must have some idea of the situation in the neighbouring provinces. In your opinion, are the provincial governments investing enough to facilitate integration? It would be easy for us to tell you to pressure your provincial counterparts, but those of us who come from Quebec know that things do not always work that way.

    Quebec already has a lengthy experience with its own immigration programs, and things are working rather well. Quebec can choose its own immigrants. Of course, the French language criterion is a determining factor because of the specific nature of Quebec, but there is also an extremely aggressive attitude outside the country to encourage potential immigrants to settle in Quebec; they are told what to expect and why we need them. The public relations work is quite intense and it seems to be paying off; I think that Yvon Charbonneau would support me on that. But it cannot be done without proper funding and a willingness to do so. Are the governments willing? Of course, just as elsewhere in Canada, the population is dropping. There are fewer immigrants, and this source of vitality is less dynamic than it once was.

    Laws are useful, but there is no substitute for good will, which is demonstrated not only by what we say but also by what we do.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Maybe... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... is different. I... [Editor's Note: Inaudible].

[English]

    I think maybe you're right. The PR portion is probably missing, which you see in Quebec and don't see here. Even the people who go overseas to the various embassies and consulates find there is some literature on Quebec there, but nothing on Nova Scotia. That isn't good.

    We are working on an addition to the government website to at least have immigration appear somewhere on there. Right now the challenge is to find it in the Nova Scotia government's website. It's hidden.

    The last time I went into another site—it was Newfoundland's—I think it was up on page 1 or page 2. You can actually see there's an immigration thing, so you zero in. There isn't that here yet. They're still working on it.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I imagine there are organizations similar to yours in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Do these lobby groups or organizations ever get together to work out solutions, or do you each work individually within your own province, inside your own borders? As an outsider, it seems to me that you probably have some things in common, and often all one needs is a little brainstorming to find some interesting solutions. Is that an option or is it out of the question? In other words, Nova Scotia is Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is New Brunswick.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: No, we meet two or three times a year in various locations in Canada. We were in Ottawa a month ago. We discuss immigration, we talk about our experiences, etc.

[English]

    It helps, essentially. Also our Ottawa office, with Perrin Beatty, goes in and talks to the people who are in Ottawa. They are discussing this whole issue, as well as the skills issue, from the viewpoint of HRDC, so there is some transmitting of information back and forth. That's why, when I'm facing the provincial government here, it's not just on behalf of Nova Scotia; I know what's going on elsewhere as well. I'm not blind. I have been playing around with immigration for too many years now. But it would help to get a lot more PR, definitely.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

    Wendy.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here today.

    I'm interested, Mark, in some of the comments you were making at the outset about the issues around support for nominees when they come here. Later on today we're going to be hearing from the Metro Immigrant Settlement Association and from the North End Community Health Centre. I think we'll hear more about health and family and language issues, but I'd like you to address them, if you could.

    The question is, how do we make Nova Scotia a welcoming place? And how is it that people who are chosen to work here are then supported, so that their families can fit in and get right into society, get right into the school system, get right into the community, and start to feel at home?

    I'm sure we'd all be interested in hearing about any glaring omissions that are occurring right now, any failures we are experiencing here in Nova Scotia that don't allow this process to happen and that work against our being the kind of society that is welcoming. I'd like you to comment on that.

    Then I have in front of me some material from the Parliamentary Research Branch about Nova Scotia's particular program agreement with CIC. It says that according to a provincial official, the selection process will probably use a point system and will require, as an absolute minimum, functionality in English or French and a visit to the province.

    I want your comments on some of these eligibility criteria, Mr. Smyth. Maybe you'd be—

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Now, and before Mark...?

    Ms. Wendy Lill: We'll let Mark go first. It also mentions that the nominee program here in Nova Scotia will be the first one to include a clause related to the francophone minority language community, that francophone representatives are to be consulted by the province when discussions on immigration matters are occurring. I'd like you to comment on how that is playing out.

    Mr. Mark Fernando: I think the federal government is supporting certain aspects of immigration through their funding process to settlement organizations. There are government-assisted refugees or investor class or any other skill class. They are getting some support, mainly in Halifax, not in Dartmouth. In Dartmouth we have one language school; it's on the other side of the harbour. Because of that support...lots of people are not going there, because all of the settlement agencies and English schools are more geared towards the Halifax side.

    In terms of outside the province, I don't think there are any structures. I know that from time to time some English training has been done by some sort of mobile teaching service in the Valley and some other areas. When I came, I was mainly in Antigonish. I could not go to any of the classes there, because the structures were not there. I had to go to a university or an existing school; that was about it. I had to make a two-hour trip to Halifax, by getting a ride with somebody or hitchhiking, to try to make an appointment to go to school.

    Also, employment was one of the reasons. Because of that, I also moved to Halifax. There are problems still there. Most settlement activities focus on the Halifax base, not Dartmouth and outside areas.

