CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 29, 2000

• 1532

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues, and welcome to meeting 19 of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Today we have the pleasure of welcoming the minister as well as officials from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

The order of reference, dated March 23, 2000, reads as follows:

ORDERED, - That Bill C-16, an Act respecting Canadian citizenship be now read a Second Time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Having stood clause 1 because of its short title, we will now ask the minister for her opening remarks with regard to Bill C-16. As you know, it was previously Bill C-63. And I want to thank all of those witnesses and committee members and the minister in the department for working diligently on getting it to a particular stage. We're happy to have it back in its amended form.

I believe that having listened to some of the representations made by all the stakeholders and ministers, including this committee, you saw fit to make some important changes. I want to thank you for doing that. In your opening remarks you will probably highlight some of those changes. Thank you, and welcome.

The Honourable Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. In fact, your opening preamble takes in most of my opening remarks.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Thank you for coming, Minister.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Let me start by introducing the departmental staff with me today: Janice Cochrane, Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Immigration; Norman Sabourin, Registrar for Citizenship; Rosaline Frith, Director General, Integration; and Joan Atkinson, who has just assumed the position of Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy for the department.

We're pleased to be before committee to discuss Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. As you said so eloquently, Mr. Chair, Bill C-16 builds on the important work carried out by this committee on Bill C-63, which was introduced during the previous Parliament. The process to modernize the Citizenship Act and improve the integrity of the citizenship process began in the last Parliament. It was part of an overall effort that includes reform of the immigration and refugee processes.

• 1535

During the last Parliament my colleague, the previous minister, consulted with Canadians through country-wide consultations and through committee hearings. When the previous Parliament prorogued, Bill C-63 had been reviewed by this committee. I want to thank the committee for its important work, because that helped frame Bill C-16, which I tabled in the House in the fall session. I'm hoping this committee will be able to continue the momentum. I want to again say thank you for the contribution and the work you did that built on the important work of Bill C-63.

I've waited for the report from this committee regarding the refugee determination procedure. It was tabled in the House last week. I just want to assure the committee that the report will be included in the discussions within the department as we reform both immigration and refugee determination policies and processes over the coming weeks and months.

I have included key recommendations made by this committee during its deliberations on Bill C-63. We have extended the period of time for a person to complete three years of physical residence in Canada. That is now required within six years, not the five years that was in Bill C-63, or four years, as is the case under the current law. Under Bill C-16, people who had legal status in Canada before becoming permanent residents will be able to gain some credit for that time toward a residency requirement. That's up to one year.

As minister I will be required to inform people facing annulment of their citizenship of their right to apply for judicial review. Bill C-16 will enfirm the international adoption process and will protect the best interests of the child while respecting and supporting the province's very important role in adoption. The oath of citizenship has been modified to include a reference to Canada.

The successful passage of Bill C-16 this year would be most appropriate as we celebrate the first year of the new millennium. I hope you would agree. Bill C-16 modernizes our current Citizenship Act so that it reflects values of Canadian society in the 21st century. It improves the process by which we determine and award citizenship to new Canadians, it enhances the integrity of citizenship for all Canadians by removing inconsistencies and ambiguities that exist in the current Citizenship Act, and it creates a new, important educational role for citizenship commissioners.

Bill C-16 clarifies issues such as the length and nature of residency that we require of applicants for citizenship by setting a clear, objective standard. We believe this will reduce the number of appeals before the Federal Court of Canada, and that would be a positive thing. I want to point out to you, Mr. Chair, and to the committee that for those exceptional cases there will still be an appeal to the Governor in Council and to the cabinet for those who have concerns. More than that, we will underline the importance of real ties with Canada that are established through living and participating in Canadian society.

Bill C-16 proposes that foreign children adopted by Canadians would receive Canadian citizenship after completing the adoption process. Currently, as you know, children adopted abroad by Canadians must be admitted as immigrants and reside in Canada for a year before becoming Canadian citizens. This change will ensure that we treat adopted children in a similar fashion as those children born to Canadians abroad.

Perhaps most fundamentally, Bill C-16 replaces a quasi-judicial system with a simple administrative one. This change reflects the fact that the vast majority of citizenship applications involve straightforward decisions. We simply do not need a complex process based on formal hearings and subjective assessment of language skills or knowledge of Canada. We can address these areas of confusion that exist within the application of the current law and we can handle these applications through objective assessments that are the same for everyone who applies. We will create a simple administrative process that respects justice and fairness.

