CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 29, 1999

• 1548

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We'll have a quorum as soon as we receive the substitution document for Mr. Cardin.

To save time, so that we may proceed with the witnesses, can we have unanimous consent to deem it a quorum? She will be back with the substitution form in a moment.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Good. On that note, the meeting is convened to resume our hearings on the study of Bill C-63, an act respecting Canadian citizenship.

With us are the departmental officials. We had them here yesterday. Thank you again for coming. I understand Mr. Fyffe will have a very brief amendment to yesterday's proceeding.

Mr. Fyffe.

Mr. Greg Fyffe (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Yes. Before we begin, Mr. Chairman, I want to say two things. The first is that we will be joined by Ms. Atkinson, who is our authority on the adoption provision. She's involved in a briefing on another part of the Hill on ministerial permits.

Second, I made a reference in my opening remarks yesterday to the half-time provision as allowing people to apply half of one year, which is six months, to their qualification period. That reference should have been to half of a two-year period, which would be one year. I regret having misinformed the committee inadvertently.

The Chair: Thank you so much, Mr. Fyffe.

On that note, the Reform Party has the first position to start the questioning of witnesses, if they so wish.

Mr. Anders.

• 1550

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): I must admit, Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that today was just basically for presentations by the witnesses, as opposed to consideration with regard to clauses, amendments or changes.

The Chair: The witnesses made their opening presentation yesterday. Following that process, members of the committee may pose questions to the departmental officials, in light of what the committee has heard over a period of weeks in listening to witnesses.

The varying positions of the witnesses submitted to the committee have been summarized by the research staff, a copy of which can be a basis for questioning the various items, should you feel you would like to pursue that as a basis for questioning, reflecting the position of your party. Or you may choose to ask any questions of them relating to the citizenship bill.

Mr. Rob Anders: I think I will choose to ask any question, if I may, because I haven't had a chance to be privy to the previous presentation.

The Chair: You may just focus it insofar as it relates to the bill, because we're in a study of the bill.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand. I gave a speech on this particular piece of legislation, as it was in the previous reading in the House. There is one thing that troubles me. One of my Reform colleagues accompanied some Vancouver police officers on their beat in Vancouver. They came upon some young men who were engaged in selling drugs, their mouths were full of packets of crack cocaine—$1,700 worth or so, as they roughly guesstimate. The police merely asked them to spit out the drugs into their hands, and then they disposed of them in a trash bin.

When one of my colleagues asked why these men were not deported from the country because they were here illegally and were actually involved in the trafficking of cocaine, the police just kind of tossed up their hands and said, “Well, you know, it's one of those things where if we went ahead and tried to do something about it, they'd be walking out again as soon as we tried. We've kind of given up trying to go ahead and do something about this.”

How did we get to a situation that was so forlorn that police officers in Vancouver no longer even attempt to rectify a situation where you have people coming into Canada solely for the purpose of distributing drugs on the streets of Vancouver?

The Chair: If you can relate that to any subject matter in the bill itself, please do so.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: There are many aspects to that question that fall within general immigration policy. The only thing I would say that is relevant to the bill before us is that one of the principles we are trying to pursue, in both the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act, is to make it easier to deal with people who engage in criminal behaviour when they come to Canada.

There are many obstacles to that, including some provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in this particular bill there's a provision that if someone has been engaged in criminal behaviour three years before applying for citizenship, they're not eligible for citizenship if it's an indictable offence.

If it's a lesser offence, the prohibition is for one year. There are also provisions in the bill for organized crime, which might not touch the individuals you were referring to, but might touch the individuals who were controlling them, because that is an organized criminal activity. The principles we are pursuing in this bill are common with things we're looking at in the Immigration Act, as we work our way through it.

We recognize the problem. There are many aspects of it that have nothing to do with immigration or citizenship, such as the severity of sentences that are given, which we have nothing to do with.

But there are common principles we're pursuing. We recognize there's a serious problem here. To the extent we're able to deal with it in either of the legislative aspects of our mandate, we intend to pursue it.

• 1555

Mr. Rob Anders: To follow up on that, I assume when you say the three years previous, you're talking about the three years previous to them entering Canada. You're talking about the three years they would have been in some country other than Canada. Is that correct?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No. I'm referring to someone who has been here as a permanent resident and is entitled to apply for Canadian citizenship. If they have been convicted of a criminal activity three years prior to applying for Canadian citizenship, they can't be considered for citizenship. If a person has been in and out of the country and has received a conviction in another country equivalent to a Canadian conviction of that severity, the same provision would apply.

Mr. Rob Anders: So you're saying as long as these fellows aren't applying for citizenship, they can go ahead and sell crack cocaine in downtown Vancouver, but if they choose to apply for citizenship and get charged and convicted, something can be done. Is that right?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No, I'm not saying that. The chair asked me to restrict my remarks to something that was directly relevant to the Citizenship Act. If the chair would like me to take a wider take on the question, as it impacts the immigration portfolio generally, of course I could do that.

The Chair: My suggestion, Mr. Anders, is that because of the precious time we would like to spend on the bill itself and because we also anticipate a major piece of legislation as it relates to immigration, where such a question definitely would have a proper place for intensive debate, we agree to hold in abeyance any remarks Mr. Fyffe may want to give that don't relate directly to the bill itself. When I first heard your question, I thought there was an angle there, and Mr. Fyffe might be able to identify the component.

Mr. Rob Anders: There is something else I remember speaking to you about with regard to the bill. I know it deals directly with some of the questions raised in the bill, although it may not be on the particular amendment Mr. Fyffe just spoke on. It is with regard to the citizenship of parents.

I know Australia has changed their law—and if memory serves me correctly, the United States has either changed their law or is considering changing their law—so that in order for a child to be considered a citizen, one of the parents at least has to be an Australian citizen. I'll use Australia for this example because I know that to be the case there. The point is that people are therefore not encouraged to seek to get across the border to bear their children in Australia, in this case—or the United States—so that their children will be automatically granted citizenship by birth.

Do you have any idea how many people, previous to the considerations, were coming into the United States merely for the purpose of bearing children in the United States to get U.S. citizenship?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I don't have any statistical information. The Canadian Department of Immigration suspects strongly that that happens in the United States, but I certainly can't put a figure on it.

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay. I take it, therefore, that you wouldn't have any figures like that for Australia either.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: No. The United States still has the provision that is the same as ours, which is more constitutionally protected than it would be in Australia. Australia, like ourselves, historically had the position that birth within Australia meant citizenship. They have since changed that.

Mr. Rob Anders: Have any groups in Canada been advocating for laws similar to the changes in Australia and the United States, so that one of the parents is required to be a Canadian citizen before citizenship is automatically granted on the child?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: This question has come up from time to time and has come up a number of times recently in Canada. There's been speculation from time to time that Canada might do that. When this speculation was public, it was immediately obvious that there were fairly strong opinions on both sides of the question. We looked at this question ourselves, and are still looking at it in fact.

• 1600

For us there are two categories that are of concern. One is people who come who are refugee claimants who may have a child here and what the implications of that are. The other is the group you referred to, which is a group of people who may have come with the intention of giving birth to someone who would then have Canadian citizenship. These are really different developments from the historical period in which this provision developed, in which that kind of phenomenon was not really critical. The expectation was generally that if someone was born here it was because their parents had come here and they were settling.

The issue that arises for us before we tackle a problem like that is to what extent it is in fact a problem. We have many problems in gathering the data we need in the department, for many reasons, but in this one we tried to find out the extent to which it was in fact a problem, admitting that it may very well be a problem. We have a great deal of difficulty getting a hold of information like that because there is no way our posts overseas can judge what reason people are coming here, if they're properly identified as a visitor. And of course most women in an advanced state of pregnancy don't travel anyway, and airlines don't permit them to board.

The other side of the issue is, what is the record of births within Canada for people who have been non-resident? The difficulty there is that different provinces define residency in different ways, and therefore getting the statistics is extremely difficult. The minister and the government decided that this is a priority issue for consideration but not before the relevant information is gathered to have a sense of how big the problem is. For that reason, Consulting and Audit Canada is doing a study on our behalf trying to identify statistical sources that would allow us to determine exactly what's involved here. We would then look at the policy implications of what we find. Given that there are some groups such as the Canadian Council for Refugees and others who feel very strongly on the other side of this question, we feel that any policy decision be based on some agreed-upon facts.

Mr. Rob Anders: I have a last question because it's pertinent to everything else, and then I'll wrap up, if that's okay.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Rob Anders: I understand there can be difficulty with regard to gathering these statistics, but I'll ask you this, based on one individual case, just so I understand the ramifications. If you have visitors or a visitor, one of them being a pregnant woman who comes to Canada and gives birth here in Canada—and I'm not talking about the broader statistical picture, but just for that one individual case—could you run me through what type of possibilities or ramifications that has in terms of the status of the parents? If the child born in Canada is automatically granted Canadian citizenship, what therefore happens to the mother or father, or other visitors with that child? What happens from there if they're found to not have proper papers or to have problems with regard to their status in Canada as a legitimate visitor, or a landed immigrant or anything like that? What would happen?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'll give you a preliminary answer and I'll ask Mr. Sabourin to add anything, if that's appropriate.

If the person was a visitor and there was a birth, the child would then be entitled to citizenship. In many cases, the parents would have no intention of staying in Canada and would leave. However, the child would be able to come back later on and take up Canadian citizenship.

If the parents were here illegally, they might at some point claim, if they were in the process of removal, that in the interests of the child they should be allowed to remain. In fact, there's a case before the courts on this now, although in this case there was more than one child born in Canada and the period in which the person was here was extremely long. That's the general implication of it.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Anders.

