CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

0910

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

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich (Senior Citizenship Judge, Canadian Citizenship Judges)

0915

0920

The Chair

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

0925

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

0930

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

0935

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

0940

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

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

0945

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

0950

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

0955

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Inky Mark

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1000

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

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

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

1005

1010

The Chair

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

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1015

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

1020

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

1025

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

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

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. David Price

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1030

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

Mr. Inky Mark

Ms. Agnès Jaouich

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

1035

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

1040

1045

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1050

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

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

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Carsten Quell (Senior Officer, Liaison and Part VII, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1055

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Carsten Quell

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Carsten Quell

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1100

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

1105

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Dyane Adam

1110

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

1115

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Dyane Adam

1120

Mr. Joseph Volpe

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Joseph Volpe

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1125

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 011

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. I have just a couple of housekeeping matters before we get to our witnesses.

With regard to Bill C-18, as you know, on your behalf, I will be tabling a report on the safe third country regulations this morning at ten o'clock. I want to thank you all for your input, as well as your supplementary additions to our report. Obviously, they are very thoughtful.

Again, I think we've had a very good debate. Hopefully, on the implementation of the safe third regulations, we're very interested as a committee and will continue to be vigilant on this issue. We're going to ask for those reports to come back to this committee within a year. I think we said in one of our recommendations that it should be within a year.

For the record, I just want to indicate that there are a couple of typographical errors in our final document, and I apologize for those. In recommendation 2, on pages 9 and 19, it should read “159.6”. Unfortunately, the typo is “156.9”. I just want to make sure everybody knows it is in fact section 159.6, yes, but it is a typo and I bring that to your attention.

Secondly, I want to tell you how much we missed you yesterday at our little gathering, both formal and informal, with Jan O. Karlsson, the Swedish Minister for Development Cooperation, Migration and Asylum Policy, who is responsible for immigration for Sweden. To your loss—guess what—Mark Assad, Bill Farrell, Ben Dolin, Chantal Gobeil, and I are going to Sweden. For those of you who were not able to be here to be part of a great reception, we had a great dialogue with the minister, who is very intrigued with Canada's system, not only for citizenship, but for immigration, refugees, and asylum. We had a very good discussion.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Before you go on any further, we had...[Editor's Note: Inaudible].

The Chair: I know. It's a very busy place, and sometimes you unfortunately have to miss the good parts of this place and have to do all the rest of the stuff. On your behalf, though, I want to thank you all. I enjoyed it immensely, and as I said, we're going to Sweden. Too bad for you.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

The Chair: We have the pleasure this morning of welcoming Judge Agnès Jaouich.

Your Honour, we want to thank you very much for coming to see us. If I may say so on behalf of the committee, I know you and your associates do an absolutely tremendous job for our new citizens. In fact, some of us older citizens in our adopted country are very respectful and appreciative of all the hard work that your judges do on our behalf to make that day a very significant day in our lives. It is one day I will never forget, mine having been back in 1963 or 1964.

I know this is the third bill you've had to address. Hopefully we'll get it right and we can move on with our new Citizenship of Canada Act.

I want to take this opportunity to welcome you to our committee. We have your brief, and I wonder if you would take the next seven to ten minutes or so to go through it. I'm sure we will then have all kinds of questions for you.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Agnès Jaouich (Senior Citizenship Judge, Canadian Citizenship Judges): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen,

[English]

thank you for inviting me to appear before you today.

As the senior citizenship judge, it is my role to coordinate the areas of responsibility of the citizenship judges. Historically, the advent of a new citizenship act has generated enormous interest and discussion among the citizenship judges. As you said, Mr. Chair, this is not a new experience. For many of us, this is the third bill respecting Canadian citizenship that has been tabled during our respective terms of appointment.

While there is some uncertainty with respect to the definition of and the support that will be accorded to the new role of citizenship commissioner, we have been preparing for the transition for some time. As a community, we will be ready to play our part in implementing the new act as we move away from a historic role as independent decision-makers in the citizenship process, to being proactive ambassadors in the promotion of active citizenship.

Before addressing the new bill, I would like to take a moment to describe the current responsibility of citizenship judges. Under the current legislation, the primary responsibilities are to preside at citizenship ceremonies; administer the oath of citizenship to new Canadians; review and approve every citizenship application; and conduct hearings to ascertain whether the knowledge, language, and residency requirements have been met or whether there are any criminal prohibitions.

¿ (0915)

[Translation]

Bill C-18 modifies the role of citizenship judges by removing some of the current responsibilities while adding others. The responsibility to review and approve citizenship applications and to conduct hearings will be passed to citizenship officers. Citizenship commissioners will continue to conduct citizenship ceremonies and will also focus their attention in future on their promotional and advisory role.

I would now like to deal with the issue of residency. The current legislation leaves too much room for interpretation as it does not define what constitutes residence. Over the years, this has led to inconsistent and widely divergent interpretations by both citizenship judges and Federal Court judges, resulting in conflicting jurisprudence.

The interpretation contained in paragraph 2(2)(c) of Bill C-18, establishing that residence means "physical presence in Canada", is therefore particularly welcomed as it will introduce a level of consistency, fairness and integrity to the decision-making process that is presently absent.

Paragraph 7(1)(b) of the bill, which stipulates that a permanent resident must have accumulated at least three years of physical presence in Canada within a six-year period preceding his or her application for citizenship, clarifies the residency requirements.

The challenge facing the department, between now and the time of proclamation, will be to determine how physical presence in Canada can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the decision-makers.

[English]

The “knowledge of Canada” requirements in the bill are essential in order to give immigrants every chance to integrate themselves successfully into Canadian society before becoming citizens, thus facilitating their full participation at the social, political, and economic levels of Canadian society.

The requirement for citizens to have a basic ability in one of Canada's official languages is an important aspect of integrating into Canadian society. Measures should therefore be taken to reinforce the message to recent arrivals that a basic proficiency in either English or French is a requirement of Canadian citizenship. It is important to deliver this message to new immigrants when they are granted permanent resident status, in order to encourage them to work toward obtaining language proficiency well in advance of applying for Canadian citizenship. Citizenship judges attempt to convey this important message through their promotional activities.

I welcome the new mandate for citizenship commissioners to assist the minister by providing advice and recommendations on citizenship-related matters. Through their interaction with NGOs and community and industry leaders, citizenship commissioners will keep themselves informed of issues, trends, and concerns within the immigrant community. The knowledge acquired by citizenship commissioners is a valuable resource that could be used in supporting the formulation of policy recommendations to the minister regarding the use of discretion, the appropriateness of the tools used to assess language and knowledge, and the development of departmentally-produced learning materials regarding the citizenship and settlement process.

You mentioned ceremonies, Mr. Chairman. Presiding at citizenship ceremonies is a visible and public function. As presiding officers, citizenship commissioners will administer the oath of citizenship to over 200,000 new citizens every year. It is clear that the government recognizes the significance of citizenship ceremonies and communicating the importance of Canadian citizenship, since an entire clause of the bill is devoted to the citizenship ceremony.

Clause 33 of the bill refers specifically to the importance of the ceremony as a milestone in the life of new citizens. It also conveys the responsibility of citizenship commissioners to ensure that the oath of citizenship is taken with dignity and solemnity. The legislation further affirms that ceremonies are seen as opportunities to encourage citizens to express their civic pride by respecting the law, exercising their right to vote, and participating in Canadian society; and they underline that all citizens should demonstrate mutual respect and understanding, so that each citizen can contribute to the best of their abilities in Canadian society.

It is only through preserving the solemnity, dignity, and inclusiveness of citizenship ceremonies that these objectives can be met. It is significant that only citizenship commissioners will be mandated to preside at such ceremonies, and that substitutes will be used only in exceptional circumstances.

The swearing of the oath by new citizens is the centrepiece of the official ceremony at which new citizens are presented with their certificates of citizenship. The oath contained in the current act has not been changed since 1947, except for minor technical changes. It is fitting that the new legislation includes a modernized oath that not only better reflects contemporary values, but also clearly express loyalty to Canada.

¿ (0920)

[Translation]

The promotion of active citizenship is a major shift in emphasis embodied within the new legislation. While many citizenship judges have been engaged in promotional activities on their own initiative, the fact that the government has formally recognized what was previously an ad hoc activity is a positive step.

As leaders in the community, citizenship commissioners can make a real difference in fostering active civic participation and a sense of belonging in Canada. I must add a word of caution, however, regarding the resources required.

Conducting promotional activities in the community requires strategic planning, logistical support and liaison with the community to ensure that dignity and solemnity are maintained. The department will have to ensure that adequate funding and dedicated resources are provided to support the effective delivery of promotional activities.

Concern has been expressed regarding the transition period, since many applications for citizenship are expected to be in the system on the date that the legislation is proclaimed. It is understood that the department is developing options as to how these applications can be processed fairly and expeditiously. However, it is already clear that the transition period will be a challenging one, as people who applied at a time when one piece of legislation was in force will be evaluated in accordance with the new legislation.

I am confident that the Minister can count on whatever assistance is required from citizenship judges to help the department manage the applications process during the transition period, recognizing that the full assumption of their new role as citizenship commissioners may be delayed until the existing inventory of cases already before citizenship judges can be eliminated.

To conclude, I can assure this committee that we are up to the task of providing continued input and advice, based upon our experience on the front lines, as this bill moves through the legislative process and beyond, and as the details of its implementation are further defined. We take this responsibility seriously, and have voiced our commitment to continue this process in the months and years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jaouich.

[English]

Did you have some questions, Diane?

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

Thank you for that very clear and helpful presentation, madame. I want to say—I'm sure on behalf of all members of the committee—how much we as members of Parliament have appreciated working with citizenship judges, particularly in my case. My friend Ann Wilson was a former citizenship judge in Calgary, and just a marvellous individual. Every time I went to a function in the community, there was Anne. She was very well respected in Calgary, and I'm sure that is true for many of the citizenship judges, if not all of them.