Today we have a chance to bring our legislation into line with the values that Canadians expect to see upheld in the citizenship process. I believe, Mr. Chair, that we have an opportunity to bring Canadian citizenship into the 21st century. I look forward to your comments, to your questions, and to your deliberations.

Thank you very much.

• 1540

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

We'll go to questions now, starting with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

My first question concerns the apparent rush to put this bill through. Apparently, the steering committee at first asked that no witnesses be allowed, and then agreed to one witness from each party being allowed to review this legislation. Do you feel there's that much of a rush that we should be so limited on the witnesses we hear?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If I may, I've served as a member of committee, and I know that committees make their own decisions about timing.

I also would like to say that Bill C-16 builds on Bill C-63, as you mentioned. I think the foundation of the important work, the consultations held by this committee, puts us in a very unique position. Bill C-16 does amend Bill C-63 and includes most of the provisions recommended by this very committee.

I can certainly understand that the committee wouldn't want to do their work all over again, but certainly it's up to the committee to make that decision.

The Chair: If I could, Minister, I think that was probably a question that was directed more at the committee.

Unfortunately, Mr. Benoit has developed this very bad habit of getting things very wrong, of not attending meetings and then coming in and criticizing the committee he doesn't have the time to sit on in order to ask how we're going to proceed on certain legislation.

Leon, if you want to serve as a full member on this committee, maybe you should start attending to your responsibilities in this committee and start making collective decisions, which we all made last time. There isn't going to be one witness, or two; there may very well be six or seven witnesses, including all of those who have put forward, as the minister has said and as this committee has heard previously, some very good advice.

If you want to talk about the committee, Mr. Benoit, we'll duke it out after the minister leaves, if you want.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Mr. Chair, if I could be helpful to the committee—

The Chair: I'm sure you will be.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —my deputy minister has pointed out to me that the Citizenship Act has actually been under review for some 12 years.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit hasn't been here that long—fortunately.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): It's pretty fast, though, really, when you think about it.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I hope, Mr. Chair, that time won't be taken from my time for questions.

The Chair: Damn well it will be. Go ahead.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I detect some bitterness from the chair.

The Chair: None at all.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What was your first clue?

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you don't think, Madam Minister, Bill C-16 really is in any substantive way different from Bill C-63?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No. In fact, Bill C-16 is substantive. It contains the amendments, as recommended by this committee, to Bill C-63. In fact, I listened, and the work of this committee was very important in helping to frame Bill C-16.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you think it is substantially different from Bill C-63.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I've said is that the amendments proposed by this very committee were incorporated in Bill C-16, and I think it now reflects the views of certainly the majority of members of the committee when they dealt with Bill C-63.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think there were a number of changes to the bill, some certainly worth while. I think even some of the groups we had before us should certainly be asked to return to give their opinion on that.

You did say in the House, however, on February 18—I believe it was in your speech on the bill—that this legislation was not identical to the bill that was before us in the last session, and that we have not simply slapped a new number on the old bill. That would lead me to believe this deserves some time, and I would think it would be important that the committee chair would get a message from you that this time is available.

To get into the—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, you've asked the question, and I think you make a very good point. I did say we haven't just changed the number. In fact, we incorporated into Bill C-16 the very amendments proposed by this committee during its deliberations on Bill C-63. I think it's important for people to note that. After the important work of this committee, the work you did on Bill C-63, those amendments were incorporated into the new Bill C-16. That's what I was referring to when I made my comments in the House of Commons. It was to acknowledge to the committee the important work that had been done here, to acknowledge that their work, your work, is reflected in Bill C-16 as it now is before the committee.

• 1545

I also would point out, Mr. Chair, that I don't think there are any surprises in Bill C-16.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But one change was to residency. You've changed the requirement to 1,095 days, or three years out of six rather than three out of five. That is a change that I think was called for, but there's a concern.

If you look at the recommendations of the previous standing committee on immigration—and this was a 1994 committee, a long time ago, so I believe it has been 12 years in review—this committee states, in point 6 on page 12, that:

Residency should be defined in the new act as to require physical presence in Canada preceding an application for citizenship.

That does happen, but it goes on to say this in the very next recommendation:

Measures should be introduced to enable accurate monitoring of the periods of time that permanent residents are absent from Canada.

