Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Everyone here is familiar with the proverb about the perfect being the enemy of the good, and this bill is good. Indeed, it's very good. It doesn't cover everything that we might wish it would cover, but the members of this committee have worked hard on these issues. They've submitted good reports, and the government has come forward with a bill that addresses far more than any piece of legislation hitherto has done.
It is tempting to put forth several suggestions for improvements, but I will refrain from doing that, because I want to emphasize the importance of the bill, and to express the strong hope that it can move through Parliament expeditiously and that it can be passed and adopted.
The main reason we strongly support this bill is that it will abolish the loss retention provision, which is section 8 in the current act. This provision states that if you are a second-generation born-abroad person, then you have citizenship until age 28. But before you turn 28, you have to go through a retention process. If you fail, then you cease to be a citizen at age 28.
We have never quarrelled with that principle: that second-generation people should be required to take some explicit steps if they want to remain Canadians. Our problem has been with the administrative confusion, because when this section came into force in 1977, the certificates of citizenship that were issued to people who came under it were identical to the certificates issued to people who did not come under it. Given that not nearly all second-generation born-abroad people came under it, there was a huge problem in identifying which second-generation born-abroad people do come under it.
The certificates looked exactly the same, so I could tell many stories of people going into citizenship offices with their certificates and saying, “Is it true that this certificate will cease to be valid when I turn 28?”, and the official looks at it and says, “It looks like it's perfectly valid to me.” And it does look like it's perfectly valid. Then they don't go through the retention process, and eventually they cease to be citizens when they turn 28.
There are other problems. Even people who know that they need to get a new certificate, they become confused with the word “retention”. Those of us who work on this issue all the time know that the term “getting a retention” is a little bit different from simply getting a new certificate. They go on to the Internet, they see an application form to apply for a new certificate, they apply for a new certificate, get a new certificate, and think they've met the retention requirement. They haven't. They need to fill in exactly the right form. So there's confusion.
We have not argued with the principle of the retention requirement, only with the confusion of administering it. But that confusion is so serious that we are very, very happy to see it abolished.
I'd like to give one more reason why it should be abolished, and that is--not from our perspective so much as from the perspective of Canadian society-- under the current law, as it stands, a person who's a second-generation born-abroad person may have a baby before turning 28. There's nothing unnatural about that. That baby is automatically a Canadian citizen until they turn 28. That baby has a child before their 28th birthday, so that baby is automatically a Canadian citizen until age 28. It can go on for an infinite number of generations. People can be Canadian citizens without ever developing any kind of connection with Canada. Surely it is in the interests of Canada not to allow citizenship to be cheapened so much in that way.
So for that reason also we are happy to see the loss retention provision abolished.
Some people will argue, well, what about the second-generation people? In reality, let's say, there's a family of first-generation people living outside of Canada and they have some children. Well, the children are second generation. That family, or even just one parent, can come to Canada at any time, as long as that child is a minor, and apply for permanent resident status quite easily and then get citizenship status. So it's not as if the door is absolutely closed to people who want to retain Canadian citizenship. It would not even take any more time than the current retention process would require. So we are willing to accept that as a trade-off. It involves a little more paperwork, but we think it's a reasonable way of dealing with it.
There are several other issues on which we could make suggestions for improvements, but I think given the time slot and my colleagues here, I will leave it at this, and if there's time later, I may return to some of these points.
Thank you for inviting me today. This is my fifth appearance before the committee, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed that Bill has not become reality.
I wrote some notes so I could at least have some thoughts to refer to.
After listening to Bill, I think it's important to clarify the process and who's responsible. It's my understanding that the bill has had first reading and it has to be brought forward to the committee. However, that has not happened yet. Nearly 60 days have passed since the bill was introduced in the House of Commons, on December 10.
I was full of hope in December that we could have this bill passed very, very quickly. As far as I know, everyone is in favour of it. I am. War brides and war bride children are in favour of it, and they're expecting it. In fact they think it has been passed; they don't know that it hasn't.
When the minister, Diane Finley, phoned me on December 10 to explain Bill --as she did with Bill and a number of us who were involved in this issue--I was virtually assured that the passage of the legislation was guaranteed. I wrote down what she said that day because I wanted to remember it; I'm a notetaker, anyway. I asked her how fast this bill could be passed. She said, and I quote, “The ideal is that the committee will push it through as fast as possible. It's entirely up to the committee.”