My first question is just a technical one. At the top of page 4, you mention that there will be a challenge “to determine how physical presence in Canada can be demonstrated”. On the basis of your experience, could you offer some advice, from your viewpoint, on how that demonstration would best be achieved?

¿ (0925)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Thank you.

It is a challenge because we request that the applicant prove to us that he or she has been physically present in Canada. Presently, we do require some information because most judges feel some presence is required, notwithstanding the jurisprudence. So when they assess physical presence on paper, it will be important for the department to have a list of a number of documents essential to being able to deal with the applications in a consistent manner, and also to being able to deal with credibility issues.

Given the experience that we've had across the country, we have also offered to help the department as they develop this list. Certain documents may be more easily accessible in some parts of the country and not in others, but we need to have a consistent list of a number of documents that let us feel comfortable in indicating that such documents can in fact be proof of physical presence.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Are you and your colleagues compiling such a list now?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: No, I'm assuming that the department is doing that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: At some point, then, we might need your feedback on the adequacy of such a list.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We'd be happy to provide that.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We'll remember that we have a resource person there, Mr. Chairman.

My second question is with respect to the promotion of citizenship. You start mentioning that on pages 6 and 7 of your presentation. My question is another technical question, with respect to page 7. You mention the existing inventory of cases, and you say the department is developing options. Could you advise the committee on the option you would personally recommend, from your experience, for dealing with those cases in transition?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We've discussed this amongst the judges, and we feel that if a file is in fact given to a judge, notwithstanding when the new act comes into effect, then once it is given to the decision-maker, the decision-maker should carry on with the file, making sure he or she takes the final decision on that case. At the moment when it is actually given to the decision-maker, if it hasn't reached that point, then it probably might as well go through the new system.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So you're suggesting that the citizenship judge, as is the case now, would be seized with an application that was before him or her and would carry it on to completion.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We would probably have to define the point at which the judge is seized with the file. I think it would be easier for all the judges to understand exactly at what point it would be seized, and we expect the department to come up with that point in time.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: At what point would you feel, from your experience, that you would be seized with an application?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Once the file is ready to be seen by a judge and once everything else has been prepared and is ready for the judge, that probably would be the right time.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's helpful.

With respect to this promotion of active citizenship, you have given us some idea of what you believe would be involved. As I mentioned in my preamble, there has been a great deal of this activity already taking place under some of the citizenship judges I know. You talk about the requirement for strategic planning, logistical support, etc. I'm wondering if you could just expand on that a little bit for the committee.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Thank you very much.

The promotion of citizenship now is a bit of an ad hoc activity that the judges are carrying out because of the responsibility for dealing with the volume of work and the hearings that they now have to deal with. But they have spent a lot of time thinking of what those activities could be once this function is not part of their core functions, and about how they could have an influence in the community.

We've talked about possibly meeting newcomers at landing ceremonies or before those individuals are in fact landed in Canada. Some judges already do that in Vancouver, for example. They speak to those who have just become landed, telling them about what they have to do and how they have to integrate into Canadian society and eventually apply for citizenship. They could also meet directly with language and citizenship groups and speak with settlement agencies to emphasize the requirements for citizenship and what the applicants need to do to be able to successfully apply for and pass the citizenship requirements.

Also, I've talked about newcomers. The role that the citizenship commissioners will have in the community will also affect the host community. As you probably know, a lot of Canadians born in Canada don't know what a citizenship ceremony is all about. They don't know what it requires for individuals to become citizens, and they don't see the joy that newcomers have when they become new Canadian citizens.

So taking ceremonies into the community, into schools, into communities, requires planning, as does having Canadian-born children or a Canadian host society witnessing the ceremony. These are things we do on a very ad hoc basis now, but they will be very challenging and interesting parts of the new functions.

Also, partner with some volunteer organizations, universities, and faculties, to encourage the display of information about citizenship to educate the public, schools, or fairs about what it does mean to become a Canadian citizen and how newcomers feel about it.

¿ (0930)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, madame. I can see your enjoyment and enthusiasm for the job, and it is a pleasure to have you here with us.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Well, like our chairman, I also remember my ceremony, although it was a little later.

The Chair: Thank you, Diane.

Joe Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you very much, Judge. Like my colleague opposite, I'd like to welcome you here and thank you for helping us to understand a little more of the impact of this.

You'll forgive me if I seem a little brusque this morning. I'm not accustomed to the brutal weather that we've been getting.

I just came from Calgary, Mrs. Ablonczy. The weather there was 16°C. I come over here and it's probably -25°C.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I hope you were behaving yourself.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I wasn't. I was frolicking in the sunshine.

The Chair: You should have brought some over with you.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I tried, but members of Parliament obviously don't have as much influence as people give us credit for.

Madam Judge, I went through the residency requirements. In your statement, you say we want to “introduce a level of consistency, fairness and integrity to the decision-making process that is presently absent.” I'd like you to expand a little bit on this business about having to physically be here, and on the ability to actually be able to trace and track that.

We have those who have established a long-time residence here in Canada and who have citizenship, and we have the phenomenon of people vacating Canada for approximately six months every year, almost like it's a religious routine, because they don't like the -25°C weather. Are you advocating something a little bit more rigid for those who want to become citizens than you are for those who are actually citizens?

¿ (0935)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We feel Canadian citizenship is a very valuable gift that we give to newcomers. For a newcomer to become a Canadian citizen, he or she should feel and experience Canadian life not forever, but for at least a certain period of time. They have to be able to integrate themselves into the society. They have to be able to understand our way of living. They have to be able to understand what is important as far as our values are concerned, what is important as far as our way of doing business is concerned. They have to become Canadian. You cannot become Canadian if you don't live in the country.

This is a discussion that the judges have had. They feel that for you to be able to find employment, to raise your children, you need to be part of a community. You cannot be part of a community if you spend most of your time overseas.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Let me see if I follow this logic. If I immigrate to Maple, Ontario, and dedicate myself to earning a living for my children, and if I happen to find employment within the municipal boundaries of Maple, Ontario, and stay there religiously for 1,000-plus days, and if I take on a second job because I want to pay off my mortgage—I don't even get a chance to travel to downtown Toronto, because I'm dedicated—at the end of my three years, what will I say or what can I say to the citizenship judge to convince that judge that I've learned something about Canada?

The Chair: Have you ever gone to Toronto?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I just gave everybody a geography lesson here.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: If the person we're talking about has a job, works in the community, rents a premises to live in, and has kids in school, just the way of doing business would have been picked up very quickly. What do the school requirements mean? What does it mean to do work in the community? In Canada, we're very proud and we encourage people to do volunteer work. That doesn't happen in every other country, but by living in his community, he would see that this is part of everyday life.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: My neighbour in Maple—unlike me, who has to work two shifts—actually has developed an entrepreneurial tendency that sees him going over to the United States on a frequent basis, sometimes tapping into his contacts in either Asia or Europe, and doing a lot of travel. In fact, he even gets a chance to see downtown Toronto, and on a good day he goes over to Quebec or Montreal and maybe does business in Abitibi. But he's out of the country quite a bit because he's selling all those paper products from Abitibi and some of the lumber products from northern Alberta or British Columbia. He probably knows Canada better than I do, but his feet aren't rooted in Maple like mine are.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: That's okay. He can continue to live there. He just doesn't have to apply for Canadian citizenship. He won't have a passport and he won't be able to vote, but he can carry on the same style of life.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I thank you for that.

In terms of the knowledge requirements, I wondered about them having every chance to integrate themselves successfully into Canadian society. They have to know a lot about Canada. Now, here I am in Maple again, and I'm working two shifts. During the other eight hours, I'm either sleeping or I'm spending some time with my family. As you just said, as long as I learn about sending my kids to school and am living in my community, I'm okay. But what test of commitment and integration do I have to meet that's either at the same level as or better than that of the person who is born here or has citizenship? For example, do I have to meet a greater test than some of my neighbours who live in Summerside, P.E.I.?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Are we talking about the “knowledge of Canada” test? Is that what you are referring to?

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Yes.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We're not saying it has to be greater, we're just saying that if we are giving new citizens the right to vote, they need to know what they are doing by voting. They need to have some sense about the political system that we have in Canada, and they need to have some sense about the voting process. So we're not requiring too much.

I'm not sure if you've seen the book A Look at Canada, which we ask newcomers to use to prepare for the citizenship test. It's not very demanding. There are some difficult questions, of course, but it's really designed to give them a sense about our geography, our history, and the political process and voting process, because this is what we're giving them as a right as a Canadian citizen.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: All right, let me throw you a compliment, Madam. My sense is that most of the people, if not all of the ones who have acquired citizenship, have shown that they have a real commitment to Canada and to an understanding of the political process, because the last time we tested them all in—When was it?—1995, in the Quebec referendum, 98% of them voted to stay in Canada. So it's obvious that somebody did a good job.

I want to ask you about this advice to ministers on welcoming a new mandate for citizenship commissioners. As I read through your statement and as I listened to you, I made a little note to myself. I wondered how we can develop consistency when we have such varied experiences that judges bring to the job, unless we turn judges into commissioners who are then responsible to somebody else up the line and down the line. A memo comes down and you are obliged to operate according to that memo, to make decisions according to that memo. Is that what I should have understood from this? Is it that commissioners will operate under direction and prescription, whereas judges would be operating under discretion and assessment?

¿ (0940)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: At the present time, the judges are an administrative tribunal. They make independent decisions, but they have absolutely no input into the policies of the department because they are independent. That sometimes may not be the best solution. Once they become citizenship commissioners, they will be able to have delegated responsibilities and will be involved in the policy-making of the department. We think this is an important aspect, rather than them being totally independent.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: But for the applicant, here I am in Maple and I want to appear before somebody—

The Chair: I think we're going to go to that place called Maple. I'm intrigued by it, Joe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I'm going to be meeting this person. It's really my first contact with the solemnity of becoming a Canadian. I would like to know...I have to see where I'm going on this. This person is either making a decision because it is related to me, the applicant, the aspiring Canadian citizen, or is making a decision because he or she has input into the policy that decides how I do this. Which is it? Is it that the judges are trading one off for the other?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Let me just explain to you how those hearings take place. Maybe that would be helpful to you.