I would like you to explain to me how this bill does provide that monitoring of periods of residency.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Applicants for citizenship are required to provide evidence of their physical presence in Canada. That can be done in a number of ways, whether it be leases, passport pages, or bills. There is all kinds of evidence. It's not a difficult thing to do to provide that evidence. Employment records are available, and tax receipts. So those types of things would all attest to physical presence in Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many permanent residents are there waiting to apply for citizenship in the country?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: How many have...? We can tell you—

Mr. Leon Benoit: How many permanent residents are there in Canada to whom this residency clause will apply, people waiting to apply for citizenship?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think we can give you the number of people who have applied. I can't give you the number of people who might be thinking about applying at some point in the future. I don't do well at mind-reading.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So the documentation will only be required when a person applies for citizenship?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: They'll have to go back those six years and provide this documentation, which will show that they are resident? Will each person applying have to provide that information?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Well, they do now. The answer is yes, when you apply for citizenship, you provide evidence that you've been physically present in Canada for three years out of six. That's the requirement of this new legislation.

At the present time you provide evidence as well. There are all kinds of....

Actually, the deputy has just told me a national quality assurance program is being established throughout Citizenship Canada to tell people the type of evidence they can provide to show that they have been physically present in Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There will be thousands of people who have applied for citizenship at any one time. To go through the documentation that would be required to demonstrate or prove that people have been in Canada three years out of the past six is going to involve an incredibly large bureaucracy. I'm wondering how that's going to be handled.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to ask Rosaline Frith to reply to that. As our director general with this responsibility, she can tell you what we have in place now and what we anticipate will need to be in place to be able to respond to the needs of Canadians who want citizenship.

Ms. Rosaline Frith (Director General, Integration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): The way we currently deal with applicants is to assume that the statements they make are correct. Unless there's an indication that they have been out of Canada for a long period of time, we would assume that the information we have received is correct, and we would continue to deal with applicants in the same way.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but right now there's no requirement to prove residency.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Oh, no, that's not true. The existing act says you need to show that you have been resident in Canada for four years out of five. The difficulty—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, but the definition of “resident” is—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No, you used the word “resident”, you didn't say “physical presence”. This is where there has been confusion. The courts have been inconsistently applying the term “residence” in ways that have not been consistent in number of days or weeks or months you are actually expected to be in Canada. So by changing from “residence” to “physical presence” in fact it is clarified. By choosing three out of six years in fact some could argue that the test is less onerous than exists right now. The reason we need to have a very clear definition is because we have had different court decisions on the basis of the term “residence”, which you've just used.

• 1550

Mr. Leon Benoit: I agree.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is a requirement for residence in the existing act. The problem we've had is that the terminology has not been consistently applied. The new requirement for physical presence will fix that problem.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe I could follow up a little bit on that, just for my own clarification.

Many of us on this committee were actually delighted when we finished this bill. We thought it was finished and it was going into the House. Hallelujah, we said, it's finally over. I remember night sittings and very extensive debate on numerous issues and some controversies around things that perhaps don't seem controversial today—the oath and a few other things.

On the issue of residence, would there be any involvement with Revenue Canada, for example, in terms of the issue of residence? If they're actually living here for three years, presumably they're earning money in this country and paying taxes and are required to file. Would there be any way your ministry would do any cross-referencing or have any kind of communication with Revenue Canada on this matter?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The answer is no. However, people could bring forward that information as proof of physical presence and residency in Canada.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Would we ask for it?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If there were no other evidence or information and we had concerns, then we could ask that they provide information, and that might be one of the things they would provide.

I did misspeak. I said in the current act it was four years out of five. It's actually three years out of four in the current act. I wanted to just correct the record on that.

Rosaline, did you want to add anything to what we might request or require?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: No, I think the minister was very clear. We might ask for it if we require it. Clearly, we would not cross-check records.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: If there were some doubt on the part of CEIC there would be an interview of some kind, and if there were some doubt that would be one of the ways in which to follow up and check on it. Of course any attempt to misrepresent that issue becomes a little more serious in terms of criminality and tax evasion. So it would seem to me that this is a pretty important tool for us to look at.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are also passport checks, as I mentioned, leases, records of employment, and statements under oath are also accepted.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do we have any indication of the percentage of fraud that might have occurred in this area in the past with the old legislation?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to ask Rosaline to reply.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: Yes, we do.

Norman.

Mr. Norman Sabourin (Registrar for Citizenship, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): The answer is that our quality assurance program to which the minister referred shows that about 15% of applicants don't paint a complete picture of all the information required on an application. Out of this 15%, for about half of them the information they withhold or they forgot or did not reveal might be relevant to the citizenship process. So through this national quality assurance program we're able to go back to applicants and ask them to provide the information that's needed.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm tempted to say “Is that your final answer?”