But the committee can't deal with legislation that has not been sent to it. It's easier for me to travel all the way from Fredericton, New Brunswick, through snowstorms, sitting on the tarmac for an hour, rerouting to Montreal and Toronto, losing my luggage, staying a night in the hotel, and getting here by taxi, than it is for the bill to make its way from down the hall somewhere to this committee.
There is something wrong with the process. We need to get this process speeded up. It's absolutely imperative. It is stalled at the most critical time, given the election fever in Ottawa. I'm not impressed, and neither are most Canadians, that there's talk about an election right when we need to get these very important bills passed that people are waiting for, and they have been waiting a lifetime for in some cases.
Why am I here for a fifth time to speak about this bill? It has still not been brought forward to the committee. It has been 60 days now. It's inexcusable. It's an insult to the 43,454 war brides and their 20,997 children, who they brought to this country in 1946, that it has not been brought before the committee. The committee cannot deal with legislation that has not been brought to it.
It's a national disgrace that these elderly women and their children, especially those who are now in their sixties.... It's these 20,997 children. They are the ones who are most affected by this. These kids--they're not kids anymore--are now 63, 64, 65, and they're approaching CPP and OAP time. Many of them, for the first time in their lives, have been confronted with the reality that the status of their citizenship is in doubt. It's upsetting. I don't have to tell you how upsetting it is. They're afraid. The war brides are afraid to come forward. The ones who never ever left the country, never applied for passports, and who've never had an issue with their citizenship are afraid with all this talk now. They're afraid to come forward with all this uncertainty.
And believe me, I know first-hand about the very personal impact this is having on their lives and how they fear applying for a passport in case their citizenship status is detected by some ill-informed bureaucrat within the department. For example, I know of an 86-year-old woman who was stopped at the border between the United States and New Brunswick two and a half months ago, and she was told to go back. She wasn't allowed in the country because she didn't have her citizenship card.
And there are the children. Let's face it, most of the elderly ladies have dealt with it by now. Those who haven't are going to hide their heads in the sand. They will go away very quietly, and they will die away. But the children have a good long life ahead of them. They've had their lives turned upside down when they found out, after living here all their lives, since the day they stepped off the boat as babes in arms, as Senator Roméo Dallaire did on December 13, 1946.... He arrived here on the Empire Brent with his mother, a Dutch war bride. He found out when he was 21 years old that he was not a Canadian citizen.
It's infuriating to them that they're told they can't vote, that they have to apply for permanent resident status, or they're a subsection 5(4), a special discretionary grant from the minister.
These people have worked all their lives in Canada. They've voted in every election. Some of them have worked as enumerators, for goodness' sake. They've paid taxes. They've even served in the military. Their fathers served Canada with honour during World War II. Their mothers are Canadian war brides. Is this the way we treat the children of war brides?
Subsection 5(4) is not an answer. And it's not the rule of law; it's a special favour of the minister. That's not the way citizenship should be dealt with in this country.
If their fathers were Canadian veterans and their mothers were British war brides, and if they came to this country with the mass transport of war brides at the end of World War II, they are Canadian citizens. If you take the temperature of Canada on this subject, Canadians are going to agree with you on that one.
The surviving war brides and their children don't want to hear any more excuses. They've waited long enough. They've waited 62 years. It's long enough, wouldn't you agree? Their children especially, the war bride children, the 65-, 66-, and 67-year-olds, want to move forward. They want to have a future. They want to make plans. They want to get their lives in order. They want to apply for their Canada pension. They want to apply for their OAP. They may want to take a trip and get a passport. Guess what? It's all held up.
They absolutely have to have this very central part of their identity straightened out so they can get ahead with their lives, make these applications and go on trips, but they're afraid they can't. They don't want to be used as political pawns. They're upset. They're nervous. They're worried. They're fed up. That is not the feel-good story that should be coming out of the very good, hard work of the people of this committee.
You guys have heard a tremendous amount of emotion poured out in front of you here at this committee, the heart and soul of individuals across this country. So many good people from the four parties have sat here and listened to that. They're heart-wrenching stories from people who have cried here. We've had to watch helplessly as the tears in their eyes just spilled out like a flood, and they've been spilled in front of you here in this committee.