The files are prepared by citizenship officers. Most people don't require a hearing. Some 90% to 95% of the applicants do not see a judge. They pass the written tests, they have no problem with the language or their knowledge, and they have no problem with residency or a criminal file. So we're talking about only 10% of the applicants who actually now sit in front of a judge for a hearing—and that's across the country.

This is to give them a second chance. For example, no one can be turned down for citizenship unless they have an opportunity to explain their case. If they fail the written test, they have a hearing with a judge. Maybe it will be easier for them to express themselves verbally than it is on the multiple choice test. So that's an added piece of the process.

But I also provide guidelines to the judges, because I would like someone who is interviewed in Halifax to have the same chances as one interviewed in Vancouver. So they do have guidelines to go through a certain set of questions and to see if the person passes, yes or no. It is very process-oriented. That process could be carried out by a judge or it could be carried out by a departmental official, and we're not talking about that many cases. So that's one kind of hearing.

The other kind of hearing takes place when we are not sure if the individual has been in the country for the residency requirement's sake, but the file—which sometimes could be a few inches thick—is all prepared by the citizenship officer. The file is prepared up to the point when it's given to the citizenship judge, in order for him or her to go through a set of questions. Again, in my role, I try to give them some consistent questions so that we are treating applicants in the same manner. They go through the set of questions and determine if the applicant has been in or not. This is the role that we play.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I thank you, madame. I just wondered which of those circumstances would provide greater solemnity to the occasion.

The Chair: We'll have to wait until later for that answer.

Madeleine, followed by Inky.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is along the lines of what my colleague Mr. Volpe was saying. In your opinion, should this legislation provide for some exceptions to reflect the residency reality of certain cases? For example, what about students studying abroad or similar situations? Would this be a good measure or, based on your experience, do you think that the legislation should remain as it is, meaning that you have to be here 3 out of 6 years, which is the equivalent of 6 out of 12 months? Let's be clear about this, this won't make much of a difference. Moreover, for this person, it would be 6 out of 12 months. That is my first question.

I will ask all of my questions at once, and then you can take your time answering them.

You correctly stated that under the new legislation the new citizenship commissioners would have an educational role which entails promoting Canadian citizenship. I am wondering whether this promotion leaves very much room for imagination, initiative, all sorts of wonderful qualities. In the event of an election in Quebec—there will be one soon—where there will be a very tight race between a sovereignist party, a federalist party and another party that lies somewhere between the two, could we foresee there being a sudden invasion of citizenship commissioners who would meet with groups of Canadian citizens to talk to them about the importance of their votes in a provincial election where there are different visions of society?

¿ (0945)

[English]

The Chair: That's a great plan, Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, I'm sure it is.

[English]

The Chair: I never thought of that one, but it's a very good one.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: This is why I'm going to ask my questions one after the other.

My third question pertains to knowledge of the language. I agree with you that when we choose a new country, it is essential that we learn the language that is spoken there. Canada has two languages. In Italy, there is only one: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I would like to know how you measure this knowledge. In the past, for all kinds of very compassionate reasons, we had in particular accepted the fact that there were women who had arrived with their husbands, children, etc. and who had remained confined in their home and, after residing in Quebec for many years—because these are the cases that I am familiar with—, ended up in an old age home where they were cut off from their families, and were unable to say one word in either French or English. I felt that we should give them citizenship out of kindness nonetheless because they had someone who was going to take care of them, but we also have to provide for this situation. That is my third question.

It seemed to me that I had a fourth question. Wait a moment.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: [Editor's note: inaudible].

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Very good. I don't need your advice, my friend Joseph. You are very talented; I am learning from you.

You said that you had some concerns about the transition between the current act and the new legislation. Could you tell us briefly where you think the main difficulties lie?

Those are my four questions.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Thank you. I will answer your questions in the order in which they were given.

As you stated yourself, for residency exceptions, it is three out of six years. So there is already a provision that allows individuals to be absent. Based on my experience, we are being generous. We are not requesting that somebody remain here, confined to his home for the entire period. We already provide for some flexibility. Whether we are talking about a student or an individual who has particular reasons for being abroad, there is already some flexibility, but ultimately, this person may continue living in Canada with the same advantages. He or she will not be entitled to vote and will not be able to hold a Canadian passport, but aside from that, the person is not penalized very much. In our opinion, we have to bear this aspect in mind in considering this question.

We fully agree with the educational promotion aspect, but as it pertains to what we do, in the context of what it takes to became a Canadian citizen through the Canadian legal process. The commissioners will be working within these parameters. They won't be able to talk about just anything. There will be some parameters which I will be responsible for defining.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You have been given a heads-up now.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Yes, but I must also tell you that, from an election standpoint, even right now, as soon as an election is called somewhere in the country, we are very aware of the importance of remaining very impartial and very removed from everything that is said so that we don't wind up playing a role that is not necessarily the one that we want to play. We are here to promote the Canadian citizenship process, but aside from that, we keep away from any political issues.

As for the way we measure the acquisition of a language, no doubt we will continue to make exceptions for people who are beyond a certain age or who cannot learn a language for, let's say, medical reasons. Language requirements are minimal. We ask that an individual be able to function in his or her environment and, for the individual's own security, have minimal language knowledge in order to use mass transit, have a basic conversation with the children's teacher and go to the store. We are not asking for much more than that; we are simply requiring that they be able to interact with the community.

Regarding the transition process, what concerns us most is whether or not, at one point, we will be able to determine how many files are going to be caught between the old legislation and the new one. There won't be very many judges. There are 23 judges covering the entire country; that is not a lot. We especially need to determine how we are going to be able to manage and foresee the workload, because most of the judges are part-time.

¿ (0950)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Your Honour, what did you say you had 23 of? I didn't get that.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: There are 23 citizenship judges across the country, there are 4 vacancies right now, and most of them are part time.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's almost like the senators.

[English]

The Chair: Maybe that's what we should do. We should get senators to be citizenship judges or commissioners, too.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Half senator, half judge: that wouldn't be too bad.

[English]

The Chair: Wait for our report.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here on a very cold morning. I'll just ask you a whole bunch of little questions, because we're very limited in terms of time here.

Of the 23 judges, were they asked about the changes to this bill in terms of title and how they see this change affecting them? One of the concerns you brought up was whether or not the change from judge to commissioner would make them more a part of the bureaucracy rather than allowing them to have more independence.

Another question is on clause 18, which deals with annulment. You indicated how excited people are and how committed they are to this country. Should citizenship be of one status, of one nature? If you're a citizen and it's a question of an annulment, should it be through the courts?

Another question is about how judges should be appointed. Perhaps we need to look at a new process of how they should be appointed, so that it's a little more transparent.

A number of people had raised the issue of residency requirements. Looking at the other end, such as a permanent resident who has lived here for ten years, perhaps we should put a limit on time at the other end. Maybe within a decade of receiving permanent residence, they should become a citizen. I just want to hear your comments on that.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Thank you.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, over the last five years that I've been in this position, we've gone through Bill C-63 and Bill C-16, and now we're on Bill C-18. We have had discussions, but it was not a static group of judges. Some saw their terms end and some new ones came on board, so it wasn't necessarily the same group who went through the whole process.

But, yes, we have discussed these things on numerous occasions. At one point in 1999, we even had a joint committee with the department to develop the future role of citizenship commissioners, in terms of how we would see that role and how the department could also make it happen. So we've had those discussions on role and title.

The issue of title is not one that is consistent, I would say, but my answer is that the title should follow the role. If it is not an independent decision-making group and quasi-judicial tribunal, it's difficult to have individuals called judges presiding at ceremonies, in my view.

We did not discuss annulment. It's not something we deal with, so I would not be able to speak to you about it.

On how citizenship judges are appointed, they are order-in-council appointees. There is a process by which individuals can indicate an interest, and there is a process that is similar to the IRB process, in which they are tested. It's then up to the minister and cabinet, so I would not be able to comment further on that.

On your question about an upper limit on residency, I think we'll be able to resolve this, because citizenship commissioners will be in the communities to tell people to apply if they have the time. We will not get to a point at which we'll have too many people who will have been in Canada for ten years and will not have applied. This is something the judges are very keen on in terms of trying to talk to the communities and tell them that if they do in fact meet all the requirements, they should come on over.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Inky Mark: Do we have any idea, statistically, of how many permanent residents have been living here for over ten years and have not....?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I'm not aware of any. Maybe the department has them.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Andrew.

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

Let me go back to Honest Joe from Maple, Ontario. I worked in Maple for a number of months, so I have some knowledge of the place.

The Chair: I just found out I have relatives in Maple, Ontario.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That's great.

The Chair: That's the magic of the BlackBerry.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Anyway, let's suppose that this gentlemen, Honest Joe in Maple, Ontario, happens to have come to Canada after being recruited by a Canadian company for his expertise at being able to do international sales—and I mention this because I was here for the hearings on Bill C-63 and Bill C-16. Being familiar with the international scene, this person based out of Maple, Ontario, is going around getting business and jobs for Canada because of his efforts. That was the reason he was recruited.

By having the requirement of 1,095 days within six years, I suppose that at some point in time, this individual would have to go in and try to show he met that criterion. We really don't have an exact way of dealing with that, so the citizenship is now conferred upon him in the first instance because the commissioner finds he has satisfied the criterion. Someplace along the line, however, three years down the road, it's discovered that he forgot to remember he was out of the country for about a week, and now he's one week short of the 1,095 days. What do we do? Do we annul the citizenship under clause 18? Or if the discovery is made five years plus one day after that, what do we do? Do we try to revoke that citizenship?