To your earlier question as to whether there had been a submission to the committee on the position you were trying to pursue, indeed there was. Of course, they are not expected to know that because they're not members of the committee, but the research staff has just reminded me that the Independent Immigration Aid Association did make a proposal that they ought not be allowed automatic citizenship. In contrast, seven other groups proposed that the provision granting Canadian citizenship by birth on Canadian soil be retained. That is the state of submissions before the committee on that particular issue.

• 1605

Mr. Cardin, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to tell you that the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Mr. Réal Ménard, is sorry he could not be here, because he is in the House at the moment. He is the regular member of the committee. The reason I am here, friends, is to make up a quorum, so that you can continue with your work. Mr. Ménard will be here for the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I looked at some of the documentation quickly, and I have a brief question I would like to ask before I let you continue with your work. I was reading on page 22:

The St-Jean-Baptiste Society said that in Quebec, new Canadians should be able to swear allegiance to Quebec and to Canada. Limiting the oath to Canada suggests that naturalized Canadians will not have the right to be sovereignists.

You will understand that personally, I agree with the position of the St-Jean-Baptiste Society. The document also states that "the Society was severely criticized for its stand". What type of criticism was made? Objectively speaking, is this something that could be done in terms of the oath?

[English]

The Chair: You are referring to the text first prepared by the research staff?

Mr. Serge Cardin: Oui.

The Chair: Page 22.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Page 24 in French, excusez-moi.

The Chair: Please let me have a minute. With respect to that submission, I do not recall, but other members may recall differently, that there was a criticism of the society making that presentation. If what you meant is the society made a criticism of the present law, that it is not encompassing enough to include its sentiment, which is to include an oath of allegiance to Quebec as well, that of course was the position taken by the society. And of course the committee received it formally, and it will be a basis for consideration when the committee as a whole next week does the clause-by-clause analysis; they will then take it into account during debate. Of course the committee at that time will make the decision. But should you wish to pursue that issue by way of clarification and implication to the witnesses, you have the privilege to pose that question today to them.

Mr. Fyffe, would you care to respond to the suggestion made by one of the witnesses who was before the committee that the pledge of allegiance...if I can reflect the sentiment of Mr. Cardin, who of course is not a regular member of this committee. But I thank him very profusely for giving us the opportunity to constitute quorum. And if I may add, Mr. Ménard is one of the distinguished members of this committee, and you can tell him that.

Do you have any reflection or sentiment that you would like to share as to the testimony of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste with respect to the need to add in the oath an allegiance as well to Quebec?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I'd ask Mr. Sabourin to respond.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

[Translation]

Mr. Norman Sabourin (Director, Citizenship and Registrar of Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Chairman, I can say that the proposed wording of the oath of citizenship contained in Bill C-63 obviously concerns Canada in its current constitutional form. I have no other comments on this point.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Let us assume that Canada, in its present form, is made up of Quebec and several provinces. When people arrive and decide to live in Canada, but in a particular province, which is an institution with its own laws and regulations by the name of Quebec, in such cases, could we not ask people to swear an oath of allegiance to both Quebec and Canada?

• 1610

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I can say that the oath is a promise in which future citizens say what they will do when they become Canadian citizens. They promise to observe the laws of the land and to fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens, and thus to participate in the country's existing political institutions. That is the commitment contained in the oath of citizenship.

Mr. Serge Cardin: You will have an opportunity to study the bill clause-by-clause next week. My colleagues will be able to come back to this point at that time. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: If I may, as chair I will take the privilege of responding, only because I said it already in response to the comment of Mr. Ménard when he was facing this issue. This is only a position at this point. I have not made my final decision, but my starting position is that since Canada includes all the provinces, when we take an allegiance to the whole, it follows that we take allegiance to the parts of Canada. If in fact we only single out one province that we will add in the oath, it may be interpreted that you are excluding allegiance to the other provinces. This is my position at this time. But it is certainly a subject for debate when we see it with Mr. Ménard at the level of the committee.

Are you done with your questioning?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Yes, that's fine.

[English]

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

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I have only one question, because I put all my substantial questions forward at our last meeting. But following on Mr. Cardin's remarks, does the oath have any legal import as a contract between the nation and the new citizen? Is there any sense that it's a contractual arrangement between the two parties?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I can say, Mr. Chairman, that the oath of citizenship would be considered—and I think there has been a bit of research on this for other countries as well as Canada—a morally binding commitment by the prospective citizen, but not a contractual arrangement whereby if it is breached it would mean loss of citizenship, for example.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may pursue it slightly then, we were talking actually at the last session about the problems of being a citizen and engaging in a treasonous act, which would be taking up arms against Canada's forces. But that provision in the Criminal Code, I guess it is, for treason is a provision that flows from the actual acquisition of citizenship. So the oath could be rightly considered as separate from that. Is that so?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Yes, from a legal point of view, the acquisition of citizenship of course can be by birth, but through naturalization, the oath is only one component of acquisition of citizenship.

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

The Chair: You are then telling the committee that the oath as used in the act differs from the oath that's used in an oath taken before a commissioner of oaths, before a court of law, or before a notary public?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think from the purely legal point of view, and we might have to find some additional information on this for the committee, the oath of citizenship is a public commitment by the prospective citizen that finalizes the acquisition of citizenship process. It is not an oath in the sense of a legal undertaking under the Evidence Act, for example, to do something.

The Chair: So breach, therefore, of the citizenship oath would not be grounds for perjury, for example.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: My view is that it would not be, and it would not be a breach of any legal obligation. It would be a breach, I would say, of a moral obligation.

The Chair: Are you aware of any precedent in the history of citizenship cases that have come before courts of law where judges of those courts have used the oath as a part of their decision-making on any given case in the past?

• 1615

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevens believes he may have some points.

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

Mr. Eric Stevens (Legal Counsel, Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): The only thing I'm aware of in this area is that the taking of the oath is a legal requirement that must be satisfied in order to gain citizenship. So a person who would refuse to take the oath would not get citizenship. There's the odd case—and they're very few in number—where a person has said “I cannot take the oath” for a particular reason, so the person does not become a citizen.

The Chair: So we will make it a subject matter for a Master of Sciences student and a Ph.D. student, for a dissertation. It's an interesting subject matter. My research thinking is becoming a little bit....

Are there any more questions from the floor?

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the question I have deals with automatic loss of citizenship. We could have a situation where somebody could come to this country who was a Canadian citizen prior to the age of 28 and lost their citizenship while they were in Canada.

Have you considered something saying that you will not lose your citizenship on Canadian soil? If they're here and they're going to be here for the three years, they keep their citizenship. Somehow it is ironic if the reason you lose your citizenship is because you haven't got that attachment, and then you end up losing it while you're in Canada.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: The circumstances in which that would happen would be if the person is a third generation who has not been born in Canada, their parents had not been born in Canada, but their parents had been born in Canada, and they themselves had not re-established any contact with Canada until past the age of 25, having been told formally, in previous correspondence, which they would have been, that they had to establish three years of citizenship before 28. All of these circumstances would have to apply. Then they would have arrived after the age of 25. They would be entitled to remain in Canada as a permanent resident. At the age of 28 they would lose their citizenship. Because they had not established their three years, they would be out of citizenship status as far as this bill is concerned.

That would not necessarily be the end of the story, however. They would still have the option of applying under humanitarian and compassionate grounds, for example. But I would point out that the age of 28 is intended to give someone as an adult lots of time to come to Canada, if they really wish to re-establish a link with Canada, having lost it for more than two generations.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How difficult would it be to have something in the act that says this clause is not going to apply, that you're not going to lose your citizenship while you're on Canadian soil?

Second, what happens with the person who only has Canadian citizenship? Of course, we have a convention on statelessness.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: In terms of statelessness, Canada would not take action that would render someone stateless. There are a number of ways that that might potentially happen, theoretically, but there's always a provision not to render someone stateless.

However, instead of the principle that by 28 you must establish that you've re-established ties with Canada—effectively you just had to be here—I think that would go against the principle of the bill, which is to say in the third generation there must be some definite, concrete, substantive step to re-establish citizenship. The government position is that that should go beyond less than three years; it should be a definite act to re-establish a specific period of residence within Canada, which is analogous to what a potential immigrant would have in establishing citizenship.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I understand your reasoning around it, but I would still find it peculiar that somebody would be in the country and that's when they would lose citizenship. It seems—

• 1620

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Potentially, there is another remedy. There's no remedy under this bill. If they had been in the position of just missing it and not obviously panicking at the last moment—circumstances were such that they didn't quite make getting here at 25, and they would have known that they had to get here at 25—there would be humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I think someone who clearly wanted to re-establish in Canada would get pretty sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: How would we know if we render someone stateless, if we do or we don't?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I believe they would tell us.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Someone could conceivably lose their citizenship without being aware of it.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Perhaps I could ask Mr. Sabourin to talk about the general provisions regarding statelessness and what Canada's position is.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: What I can say on statelessness is this. As Mr. Fyffe said, first of all, Canada will not in any way create statelessness. We have an international obligation not to do that, and there are specific mechanisms in the legislation to make sure statelessness is not created. There is always a possibility, in a rare circumstance, that somebody could fall outside of these provisions and would still have the potential to become stateless. If that were to take place, then the legislation allows a special grant of citizenship in highly exceptional cases. That's a governor in council power.

Just as a comparison, under today's legislation, the legislation currently in force, there is no specific provision on statelessness, but in the international arena, Canada has always argued that if any case of statelessness comes to our attention, we would exercise that special grant of citizenship provision to make sure we uphold our international obligations.

In terms of how we find out if a person becomes stateless, it usually happens because they are either abroad and are trying to travel to Canada and discover they are not citizens and therefore would let us know, or they are in Canada and they say they cannot go anywhere else because they don't have any status to go anywhere else. On either occasion, we would have to address that.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: If you permit, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Atkinson can add something on the humanitarian and compassionate consideration.