The Chair: We'll see what the next question is.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is one point I'd like to make if I could, and that is on the question you asked about requiring income tax returns. I think we would have to be very careful of any Privacy Act considerations. Whatever we would request would have to comply, of course, with federal privacy legislation.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Certainly, but clearly if there were some doubt and the person was here.... It may be that they're not earning income, that they're independently wealthy and don't need to earn income, I suppose, but it would be interesting if they filed an income tax return in the country they're coming from. It just seems to me that this is a fairly simple way of tracing whether or not you're getting the facts.

What happens in a case of misrepresentation? I notice that procedures are developed to assist the minister in detecting the misrepresentation. What happens to those people when you determine that they misrepresent? Can they appeal that? What's the procedure there?

• 1555

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Norman, I'm going to ask you to respond, if you would.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Minister.

There are two things we contemplate when we discover misrepresentation. First, as you mentioned, when there is serious misrepresentation it can be criminal activity, either under the Criminal Code or under the provisions of the legislation that say if you commit fraud you shall be liable for it. And if you're proven to have committed fraud there are penalties involved.

The second way, of course, is through revocation of citizenship: to institute a formal proceeding to try to prove in Federal Court that a person has misrepresented, for example, absences from Canada. If we can convince the Federal Court that this is the case, we will take away their citizenship.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: And the annulment provisions as well—do you want to speak to those?

Perhaps I could mention the annulment provisions in this legislation. If someone has misrepresented and was never entitled to citizenship in the first place, there's an annulment provision in the legislation, which requires the minister to give notice and let people know that judicial review is possible. It goes on the assumption that if you weren't entitled to it in the first place, if there's clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, the citizenship should be annulled. That's primarily for criminal or false identity. Those are the provisions for annulment.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Perhaps I could switch gears on another issue. The definition of “spouse” was an issue of concern for the committee last time. Does Bill C-23, if and when and once adopted, resolve that issue, in your mind?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, it does.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can you just expand a little bit on why you think it does and where in the bill it eliminates the concern?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: When Bill C-23 comes in, it will actually have the effect in this legislation of defining common-law and same-sex partners. It's an automatic provision in this bill. If this bill comes into effect before Bill C-23, when Bill C-23 passes the provision will take effect. So the two are compatible. The reason the definition was left out of this legislation was because it is being dealt with in an omnibus bill.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On the issue of commissioners and the change from citizenship court judges to commissioners, have you had an opportunity yet to sort of flesh out the model that might be there in terms of how that will work? Will we be simply turning the existing citizenship court judges into commissioners, perhaps at a lower pay or with different responsibilities, or will their terms cease and then you will work toward filling a specific number of vacancies?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There will be a transition process. I think the commissioners' new role will be an extremely important one, and that is the education and celebration of the citizenship role that there isn't time for now. By changing from a quasi-judicial to an administrative procedure, it will give the citizenship commissioner a very important role.

Let me read you a quote that I think is important in defining this new role. It says:

We hear much these days of education for citizenship, but the only real effect of education for citizenship lies in the actual practice.

This is a quote from Fred Landon, a Canadian Historical Association report of 1937. It shows it's as relevant today as it was then.

In fact I think there's a very important role in going out into the communities, talking about citizenship, the rights and the responsibilities. The existing citizenship judges will have the opportunity to become and play the role of citizenship commissioners if they so wish. We are as well going to be encouraging community leaders, those who have made significant contributions in their communities, to consider this function.

I don't think we spend enough time talking about Canadian citizenship. I think it's one of those things we just take for granted.

• 1600

I don't know how many of you have ever renewed your citizenship oath. I did that a couple of years ago at a citizenship ceremony. It was not only moving for me, but I was moved watching all of those people take the oath for the first time. I was also surprised at the number of people who had come to renew their citizenship. I don't think enough people know that you can come out to a citizenship ceremony and renew your citizenship and take the oath. For those of us who have been lucky enough to be born in Canada and have never taken the oath of citizenship, it's a wonderful experience and opportunity.

I'm hopeful that one of the opportunities this legislation will give us is a new function for the citizenship commissioners, who will be encouraging that kind of active participation in our communities, in our schools, and with businesses as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My time is up, but I have one final point, if I might, to the chair particularly, and then to the minister.

It might be helpful for committee members if we were to have an overview of what we did in the last session in terms of the various amendments. I know we have it in writing, but I'm thinking of taking some time to have a presentation.