The point I'm trying to make is that there's a finality to a decision right now when the citizenship court judge is satisfied without that 1,095-day figure over six years. The issue is ended. I guess I have a bit of concern that, through an oversight or a simple mistake—it doesn't have to be knowingly withheld information—that issue is not finalized.

The other issue I have a concern with—and I followed Bill C-63 and Bill C-16 and worked on them, and I now see it in Bill C-18—is this wonderful name of “citizenship commissioner”. Somehow, that doesn't seem to have the dignity of “citizenship judge”. When I think of a citizenship commissioner, I think of a parking commissioner. When I was parliamentary secretary, I tried to engage the department in a debate in regard to where this name came from and whether or not we could have some other name for it. Certainly it was my assessment, based on the discussions, that this was just a name they came up with.

I then tried to look at what the push was to eliminate the position of citizenship judge and make the role administrative, instead of that of an independent tribunal. My assessment happens to be that this was an issue that was a pet project of the bureaucracy because they didn't really want independent decision-makers. That causes me some degree of concern.

When we're talking about what you or the citizenship court judges might think about the bill, I think back to my community, and I think of two citizenship court judges. One is Lorna Van Mossel, and the other one is Robert Somerville, both of whom were very good judges. If we want to get a real feel for what judges in the field think, we should consider talking to some of the people who have been judges and are no longer judges.

À (1000)

As a committee, we would probably get more of an independent feel for what their experiences were. Because we're clearly into a transition of moving to commissioners, and because most of the people who are judges now have been either hired under that understanding or support that particular position, it would be useful to get some evidence from former judges, in order to find out how they see this move to commissioners reflecting the workings of the citizenship decision-making and act in the future.

The Chair: Thank you for that excellent suggestion, Andrew.

Having been a chair before, you know that if you're taking five minutes to ask our questions, it means the witness doesn't have any time to answer. I would ask respectfully that you ask your questions quickly. You can probably get a lot more than two questions in if you don't take five minutes to ask the questions.

Go ahead, Your Honour.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I'm not sure the question was put to me about whether or not you were going to see extra—

The Chair: No, that was my question, and I thanked him for the suggestion. But I think he did ask you a question with regard to the role of the judges as administrators and/or independent decision-makers—

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I'll answer that.

The Chair: —and the whole question of revocation, and therefore the whole role of a quasi-judicial body as opposed to an administrative body.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: As citizenship judges, we are not dealing with the issue of annulment, and we have not discussed it. But I see your point, and this may be something the department should be looking at to see how they would like to amend whatever proposals they have forwarded to address your concerns.

If I go to the issue of title and independence, there are others who are called commissioners, and not just in parks. You have the Commissioner of Official Languages coming to speak to you after me. We have an RCMP commissioner. This is a title that has been attached to a number of positions, so I don't see it as derogatory. As I said earlier, to me, the title of judge should remain if the function is that of an administrative tribunal. If the function moves, it's very difficult for me to justify that the title of judge should remain. So that's it as far as the title is concerned.

On the independence of the body that we have now, the fact is that it deals with only 10% of the applicants. For the other 90%, for the rest of the applicants whose file is complete, the people we now call citizenship judges have to sit there for hours at a time just putting their signature on a file that is complete. There's absolutely no question about the applicant, and we have these individuals called citizenship judges sitting in an office for a whole day, signing files just because the act now says every application has to be approved by a citizenship judge. So there's also that other part that a lot of the judges will be very happy not to have to deal with.

The Chair: In other words, since 95% of Canadians are law-abiding citizens, we ought to get rid of real judges, police, and people like that, and not worry about the 5% who are breaking the laws. I like that suggestion, Your Honour.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): One would think I'd be in favour of the recommended change, which is to move toward a more objective process for approving citizenship applications. However, I have this nagging sense that we're going to lose something as we make this shift from the citizenship judge who has some responsibility for approval of applications, to a completely objective bureaucratic process.

For example, even though we're talking about Liberal appointments, I think of Art Miki, the citizenship judge in Winnipeg, who takes his job very seriously. He gets involved in an in-depth way when necessary, and I think he plays a role in terms of helping people through a difficult interview process or in terms of being able to judge extenuating circumstances and to help if that person's just not able to get through that step of the process. He can make it happen in a way that meets the circumstances. I just think we're going to lose something, and I wonder what we'll end up with in the new system being proposed. Who can help to apply that kind of discretion in those extenuating circumstances?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: My understanding is that there will be an ability for citizenship officers to apply discretion as well. At the present time, however, citizenship judges like Art Miki don't approve an application, they just recommend. The granting is done by an official in any case. Right now, the judges are in between. The file is prepared by the officer; it comes to the citizenship judge; he or she recommends to approve or not approve; and the granting is then done by the officer. The file goes back to the officer, who has the final say in any case.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: True, but in making that recommendation for approval, the judge can take into account the circumstances of the applicant before him or her.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: But he still has to apply the criteria; otherwise, I'd not be very happy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, he has to apply the criteria, but he can actually sense if the person is very nervous at that moment, and he can actually make a recommendation for another try or some way to account for that.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: At this point, the interview is the interview, and we have to try to make the best of the moment. Otherwise, we'd have people going back and forth at a rate that we could not deal with in terms of volume.

À (1005)

They also have discretion for medical purposes right now, for example. If the person is not going to be able to mentally or physically learn and go through the test, my understanding is that those criteria and those waivers will also still be available for citizenship officers who will be making that decision.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you, Judy.

John.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): You mentioned in your testimony that you appreciated that the oath has undergone a certain change. One of the changes is the insertion of the words “I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.” Is this what you mean by modernizing the oath, shall we say? Is this a sufficiently complete explanation of what Canada is all about and what new Canadians are...?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: We feel it's an improvement, and that's why we're happy with it.

Mr. John Bryden: Does that mean that perhaps we can improve it even more?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: If we were to put ten people in a room and got them to try to draft it, we would have ten different versions that would all be good. At some point, it's just a matter of saying this is a good oath and we'll go with it. But we have no objection if there's a new redrafting.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, that's awkward. What you're saying is that you don't really have a stake in trying to improve the oath.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: No. We feel it has been improved, and we're happy with it.

Mr. John Bryden: What if we specified more clearly some of the values associated with being Canadian? I take it that when people come to Canada, they come to Canada, not to Great Britain, New Zealand, or any other country, so I take it that they have a strong sense of Canada being a unique country. Is that so?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Very much so.

Mr. John Bryden: So instead of saying they'd uphold our country's rights and freedoms, could we improve the oath by asking the prospective new Canadians to uphold the five principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifying equality of opportunity, democracy, freedom of speech, basic human rights, and the rule of law? Would that be an improvement over what's there now, in your view?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I would say it's another option. But there could be many options that would be quite acceptable, so that's how I would respond.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, let me try one more time, because I see that—

The Chair: I keep telling you that if you put it to music, it'll sound a lot better. Next time, I'm bringing a tape recorder with me.

Mr. John Bryden: I know.

You are tremendously experienced with new Canadians taking the oath. Tell me something. Would prospective new Canadians be more moved by the following words that I'll give to you? I'll only just ask for your personal opinion, since you can't speak for all the other judges, but I'd like to know if you think they would be a little bit more moved by an oath that said:

In pledging allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by their solemn trust to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

That's exactly what's in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Do you want my honest opinion and my personal opinion?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: New citizens are moved by the experience of becoming a new Canadian citizen and by the solemnity of the event. I don't think they are moved necessarily by one word or another, by a text that they have not necessarily memorized because they have to repeat it after the judge. It's the whole event that moves them, not necessarily a part of it.

So I think it's a very acceptable oath of citizenship, like many others.

Mr. John Bryden: So the words don't matter? I just find that so incredible.

The Chair: No, they do. That's why the committee is looking at your great suggestions, John.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask one more question along this line, then.

Let us turn to the Queen. In your experience with prospective people taking the oath to become new Canadians, do they associate the Queen with Canada? Does the Queen represent any kind of barrier or any kind of difficulty for some people who take the oath? Have you ever had any reservations about the Queen being in the oath?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Some have expressed some reservations, but many don't. When they study the book or look at Canada, they understand our system and they understand that the Queen is part of our democratic process. Some question it, but they're not going to stop. In my experience, I haven't heard of anybody who would not take the oath because of that.

Mr. John Bryden: And as a final question, in your experience, you've seen a lot of people who have come to take the oath of citizenship, and you've seen a lot of people from all over the world who have come to Canada seeking Canadian citizenship. Can you give us a little sense of why they are attracted to Canada? Is it our wealth? Is it our vastness? What is it that draws them to Canada?

The Chair: It's our great winters, I'm sure.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I can draw from my own experiences and I can draw from the experiences of everybody I meet at the ceremonies. They feel Canada is paradise. Canada is unique. Canada is a country where you have freedoms, where you can live your own life, and where you live in a safe environment. I'm just using some words that come to heart, but, in general, this is what Canada is about.

Mr. John Bryden: So maybe we should put this adherence to Canadian values and freedoms in the oath.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Perhaps.

The Chair: Thank you, but I liked her words, “paradise” and all of that.

Mr. John Bryden: “Paradise”? I'm putting that in the oath.

The Chair: See, that's poetic. I've asked you to be poetic, and the judge is being very poetic.

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

The Chair: “Canada is paradise.” I like that. Is that a suggestion that we're going to look at? It is, too.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: It will be easier for children and for adopted children to gain citizenship. They won't have to go through Immigration. Will the judges be doing that verification or validation of citizenship for the adopted children, or will it be Immigration? Immigration won't be doing that because they're going to get citizenship. If they're going to get their citizenship and there are going to be some adult citizenships, and if the children are going to automatically get it, this will be going through you, won't it?

À (1015)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Yes, but possibly only as a paper file. Under the age of 14, they don't have to take the oath, so they don't have to come to the ceremony. It can be just a paper file on which there would be a signature.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Does that include the adult adoptions as well? You'll just be seeing the paper but won't be doing any of the background; Immigration will probably be doing that.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: That's right.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's my main question.