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Director General, Selection Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As Mr. Fyffe has indicated, when we have someone in Canada who has lost Canadian citizenship and is physically in Canada, there may be no relief for them under the citizenship legislation, but there may be some relief for them under the immigration legislation. Mr. Fyffe referred to humanitarian and compassionate decision-making. We have a remedy under the Immigration Act where individuals who are in Canada seeking to remain in Canada can request consideration of an application for permanent residence under humanitarian and compassionate grounds in Canada. In the guidelines we have for officers who deal with these cases, there is specific reference in those guidelines to dealing with former Canadian citizens. They would have to go through the immigration process—that is quite correct—but there is a way of dealing with them under the immigration program.

The Chair: If I can pursue that, for greater clarity, is there wisdom in putting a provision to that effect in Bill C-63 itself?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Dealing with individuals who have lost citizenship and then subsequently may be dealt with under the immigration legislation I think properly belongs in the immigration legislation. Bill C-63 would deal with the status of an individual up to the point where they lost citizenship in the situation we're describing. How they may be able to become citizens again...they have to revert to the immigration process, and remedies for that are correctly found in the immigration legislation.

The Chair: Is it envisioned by the department that there will be efforts on the part of the government that information and notices, to the extent they can be done, will be done?

• 1625

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You're speaking about the second generation potentially losing their citizenship. As we've indicated, those individuals are given information on how to retain their citizenship. I believe they receive it when they get their citizenship documentation.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I have one additional point. When a person has re-established permanent residence, they need only one year as a permanent resident to re-establish Canadian citizenship.

The Chair: The Mennonite committee brought up an issue about retroactivity before or after 1977, and to me it was a complex issue. Hopefully, one of your officials monitored that particular testimony. To the extent you understood the issue, could you comment on that?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Mr. Sabourin understands the issue fully and is quite prepared to comment.

Mr. Chairman, we have a presentation of about 20 minutes in length that goes into these intergenerational issues, along with the appropriate colour slides and commentary. I think this would aid the understanding of the committee, not to mention some of the witnesses.

The Chair: With the consent of the committee, I can allow that to happen, since it appears the burning questions have been exhausted.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Can you give us a précis? Can you explain it without making a full presentation?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, I can give in a few words a taste of what the presentation is about. It basically explains what happens in the situation involving persons who were born in Canada many years ago but whose children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren were not born in Canada. It outlines the consequences as to what happens when a person has a right to register to become a citizen today but has not done so, not only for today but for the future under the current legislation and under Bill C-63.

The Chair: With that overview, Steve, would you like us to see it? I think it would be of value.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes.

The Chair: Please proceed with the presentation of your slides.

Ms. Debra Pressé (Acting Manager, Legislative Compliance, Integration, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chair, the proposed legislation continues our tradition of allowing citizenship to pass from a parent to a child when the child is born outside of Canada. The most substantive change in the legislation is the limiting of citizenship to the second generation. Another change has to do with the criteria for retaining citizenship, and this has been of considerable concern to many of the witnesses who have come before you. The criteria in the proposed bill increase the residence requirement for children born abroad from one year to three years. Many of the public witnesses have also raised questions about statelessness as a result of these two changes.

This presentation doesn't address statelessness. What I hope it does is help you understand, when you get to the clause-by-clause consideration, who it is we're talking about and at what time in the future these provisions might come into play.

A third change, which is the Mennonite Central Committee's concern, is that the bill does not allow for the continued registration of children who have never registered themselves as Canadians born abroad. This was a transitional provision of the 1977 act that Bill C-63 does not include. The presentation does directly address that issue.

Birth abroad obviously means that at least one family member is born outside of Canada. Citizenship by birth abroad to a Canadian parent is not automatic. There have always been conditions attached to citizenship, and two of the conditions have to do with registration and residence in Canada. The first condition is that children born abroad are not citizens unless they're registered with the Canadian government as being citizens. Second, there has always been a residence requirement attached, and children have always had to meet that residence requirement by a certain age.

• 1630

Basically, what Bill C-63 says is that whoever is already a citizen today remains a citizen, whoever was subject to loss remains subject to loss, and whoever was not a citizen before this bill remains a non-citizen.

You asked if it's necessary to view the presentation, and I would say yes, it is. To understand family trees you need to see the family tree itself. This visual presentation is based on four family portraits. I'm going to talk you through the portraits and then explain who is a citizen today, who will be a citizen tomorrow under the current act, and who will be a citizen tomorrow using Bill C-63 legislation. Then I'll explain who in those families is affected by Bill C-63.

Our first family involves six generations of Canadians. I'm calling this the Martin family because he is the patriarch.

A voice: He is too. That's very politically astute, I might add.

Ms. Debra Pressé: I will admit that the names were chosen for ease of translation.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms Debra Pressé: Martin was born in Canada, so obviously he's a Canadian citizen. Martin's son, Norman, was born outside of Canada, and he is also a citizen today. Martin's grandchild, Patricia, was born outside of Canada in 1978, so after the coming into force of the current act, she is also a Canadian citizen. Since she was born after 1977, we call her the first generation born abroad, even though her father or mother was already born abroad.

Patricia's daughter, Joan, is going to be born in the future, and she will be a Canadian born abroad as well, but since she is the second generation born abroad after 1977, she will have to meet certain conditions or lose her citizenship at the age of 28. This is the current law.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can I interrupt you?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Certainly.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you saying, then, that when she's born she is automatically a citizen?

Ms. Debra Pressé: No. Her parent has to register her as a citizen. As soon as she's registered, the parent receives a letter telling her that her child is a citizen but that she will have to meet certain conditions before the age of 28.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What are those conditions?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Right now it's residence in Canada for one year before the age of 28. Bill C-68 proposes three years.

Another future generation is Monica. She would also have this right to claim citizenship if she was registered, and she would also be subject to the loss provisions.

Now we come to Louis, who is born in 2045. He is the sixth generation of the family. There has been nobody born in Canada for over a century at this point. Louis could also have a claim to citizenship. Like his mother and grandmother, he'd be subject to loss on his 28th birthday.

As you can see from this family portrait, there is no limit to the number of times Martin, born in 1928, can pass on his Canadian citizenship, and it is this notion of forever that Bill C-63 is addressing.

I'd like to take you through the very same family using Bill C-63, so imagine that we're just superimposing a new law on this family. Using this portrait we can see that whoever is already a citizen would stay a citizen. Martin, Norman, Patricia, and Joan are citizens today and would remain citizens. Joan would still be subject to loss. There is no change.

The difference with this family comes in the future. Joan's child and grandchild would be the third and fourth generations born after 1977, and they would have no claim to citizenship under the new law.

I said earlier that some witnesses had issues with regard to this loss provision, and the Mennonite Central Committee has asked me to make clear that they have no concerns about or quarrels with the loss provisions.

The situation with regard to a child born abroad to Joan is as follows. Assuming there is no other Canadian parent in this family, Joan, who would be a citizen until she's 28, and her child born abroad...Joan has the right to sponsor a child as a landed immigrant. She is a Canadian citizen and could sponsor that child, and we would hope that any Canadian citizen would take the appropriate steps for their children and sponsor their own children into Canada if they want that child to be a citizen.

• 1635

So in regard to that child, the third generation, you need to keep in mind also that you're not born stateless. Most countries have nationality laws that allow children to acquire citizenship either by birth on that soil or through residence in that country. The only way we would be creating statelessness here is if that child is born in a country that does not allow that child to have citizenship by birth on their soil and will not allow that child to become a citizen through a naturalization process in that country.

I'm going to take you now into the future family. This family has five generations in its portrait. The first is Sarra, born in 1999, and at birth, under current law, she is of course a citizen. Her child is born in the future in Canada and of course is a citizen. Ingrid is the first generation born outside of Canada and under this legislation is automatically a Canadian. There are no conditions; she never has to reside in Canada, and since 1977, the first generation does not have to be registered. Nicole is the second generation and has a right to citizenship. That is the generation that would be subject to loss. Nancy is the third generation born, and today, under the 1977 act, she would have a right to citizenship and be subject to loss.

Again, as with the first family, I'd like to superimpose the new legislation on it to see what the effect is. The only impact Bill C-63 has on the future family is that Nancy, born well into the future, will not be a citizen. The rest of the family are citizens, and Nicole, who was subject to loss, remains subject to loss.

The next two portraits directly address the issues that were raised by Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

The third family, the “Tardy” family, represents persons who did not originally exercise their claim to citizenship. To understand the situation described by Mr. Janzen of the MCCC, you need to go back in history. This family has six generations. As said earlier, children born abroad have always had to meet some conditions, and one of those conditions is registration. You need to register the birth of a child in order for that child to be a citizen. This family tree or portrait is about a family who did not register their child when the child was little. Basically, you used to have to register the baby's birth.

So the first person is Ken. Again, we always start off with somebody. We have to have a link somewhere to Canada. Ken had a child named Peter. Peter's birth wasn't registered, and so Peter was not a citizen at birth. We come now to Joshua, born in 1978. His parent is not a citizen, so he's not a citizen. However, there is a transition clause in our act today that allows persons who were not registered as children before 1977 to register themselves now as adults. We call this a delayed registration, and many persons have taken advantage of this transitional clause. In this family, Peter did just that, and as soon as Peter did, it flicked a switch; he became a citizen and was able to register his child Joshua as a citizen as well.

Now this is where it gets tricky. Joshua is the first generation born abroad after 1977. But Joshua is also subject to loss, because the current act says that a child born after 1977 to a parent who was only registered after 1977 is also subject to loss, just like the second-generation children are subject to loss. So it's a special category of persons here.