    Also, this provincial nominee program is not going to directly be a federal responsibility. Therefore, I don't know how the police will look at it or whether they are willing to spend some time and financial support to provide some settlement services for language and other necessary services.

    As Dick Smyth said, they only have one staff person. I think the staff person also missed a class, as well. The resources are very limited to do this kind of activity.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: All right. Thank you.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Yes. Mark is right, actually. The usual failure seems to be that you actually sell availability across the province. Who's going to fund it? It's certainly not funded by the provincial governments in the total. It's a very small percentage, essentially. Most of it's probably available here in Halifax as opposed to outside the HRM community itself.

    You do need all these little things if you want to integrate people. Otherwise, you will have somebody travelling from Antigonish back to Halifax to get those services. That is normal.

    I guess it's a problem of money. I was president of MISA many years ago. At the time, the organization was getting grants and support of around $250,000. It's now four times that size. I would say that in dollars per immigrant we were probably getting a lot more, but it's still not enough. It's only one of the many organizations in Nova Scotia that are getting funding from CIC and various other sources, essentially, to carry out business.

    If it's Nova Scotia funds that are going to move, for instance, PNP or other programs, I'll have to wait and see the budget when it comes out in a few months. I've never seen a line in there for PNP yet. There have been some for business immigration, but it's really like the salary of one person.

    I am aware of the point system, because we did discuss it with the provincial representative a few weeks ago. At the time, it was actually part of a Chamber of Commerce committee. They said it was great, but they wanted to see it in print. They wanted to at least be shown a draft so they could critique it. There were probably problems with the thing, definitely.

    If you want to restrict it to the two languages, you have an issue. Not everybody speaks English or French.

    As for the other sort of thing, the Francophonie, that's probably a good area. I don't know if they've started discussions or not with the Francophonie group here, the Acadians, but it's definitely a fairly large organization, so they should be talking to them.

    You'll never find immigrants who are willing to move to... [Inaudible—Editor] ...wherever that is. I know where it is. There probably are some people who might want to move towards areas of the Acadian population.

Á  (1125)  

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Just to clarify, you have not seen the point system as it's laid out, that they're now constructing.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: No. I just heard about it in discussions. I haven't seen anything in hard documents yet.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: You mentioned the need for a council.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: This came from this other stakeholders group, which was fairly effective. It had about 20 reps on the thing from various areas of society. It was well worth it. There was a lot of discussion. The first few meetings were really learning sessions so people could see what HRDC, CIC, and the Department of Education were doing.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: So if there is a point system, one would wonder why that kind of organization wouldn't be constructing it.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Right. That's a very good idea.

    Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

    I really applaud both of you for coming in today. When we look at provincial settlement problems, there's no question that they are important to all of us. Just like Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and rural areas--rural versus urban--we all have the major difficulty that immigration in Canada appears to be a movement toward the large urban centres of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, for various clear reasons.

    One, there's a social network in those large centres, which you pointed out very clearly, Mr. Smyth, that gives support to those who are coming in. There's also an employment support system in larger communities, which also advances professional opportunities and work opportunities for so many people.

    The minister has made it very clear--and he has stood for it very strongly--that he will do what he can to facilitate provinces and the need for provinces to bring in workers. So the minister is very much on side.

    You mentioned that Manitoba specifically has been quite successful. I think one of the reasons for the success in Manitoba is, as you mentioned, the Mennonite community. They have a very good social network in Manitoba. But at the same time, I believe Manitoba has been actively pursuing that program for a while now. They've certainly stated very clearly that they wish to further that pursuit.

    Every person on this committee would be very happy if we could see broader opportunities for immigrants in Canada and have opportunities for them to work and live in the rural parts of all ten provinces and territories. So that is an important goal for all of us.

    There are the logistical problems of social development and support systems for bringing people into the communities. Those are things both the federal government and the provincial governments must take seriously and move forward on. I am very much a supporter of saying those systems, those support mechanisms, should be put in place so we can look forward to the emergence of new opportunities for immigrants, both socially and job-wise, in all sectors of Canada. That has not worked really well in the past, and I think every member of this committee would like to see us move forward on that in the future.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Yes. Otherwise Halifax will be the port of entry, like Pier 21, for years to come.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Right now we find that within Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. Every member of this committee realizes that is not totally in the best interest of Canada. More expansion is in our good interest.

    Quite frankly, a few members mentioned we needed to look at numbers of immigrants and opportunities, with our declining birth rates and other problems Canada has. Immigrants are going to play a very clear role in our future development and our future in all areas. So hold on and hope we can come up with some suggestions, working with your organizations and all Canadians to try to expand that opportunity for everyone.

    Thank you very much for coming in. We really appreciate it.

    Mr. Dick Smyth: Thank you.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We will certainly take your comments into careful consideration.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that is the last of the witnesses this morning. We will begin at 1:30 this afternoon and carry on from there. This afternoon's session will go until about 5 o'clock, I believe, so it'll be a little bit longer than this morning's session. We'll play it by ear and see how things go.

    Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.