The Chair: I know I have Judy to get to. Was there anybody else? Yvon? David? Okay.

If I could, Your Honour, I just want to touch on three issues, probably to re-emphasize what some of my colleagues have been asking not only today, but over the course of the past two bills.

I want to deal with this whole question of the fact that even though only 5% to 10% require a hearing, a lot of that stuff is administrative. But it's in that 5% or 10% that the whole discretion becomes that much more important as it perhaps relates to residency. Right now, residency is not three years out of six, it's whatever it takes to achieve 1,095 days, and you have to prove it to someone if you haven't done so administratively.

It's this whole question of independence and this whole question of discretion that makes certain people nervous. I'm not sure about the politicians—we have to do that all the time—but maybe administrators and bureaucrats get a little nervous, even though what your asking or what they're asking is for them to have the discretion that now lies with and resides in the person of a judge. Where is it better placed? I think that's what the committee is going to have to deal with.

Based on your experience—and I agree—you said you don't even see a whole bunch of files probably 90% to 95% of the time. But in the other 5% or 10%, let's face it, someone may only have 1,010 days or 895 days, or they can in fact prove—as Madeleine and other people have suggested—that they had to be away from the country for six months because of a death in the family, because they had to take care of family, because they were studying, or because work indicated it. It's who is going to have the discretion and who we have much more faith in. Whether it's in an independent person—call them a judge or a commissioner—or whatever, it's all in the decision-making. So I'm wondering if you could clarify what that might do, again based on your best experience.

Also within that context, you said the ceremony is significant, and it is. But will it be very significant if that person presiding is nothing but a bureaucrat by no other name other than the fact...? And you will be a bureaucrat. Those judges or commissioners will no longer be anything but administrators. They will have no decision-making powers. Therefore, you're going to be promoting a whole bunch of things, but let's face it, it's not the same as having a judge preside. I'm just wondering if you can answer that.

I need to ask you about our inventory now. London, Ontario, happens to be one place where we've been missing a judge for over two years. There is a backlog of people waiting to become citizens like you wouldn't believe. The number is in the thousands. Members, the backlog in Ottawa is 2,000 before you can get even a hearing with the judge.

In this whole scheme of things, I get a little nervous about retroactivity when we come up with this new bill, because we went through that with our immigration bill. You indicated that someone is going to have to make a decision if you apply, because right now it's six months before you even get a reply to your application and you've had to have fulfilled at least the minimum requirements of residency. So you're already waiting six months, and now the waiting periods are getting longer and longer. In some jurisdictions, I understand there's no work for the citizenship judges or commissioners, but there are backlogs like you wouldn't believe in other jurisdictions, including my own community.

I need you to deal with how this whole new apparatus is going to work, because you said you need resources. They want you not to make decisions but to be out there in the community promoting citizenship and talking. You want the assistance, you want people to be there with you to do the planning, but that's not what the plan is. I understand that the whole plan of this is to save money, not to spend more money on resources, so I need you to clarify an awful lot of those issues regarding resources, backlogs, transition, and retroactivity, if you could.

Lastly, with regard to the title versus the role, I'll get back to the concern about whether or not it doesn't really matter. “Commissioner” is a great name, but so is “judge“, and it all comes down to what role they should have. I would agree that citizenship is perhaps the most important gift that we can give to people. Therefore, I'm just wondering whether or not, in giving that gift, we ought to take the opportunity to make sure there's the ultimate flexibility and appeal, humanizing the process as opposed to dehumanizing it in some way.

À (1020)

I know there are a lot of questions there, but I think they're supplementary to what has already been asked.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Thank you. I'll do my best in responding to the four questions.

The issue of residency has been a very difficult one for citizenship judges because of the inconsistencies. In fact, individuals now appear in front of the citizenship judge with the flexibility that we have now as independent decision-makers, and because of their circumstances they end up being approved after having been in the country for a very short period of time. This can then go to the Federal Court of Appeal. Depending on who is sitting on the bench, it can go one way or the other, in the same manner.

We sometimes have citizenship judges who are very flexible and whose cases are appealed and are overturned. This is a very costly process because of the lack of consistency both with the citizenship judges to some extent and at the Federal Court to a greater extent, because there is absolutely no way to measure which way the file will go because of the two levels.

It is a long process. It sometimes takes more than a year, and sometimes it's close to two years when the files are appealed to the Federal Court. It's a bit like a lottery. People will apply and will say that, depending on which judge they have at the Federal Court, they may or may not have their decision reversed. We're not sure this is the best process to maintain. It is something that is of concern because of this independence at both levels.

Now, who will be doing those hearings? Our understanding is that it will be officers who will be looking at the files and trying to make decisions, in the same way that, within the department, we have people overseas who make decisions on immigration visas. Canadian citizenship is a very valuable gift that we give, but the consequences of being turned down are not as great as when you are turned down overseas when you apply for immigration. I had to apply three times before my file was approved for immigration when we came to Canada, so I know what that means. But once you come here—

The Chair: So you can see why we're distrustful of bureaucrats.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: But they did finally approve my application.

Anyway, that is my answer to your questions from that point of view.

On the inventory, yes, there are some inconsistencies of inventory across the country, but we do try to help in any way we can when there is a problem area. We're trying to service London with other judges—

The Chair: And they've been very good.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: —who have been able to fly in as often as possible to try to deal with the backlog, so that there is no inconsistency in terms of the length of time people have to wait to get their citizenship.

On the title and the role, I agree with you. The title must follow the role. To me, if the event that is most important is the ceremony at which somebody will be standing there with a robe, in the same attire as they wear now, and with the same decorum, then I'm not sure the title of that individual has a lot of weight for the applicants, for the people who are there to become new citizens. Actually, “judge” might be a little scary to some people who come from countries where the systems are different. So the decorum will be the same, the individuals will be dressed in the same attire, and it will be the same courtroom-like environment, so I'm not sure the applicants will see the difference.

The Chair: Okay, and on the question of resources, if I could....

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: The resources that will be required will be shifting. Right now, the citizenship officers prepare the file in any case. They prepare the file, they pass it down to the judge, and then get it back. So there will be some savings there. There's no doubt about it. We hope some of those savings will be redirected to be able to allow the citizenship commissioners to do the promotional work that the bill describes as being part of their future functions.

À (1025)

The Chair: Judy, did you have one additional question? No?

I know we're running a little late, but did you have one, Madeleine?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At my office last week the week before, we received a telephone call from a landed immigrant of Irish origin who was absolutely outraged to see that we had maintained the reference to the Queen in the bill. He went so far as to say that this was almost against fundamental rights. The Queen does not bother me but we do not need her. I would like to hear what you have to say on the matter. Do you think that the status of our citizens would change if the reference to the Queen were suddenly to disappear from the oath?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I think that the whole matter of the monarchy should be dealt with outside of the oath issue. If we have a monarchy in Canada, I do not see the problem with mentioning the Queen in the oath. Let's say that this may be a problem for some people, but not for everyone.

[English]

The Chair: You can refer that question to John Manley, if you want.

Voices: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Or Paul Martin.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: He will support my amendment, Joe.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, David.

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

Judge Jaouich, I have a comment and a short question.

The comment is on what you mentioned before. During the ceremonies themselves, it's true enough that the citizens really don't know what they're saying and that what they're saying at the time is not present. It does come back, though—and I'm speaking from my experience with my wife's side of the family, who went through it. That oath goes up on the wall and it is looked at afterwards, and I think that's when it takes on a lot more meaning. But it's true enough that, during the ceremony itself, it may not. But I think the oath is extremely important, and a lot of them live by that oath.

You talked a little bit about promotion, and that's one of the feeble points in this bill. We're probably not putting enough resources into it. I do agree with you totally.

Joe mentioned the fact there are backlogs in some areas, but in other areas there isn't a backlog. In fact, there's almost a shortage in some ways. A lot of people there are landed immigrants who we don't go after. Promotion is one thing, with citizenship judges being present and with ceremonies being done in a good, public way, let's say. But what would you think of having a system in which, after someone has been a landed immigrant for x number of years, they are invited? A letter could be sent to them, inviting them to apply.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: It could be a good process. My only concern would be whether or not it would raise expectations. Maybe they don't meet the criteria for some reason, so will they assume that the process will take place once they've been invited, and that they will not have to.... My only concern would be that there is an assumption that the criteria are met.

Mr. David Price: On the other hand, most people who apply are accepted, so the turndown rate would be probably quite low.

The fact is that a lot of people sit around totally integrated into the Canadian community. If they don't have any reason to go out of the country, quite often they never apply for Canadian citizenship unless they decide that they're going to visit outside of the country, they need a passport, and they realize that maybe they should get their citizenship. Sometimes the trigger is just that. That was my thought.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Well, if there's a way to do it, there's not much harm to it.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chair: Judy, and then John.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Going back to the issue of discretion and humanity in the process, just briefly go through the exam for us. As I understand it, twenty questions are asked. Two are compulsory. You could end up with a situation in which a person could get nineteen correct answers out of twenty, but for some reason—language difficulty, nervousness, or whatever—they flub that one question, lose the exam, and can't go forward at that point.

Is there not a way to have some discretion in that kind of a situation, a way for a judge to be able to understand the dynamics and why that happened? You have a genuine person who has met all of the criteria but just mixed up the thought process on that one exam, but they may clearly understand what Canada is all about.

À (1030)

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: That has been a difficult one for the judges to apply, but it is one that has been designed by the department because it's a legislative requirement. The knowledge of those questions is something relating to the legislation, and this is why it has become mandatory.

I have to tell you that there were also some judges who were themselves considering them to be mandatory before those questions became mandatory on the written test and at the interview. Those judges were applying them and turning some applicants down because the applicants didn't have those answers. The judges felt they were critical elements of the legislation.

It wasn't as consistent before, which was a concern of ours as well. Now, though, there is some consistency, in that all applicants should have knowledge of those mandatory questions. It is stressed upon them that they are mandatory and that they will have to have a passing mark on those questions to be able to pass the test.