Are there any questions on why Joshua is going to lose? Joshua could lose his citizenship in 2006. Mathematically, the earliest case of loss under our current law will come in the year 2005.

• 1640

The Chair: Regarding Peter, in other words, registration only confers or is equivalent to first generation in this instance.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Well, the 1977 act said whoever is a citizen today is a citizen. Peter wasn't a citizen when the act came into force. So the act said whoever is a citizen after 1977, if you're second generation, if your parent was a delayed registration, will be subject to loss. It's not that Joshua is second generation; it's just that his father was not a citizen at the time Joshua was—

An hon. member: Born.

Ms. Debra Pressé: No, his father didn't register himself as a citizen until after 1977. So there was a clause in there saying that if you're born after 1977 to a parent registered after 1977, you too are subject to loss.

Technically, yes, we're treating the child as if he's second generation, but he's not the second generation born abroad.

The Chair: The parent was by registration only. That in itself is a transitional provision.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So what does he have to do? He has to live here a year?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Joshua? Yes, a year.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Under that act?

Ms. Debra Pressé: That's under the current act, and we're proposing that he have to be here for three years.

The Chair: Grant.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Can you go into the transitional clause a little bit more? Are you saying that for somebody who is not a citizen, who is abroad somewhere but born of a Canadian citizen, currently with that transitional clause there is still a loss provision under the 1977 act?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes. There has always been a loss provision. The loss provision in 1977 was similar, a little different from the loss under the 1947 act, but there has always been a loss provision for children born abroad. In 1977 we moved it from the first to the second generation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My question is, how did you guys ever figure this out?

Ms. Debra Pressé: I wasn't born then.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Were you registered?

The Chair: Do you wish to continue with your presentation?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes.

Joshua has a child, Kamel. Kamel would have a claim to citizenship and he would be subject to loss. Then Kamel has a child, Elena, who is the third generation born after 1977 and is subject to loss as well, and so would another child, Lisa. That is the current act. As I said, this notion of forever goes on, so because Peter finally registered himself, everybody else has a claim to citizenship.

So what happens to people who register themselves late? Nothing. People are still citizens. Those who are subject to loss remain subject to loss.

There is an impact for Joshua. He has known since he was registered that his citizenship was up in the year 2006. His parents were told that at his birth. We now need to communicate to him that the rules have changed. It's one year to three years.

Other than that, the change is that Elena and Lisa, great-great-great-grandchildren of Ken, have no claim to citizenship. Again, they could be sponsored as landed immigrants.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Joshua then has to have residency for three years—

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: —and in all likelihood he would, because he's Peter's kid.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If he is living abroad, he can make that conscious decision to come back to Canada and live for three years.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I interrupt proceedings here and ask the officials if they would hold off and finish this in a few moments?

I want to deal with a procedural issue while we have a quorum. It has to do with the clause-by-clause hearings we're having next week. I would like to put a motion on the floor and have it voted on, if I might.

The Chair: The clerk is telling me that we have the substitution form in place.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand.

The Chair: I guess Mr. Mahoney is very conscious of the preciousness of quorum. He has been labouring a bit for the last—

An hon. member: He's just precious, period.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Flattery will get you everywhere.

• 1645

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My motion would be that next week we have hearings as follows for the purpose of clause-by-clause of this bill: Tuesday, May 4, from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.; Wednesday, May 5, from 3.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.; Thursday, May 6, from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.—with lunch and dinner to be provided at the sole expense of the chair, menus to be distributed on Wednesday—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And on Friday, May 7, Mr. Chair, that you be directed to report the bill to the House.

The Chair: Can the clerk please repeat what she took as notes, for clarity?

The Clerk of the Committee: From what I've gathered, clause-by-clause will commence on Tuesday, May 4, from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. Do I have that right?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Correct.

The Clerk: Then on May 5, that's a Wednesday, from 9 a.m...?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, 3.30 p.m. to 8 p.m.

The Clerk: What about Thursday?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thursday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

The Clerk: Okay. And then Friday the chair will report the bill to the House.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

The Chair: As long as the provisions about the chair being in charge of the food...the chair will accept the motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you.

The Chair: Seriously, the motion is there.

Grant, would you like to speak to the motion?

Mr. Grant McNally: If I can make an amendment, I think we should include if we're through the clause-by-clause by Friday.... We're assuming we're going to be through that by Friday, before it's reported to the House, are we not?

The Chair: From the information, of course, that is the proper inference to make. If I may just advise the group, we have the estimates ahead of us, and we need to have the minister in front of us in terms of the performance report. I find it difficult, as a chair, to keep jumping from one subject matter to the other. At the same time we have a bill that is near completion. From the estimate of the chair, I think the clause-by-clause could be concluded by then.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest, and maybe this is a compromise, that we go from 9 a.m. on Thursday and go all day until we complete the clause-by-clause. If we need to sit till midnight, we will—or whenever. But the intent of this motion is to do the clause-by-clause next week and report on Friday. If we can do it by 8 o'clock Thursday, fine, but if not, we'll take the extra time.

The Chair: Is that fair enough? Okay, so the motion, as moved by Mr. Mahoney, is on the floor.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: From 9 a.m. on Thursday till it's completed, to be reported to the House on Friday. There is a sunset, if you will.

The Chair: You've heard the motion. Is there any further debate on the motion? Those in favour of the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It's unanimous.

Mr. Grant McNally: No, I'm against it.

The Chair: One is against it.

The Clerk: Seven are in favour and one is opposed.

The Chair: The motion is carried.

Is there any further business before we go back to the witnesses? Okay, we will go back to the witnesses. Thank you.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Before I talk about this family...I need to mention—and the Mennonite Central Committee has mentioned it as well—that there were two transitional clauses in the 1977 act, one dealing with persons whose births hadn't been registered. Before 1977, a child could derive citizenship only through a father. To correct this discrimination, there was a transitional clause—and it's still in the current act—that stated that children born of a Canadian mother between 1947 and 1977 could apply for a special grant of citizenship. Bill C-63 does not introduce this transitional clause.

• 1650

So there are two categories of people—those who are born to a father, who were never registered; and those who were born to a mother, who have never applied for a grant of citizenship—for whom, if they haven't done it yet, we're proposing that transitional clause not be reintroduced. I should also point out that it was a two-year transitional clause and it's been repeatedly extended.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Those born abroad?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes, sorry, always born abroad.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just as an example, if the parents came back to Canada and the child was born here, then they moved back to their other country, would that child be Canadian?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Anybody born on Canadian soil is Canadian.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

The Chair: Any further questions for the witnesses?

Ms. Debra Pressé: I'm going to go to the last one, because this is the concern that the Mennonite Central Committee has raised with this committee.

The last family has seven persons in it. Again, this portrait represents persons who did not originally exercise their claim, didn't register themselves. The difference is with the Never family, they never did that. Wilhelm, of course, is a citizen. Gunther, born abroad, did what he was supposed to do—registered the birth, etc.—and is a citizen. Isaac's birth, however, was never registered, so he was not a citizen at birth.

In 1977 the transitional clause was put in, allowing Isaac to register himself as an adult. In the years between 1977 and today, Isaac has not registered himself as a Canadian. Jacob, his child, is not a citizen because he's born of a non-citizen, and of course the generations following him are also non-citizens because they were born to non-citizens.

So what we have is a family with two Canadian citizens, some living members, and some children who have not yet been born who could have a claim to citizenship if Isaac were allowed to register himself—or if he were to register himself.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's an important distinction. He's allowed to register himself.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes, today, because of the transitional clause.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: When would he do that?

Ms. Debra Pressé: If he did that today, then he could automatically register Jacob, and Wilma could be registered once she's born; then Eva could be registered once she's born.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Under the 1977 act, in addition to registration, they would still have to live here for a year to claim their citizenship.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes, by the age of 28.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And the Mennonite Central Committee is asking that we leave it like that?

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes. That's exactly it. What Bill C-63 does on their citizenship status is nothing, but what it does change is that the family will no longer have the right to exercise the claim by birth, so they would remain non-citizens. If any of them wanted to become citizens, they would have to go through the normal immigration procedures.

Mr. Grant McNally: One of the concerns that the MCCC had, if I understand correctly, was that many of the individuals who would currently apply under this intergenerational process going on and on would in no way ever be able to qualify through the regular process as you have outlined it.

Ms. Debra Pressé: The immigration process.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Ms. Debra Pressé: Yes, that's certainly the concern the Mennonite committee has raised, that the immigration process...the point system may not be—

Mr. Grant McNally: So what is the rationale for not allowing that then?

Ms. Debra Pressé: The position is that we've kept the door open for 23 years. It was a transitional clause. How much longer do we keep the door open? It was a temporary clause in the 1977 act, and this bill doesn't have it.

Mr. Grant McNally: I guess my concern is that these are individuals who have some link to Canada, obviously through one of the members of the family being a citizen somewhere along the line. And as you said, the door would be open. I don't know if you have exact numbers on how many exercise that or walk through that door every year, or on how many people the door would be closed to should this change go ahead.

• 1655

Ms. Debra Pressé: Nine thousand babies are born abroad every year who are registered, who are at least first generation born abroad. We don't track how many second generation are born abroad, because we don't have limits right now. So it doesn't matter if you're second, third, fourth, or fifth. When we know they are second generation, we send a letter telling them they're subject to the loss.

Mr. Grant McNally: How many come back per year? How many take advantage of this open door?

Ms. Debra Pressé: How many come back?

Mr. Grant McNally: Right. We would be in effect closing this door forever when the time limits kick in. Is there a great number of people who come through and do this every year? Is that the concern?

Ms. Debra Pressé: In terms of the number of persons who register themselves late, there were thousands, originally, after 1977, of course. It's dropped off to about 500 to 600 per year.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's people who register, but on people who actually come back, are there any statistics on how many individuals actually come back and take advantage of this current process, the 1977 process?