It's not the story that politicians want to hear on the eve of an election, which, I tell you, I don't want to hear about, and I don't think the war brides, and their children especially, want to hear about, especially if this bill doesn't pass. The Canadian war brides and their children are not props to be used for political advantage. They are a Canadian icon. They are the most revered and respected citizens, whom Canadians have fallen in love with. The story of love and war, of passion and tragedy, of overcoming so many obstacles, of courage and strength in the face of adversity--it has been the subject of Hollywood movies, of television documentaries, of countless radio interviews, of innumerable print media, Internet articles and books, including my own: War Brides: The stories of the women who left everything behind to follow the men they loved .
I have an entire chapter on the issue of Canadian children of war brides and the issue of citizenship. It's gone out of print. It sold out in Britain. I'm going to be rewriting chapter eight, and I would like to have a happy ending to this story, and I'm sure you guys on this committee, who have worked so hard, all of you—Andrew Telegdi, Meili Faille, Bill Siksay, Ed Komarnicki, Norman Doyle.... There are so many people. I've seen the same faces over and over again here. It's very sad. At this point, all of you have worked so doggedly for the citizenship of people you don't even know, and you knew it was the right thing to do. You can be the heroes of the day. But if this keeps up and the committee does not get the bill immediately—this process I was referring to earlier—I'm not the one who's going to be saying very nice things. I'm not. I'm not going to say nice things, because you guys are in control of the process and you haven't done what you're supposed to do.
Who's “they”? Well, you figure it out yourselves.
Two months ago, I praised the minister when she introduced in the House of Commons. Just last week I was in Vancouver for the citizenship ceremony of Joe Taylor, who was granted a subsection 5(4). In an interview with Curt Petrovich of CBC's national news, I said, “I've got to give credit where credit's due.” The Tories introduced a bill when no one else would do it. And that is true. I have to give credit where credit's due.
I guess I should start with kind of a show and tell. I don't even mind passing them around.
This is a picture of a bunch of women in World War II in the air force for Canada. One of them, with the little arrow, is Kathleen Fremont, who is a lost Canadian. Her brother served in the Pacific, and she really wants to come home.
This is a picture of me holding my daughter, who's now 21--she's just a baby--standing on the border of Canada, and I'm trying to get my citizenship.
I started this process 36 years ago, and I was born in Canada. Here's my birth certificate.
We've done something very good. Everybody now recognizes that there are hundreds of thousands of people affected by this. We're down to, let's say, killing this bill or passing the bill. There's no question; everybody I talk to is on board. The only ones who are not on board are politicians. But the people who are affected are all on board for this bill. Frankly, given Ottawa politics, the way they are right now, this bill might die. So time is really of the essence.
We have a lot of solutions on this one. I've been dealing with all parties along the way.
Here's something. This was brought out just at the end of December. The Civil Liberties Association names the best and worst of 2007. Among the best things in Canada was the lost Canadian stuff that you guys have been doing here in committee.
We're there at the end. I don't want it killed.
Here's something. I have three copies of this if you want to take a look. Here's the United Nations magazine Refugees. If you look at the cover, they're dealing with this strange, hidden world of the stateless. And you look at it and say, what kind of country would do that? And as you turn the page, it just becomes appalling--until you get to dead centre, and they're highlighting the lost Canadians of Canada.
The Economist did a thing on Canada. This is our chance to show the world by our actions that we can easily correct human rights, and this is a human rights abuse. Everybody agrees with it. So it might not be perfect, but hundreds of thousands of people are affected, and believe me, I know the law really well.
Here's the 1947 act, and it says that Canada will give me back my citizenship. But somehow we've fallen through the cracks, and they haven't for 36 years. In all that time--going back 61 years, since the politicians made a mistake--nobody's had the guts to really turn around and correct it until now. So thank you to all of you for putting in all the work you have.
The only thing I can say is let's pass it. It doesn't look as though it's going to go with amendments, so we're saying we'll deal with that down the road, but at least we get our citizenship. This is truly a life-and-death situation for an awful lot of people. When you're dealing with World War II veterans, if we go further, a lot of them won't be alive. Unfortunately, I've been at this a long time. I am the centre of this thing, and I have seen a lot of people die over the years, disenfranchised from the country they defended.