So it was not known before, but some judges would apply them. Now, however, it is a little bit more understood that these are mandatory questions, and everybody applies them consistently.

The Chair: John, and then Inky, and I'm sorry, but we're then going to have to move on to our next witness.

I know I have other people who want to ask questions, so we may have to invite you back at the end of the process, Your Honour, once we've found out a little bit more, have travelled the country, and have talked to a lot more people.

John, for one question, please.

Mr. John Bryden: Just one question? I'm really disappointed about that, Mr. Chairman. I had a number of them, but I will try it this way.

Clause 21 is a new clause. What it basically says is that the minister should not recommend that a person be allowed to take the oath of citizenship if that person “has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. If that's the case, should we not specify what those values are? I presume that those values...I ask you, what are those values? Are those not the values of the charter? Should we not specify those values in the oath?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: I would say they are the values of the charter, yes, because when we speak to new citizens at citizenship ceremonies, we actually give them copies of the charter and we talk to them about the values of the charter. So, yes, you're right.

Mr. John Bryden: So surely a commitment to these values should be in the oath, if we presume—and I ask you this—that the oath should be a commitment to becoming a Canadian.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: It's certainly a possibility.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Chair: You're good. You're not a lawyer by profession, are you?

Mr. John Bryden: I'm hitting my stride now.

The Chair: You sound like Johnnie Cochrane or Robert Shapiro.

Mr. John Bryden: It takes time.

The Chair: Finally, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: It's just a short question.

Are you not concerned that, under subclause 31(7), under “Duties”, your future role will basically be to preside over ceremonies and promote activities? It's very clear-cut. Are you afraid of that? Are you not concerned that will be your only role down the road?

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Well, as I mentioned in my text, we see a very important role in which we would be able to provide advice to the minister.

Mr. Inky Mark: Upon request.

Ms. Agnès Jaouich: Upon request and upon delegation, yes. And we see that as something that needs to be developed. We want to see it developed in order to see what it will actually mean, because we think this would be a very important role for the citizenship commissioners.

The Chair: Thank you.

Your Honour, on behalf of the committee, thank you so much. By the number of questions that we've had and by the continued interest, you can see that we may have to have you back for a repeat performance. Again, on behalf of all the newcomers in my community and throughout Canada, I think you and your associate judges do an absolutely fantastic service for this country in making people feel welcome. I think that's part of why we've been very successful.

We had the Ambassador of Sweden to Canada here, along with the Swedish Minister for Development Cooperation, Migration and Asylum Policy. They met with our committee last night, and they were very impressed not only with our citizenship, but also with how we integrate newcomers to our country and make them feel at home as quickly as possible. I think that's part of the success of Canada, and I think all of these things that we do collectively help in making sure that people feel welcome, free, and democratic, and that Canada is very much a paradise, and I thank you for saying that.

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to our next witness, from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chair, the witness has left, but I just wanted to make a comment on the testimony if I could, for the record.

À (1035)

The Chair: Which testimony?

Mr. John Bryden: It's on the testimony of the witness and on the exchange. It's just a comment for the record.

I'd basically like to say, Mr. Chairman, that I realized in retrospect that when the witness said the people swearing the current oath do not see it as significant, that's probably because the current words are meaningless to them. I realize that is precisely the issue at hand, and it underscores the need to change the oath and make it meaningful.

The Chair: That sounds like a point of debate. I'm not even sure I heard that from the witness.

The other thing, too, could be that those people are very...I don't know how many of those citizenship ceremonies you've attended—

Mr. John Bryden: Lots.

The Chair: —but I can tell you that those people are in awe about what's happening, and are perhaps even quite nervous, especially when they have to recite it in both official languages, which is another great value of this country: being able to do that. That's why we have the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages here.

What a great lead-in. Thank you very much for that, John.

Dyane, it's always a pleasure to have you here. So far, you're batting 1.000. Every time you come to our committee and make suggestions about how we should improve a bill, I think we do so. The administration listens and the committee listens, so we obviously look forward to your input, and we thank you so much for your input in the past.Inaudible

An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]...to the PMO.

The Chair: Even when she goes to the PMO she does wonderful things.

Go ahead, Dyane.

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you for the welcome. I won't say you're my favourite committee, but you're certainly one of my most favourite. And it's true, you've always listened very carefully.

Today, I hope to propose to you some improvements to the bill you are presently studying.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

Before I address the particular issue that I wish to raise here, let me point out that both immigration and citizenship have been and continue to be priority issues for my office. During the consultations in 2001 on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act I appeared before your committee and asked you to ensure that the vitality of official language communities be made an explicit objective of Canada's immigration policy. Your cooperation in amending that bill ensured the government's commitment to help these communities receive their fair share of immigrants. How urgently we need action on this issue is clearly evident in two studies I published this year. One study, which we discussed last year, covers the demographic gap and recruitment efforts; the other focuses on the need for better integration of immigrants into minority communities once they are in Canada.

[English]

But the point I wish to raise here today is related to the final step in the integration process of an immigrant, the moment when he or she becomes a Canadian citizen. It is, in fact, a fairly simple point. I believe Bill C-18 should be amended to better ensure that Canada's official languages are used and promoted when we confer all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship on new Canadians.

Each year, 160,000 immigrants in Canada are granted citizenship. Each of the 3,000 ceremonies at which this takes place is not just a routine act of public administration. We've heard the previous witness describe it. Each ceremony is a precious moment in which new Canadians celebrate their journey, a journey that may have started halfway around the world, but which now culminates in the acquisition of what is so valuable to both new Canadians and to existing citizens alike—a citizenship that expresses our attachment to a common set of values.

[Translation]

It is a step that new Canadians take with tremendous pride because they have worked hard to earn it. The initiative and courage that many immigrants show in order to come to Canada is remarkable. Their commitment to Canada shows in the efforts they make to integrate into Canadian society. And before they are allowed to become citizens they must pass a knowledge-based exam. Let me quote some pertinent passages from the booklet distributed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada which immigrants study when they prepare to become Canadian citizens:

Canada, a country with two official languages, welcomes people from more than 150 countries each year.

Linguistic duality is an important aspect of our Canadian identity.

English and French have equal status in the Parliament of Canada, in federal courts and in all federal institutions.

Canadian-born citizens are often quite impressed with the questions that an inspiring Canadian is able to answer. One example:

Which legal documents protect the rights of Canadians with regard to official languages?

For good reasons, we expect immigrants to be well informed about our country before they become citizens. In return, our institutions should correspond to the image we project about Canada.

À (1040)

[English]

Having successfully passed the citizenship test, immigrants are invited to take the oath of citizenship. A citizenship ceremony is a stirring or moving event. Accompanied by friends and family, there is an undeniable air of expectancy and excitement among those who are to become new citizens. The citizenship judges, or, as they will henceforth be called, the citizenship commissioners—it's not bad as a name, you know—preside over what is truly a once-in-a-lifetime event.

The question I would like to ask you is this: Should we not make sure this ceremony reflects, as fully as possible, our Canadian values? Both English and French should be solidly incorporated into this citizenship ceremony. Each of Canada's official languages must put in more than a fleeting appearance when immigrants become citizens. Linguistic duality should be celebrated during the ceremony. It should be promoted both as a central value for Canadian society, and very concretely in terms of the languages used at the event.

[Translation]

There are four specific points concerning the bill that I would like to raise here.

I believe that Canada's linguistic duality is an important Canadian value that deserves mention in the purpose clause of the bill. It is useful to remind ourselves that Canada's new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states specifically that it is to be applied consistent with the Charter and, particularly, with the equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada. With regard to the bill before you, I therefore recommend that a new subsection be added to clause 3 which specifies that one of the purposes of the Act is:

(h) to foster the recognition of English and French as the official languages of Canada.

[English]

My second point concerns the citizenship commissioners. At subclause 31(6), this bill states that an individual's eligibility for appointment as a citizenship commissioner depends upon them having “demonstrated an understanding of the values of good citizenship” and having been “recognized for their valuable civic contribution”.

The bar is set quite high, and this is good. However, I would suggest to you that such high standards should also include the requirement that candidates must have reached a level of reasonable proficiency in both official languages. In my view, being sworn in as a new citizen by a manifestly bilingual commissioner will go a long way toward convincing new Canadians that speaking both English and French is something they should strive for, either for themselves or for their children. It will also help to ensure that the commissioner can in fact conduct the ceremony in both official languages—a point to which I'll return in a moment.

[Translation]

My third point relates to the values being promoted during the ceremony itself. Clause 33(2) of the Bill indicates that in the context of a citizenship ceremony, Citizenship Commissioners are obliged to "promote the integration of new citizens into Canadian society and heighten their awareness of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship."

More particularly, in clauses 33(2)(d) and (e), the Citizenship Commissioner must encourage citizens to respect the law, exercise their right to vote and participate in Canadian society. He or she underlines that all citizens should demonstrate mutual respect and understanding, so that each citizen can contribute to the best of their abilities in Canadian society.

I believe that linguistic duality should also be part of this package: new citizens should be encouraged to give expression to their citizenship in one or both official languages.

Consequently, I would recommend to you that a new paragraph be added to clause 33(2) as follows:

[The Citizenship Commissioner]

(f) shall emphasize the equality of English and French as official languages and as a fundamental Canadian value.

À (1045)

[English]

My final point touches upon the way in which the citizenship ceremony is conducted. I believe it is not sufficient simply to state during the ceremony that English and French are of equal status. It seems to me that there can be no better way to demonstrate a value than to exercise it. To that end, my suggestion is that a new subclause be added somewhere in clause 33—for example, between the current subclauses 33(1) and 33(2), as follows:

33(1.1) The Citizenship Commissioner shall ensure that the citizenship ceremony is conducted in both of Canada's official languages.