I wonder, Minister, if you are aware, are there any amendments that were recommended by the committee that have been rejected in the new bill?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No works for me.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): My first question concerns international adoptions by Canadian citizens. As everyone knows, Bill C-16 will make it possible to secure citizenship for these children before they land on Canadian soil. It will also make it possible to get around the immigration process.

In theory, how can one oppose such laudable objectives. This principle can and must be defended. However, I'm curious as to how you are going to apply this provision in the bill, given that the whole issue of international adoption in Quebec falls under our Civil Code and that Quebec's unique situation could create a problem to some extent. I'd like to know if you have considered putting in place mechanisms to work with the provinces, but more specifically with Quebec, on this issue of international adoption.

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact we don't anticipate any problem at all, because all provinces have responsibility for adoption. We are in consultation with the provinces, in particular with the Province of Quebec, but all provinces who have responsibility. As I understand the process, if they require a home visit, that will be part of the procedure, the requirement for medicals for information purposes.

The intent here is that after the adoption is complete, the child will enter Canada as a Canadian citizen. So this is where there is a link to the corresponding issues with immigration. But certainly all provinces have responsibility for adoption provisions. We are at this point in time complying with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which requires that children born abroad of Canadian parents be treated the same way as children adopted.... Foreign children adopted by Canadians should be treated the same when they come into this country. Children who are born abroad of Canadian parents come into Canada as Canadian citizens. Children adopted by Canadian citizens will be able to come into the country. We don't anticipate that there will be any difficulties.

What is also important, and that is in the legislation, is the interests of the child test. As signatory of the Hague Convention, Canada is assuring all of those interested in international adoption that we will be abiding by that convention and that we will take the best interests of the child into consideration through this process of adoption and granting of citizenship.

• 1605

I also would say that as we work with the provinces, the intention is wherever possible to harmonize processes so that we will not make it more difficult for people who want to engage in an international adoption. This is to attempt to facilitate.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Let's be very clear on this. I am in favor of consultation. Furthermore, you know very well that Quebec, and more specifically the International Adoption Secretariat, has asked that the federal government work with the province before Canadian citizenship is awarded.

With respect to the current adoption process and the awarding of Canadian citizenship, the Quebec court has....

Could I have everyone's attention, Mr. Chairman? The noise is distracting me.

With respect to the current process, the Quebec court is responsible for finalizing each adoption request in Quebec's case. Are you telling me that Quebec will in fact be consulted, but that if Bill C-16 is adopted, the Quebec court will no longer be responsible for finalizing Canadian citizenship?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: What I'm saying is that adoption is a provincial responsibility. Our position is to fully respect provincial jurisdiction. We will not be approving adoptions. Once the adoptions are complete those children will be entering Canada as Canadian citizens.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: May I ask another question?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Regarding the appointment of citizenship commissioners, it should come as no surprised to you that I'm somewhat concerned. I see that the term "citizenship judge" is being replaced by the term "citizenship commissioner", to ensure impartiality. To my mind, ensuring impartiality is key to this process.

I read in your notes that the citizenship commissioner has a crucial role to play in preserving the value and prestige associated with Canadian citizenship. Can you confirm to us today that this name change does guarantee that these new commissioners will not play a political role when it comes to reviewing applications for Canadian citizenship?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think it's very important to understand that the role of the commissioners will be a celebration of citizenship. They will administer the oath but they will not have a quasi-judicial responsibility.

Right now it is the judges who determine residency. They make the decisions on the ambiguousness of the residency provision in the legislation. By changing from the residency provision to a very clear physical presence requirement, the system becomes administrative rather than quasi-judicial. So the commissioner's role is no longer quasi-judicial. It is not the role and therefore not appropriate that the commissioners be called judges, because they're not judging.

There's one exception. Let me raise this point. On the issues of language, all applicants for citizenship are required, and will be required, to write a test on knowledge of Canada. That will be written, and interpreters will be able to assist either written or oral tests for a knowledge of Canada. But then there is the issue of language, and it will also be a subjective test applied to everyone in either of the two official languages. Someone suggested that you needed to know both languages, and that's not the case. I want to be clear: either official language capability is sufficient.

If someone doesn't pass the language test, they would have the ability to come to the minister. That's a discretionary authority. My intention is to ask the commissioners if they would be interested in assessing language capability. It would be an assessment. It wouldn't be a quasi-judicial function, but it would be a way to assist those whose language may not be as strong as the written or oral test would imply.