I can get into a lot of very specific issues, but we'll do that in question period, I think, Norman. I'm ready at any time.
Okay. This is the history.
The Canadian war brides who came to this country believed that they had been given citizenship by virtue of every statement that had been given to them, and every document in the years between 1942 and 1946. They came here, were handed documents saying, welcome to Canada, you're a citizen, and the children as well. They believed that they were citizens, but then the Citizenship Act was introduced on July 1, 1946, came into effect on January 1, 1947, and it changed the status, and they had to apply for citizenship. If they were in the country on January 1, 1947, they were deemed to be Canadian citizens.
The thing is that in the case of Senator Roméo Dallaire, for example, he was out of the country on his 24th birthday, so he found out, because he went and applied for his passport, that in fact he had not filled out a little form and had lost his citizenship. You're new to the story, but essentially what happened is that they didn't fill out forms and they lost their citizenship.
In the case of war brides today, like the one who was told at the border two and a half months ago, what happens is that.... Not every person in this world travels abroad. There are lot of poor people out there who live in little rural communities, like in my province—I live in a very rural province, in Doaktown—or little towns of 5,000, 2,000, or 1,500 people. Going back to Europe was out of their reach economically because their families were gone and they didn't have the money. Here they are, they're 82 or 83 years old, and for the first time in their life maybe they have a chance to go back home to Britain, and they go and apply for a passport and find out they didn't fill out the form.
The case of the Mennonites is that there were in the last century a number of Mennonites, several thousand, who moved to Latin America for religious reasons. Some of them became very poor there, and they would really like to come back, so they have applied for citizenship. And there are tens of thousands, maybe 50,000 in southern areas of Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and other parts.
I'll give you a little story. One of them called me a few weeks ago. He has been living in Canada for more than a decade, he owns a construction company in Calgary, runs it, and he said, I heard that I may have lost my citizenship, is that true? I asked him how old he was, and he said he was 30 years old and was born outside of Canada. I asked him if his parents were born outside of Canada. He said yes, they were, and then he told me a story. He said, somewhere I heard that there was a question and I went to the local citizenship and immigration office several times, showed them my certificate, and asked if I needed to do something so that I could remain a citizen, and I was told no, you're okay. But now you're telling me that I'm not okay. I said, you're right, I'm terribly sorry, but that is the way it is.
That is the way it happened in his case. In that individual's case, he will be able to get a remedy because he has been in Canada for just over half his life and the minister is willing to use the discretion in subsection 5(4) of the act for people who have been in Canada for over half their lives. But there are many cases where people have been in Canada a little bit less than that, and it takes a huge process.
Since 1987, successive governments have studied this problem over and over again. We've had the reports called “Citizenship '87 : Proud to Be Canadian”; “Canadian Citizenship: a Sense of Belonging”; another report called “Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: Issues to be Addressed”; a fourth report, “Citizenship Revocation: a Question of Due Process and Respecting Charter Rights”; a fifth report, “Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: It's Time”. And we had Bill C-63, Bill C-16, Bill C-18, Bill S-2, yes, and now Bill .
With minister after minister, government after government, it did not get done. I've seen so many reports. I called out all the reports because, yes, I'm semi-new to this committee but I'm not new to this issue, because I worked for a member of Parliament in 1981, 1982, 1984. We've been talking about it since I started.
I don't know about you, but I am so tired of the delay. We've had this new government for two years, and yet we are at this stage. This morning I looked at the parliamentary schedule. Is Bill on the schedule? No, it's not on the schedule, and it's not on the books.
So I want to ask you one question. You should give us a deadline—the government, not necessarily us. I will pledge that the NDP will speed up that process, expedite it as much as possible. I will print out all the reports and all the bills that have gone through in the last 20 years and stack them up and maybe present them to you as a present of some kind. But give me a deadline. How long do we need to wait?
I just pulled out my schedule, my calendar. It is February 6. You should give the government a deadline as to what date it should come to second reading, how many days should get it through the House of Commons. We've debated this ad nauseam, many times. You've come here many times. So give us a date. When do you see this bill pass this committee, come back to the House and have it finished? Because it's not rocket science. We know what we're doing. We've studied it many times.
So don't mind me for the rant. It's just that I've looked through this and I've asked how many more bills are coming.