Ms. Debra Pressé: For most babies born abroad, their parents are living there temporarily and they come back—most children born abroad.

Mr. Grant McNally: So there are no statistics as to how many of those individuals actually come back? Among the second and third generation, the ones who have the link and the claim to come back, do we know how many come back per year?

We're opening a door here for these folks. I'm wondering how many people we're affecting per year with that change.

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

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the question we are being asked, how many people are currently entitled to register who, if Bill C-63 came into force—and we're thinking of the Never family—would no longer have that opportunity to register. Today the number of people who register in a year is approximately 500 to 600 per year. Out of that proportion, there is a significant number who are members of the Mennonite community, but whether or not they remain in Canada and reside in Canada, that we don't know.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If I might, this issue is about registration. What we're in essence doing is taking away the right to register. If we were to leave that in but require them to be here for three years, would that not solve the issue around commitment to Canada? The parent registers, so if the child then decides, at age 25 or whatever, that they want to live in Canada and they want to become citizens, they would actually have to live here for three years. Would not the compromise be, instead of taking out both the registration and extending the one-year to three years, to leave the registration in, and if the parent has the foresight to register, then it would allow the child the option of making the commitment to Canada, of living here for three years?

When you think of it, you have to be resident in this country for three out of five years to apply anyway. So it seems to me to be a fit. It seems to be a tie that it would be three consecutive years and not three out of five.

So you have a situation where on one hand you are a landed immigrant and you're applying for status. One of the rules is that you have to live here three out of five years to qualify. You're not a landed immigrant, but you're the son or daughter of a registered citizen, and you can apply by living here for three consecutive years, not three out of five. There seems to be some equity there.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: The committee could obviously take a number of takes on this, but the basic principle the act is trying to pursue is that citizenship should really reflect genuine ties to Canada, and we're dealing with communities and in some cases individuals who in fact have moved away from Canada and their children never came back, and their children probably will never come back except for taking up a technical ability to come back to Canada.

What we're trying to do is establish a rationale that says the first generation born abroad...clearly that covers a lot of individuals whose parents just happened to be abroad and did not move away from Canada at all and are coming back. You could stretch it to the next generation if they took steps to confirm their citizenship, but how far realistically do people who have left for more than one generation really have any tie to Canada that is more than opportunistic? That's also an issue. Why are they really coming back? We're dealing with communities that moved away and in fact have been away from Canada for generations, or in some cases people who may have moved to the United States, married in the United States, been away and really had no connection with Canada at all. In the case of the 1977s, they have had 23 years to say they really wanted to be Canadian.

• 1700

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would argue that if they weren't prepared, I don't think three years should be considered a technicality. Three years is a fairly major commitment to move back and set up your residence, and presumably find employment and do all of that, and there is a link. The other thing that is interesting, if you think about it, is if they move back for three years and get their Canadian citizenship, in all likelihood the very real possibility exists that they will stay here, they will marry, they will have children who will automatically be Canadian citizens.

So maybe we're arbitrarily cutting it off when the compromise or the reasonable suggestion would be to leave the ability to register. If they don't register, then they lose it, but if they have the ability to register and they comply by living here for three years, it seems to be a reasonable compromise.

The Chair: There is another position that I thought I heard from the Mennonite committee, which is to allow what I will call a further transition, keeping the principle that it cannot be forever and at the same time taking into account the possibility that during this new act, when it becomes law, there could be a case for some of them to be given the opportunity.... Can we find a transitional period, for this specific purpose only, and say you would be allowed to register—the original concept proposed by Mr. Mahoney—but at the same time it is not a never-ending process where you have a right to register forever? Is there a distinction between that? Is there a distinction in the way I have seen the issue?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chair, I don't want to talk about the policy merits of proceeding one way or another.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think it's entirely justifiable. But on the process of registration, what we are trying to do is say there have been 23 years to register and you still have not registered, yet you were born in 1950, or 1952 or 1955. We'd like to have a cutoff to that time in which you can register. What Bill C-63 does is say once the new legislation comes into force, we're cutting off the registration.

We've been working very hard, though, with the Mennonite Central Committee to make sure we process all applications we receive before Bill C-63 comes into force so that anybody who comes forward does have that opportunity to be registered.

The Chair: Yes, and I heard that from the department. I think the Mennonite committee proposed giving a further period of time for their community to make an all-out educational public announcement approach to their communities. Were we to take that into consideration, for greater compassion, five years has been mentioned by that group, and it is of course an arbitrary figure. It can be three years; it can be two years. This period would constitute an all-out effort beyond which the return will be very much diminishing, and there is a point about the law of diminishing return.

The Mennonite committee made a submission for filing up to five years. The committee has not taken any position. I am glad you have clarified for the committee that there is a distinction to be made between one position and the other, and that there is in between. At least it is clarified now in our eyes. It is for the members of the committee to pursue that issue of whether we will put the middle ground or the ultimate, as the bill presents. If it is the middle ground, how many years in between—it can be one year, two years—would be a reasonable period of time? I'm thinking aloud, but at least you have clarified the position for us.

Yes, Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If I might, Mr. Chair, I would note as a point of information that officials in the department are meeting next week with representatives of the Mennonite Central Committee, including Mr. Janzen, to go over a communications plan so that we can reach out to people in the Mennonite community and communicate to them that now is the time to send in their applications to register. So the department is committed to making best efforts to communicate to that community that they should be registering today.

• 1705

The Chair: It's an excellent initiative, certainly, because with an intensive initiative, it may be the equivalent of five years or more than if the initiative were left to the committee itself. So I think we should look at that development. And to the extent that you can inform the committee, the committee would appreciate that kind of information as to the progress that has been reached in terms of that joint discussion as to the development of initiatives.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: We're having a little conversation here, and I really ought to put it on the table. I don't know whether you can answer this, but I'm aware of some Mennonite communities that have been established for a very long time in other countries. Belize is one; Mexico is another. My impression is, and it's only an impression, that there has been reluctance on the part of some of these Mennonite communities to register, because registration involves a commitment that they are not necessarily willing to make. Under the current rules, my impression is that they then have their cake and eat it too. They can forgo registration until it becomes necessary, when, as Mr. Fyffe views, an opportunistic occasion comes along when they need Canada as a haven.

I point out my understanding that this has occurred fairly recently in the case of Mexico, where there have been some problems in Mexico, in the eyes of the Mennonite community, that has sent them back to Canada, or to Canada—because we're not even sure it's back to Canada—or to Belize. I just wanted to make the point that I have a lot of sympathy with the officials on this because I really think you oughtn't to treat citizenship as an opportunistic thing. As long as the opportunity is presented to the Mennonite community, wherever they live, to exercise their right to registration now, before the implementation of Bill C-63, I think the government has fulfilled its obligations.

The Chair: If you wouldn't mind, Andrew, I'll just give it to Sophia.

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

My feeling is that a lot of Canadian citizens perhaps have a lack of information or overlook the fact that they're privileged, that their children automatically become.... It's not just the Mennonites. I'm thinking of any others, different races, different backgrounds. They welcome your suggestion. If you're going to have a new way to communicate...it's extra work, of course. But in the meantime to prevent such loss, I think a lot of Canadians were proud to have the heritage. And with a lack of information or even with misinformation, if it can apply to any others, not just Mennonite and the many people from Asia—they're sometimes not well informed. So we can prevent those cases that will come back to us. This will protect all the people. I'd like to see that.

The Chair: Thank you, Sophia.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a great deal of sympathy for the position put forward by Mr. Mahoney, so next week when we go clause-by-clause we will deal with it. I see joint forces on the other side. I don't want to be presumptuous, but....

The Chair: Let me come to the issue of adoption. Ms. Atkinson, it has been sort of announced that you are the expert on this issue. With respect to the issue of the effectivity of the law to cases before the adoption of the law and after the adoption of the law, but in situations where children already had been adopted before the effectivity of the law, how do you see the question being raised as the unequal application of the law?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I understand your question, you're asking about what happens with children who are adopted before the coming into force of Bill C-63. Actually, I'm not the expert on that particular question with regard to adoption, and I'll probably have to ask my colleague, Mr. Sabourin, to respond to that.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin, sorry to take that expertise from you, but now it's re-acquired.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mrs. Atkinson and I have worked very closely on this issue, which is quite complex. My knowledge really is more to do with what the courts have told us on the distinctions between natural-born children and adopted children. What the government is seeking to do in Bill C-63 is to put as much as possible people who have been adopted by Canadian citizens in the same position as people who are born to Canadian citizens. We are doing that by making sure that anybody who is adopted by a Canadian, where the adoption was legitimate and in conformity with the laws in force at the place of residence of the parent and the laws in force at the place where the adoption took place, that this child, or the parents on behalf of the child, will be able to apply to obtain citizenship for the person.

• 1710

I should point out that in Bill C-63 at clause 8 we are talking about extending this right for an application to be made only after Bill C-63 comes into force, but I think in discussion with our legal advisers we are certainly looking at and considering proposing to this committee that perhaps there should be some reaching back into time for people who were adopted in the past by Canadian citizens abroad.

The Chair: Thank you for that information and potential thrust.

The second point, also on adoption, is who will decide those cases abroad? The visa officers, or another new set of officers, perhaps to be called citizenship officers?

Ms. Atkinson.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can take that one.

If I could look behind your question, you may be asking who has the appropriate knowledge and understanding of adoption laws overseas. As you know, in the immigration context, it is visa officers who assess applications that come to them sponsored by Canadian citizens or permanent residents of children they've adopted abroad.