Similarly, I also wanted to let you know that for those who are over 60, I think it is, and for disabled individuals, there's discretion. And that will be within the administrative procedures.

So the role will be ceremonial and educational and celebratory. And therefore I can assure you that it's something I hope all parties will support and applaud, because there should be nothing partisan about the activities of the commissioners at all.

• 1610

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

I have to move the meeting along, as you can appreciate. Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To the minister, I have a resident in my riding who is a recent immigrant from Hong Kong, and he told me he was very aware of a situation that was going on in the Vancouver area where formerly Korean residents were coming to Canada, filing for their citizenship, and they were going across the border at points that were not manned. There was no recognition or way of knowing that they crossed. They were intentionally seeking these places out. Then they were going to Seattle and taking flights back to either Korea or in some cases Hong Kong.

Of course the records you've alluded to here would indicate that they haven't left the country, because they would pay some minimal amount of taxes probably, or have some sort of a gas bill or residency that they would be able to provide. But since there's nobody at those border crossings, they continually abuse that system.

So this idea that for example we're going from what was three out of five years and now becoming more lenient by going to three out of six years, but not having any way of enforcing because we have an absolutely porous border in these circumstances, means that we have a law that basically can't be enforced, and where we have all these landed immigrants who are going away and evading Canadian taxes.

The Chair: All these Canadians.

Mr. Rob Anders: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that we have a huge problem here.

The Chair: In your mind, but go ahead.

Mr. Rob Anders: This isn't me inventing this, Mr. Chairman. I have people from Hong Kong in my riding who are telling me that they're upset because they have next-door neighbours who are doing this.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If I could, Mr. Anders, I think the allegations you're making are very serious and very important. You have constituents who have evidence of fraud, criminal activity, and you have an obligation to encourage them to come forward with that evidence so that we can forward it to the RCMP so that charges can be laid following appropriate investigations.

I think it's very important that we not focus on anectdotal types of stories, that we focus on facts and evidence. Norman might want to talk about border controls, which is a separate and other issue, but I've become very concerned when someone would raise a suggestion without providing evidence.

So I would encourage you to get your constituents to provide us with names and any evidence you have, and I will assure you that we will turn it over to the RCMP immediately and ask them to investigate. Because the very best way we can enforce our borders is if people will come forward and give us evidence of abuse and criminal activity so that we can not only investigate, but charge, convict, and send the message that it's not going to be tolerated in Canada.

Mr. Rob Anders: That sounds all fine and dandy, but this fellow from Hong Kong wasn't readily willing to snitch on his next door neighbour, because if he did so he would have all sorts of neighbourly problems across the fence. So he was willing to tell me about these things and what was going on, but he wasn't going to give me any names.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm sure you can tell him that you would protect your sources.

The Chair: And now that the newspapers are going to make that the headline story, an awful lot of your neighbours are probably going to be looking around the corner.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Not only that, Mr. Chair, but the information we do have is, based on RCMP and U.S. intelligence information that we share because we're all concerned about illegal activity, suggests that less than 1% of the 200 million crossings—there are 200 million crossings Canada-U.S. each year—are illegal border activity.

Norman, do you want to say something about the border security initiatives, just for a moment?

I think it is important for you in the committee to know what we are doing. We all share those concerns, but the facts are important to get on the record, Mr. Chair.

Norman.

• 1615

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Minister.

The number of crossings, in particular between the U.S. and Canada, is very important to keep in mind when we study how we should keep track of people's absences. And one of my jobs as a public servant is to listen to ideas of all kinds to try to see how we can develop the best policy advice for the government. So we certainly listen to some suggestions that we should have better controls of the movements of people. We asked ourselves how would we do it in our discussions with colleagues from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and other agencies. We've also asked some people from other countries, such as Australia, who actually do it, what we would have to do to make sure we know if people are coming in and out of Canada.

First of all, any person wishing to come to Canada would have to have a valid visa and a valid passport to enter Canada. We'd have to record that information in a database. When they leave Canada, we'd also have to record that information. More than that, each and every person who is a citizen of Canada who wants to go shopping to the U.S. for a day would have to be registered as either being a citizen of Canada or having some other status, and if they have some other status we would have to record that in a database to make sure we know they were out of the country shopping for 24 hours, and we would have to record when they come back to Canada.