If it is true that we have another election, guess what. Even if it passes, we run out of time in the Senate. I can see that we're going to come back here again. Some of us may be back; some of us may not be back. I don't know. We're going to have another bill, C-whatever it is, and we will repeat this all over again two years later. Some of those people may not be alive anymore, and how many more people are going to be caught in this bureaucratic nightmare?
I'm sorry to rant, but give me an answer. I don't usually rant, but it's just unbelievable.
I'm saying if we have these members, every member, on record today saying we will support the bill as it is--although it is not completely perfect, it covers the majority, if not most, of the situations you raised--that bill will be before here, it will be before the House, and let's see it pass. We want that to happen.
But I can tell you this. We had a unanimous report, and that unanimous report came from this committee. In that unanimous report we specifically said that citizenship would be limited to the first generation born abroad—that was a specific recommendation. There was a lot of give and take, if you know. We had to bend. Others had to bend. And we bent to make that a unanimous report.
The report said:
||The Committee recommends that the amendments to the Citizenship Act provide that the following people are Canadian citizens: Anyone who was born abroad at any time to a Canadian mother or a Canadian father...retroactive to birth, if they are the first generation born abroad.
Mr. Telegdi said, and I quote: “As long as the legislation fits the report, it will get very quick passage, and I think they'll get great cooperation from the House of Commons to make this a reality.”
Then after we got there, the next question was to propose at least one, possibly two amendments. They wanted to deal with the issue of extending it beyond the first generation--which we had already agreed to in this committee, went to the minister with, and had a report back on from the minister.
That said, we're in a place where we have a piece of legislation that can go forward, and I would ask each and every member if they're prepared to say here and now, today, that they will support the bill as it is.
We'll bring this bill here, and I can say this--
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
To watch the grandstanding is a little bit much. Olivia named those reports, and we did those reports with unanimous agreement from the Conservatives. But when they got into government, it was not a priority.
We had a minister, when she was first confronted with it, who told us that we were dealing with a couple of hundred people. We know that we're dealing with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people.
Now, I am very keen to see the bill go through, but I'm not going to sit through another bill that has many unintended consequences. We have to do due diligence on the bill, and we have to have the public able to respond if we are going to be changing something as important as the Citizenship Act.
Let's be clear. The fact that you are here today and that we're talking about this has everything to do with the opposition on this side, despite the obstruction of the government on the other side. Here we're talking about a bill that isn't even before this committee. It was the opposition that fought to get this bill to this committee.
The kind of position the government is putting you in, putting us in, and putting Canadians in is, quite frankly, terrible. It's bad government. That's how you get bad legislation. Make no mistake, we are keen on getting this thing resolved, but we are also keen on doing a good job so that somebody doesn't have to come here and clean up after our mess.
In terms of the question Mr. Karygiannis asked, I think it's a fair question to ask: how many people are affected? We have asked this of the government. We have had no answer. We have to know what the scope of this is. How many people is this impacting? That's very critical. We really have to know that.
The opposition has been willing to sit extended hours to do whatever it takes to deal with the bill, but also to get the answers to our questions to make sure we can craft the best possible bill.
As I said, again, I understand politics. I've been sitting here for 14 years. But I'm not going to listen to the government grandstand about something on which we had to drag them along to get any action at all.
I hope the government is going to be forthcoming with that information. I hope they table the bill in the House and bring it here, because we have some important work to do. If need be, we will sit extra hours. We agreed to do that the last time around, because we wanted to get the bill done and we wanted to get the report done. Any foot-dragging on it has been by the government. Any grandstanding politically on this has been by the government.
So I am hoping that the push you provided today is going to result in our getting the bill and getting down to seriously working on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm relatively new to this Committee: I began in late November, early December. I was working alongside Ms. Meili Faille, who had been the Bloc critic in this area for several years. I know she did very good work.
One of the first things I reviewed was the infamous Committee report. The draft was dated November 20, 2007. So, it's recent. And, if the decision was made to write a report, it's because there was a need for a joint study that would enable the Committee to set out the facts. Unfortunately, I cannot go back in time, as Olivia did, to explain the various timelines. I'm trying to look towards the future.
I understand your impatience. Ms. Jarratt said that the bill was tabled in December. Sixty days later, it has yet to be passed. However, you have to consider the holiday break. We are only at our second week now. And, we are aware that it is important for the bill to come back to Committee to be reviewed.