We are engaged in consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs, who have the responsibility for consular activities overseas dealing with Canadian citizens, including those citizenship matters that need to be dealt with on the spot overseas. It would make sense, given that visa officers have expertise in dealing with international adoption cases overseas, if visa officers take on the responsibility of dealing with adoption cases under the Citizenship Act, and that is what we're currently pursuing.

The Chair: In light of your admission that the expertise lies with these officers, in case of dispute, denials, and there ought to be an appeal, who will then handle the appeal? As I understand it, it will now be by way of judicial review.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That is correct.

The Chair: Is there a thought given that it might be referred to the Immigration Appeal Board?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We know that some witness who have come in front of the committee have raised the issue of appeal against refused adoption cases. The difficulty with looking at an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board is that this is a different piece of legislation, a different act. The Citizenship Act allows for judicial review to the federal court. So in the case of a negative decision by a citizenship officer on the case of an adoption, the adoptive parents can always take that decision to federal court and seek judicial review of that decision. As you know, in Bill C-63 there is no provision for an appeal as such.

The Chair: Are there any other questions from the committee?

Grant.

Mr. Grant McNally: Did you talk about this genuine relationship part? I'm sorry, I wasn't here.

The Chair: Earlier. You may want to pursue that. Please proceed.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm just wondering, again on the adoption clause, subparagraph 8(b)(ii), I think it is, “created a genuine relationship of parent and child”.... I know we had witnesses before us saying they had concerns about how you determine a genuine relationship and are you not putting more discretionary power into somebody else's hands to determine that. I guess I'm wondering what the rationale is behind that. Who is going to make that decision? Perhaps you talked about it already.

The Chair: It's a good question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If you like, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to address that particular issue.

• 1715

The first thing that has to be said when we're dealing with international adoption is that the purpose of international adoption is to give the child a family, not to give the child citizenship or permanent residence, as the case may be in the immigration context.

The other issue we need to recognize in adoption is that there ought to be a severing of the ties with the biological parents. Again, if the purpose of adoption is to give the child a family, the child in essence leaves behind that biological family and comes to a new family.

Under our international obligations under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, there is this desire to protect the best interests of the child and ensure that genuine parent-child relationships are created in the case of international adoption. Certainly in the context of the Citizenship Act, we want to ensure adoptions are done within our obligations under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, in terms of trying to ensure adoptions are in the best interest of the children, where they are creating new families for children, and not specifically for the purpose of gaining citizenship for those children.

So in terms of creating a genuine relationship of parent and child, it is a situation where we would want to look at the circumstances of that adoption and assure ourselves it is a bona fide adoption.

Mr. Grant McNally: Who looks at that? You're saying we want to look at the facts, but who has the responsibility of doing that? What exactly would they be looking at? What criteria would be set as to what was genuine and not genuine? This looks fairly wide open here.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In the context of citizenship, we look at what we have been doing in the immigration context for many years, as in the Immigration Act currently, when we deal with adoptions. We have a prohibition against adoptions of convenience. The visa officer looks behind the adoption to determine whether the adoption is a bona fide one that creates a genuine parent-child relationship and is not done for the purposes of trying to gain permanent resident status for the child. So citizenship officers, in the context of the Citizenship Act, look at the bona fides of adoptions to ensure they are not adoptions of convenience.

The Chair: What principle governs an assessment, in this instance, by a visa officer or a properly delegated person, to substitute their decision for a judicial decision on adoption? How do we reconcile the decision of one person, not bound by the rules of strict evidence and laws and procedures, versus a decision by a court of law, when those adoptions are governed by court requirements in those countries of origin?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We would deal with it much in the same way we currently, under the Immigration Act, look at other types of relationships, such as marriage. A person may be married abroad in accordance with the laws of the country of origin—a perfectly legitimate, legally constituted marriage. In the immigration context, the visa officer, under the current law, is empowered to look behind that relationship to determine whether or not it was a relationship of convenience, entered into solely for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada as a member of the family class.

So in the context of international adoptions and citizenship, as we do now currently in the immigration context, a citizenship officer would look behind the relationship that was created in law in the country of origin to determine whether or not that relationship was entered into for purposes other than giving the child a family.

There is another issue I would mention here, in the context of a genuine parent-child relationship, which we need to concern ourselves with when we talk about international adoption. Another one of our obligations under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is to ensure we're not in a situation where undue gain is being granted to the persons who are putting the child forward for adoption.

Here I'm talking about trafficking, abduction, and other such situations that unfortunately occasionally do arise in international adoption. We have to assure ourselves that proper consent has been obtained from the biological parents, if there are biological parents, to ensure that the child is being given freely in adoption by the biological parents and is not being sold or trafficked for the gain of persons who would engage in that kind of activity.

• 1720

So there are a number of issues that a citizenship visa officer in the current context and a citizenship officer in the new context have to concern themselves with that go beyond the legal definition, if you will, of the adoption to ensure that the best interests of the child are being taken care of.

The Chair: Mr. McNally, do you have any further questions on that?

Mr. Grant McNally: No.

The Chair: I'd like to pursue it further. I always have a concern about potential abuse. That's why I'm pursuing the issue. I can see that there's a very broad area. At the same time there are principles of law we would like to establish. As a pediatrician in a prior life, I would like to think that a genuine child-parent relationship may only be properly done by people trained in that field, whether you're a pediatrician, a counsellor, or other health care worker. How do we ensure—and this is relevant to the question Mr. McNally asked—that the expertise is indeed there by whomever will make the decision insofar as a parent-child genuine relationship is concerned?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: In terms of expertise, I think we have to recognize, first of all, that in the area of adoption we're certainly not working alone. As I know you're all aware, adoption is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In the immigration context we currently work with provinces in terms of assuring that adoptions can be done in the best interests of the child. Certainly, in terms of the citizenship changes, we are working with the provinces, again, because international adoption is an area the provinces are obviously quite concerned with. So we do want to be able to involve the experts, the child welfare authorities, in the provinces to ensure that these adoptions are done in the proper way and that we are granting citizenship to children where the adoption is done in a proper and complete way.

In terms of the role of the visa officer in the current context or the citizenship officer in the new context, perhaps I can give you some examples of the types of cases where visa officers in the current context will want to look behind the adoption and make some assessment as to whether or not it is a bona fide adoption, again, with the objective or principle being that the adoption should be to give a family to the child.

Let's take the example of an older child, a 17- or 18-year-old, let's say, who is living with his or her biological family, where there's no evidence of abuse or neglect in that family home, and is being adopted by an uncle, a cousin, or another family member in Canada. That adoption happened some time ago, and that child continues to live with the biological family in that family home. The visa officer will question whether that adoption was done for the purpose of creating a new parent-child relationship or for other purposes, such as to allow that child to come to Canada to obtain schooling, access to the health care system, and so on. These may all be very laudable goals, but in the context of adoption that is not what adoption is all about.

The Chair: But on that note, it becomes a catch-22 situation. There is the physical impossibility of coming to Canada because the case has been questioned and the visa has not been given. Therefore, the severing of ties with the biological parents cannot happen. So if that is used as a basis, of course, the basis will be there because the child is not able to leave the country of birth with the biological parents. How do we reconcile those sorts of impossibilities?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We do it by looking at documentary evidence of the relationship. You're quite right, it may not be possible for the child to physically reside with the adoptive parents in Canada. The adoptive parents are in Canada and the child is in the home country. The officer would then look at documentary evidence of the relationship. What has been the nature of the communication between the adopted child and the adoptive parents in Canada? Have the adoptive parents in Canada been providing for the care and support of that child in the home country? So there are other ways of ascertaining that there has been the creation of a genuine parent-child relationship.

The Chair: We have about half an hour to go, but we do not have to exhaust half an hour if there are no more questions from the members of the committee at this point.

• 1725

Mr. Grant McNally: We can ask questions on any topic, can we?

The Chair: Yes, you can, as long as they're related to the bill.

Mr. Grant McNally: Of course.

The Chair: Yes, indeed. Grant, proceed.

Mr. Grant McNally: You may have covered this in your presentation yesterday. Forgive me if I ask questions you've already answered.

We had some groups talking to us about the discretionary powers that would be given to the minister that aren't in the current act. Subclause 27(2) says, and this wording also appears in other areas:

The Minister is, on the making of the declaration, deemed to reject any application for the grant or resumption of citizenship

Subclause 27(3) was the concern:

The declaration is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.

We had people saying to us—and perhaps you discussed this the other day—that they saw this as potentially being an issue that could be a constitutional challenge in terms of whether or not this amount of discretionary power without appeal could even be put into a bill. Did somebody else raise this already?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay, then I'll fire away with that. I think it appears in some other clauses, too. I think it was the CCR that pointed that out when they were before us.

The Chair: Yes, I believe it was the Canadian Council for Refugees that brought that up.

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes. I'm wondering what your view is of that and what your answer would be in terms of this huge amount of discretionary power, to use their words, that would be given to the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the provision that has just been pointed to is part of a set of provisions in clauses 23 to 27 of the proposed legislation that deal with national security. This is a very sensitive and difficult area of legislation in Canada, obviously. Matters of national security are always a bit problematic. That is why in most legislation the activities related to national security and certainly the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are subject to the scrutiny and review of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC.

Clauses 23 to 27 of the legislation before you largely reflect the provisions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the CSIS Act. They largely repeat or adapt the provisions of that legislation for citizenship purposes. In other words, the intent of the legislation is to ensure that there is the power for the governor in council to declare that a person may not become a citizen because that person would be a threat to the security of Canada. That is the objective of the legislation. How that is done is by basically taking the provisions of the CSIS Act and incorporating the process that is in that act to determine what is a threat to the security of Canada and who falls under that definition.