Just speaking about U.S.-Canada traffic, 200 million people a year, I wonder to what extent we might be creating a very unwieldy bureaucracy to enforce that.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Sounds like Nazi Germany.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I would reinforce, if I could, Mr. Chairman, the fact that we are working very closely with U.S. authorities, but the points that were just made by Mr. Sabourin let you know the complexities and not only the cost but the loss of the freedom of movement for Canadians and legitimate business. Those who have border communities in their ridings know the importance of trade between Canada and the United States. So we approach this very cautiously.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to say first of all that we were quite happy with the number of presentations we heard under Bill C-63. In fact at the planning meeting for Bill C-16 the NDP felt it wasn't necessary to hear any more presentations, but we are going to hear a half a dozen more, I understand.

The first question I have, without actually plowing through all of the clause-by-clause, is on one of the concerns that was raised by some of the immigration advocacy groups—that is, the revocation of citizenship. Are there any changes to the ministerial powers from Bill C-63 to Bill C-16 in terms of the revocation of citizenship for any reason, for illegal activity or fraud or whatever?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: A change in ministerial powers? Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: The authorities the minister might have that are enhanced.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think what's important on revocation, and what is included in Bill C-16, is the requirement that the minister inform a person that a report is being made to the Governor in Council and also inform them of their right to judicial review. It also provides a 30-day opportunity for the matter to be referred to the Federal Court. Those are issues of fairness. They were raised, we responded appropriately in Bill C-16, and I think those are enhancements to the bill.

Mr. Pat Martin: From Bill C-63, those are new—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's very clear, then. Thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: These are two obligations on the minister before making a report to the Governor in Council.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good.

With the actual residency or physical presence issue, I still believe the 1,095 days within six years is far too stringent. If you are going to do that, I think the time spent outside of the country for legitimate business reasons shouldn't be deducted from your time, or should be counted as time served in the country.

I'll give you an example—not an anecdotal one, but an actual example. My sister-in-law's family is from Taiwan, and when they moved to this country they bought some businesses and some properties here. But they also have properties in Korea, L.A., Taipei—all over the place, frankly—Tokyo. So the head of the household spends a lot of his time out of the country abroad. He will actually never achieve this 1,095 days out of six years. It simply won't happen. So even though his whole family is here, his primary residence is here, and his children go to school here, he has to be away, just like we have to be away to do our jobs. He's away at least as much as we are, travelling around the world. So I'd ask you to keep that in mind or consider that.

• 1620

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is a provision in the legislation that would allow someone who believes they have a unique situation to be able to make an appeal to the cabinet, to the Governor in Council, laying out their case and asking for special consideration. That does exist.

However, I think there needs to be a balance, and that's what we've tried to achieve in this legislation, because Canadian citizenship is about your loyalty and your attachment to Canada. In all of our immigration history, integration and participation in Canadian society has been part of, I think, the thing that we've all valued about Canadian citizenship. It's the reason that people want Canadian citizenship—hopefully it's for more than a passport.

I also would like to point out, if I may, Mr. Chair, that when you compare with other countries, as you know, I think our provision for three years out of six or 1,095 days out of six years is generous. The United States, for example, is two and a half years in five, Australia is two years in five, and Great Britain is three and three-quarters in five years. So I think we are consistent with the international norms, but you could say, I think, that we're generous in granting citizenship.

If you compare us with some of the countries in Europe, which do not readily grant citizenship.... I was reading a story about Switzerland, I think, where the town has to vote on whether they're going to let you have citizenship. Even those who've been in the country, working and living, for 20 or 25 years, are sometimes denied citizenship.

We understand why people want Canadian citizenship, but we want them to feel an attachment, a loyalty, and an allegiance to Canada, and there is the provision for the request to the cabinet in unique circumstances, which is contained in this legislation.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand. The real difference is that currently time served out of the country for legitimate reasons is allowed as part of your residency. When you changed it to physical presence, it means that you have to have your feet right on Canadian soil or the time isn't served. So whether it's two years out of six or four out of five, it doesn't matter so much: while you're away on a business trip, the clock's not ticking in your favour any more.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: In fact, that has been the confusion in the past. The confusion in the past was the term “residency”, which, it's my understanding—and if you go back and read the old Hansard—when the act was passed, was intended to be physical presence, and that was three years out of four.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: However, the courts have been interpreting that over the years—

Mr. Pat Martin: In a very generous way.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: —not only in very generous ways but in inconsistent ways, so the debate that this committee had and that we've had in our discussions about how long you should be physically present in Canada.... I think the decision is the right one: three years out of six, 195 days out of six years—

Mr. Pat Martin: It's 1,095.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Sorry, and thank you: 1,095 days.