The Bloc Québécois is definitely in favour of quick passage of this bill, which is based on the Committee report. You confirm that the bill is consistent with that report. Although it may not be perfect, it is a major step forward as regards the many cases that you mentioned.
The Bloc Québécois is prepared to cooperate in order to expedite passage of this bill. Coming to Ottawa from Quebec, one cannot help but notice that the parliamentary process is very slow. Even though it can be passed at third reading and after many different steps—debate in committee, second reading, third reading—when we get here, we are told that it then has to be reviewed by the Senate, which is like a second level of Parliament. Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of its abolition, as it prevents effective government.
However, we cannot start an armed revolution in order to change things; that is just the way our democratic system works. When you don't have a majority government in place for four years, it can happen that several bills die at the end of a Parliament, because an election is called. I just wanted to convey that to you. Meili would have liked to tell you that we fully understand the issue, because she worked on it actively. We will be supporting this bill in as constructive a manner as possible, to ensure its quick passage.
I won't go into detail with you regarding those who have lost their citizenship, because that has already been discussed. We fully understand your issue. If we had to go through this, we would be in the same position.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to welcome all of you back to committee and to thank you very much for your hard work and persistence. Persistence is an understatement when it comes to this file. Thank you very much for your passion and all the work you've put into this.
Ms. Jarratt, I feel your passion. This is an issue where we should be able to put all partisan politics aside. I'm relatively new to this committee. Frankly, I don't even know the history of which party started this push, or all the different reports that Ms. Chow alluded to. I just know where we are now and what you'd like to see done. I don't have to read all of your supportive quotes and to have you reiterate on the record that you're very supportive of the legislation as is.
As Mr. St-Cyr just said, the Bloc Québécois is supportive of the legislation as is, based on the unanimous report of this committee. Ms. Chow is just about begging the government to bring back this legislation to the House for second reading, so it can go through special passage.
I want to say, before I go on, that I have a great deal of respect for my colleague Mr. Karygiannis, as I do for Mr. Telegdi. I know they are both very passionate about this issue. They've pushed very hard on this for their constituents and Canadians. However, I'm a bit confused by Mr. Telegdi's statement that we have to do our due diligence. He did state on CBC that, “As long as the legislation fits the report, it will get very quick passage, and I think they'll get great cooperation from the House of Commons to make this a reality.”
That is all we're seeking today—and I'll get to my question at the very end.
Mr. Karygiannis, I ask for your indulgence. At the very end, there will be a question for these three witnesses.
I know that Mr. Karygiannis, who's fought hard on this issue, wasn't here the week of the unanimous report—
Mr. Chair, I want to thank you, but I want to set the record straight. I hope the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Khan, Mr. Batters, and Mr. Grewal will pay attention so there's no reprehension as to what we're saying.
When the committee started, the minister said there were 400 lost Canadians. We told them there were more--50,000, probably half a million. We moved the bill forward to where it is today. It wasn't because of the Conservatives that the issue was raised; it was because of a motion I put in due to my daughter. So under no circumstances am I going to sit here and take lessons from Mr. Batters as to the position I have on this bill.
Right now there is a request under access to information and a motion that we get figures on first- and second-generation Canadians born abroad. This went to the minister in December. The minister and the parliamentary secretary did not want to deal with this issue, as you heard very well from Mr. Telegdi. If it weren't for this side pushing to have this issue come back to the table and be discussed, we wouldn't be here today.
Mr. Komarnicki is grandstanding and stating that I am committing the government to do this, but he should be committing the government to provide us with the figures we're asking for. He said last week that those figures were in front of a minister. So does he want to know what the actual numbers are? Does he want to know how many first generations are out there--how many second generations, and how many we don't know yet, besides the 400 the minister originally talked about? Do we want to know the figures--yes or no?
If he wants a commitment, I will give him my personal commitment to speedy passage of this, not only for him and my daughter, but for everybody--all the people it's affecting; not the 400, but the thousands, if not millions, of people they're hiding the figures on.
I want a commitment from the Conservatives, and especially the parliamentary secretary. When are they going to provide figures to us?
I'd like to split my time with Mr. Telegdi, Chair.
May I have an answer?