Making these changes will have three effects. There will be encouragement for those citizenship judges who are already conducting their ceremonies with full respect for Canada's linguistic duality. Second, we will urge those citizenship judges who incorporate some English and French into their ceremonies to give even greater recognition to both official languages in their ceremonies. And perhaps most importantly, new citizenship commissioners will conduct their ceremonies in a way that allows the voices of both official languages to be heard.

[Translation]

As is stated at the beginning, my point here is quite simple.

The citizenship ceremony should reflect all that Canada is and aspires to be. Linguistic duality is a Canadian value and should resonate fully as new Canadians formally cross the threshold to full membership in Canadian society.

Thank you very much. Merci. Nous espérons que vous avez des questions à nous poser maintenant.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Commissioner, for again providing a great presentation and some excellent suggestions, as usual. We look forward to posing some questions.

Madeleine is first.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Adam, you have been in your position for several years now, and I certainly do not need to ask you whether the battle for linguistic duality is being won, or if, as is somewhat the case with women's rights, it must be an ongoing effort. I did not read your presentation, because I prefer to listen to people speak, but I did write a note to the effect that it might be a good idea to add an amendment to the Act requiring that Citizenship Commissioners be fluently bilingual. I imagine there will be cries of protest, but that is the only way to achieve change. Personally, I would be very much in favour of that.

I've been a member of Parliament for 10 years. Some colleagues can speak both languages, but that is far from being the case generally, as we know, even though we all the resources we require to do that. At the moment, we have 23 citizenship judges. Why not require commissioners to be fluently bilingual? I think people are very influenced by role models. You will not be able to support me at the committee table, but I would have no trouble moving such an amendment to the bill. That is not a question, but rather a comment. As you say, your position is very simple.

À (1050)

[English]

The Chair: Do you want her to comment?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: She may if she wishes.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Of course, that is part of one of my recommendations. I do think that judges or the future commissioners have a key role to play. They are ambassadors for all Canadians who welcome new arrivals to this country, and they must not only affirm our shared Canadian values, but also express them. Nothing speaks louder than actions: they leave their mark on people's imaginations. I think that in that regard, we are on the same wavelength.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Commissioner and congratulate her on her vigilance with respect to the bill we have before us. I would also like to congratulate her on her suggestions, which give us an opportunity to further integrate the recognition of our linguistic duality into the very concept of Canadian citizenship. Ultimately, that is the essence of her proposal: that the concept of citizenship be explicit enough to include this feature, which is an inherent part of the Canada we want to build and to offer to newcomers to our land. You have made a number of suggestions along these lines.

Are your suggestions prompted by weaknesses that you have noticed in the course of your work? Could you give us a few illustrations of some of the problems you have observed?

Ms. Dyane Adam: We started by studying the bill. I was listening to all of you in your discussion with the previous witness, and I saw that in this bill, there is a very clear attempt to protect and pass on Canadian values. My role is to ensure this vigilance with respect to the official languages, and the bill must do that as well.

I have with me a colleague, Carsten Quell, who is the specialist in the Commissioner's Office on immigration and refugees. He works very closely with people in the field. He could give you some very specific examples.

Mr. Carsten Quell (Senior Officer, Liaison and Part VII, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you.

There are no studies specifically on the use of official languages during citizenship ceremonies, but I have seen, in the case of my wife and a number of friends, when I attended their citizenship ceremonies in Toronto, that the oath was taken in both languages, but that the speech made by the judge on Canadian values was in English only. When I took the oath in Ottawa, that was not the case. The ceremony was carried out in both official languages. As a result of this difference, I am inclined to think it would be a good idea to have our proposal implemented throughout the country.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In the previous exchange, you heard our colleague, Mr. Bryden, suggest that a number of Canadian values should be mentioned in the oath itself. Would you go so far as to say that we should add this value to the list suggested by Mr. Bryden?

À (1055)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. In fact, that is part of one of my recommendations. We are asking that this be stated, and illustrated as well. We have just heard Mr. Quell describe the paradox that exists. In some cases, our new citizens are required to take the oath in both official languages, but the presiding judge speaks only one language. There is something wrong with that.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you for your suggestion. We will certainly pass it on to our colleague, Mr. Bryden.

[English]

The Chair: Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: My question is to Carsten.

In subclause 58(1), in part 7, it's provided that the minister shall grant citizenship to a person who was born outside of Canada or adopted while a minor outside of Canada between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977. Would you explain your understanding of the reasons behind this thirty-year window and the fact that it is to be operable for three years after the new act comes into force, assuming it's passed? And given well-known problems with documentation in certain countries, including one with supposed problems with the quality of adoption documentation, is the minister given discretion here?

Mr. Carsten Quell: Your question concerns an adoption matter?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, going back to...are you not into that? I missed—

Mr. Carsten Quell: Unfortunately, I don't feel we're in any expert role that allows us comment on that particular question.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's fine.

The other thing I just want to make a comment on is about making the judges bilingual. I come from an area in which we are very multicultural. We have many Slavic languages, as well as Chinese and Mandarin languages, so I can see that being a very big problem. That could be just one of the problems of not having citizenship court very often. We do have them once a month. We have them bilingually, but our judge is not there. He's from Winnipeg and doesn't attend. Right now, we have someone in Saskatoon who does it, but if we started to make that mandatory, we might never see a judge. There could be even more problems because we don't have access to the French language. That's our provincial problem, I guess, but I think making it mandatory could cause some problems.

I don't think they come by very easy. I think the standard...like you said, the bar is quite high as it is, and we always accommodate both languages. If we make bilingualism mandatory, we might lose some good judges.

Ms. Dyane Adam: It's a question of level of proficiency, too.

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear what province you are from.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Saskatchewan.

Ms. Dyane Adam: There are bilingual people in Saskatchewan, you know.

We're not talking about thousands of people, we're talking about a handful of people in Canada. If we were talking of thousands, then I'd say yes. But I have difficulty believing that we cannot find, in each province and territory, a bilingual person of high profile who is well respected and is probably trilingual and multilingual, but with the two official languages at least. I think I'd like someone to prove to me that such people don't exist.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'd like you to define “minority official language community”. What would you define as a minority official language when you want to have French and you want to encourage French in smaller communities? For instance, in Saskatchewan, we don't have a specific French community, so I just want you to define what you would expect.

Á (1100)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Saskatchewan does have one of the oldest French-speaking communities. It may not be large in numbers, but it's very vibrant. Some of its associations have schools. There are also immersion programs in Saskatchewan. There is a French space there. They also have an institute at the University of Regina, so there are communities there. I realize they may not be that well known, and that's unfortunate because they are—

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I understand our immersion program is not growing. I don't know if that's the....

It's just that we run into the language barrier because we have so many immigrants who come from other countries. I just wonder how we accommodate them as well.

That's fine. I have no more comment.

Ms. Dyane Adam: If I can make an offer, Mr. Chairman, I can certainly provide you with some data that we have on Saskatchewan. Even in terms of immigration, the numbers are not that high in Saskatchewan in both linguistic groups overall, in fact.

The Chair: Lynne has been trying her best to recruit as many as she possibly can all over the world, and we applaud her for that.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I can certainly provide more information on the French-speaking community.

The Chair: Jerry, and then Joe.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Dyane, thank you very much for coming.

I have a bit of a problem with the suggestion that all commissioners should be bilingual. I would suggest that it doesn't have anything to do with not being able to find an enormous number of bilingual people in Canada to fill that role. I think that is accurate, and I don't believe there's a problem with that.

From my point of view, I really accept the fact that we are a dual-language country, and I certainly would promote that at any time under every circumstance. However, living in an area like mine in southwestern Ontario, quite frankly, there was no French in the area. I believe there are many parts of Canada where young people did not have the opportunity to grow up in a dualistic society. As a result, they're very limited, and I feel I am limited in the French language, if not totally inept.

That being said, we then use one criterion to eliminate 90% of the population in this country from being citizenship judges. I don't think that is accepted well, and it certainly is not well accepted in the region I come from.

In many respects, I would have loved to have grown up in a community like Montreal, a community like Quebec City, or a community like Ottawa, where bilingualism is very much the culture and part of the society. But I must be realistic as well that this is not the case in Canada. To me, just saying that people who aspire to be commissioners of citizenship should have that one quality limits very severely the number of people who could serve in that capacity. All of them might wish that if they could go back fifty or sixty years and go through life again, they might well become bilingual. However, the reality is that there's no use for it in my area. That again sets a criterion for what my priority is as a member of Parliament.

Is my priority to do the work and to try to focus there, or is my priority to focus on becoming bilingual? I know many of my colleagues have focused on being bilingual because it has some effect on their future and their independent goals that they have. I fully respect that.

I do hope every citizen would have the proper opportunity to become a Canadian citizen with a judge who is French or English, if so requested. But if we are to make sure that this guarantee is in place, my view would be that, in every region, we should have a citizenship judge who can carry out the ceremony in either official language. That may require other changes and may require a different viewpoint, but I would agree with my colleague Lynne, who has suggested that there is not as much of a demand in certain areas of Canada.

I might use my son as an example, as well. My son grew up in a totally English society and decided, as he was entering high school, that he wanted to become bilingual. So he went to a French high school—not an immersion high school, but a French high school, l'Essor, in the Windsor area. He worked very hard through his high school years. It was solely a French-speaking high school, and when he graduated, he received awards on graduation. So he did reasonably well in high school, if not extremely well.

At the end of the day, when he applied, he decided to go to the University of Ottawa because the University of Ottawa is a bilingual university. He made the choice to become French. However, he did apply for various jobs before he graduated from university. He was told that the dialect that he had, which is the French he learned in southwestern Ontario, did not meet the standard that was expected here in this place. I was a little disappointed with that.

Á (1105)

So here you have a young man who worked day and night to learn the language and gain proficiency; however, there are different dialects of French. I have been told that in southwestern Ontario, it is very different from the dialect you would have in France or the dialect you would have here in Canada in most of the major communities. So there are problems.

When Madeleine say “fluent”, what does “fluent” mean? Would a person with a different dialect actually be accepted as a fluent person in French? It's much the same as the idea that we could say many people who speak French and English do not do so with tremendous fluency. That's quite clear.