Mr. Grant McNally: The concern was that a body of people would decide on a person's admissibility or inadmissibility, or on granting citizenship in this case, and that the people affected by that decision would have no right to appeal or to know why they would not be granted citizenship. Is that not correct?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: What the bill does is incorporate certain safeguards, and these safeguards are the ones that exist in the current legislation. If the minister comes to the view that a person might constitute a threat to the security of Canada, then the minister must make a report to that effect to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. But the minister must also communicate the fact of that report to the subject concerned.

• 1730

Once the review committee is seized with that issue, the review committee has a lot of obligations under the CSIS Act toward that person. I think one of the—

Mr. Grant McNally: Sorry to interrupt you. The review committee has these processes in place. Is the person who is under review privy to that information?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I would say that is the issue that is usually in contention for certain groups, that the person may not be privy to all the issues that come to the attention of the review committee.

Mr. Grant McNally: And that is the concern I understood coming from this group: that certainly there are these procedures in place for checking out information in the CSIS review, but the individuals who are under the review themselves don't have full access to that information and don't have a process by which to get access to that information or go through some kind of arm's-length appeal process where the information could be examined in the light of day and a decision made by an independent judge or by another party. That was a concern, and I don't see that addressed here in this clause.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Well, one point I could make is that of course all the decisions that are being made, first of all by the minister then by the review committee and ultimately by the Governor in Council, are subject to judicial review. So even though there is not—

Mr. Grant McNally: Judicial review is very different from appeal.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Yes.

Mr. Grant McNally: Judicial review only examines the merits of the case itself, not if there's new information or information that was missing on the very founding of the decision. We have to state that for the record: that judicial review sounds great, yes, and is something members of this committee can support, but it is very different from an appeal, where a person has the opportunity to state their case and perhaps bring forward new information that wasn't available at the time of the original decision, perhaps documentation from the country they came from or other information. Under judicial review, that's not admissible in terms of whether that decision's going to be overturned or not.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Certainly I understand those concerns, and what I'm going to say in a way sounds like an easy way out, but it's not.

What the citizenship proposals do and what the current legislation does, as I said, is mirror the provisions that exist for national security matters in Canada. So there is that exceptional process where privy councillors, people who are privy to cabinet confidences, form the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and that committee is commissioned under its constituting legislation, looking at what information comes before it that should not become public because its very release would prejudice the national interest.

I realize that it's a difficult and sometimes controversial area of law, but the citizenship bill does no more and no less than repeat and mirror that process that already exists for all national security matters in Canada.

The Chair: If I may interject, Grant, on the same issue, the current act now stipulates that the report shall be given to the person at the same time as the report is given, or as soon. But the proposed bill will make it when the review committee deems it convenient, which of course is beyond the control of anybody. It can be so defined as it is not convenient for me to give it to you forever. So it is a great departure if one extends the imagination.

How will this square with natural justice, which can make a law null and void from the beginning if it is deemed a denial of natural justice? I'm a little afraid about this change in intensity. As Grant was saying, a judicial review is a review if you in fact follow the law of the land. But if the law of the land is now being changed, then the judge could find that it followed the letter of the law, because the review committee made a decision that it is not yet convenient to release the decision. Yet it can be forever. How do you square that? I believe this was the concern raised by one of the witnesses.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, maybe what would help most at this point is if I describe the two first steps that launch the process in these national security matters.

The Chair: Please.

• 1735

Mr. Norman Sabourin : The first step is the minister making a determination that there is a national security issue. The minister must communicate to the person concerned within ten days of making his or her report that the report is being made. So the person knows that there is a report against him or her and that the minister responsible for citizenship believes that he or she is a threat to Canada's security.

The Chair: On that point, if I may interrupt quickly, Mr. Sabourin, is the observation of the witnesses correct that actual receipt of this report must be definitive—in other words, by way of a registered letter, etc.? In other words, one can presume it has been sent, but if receipt has not been made then the purpose for which it was being sent has not been consummated. Is that in the act itself? The witnesses raised that as an issue.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I can say, Mr. Chairman, that already in my young ten years in citizenship, I have a lot of corporate memory, and I believe that since 1977 there have only been two declarations made by ministers under the national security provisions. In each case, a process server was hired to personally deliver the notice to the person, because we appreciate and understand the importance of communication to the person.

The Chair: Good, it's recorded.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: May I add a point here, Mr. Chairman?

This comes to one of the very difficult issues in any legislation when you get into matters that touch on security, because you're trying to balance off the security issue with the other fundamental rights. It comes down to the danger that exists in a limited number of cases that revealing the information itself reveals the source. If the person really is a security risk, then revealing the source has further security implications. That's what has to be traded off in cases like this—hopefully in rare cases.

The Chair: But it is very reassuring to hear, at least for the record of the committee, that indeed in the history of your recollection there are only two cases. In other words, extreme judicious discretion has been exercised in the history of Canada. So at least we have that information on record.

Would you like to further elaborate on this issue?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I think Mr. Fyffe has covered it. I was going to say that the next step is that the review committee becomes seized with the matter. That's why privy councillors are the only people who can sit on that committee, because they are the ones who have to make that very difficult decision of whether and what information can be released to the person.

The Chair: I'm glad I'm not a lawyer.

Mr. McNally, any further questions?

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh, I've got lots of questions, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi, do you have any further questions?

Mr. Grant McNally: —which one do I go with first?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I just want to echo some of your concerns, what you mentioned about the notice. I think when you're using such drastic powers, you want to make sure that doesn't go off the rails. We also had reports of people saying they would like to see a guarantee that the person will have received that notice.

The Chair: One of the issues raised—I don't know if we heard it yesterday—by one of my colleagues is about the oath with reference to God. Today we have a distinguished speaker in the House of Commons who, in articulating his message on the ethics of conscience, as I would put a label to it, in fact relates to that very higher human spirit, above and over national interests. So the question comes back, how do we handle this issue?

As you may know, in the current Constitution of Canada, in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, reference to God is in fact there. In other words, in the wisdom of Canadians, in the history of our country the highest fundamental law of the land is there. Since we have in the oath that we will defend or uphold, whatever word we use, the laws of the country, would there not be greater wisdom to include equally the Constitution of the country, since the Constitution of the country is a fundamental document of law? Mr. Sabourin, would you like to comment on that?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Mr. Chairman, I think the wisdom of incorporating or not incorporating certain terms in the oath falls within the work of this committee.

• 1740

The Chair: Thank you for the challenge.

Are there any further questions from the committee?

Mr. Grant McNally: I have more questions.

The Chair: More questions, okay.

Mr. Grant McNally: Some of these questions may have been asked of you yesterday.

I'm trying to find the part of the bill.... We had a witness before us who had some concerns about the same-sex spouse issue, and I can't remember what clause that relates to particularly.

The Chair: With reference to those living abroad for the purposes of this act—clause 6?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Subclause 6(2), Mr. Chairman, and also the regulatory-making power under paragraph (i) of clause 43.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just as a point of information, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if Mr. McNally was here when we had the discussion on it, but there was a proposal for a change on that by Mr. Bryden. His proposal was that if you had an existing state of interdependence, versus—

Mr. Grant McNally: Yes, I remotely remember that.

Are we on page 4?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Subclause 6(2), on page 4, and the regulatory-making power for subclause 6(2) is found at clause 43, paragraph (i).

Mr. Grant McNally: You're saying it's paragraph 43(v): “searching records referred to in subparagraph (iii) and providing documents related to those searches”. No.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If you're referring to “spouse”, we are looking at paragraph 43(i), which is toward the lower third of the page.

Mr. Grant McNally: Oh yes, okay: “defining who is a spouse for the purposes of this Act”. Now, will that be defined within the regulations, and not within the bill here? Obviously the regulations haven't been developed yet; they are still in the process of being developed.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: Yes, they're still being developed.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. So rather than defining that here in the act, I'm wondering what the rationale is to put that into the regulations. An act gets a lot of scrutiny, obviously, before the committee, and the officials are here. Regulations tend not to get the same degree of public scrutiny. So I'm wondering what the rationale is for that definition of “spouse”. I think that was one of the witnesses' concerns too. What is the definition? And if it's going to be a different definition, a same-sex definition, why is it not here in the bill and open for debate?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: The general answer to that is that there are a great number of federal statutes that are now under legal challenge because of this very issue. I think every department that is now looking at a piece of legislation that in any way touches on the definition of “spouse”, a broader definition, is wrestling with the issue of exactly how to define it. The legal obligation at this point is not clear, and the collective action the government wishes to take in terms of having a unified policy that will fit all these pieces of legislation is not clear. Therefore, the preference of the government is to leave a little bit of flexibility here.

That may very well eventually be reflected in some sort of action that touches several bills at once, but we don't feel at this point that we can precisely define it, because it has to be done to be consistent with all the other acts that are touched by the same question.

Mr. Grant McNally: When it gets to the stage of regulations, what then is that process? Because of course the regulations are an extension of this bill and the implementation of the actual.... Some people argue that regulations are even more important than the actual bill because that's the brass tacks of the administration. So what then is the process for that definition?

• 1745

Mr. Greg Fyffe: We would be preparing the definition in consultation with the Department of Justice, which would be reflecting government-wide policy that would touch all bills. The regulations would be developed and of course go through the normal prepublication process.

Mr. Grant McNally: So the process would be that you and the officials from the immigration department would be in consultation with officials from the justice department to see if that wording is consistent with other regulations affecting other bills.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: The difficulty is that while the question across government is the same—what is the implication of the court rulings we have on same-sex and other types of relationships—the wording and the implication of the wording is not the same. In one department it may be the implication for “survivor”, in another it may be “spouse”, in another it may be clear that there's a relationship. In another bill, such as an immigration act, it may be whether that relationship actually exists that is at issue. So it's quite complex when you try to make it consistent across a number of acts that are dealing with the question from completely different perspectives.

Mr. Grant McNally: Obviously one solution would be that if the government decided to make a consistent ruling on what that definition was, that ruling then would affect all pieces of legislation and going through the regulation process would not have to happen.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: It's not so much a ruling as wording that captures the requirements of the rulings we're dealing with.

Mr. Grant McNally: Okay. I don't know if anybody else has a question on that topic.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Fyffe, you were here when Mr. Bryden made the suggestion about dependent relationship and what have you. Have you folks given any thought to that?

Mr. Greg Fyffe: We were invited to kick it around, and we did in fact discuss it. I'll ask Mr. Stevens if he wants to comment, subject to the qualification, of course, that whatever ideas we come up with, we still have to make sure they fit in. But yes, we did discuss it.

Mr. Eric Stevens: Well, I'll simply say it would be again a question for the work of this committee whether wording such as “dependent” or some other variable is preferable to the word “spouse”. I think that's all I can say on that.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Looking at subclause 6(2), in line 3, if “applicant's spouse” is replaced with “an interdependent relationship with a person”.... I'm thinking about an individual within the employ of the Canadian foreign service who sponsors his father or mother to come to Canada. Of course they would be residing together, out of the country, and this would allow the parent to start qualifying for—

Mr. Greg Fyffe: This provision, though, is intended to address a more specific situation than that. Perhaps Ms. Atkinson can address it.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This section deals with people who are living in a conjugal-like relationship with employees of the Government of Canada—foreign service officers, as you mentioned; armed forces members; and others who are working for the public service of Canada or a province—who are residing outside of Canada with their partner, however one defines that. A partner in a conjugal relationship is unable to meet the residency requirements as a result of accompanying that person who is in the employ of the Canadian government or a provincial government.

I think the issue of terminology, as Mr. Fyffe has indicated, is something that all departments at the federal level are grappling with. It's not just how one defines the various types of conjugal relationships, but also what terminology we should use to describe those.

I think that's certainly something this committee, in terms of the terminology, may want to look at in the context of the clause-by-clause. But in terms of the work we're doing with other government departments and with the Department of Justice, the very term itself is something we're trying to grapple with.

• 1750

The Chair: On this note, for the purposes of this act, what are the purposes envisioned again—in sort of one, two, three—insofar as those provisions where the word “spouse” is?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: There are two provisions, but it's basically for people who want to become naturalized—people who are not citizens of Canada but are permanent residents of Canada, who go abroad with a Canadian citizen who is working either for the armed forces, or as a foreign service officer, or as an official of one of the provinces. The intent of the provision, of course, was to make sure that if we send a Canadian citizen abroad to serve the government and they have a spouse who is a permanent resident of Canada, the spouse wouldn't be forced to stay in Canada to accumulate residency for citizenship purposes.

It is found in subclause 6(2) and subclause 19(2), both to do with naturalization. One is for permanent residents; one is for former Canadians.

The Chair: You used the word “spouse” in the context of how we understand it here. Are there any other circumstances where it may be that relationship and dependency...?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: There's no other provision in the current or proposed citizenship legislation where the status of being a spouse of somebody else has any bearing for citizenship purposes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I may add, Mr. Chairman, if I understand what you're getting at and what Mr. Telegdi raised, it's not the intent to grant citizenship to a parent, for example, of a Canadian citizen who is a permanent resident but not a Canadian citizen. So it really is to deal with spouses, but again, given, as Mr. Fyffe has indicated, the jurisprudence on benefits and privileges of spouses, we need to look beyond spouse as we traditionally understand it and look at other types of conjugal relationships, such as same-sex relationships. I think that's what we're trying to grapple with in terms of how to define it and what the appropriate terminology is.

The Chair: One term used was “dependency”, and of course it immediately raised questions.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's correct.

The Chair: Interdependence, of course, is when you have both—no one is dependent and no one is independent. They're both dependent and independent. Right? Okay, so “interdependence” is one term. And it's good; it's about peace and harmony. Is that a potential term to use?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's a potential term to use.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Mr. Chair, I have a question. If there is an American citizen who becomes a permanent resident in Canada, can this person apply to naturalize, to become a Canadian citizen, and retain dual citizenship?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's the case today, and there's no change in the proposed bill that would affect that in any way. The U.S. citizen in your example who comes to Canada, has permanent residence, meets the three-year requirement, and becomes a Canadian will be a dual citizen of both the United States and Canada.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Is that acceptable for the U.S. too?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Under American law there have been a lot of developments in recent years that have seen U.S. courts recognize the existence of dual citizenship.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we have a pretty good agreement amongst a number of witnesses before us on that particular issue. I'm not sure how I would deal with a situation where, say, you have an individual who was an employee of the government and he wants to do that with a father or a mother who might be his or her only living relative. I'm not quite sure why one would want to be as specific as you want to be in terms of what you would apply it to. What do you say to the individual whose only relative is a father or a mother, and why should they not get that benefit?

The other problem I have with this—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Telegdi. Just so that it's clear to me, are you suggesting that this relative is also in Canada as a resident?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No. What we have right now is that we can have a father instead of a spouse, if you will—

The Chair: In Canada, a resident.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: —then the person goes abroad.

The Chair: Yes.

• 1755

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That person's interdependent individual, and it could be a father—

The Chair: It necessitates that the relative travels with the other relative.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: That's right.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It can very easily be a senior parent.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin, on that point, is it extending the application of the proposed law?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It certainly would, and maybe I can give a bit of contextual background here. The reason for this current provision was that shortly after the 1977 legislation came into force, there was a bill presented in Parliament, a private member's bill, as I recall—and I believe it might have been 1980—that responded to concerns of the community of foreign service officers and members of the armed forces serving abroad for Canada, who were saying, here I am being sent abroad to serve by the Government of Canada, I have no choice, this is part of my employment, and I am representing Canada abroad. When I am abroad, perhaps with the armed forces, I'm living in basically a Canadian enclave, I'm living in a Canadian Forces base in Germany with my family, or I'm working at a Canadian embassy, and there's a Canadian club with spouses and the children and so on.

These people are saying it's not right that just because they happen to marry a person who is a permanent resident and has not yet met the residence requirement in Canada, that he or she should have to remain in Canada to meet that residence requirement. They should be able to go abroad with them. That was agreed upon by Parliament and voted as an amendment to the bill, and that's why in the current legislation it's subsection 5(1.1).

The Chair: So it only relates to fulfilling a residency requirement that otherwise may be jeopardized.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: So it's up to the committee then—yes, Ms. Atkinson.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If I could add to that, because what happens for individuals who are foreign service personnel or armed forces personnel is that their spouse never spends enough time in Canada for the residency requirement, because they're rotational. They come back to Canada, they spend a year or two years in Canada, and then they leave again, and that spouse never gathers enough time in Canada to fulfil the residency requirement. So that's another angle on it.

The Chair: Of course, it is conceivable—it's for the committee to decide—certainly in the context of this proposed bill, to go beyond what was the basis and the origin of the provision as it now exists and is being clarified by this approach. Of course, it has met with some resistance because of terminology. If we are to restrict ourselves to that, then of course it has to be with a terminology that will keep the spirit of the original purpose.

At the same time, of course, the committee, Mr. Telegdi, could be creative and say where the dependent relationship is with a partner, a spouse—or whatever is the terminology—or with a child, because it can be a single child still dependent on this particular employee, or a senior, that is for the committee to decide and to imagine and to propose, should it wish.

Any comment on that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The child would be a citizen because the child would be born.... Under the new bill, if the child is adopted by that Canadian citizen, the child would also be a citizen. So it wouldn't relate. This problem does not relate obviously to children.

The Chair: How about a relative who happens to be dependent in this instance on this particular person who has not been assigned?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Again, that's something the committee could certainly consider.

In terms of the status of that individual, if that individual is a permanent resident of Canada, then they would retain their permanent resident status. Under the terms of the current sections dealing with returning residents and permanent resident status under the Immigration Act, that individual would not lose their permanent resident status for the period of time that they were abroad living with their child.

The Chair: So there is no need for any extra provision.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, in terms of their immigration and permanent resident status.

The Chair: Good point.

Mr. Telegdi.

• 1800

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: All the same reasons why we say it's a good situation for the spouse also apply to the person who has a dependent parent.

The Chair: Do you mean a dependent mother or father?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes. You may have a dependent mother or father and you may be serving overseas. Part of your obligation might be to have the parent go overseas, and surely—

The Chair: But, Mr. Telegdi, Ms. Atkinson just reminded us that there is already a mechanism under the Immigration Act—

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: For permanent residency. We're talking about citizenship. There is a difference in terms of a spouse and a father.

The Chair: But the purpose of the act, as I heard from Mr. Sabourin, is to ensure the residency requirement is fulfilled. In other words, there is no lapse when you go out of the country. But the Immigration Act, as I heard from Ms. Atkinson, allows that the residency does not lapse if you have a permit to stay outside.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The permanent residence status does not lapse, but—and we need to be clear here—the physical residency requirement for citizenship is a different matter. I think this is what Mr. Telegdi is concerned about.

The Chair: That's a different point we'll have to discuss at the committee.

It's now 6.05 p.m. Is there any further comment? Mr. Fyffe, you have the final word.

Mr. Greg Fyffe: I think this would apply to a fairly limited group. We're talking about a parent of the spouse of a Canadian diplomat who had not fulfilled the immigration requirements and was required to go overseas with the family.

I think it would be a fairly narrow group. As soon as you tried to define that narrow group, you'd get into all kinds of other complications, as you always do in these things, about what parallel groups you would then in fairness have to apply a similar provision to.

The Chair: Thank you again, Mr. Fyffe and your group, on behalf of the committee.

I thank the members of the committee for their patience. We only exceeded our time by six minutes.

The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday, May 4 at 3.30 p.m.