However, all of that being said, I would crusade on your side to say we should make sure the dualism is there, but let's not limit everyone who is a citizenship judge because they require a single skill.

The Chair: Some of us who speak English have a dialect, too, eh?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's very true.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'll try to respond at different levels.

You have different concerns. One is linked to access to these positions by all citizens. If we ask for the judges to be bilingual or to have some level of proficiency, it does not allow for a large proportion of Canadians to have access. That's one concern. Secondly, you proposed a kind of solution in the sense that we can always have dual ceremonies, one in French and one in English.

You spoke about your priority. As Commissioner of Official Languages, my priority is to ensure that the Canadian state lives according to its own legislative and constitutional framework. Laws like these must reflect what we are or what we have agreed to be and to evolve toward. The Canadian state is a bilingual state.

Although I recognize your suggestion as one possibility, the problem with this is that you isolate the two languages. I think there are moments when we have to live the bilingual character of our country. Here, we live it in Parliament. I think a ceremony of citizenship is one of those moments when you need to live the bilingualism. It has to embody what we are, and if you separate it, you again create that sense of being apart. That is my concern.

What I would suggest to you is that if you feel you really want to ensure that all have access, it's important for all Canadians to be exposed to bilingual types of events. Even the Grey Cup in Edmonton was something that needs to bind us together, and I think it's important that we be aware of this.

So we may not want our judges to be able to be the best oratorical people. They can always read texts and they can be helped in this. There are ways to go about this in the application, in making sure we give chances to individuals.

I would just say to your committee that I would like you to consider the notion that this is an important event in the life of our new citizens, and for me it's important that it be lived as a bilingual experience, not apart.

Á (1110)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Can I just follow that up?

The Chair: No, you've run out of time.

I just wonder if you can clarify just one question that Jerry asked and that I'm also interested in. It's with regard to the degree of difference in the French language. Could you address whether or not, as commissioner, you would agree that there are some problems in our universities? What is the standard that we use to indicate that the kind of French we're either teaching in schools, using in the government, or whatever...is there a standard? Could you do that so that we can understand the question Jerry posed? I think it's a very good and important one.

Ms. Dyane Adam: This opens up a new subject, as you know, with regard to the question of level of French or English. How would I respond to it? What you learn on the street, for example, is a certain level of French. If it's schooling— strictly immersion, for example—it will be a lot more of the written French, and young people may have more difficulty with all the accents and with all the special expressions. So I think it's more a part of the educational opportunity to expose the students or the young people to different types of French.

For me, if you are planning to be fully bilingual in a position—let's say in the public service—you will probably be asked to be able to correctly express yourself orally in both languages—in French in this case—but also to write. Also, writing in a second language is even harder than understanding it and speaking it.

Acadian French is different—

The Chair: In other words, c'est la vie.

Jerry, I have to move on. Do you have a quick one?

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Very quickly, I know we are attempting to bring bilingualism to the fore in certain areas of Canada. That's a good goal. However, it's an artificial move to try to change society through certain rules. When we do that, we do limit the rights of the majority in some of those directions.

Quite frankly, in the area that I represent, I know we would be far better off spending our time teaching bilingualism through the school system, through the society, rather than imposing it on jobs at the public level. I think there will be more negative reaction in my area than there will be positive achievements. If we do it through the schools and through the educational sources, we're far better off. My view clearly is that this is the direction in which most of our energies need to be spent. Get to the young people and teach them bilingualism right off the bat.

Á (1115)

Ms. Dyane Adam: Those are not mutually exclusive. I believe a new action plan has been prepared by the government on this issue, and it focuses specifically on increasing opportunities for young Canadians to become bilingual. That will be a priority. But, again, you're right. Let's provide the opportunities to the kids and to any adults who want to become bilingual.

With respect to this piece of legislation, I think it's still important and it's something I submit to this committee. It's up to you to decide, evidently, but that's my view.

The Chair: Joe Volpe.

[Translation]

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Adam.

You have already given us an example of the difference between a commissioner and a judge. You stated in your presentation that a commissioner is someone who promotes a philosophical or pragmatic position, but clearly, we are talking about a proactive, very specific act that does not take into consideration all the realities external to his or her position. I would therefore like to congratulate you on a job very well done.

I'm also impressed by your desire to include all Canadian values in the ceremony.

[English]

One of these values, as you've correctly pointed out, is that we live out what Canada is. I guess I have had a different experience from the one Mr. Quell has had, because in Toronto,

[Translation]

an English-speaking city, at all the ceremonies I have attended, the presiding judge has always made his or her presentation in both official languages.

[English]

But putting aside their merit, Madame Adam, I wonder if your requests here won't be effected anyway once the judges become commissioners. As commissioners, they will be liable to all of the guidelines in the public service that are mandated—in part through your participation—both in terms of language requirements and what must be done.

So my question is really quite simple, madame. If this legislation goes through, will all of your requests not be met by regulation and memoranda interdepartmentally? Or do we still require a legislative mandate?

Ms. Dyane Adam: As an ombudsman, but also as a person promoting linguistic duality, it's a bit of what we did for the legislation for immigration. We specifically suggested that we mention French and English as one of the goals of the act. We are not just recruiting workers, we are recruiting citizens. In a way, as much as possible, they have to take into consideration other values in our system, in our society. We therefore introduced that in the Immigration Act. And it's the same for this one.

Without going to the Official Languages Act completely, there are positions designated bilingual, but not all positions are designated bilingual, not at all. So it's good to identify clearly what the expectations are that we have concerning those new commissioners. If they are to do the work of promotion and are to act really as hosts to the new Canadians, then it is even more important that they be able to participate in the two cultures, let's say, or two linguistic groups.

The witness who preceded me mentioned that the commissioners would be working with other non-profit organizations and community groups. Well, it might—

Á (1120)

Mr. Joseph Volpe: And members of Parliament.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Exactly.

So it might be important for these judges or commissioners to be able to network and link with our two official-language groups in different parts of the country. They may be of different sizes, but they're often there, even in southwestern Ontario.

I lived in Toronto for five years, and there was a lot of French there. I was the principal of Glendon College, and we had students from all over the south of the province. So it's there, but it may not be as evident since it is not as big a community.

Our commissioners have to be well aware of what the different resources are. I'd like for it be clear to them that we expect them to build those bridges between the two communities and that we in fact favour the integration of our immigrants into the two official language communities across Canada.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you.

The Chair: As a reference for the committee members, subclause 31(5) talks a little bit about the composition and who can be a commissioner, it talks about the Government Employees Compensation Act, and so on. The question Mr. Volpe has raised is therefore a very important one, Dyane, but I thank you for the position you're coming from.

From a technical aspect, though, we're going to have to decide whether or not this falls within a particular act, because they will be known now as public servants, whereas before they may have been known as something else. We'll check it out, but I thank you for that.

Andrew.

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

Very quickly, I'll go back to the courts. If somebody is in court—and I'm talking about the criminal courts or the civil courts—they can elect to be tried in either one of the official languages. I think we could make that kind of opportunity available to citizens in terms of whether or not they want the ceremony to be done either in French or English, and we could have some of both. In Kitchener–Waterloo, the judges have always incorporated French into part of the ceremony, both in the oath and in the speeches as well. I think that's a level of facility that can be fairly reasonably acquired.

One of the big concerns I have in appointing citizenship court judges is that they have some commitment to the communities they work with. One of the best examples of a citizenship court judge that I have is Judge Lorna Van Mossel, who went through the bilingual oath and included some French in her speeches. She was not bilingual, but she had a real, demonstrated involvement with the settlement community when refugees came. She was also a great ambassador.

To me, that would be a stronger criterion than being able to go in there and be a bilingual citizenship court judge. There's a difference between having some facility for the purposes of the ceremony, versus having that kind of track record when coming into being a citizenship judge, because they do facilitate settlement work within the community itself.

The other thing is that commissioners are only appointed for a limited period of time, which means appointments can reflect the realities in certain communities. I would not want to see somebody like Judge Van Mossel being barred from being a citizenship court judge, given the fact that she was a “Mother Theresa”, if you will, in our community, and she continues to be so in terms of her work with new Canadians.

Á (1125)

The Chair: On behalf of David Price, who had to leave, I just have one thing on whether or not your suggestion, Commissioner, would be that the oath, whatever its final words and inspiration and so on.... I think it's evolving into something that should maybe be more than a pledge of allegiance, but who knows? Anyway, David wanted me to ask you whether or not the oath should be bilingual, rather than having an English oath and then a French or translated oath. Should the oath itself be one oath that is bilingual in nature and words? Therefore, you shouldn't have to repeat it.

That's what his question was. I don't know whether or not you've given some thought to that. If you haven't, maybe you could write us to let us know what you think about the idea that David had. It's to make one single oath, but with both English and French in it.

Secondly, Commissioner, I just wondered whether or not your office has ever received any complaints that would reflect some of the discussions that we've been talking about just recently, related to a newcomer or a new citizen complaining that perhaps there wasn't enough French and there was too much English, or there wasn't enough English and too much French. Depending on where you come from in this country, one might have varied views. Have you had any complaints with regard to this whole issue?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, not to my knowledge, at least not in recent history. There might have been in the past, but not to my knowledge.

The Chair: I wonder if you could check.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

The Chair: It's not such a big deal. Perhaps those complaints have gone to the judges themselves or to CIC—and we'll ask them about that, too—but I think you raise a very good question.

Again, on behalf of the committee, let me thank you for some very insightful points of view. And I'd also like to thank your colleague.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Our citizenship judges really work hard at having a very good bilingual ceremony. I think it has become a very important part of our ceremony, and I think we're quite proud of our linguistic duality.

The Chair: Just as a reminder to committee members—and we'll send a notice—we have a very important briefing meeting with the bureaucracy on Thursday morning, on revocation of citizenship. It will take place at nine o'clock. We'll see you then.

Thank you.