Mr. Pat Martin: One hundred and ninety-five was preferred by—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: One hundred and ninety-five is not correct. I think 1,095 is a reasonable number, but for those who feel they have a strong attachment to Canada, that their family is well established, and that for reasons of global economy they may not meet the 1,095 provision, it is important to know that they can make a petition to the Governor in Council for special consideration.

Mr. Pat Martin: A real quick yes-or-no answer: with the taking of the test now, one of the things we heard from many of the 37 presenters was that they didn't like the fact you wouldn't be able to use a translation service while taking the test, so have you fixed that in Bill C-16?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Interpreters will be permitted for the written tests.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): First I want to welcome the minister in joining us, and I see a few other colleagues.

I have a question. I've noticed that Canadians are no longer required to renounce their original nationality. That's interesting. Are you trying to say we can have a dual citizenship?

• 1625

Suppose an American wants to naturalize and become a Canadian. Does this person, this dual citizen, have all the privileges and rights? Can the person vote for Bush or Gore and vote for us here? It's such a conflict of interest.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As long as they vote for us.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The Elections Act in Canada has a six-month residency requirement before you're permitted to vote. Other countries may also have residency requirements. They have their election acts.

However, the point you're raising is an important one, and that is the issue of dual citizenship. Since 1977 Canada has permitted dual citizenship. It is a growing international trend. Maybe it's a result of globalization—I'm not exactly sure why. I think people value the ability to have more than one citizenship. I think that Canada's approach to dual citizenship is consistent with a worldwide trend. It has been in place since 1977. Before that we did not permit dual citizenship. Since 1977 you can be a citizen of more than one country and have a Canadian passport.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I think it's an advantage for a person. I'm not criticizing that at all. The reason I raise the point about privileges and rights is this: I know that recently in the Taiwan election many Vancouverites went back to Taiwan and actually did participate actively to elect the person they wanted.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There are countries that also permit absentee ballots for their citizens. Each country's laws are different. The Canada Elections Act does have a residency requirement for before the election; I believe it is six months. But if you have dual citizenship, meet the obligations of dual nationality, and are permitted to vote, there's nothing there that would be problematic as far as maintaining your Canadian citizenship is concerned.

I know that in the past there were some provisions by some countries that if you voted in another country, you lost your citizenship. That does not apply in Canada. As long as you have Canadian citizenship, we have no objection to someone holding citizenship in another country. That has been the law since 1977.

Ms. Sophia Leung: My other point is on the residency. It says here that a student or visitor or temporary worker will be able to accumulate “one half of a day for every day...up to a maximum of 365” towards the required residency. Does that mean this person will be qualified to apply to be a permanent resident when they reach a certain status?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think that's a really good question. Let me explain how that will work.

We know there are people legally in Canada who do not yet have permanent resident status. They may have refugee status, they may be here as a student, or they may be here on a temporary work permit. The provision of this legislation says that each day is the equivalent of half a day. You can accumulate up to one year, up to 365 days only, to apply toward your citizenship 1,095 days.

It's a way of acknowledging the time spent in Canada provided you have legal status. You can apply that time on the basis of one half a day for every day. So if you were here for two years, it would be one year. If you were here six months, you could apply three months towards the amount of time for your physical presence in Canada. We think that's fair. We think it's reasonable. It acknowledges that sometimes people with legal status are here awaiting the time when they make a decision to become permanent residents of Canada and then apply for citizenship.

This was an amendment that was made by this committee, and I think it was a good amendment.

The Chair: Does that answer the question, Sophia?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Price.

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

Thank you for being here, Minister.

• 1630

I thought the adoption section was very good. We were very happy to see that there. I think it's going to help solve some of the problems there. But there's one little part in it that bothers me a little. It says that presently children must undergo medicals by designated doctors overseas, and if refused will normally be refused a visa. When we look further into it, there's nothing in the act that gives any real criteria for those medicals, and when we call your office they tell us to consult the medical officers' handbook. But there's nothing in the act.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's an immigration question, not a citizenship question. We can have a further discussion in due course, because there will be adoption provisions contained in the Immigration Act.

For the purposes of international adoption, the intention is that a medical will be required for information purposes only. That information will be made available to the parents and the province, so they can know the health status of the child before the adoption is completed.

Does that answer your question?

Mr. David Price: Not really. Let's say a child is sick and the parents still want to adopt.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The policy intention is that there will not be a bar for medical inadmissibility for adopted children. The medical will be required for information purposes only, and there will be no excessive demand provision bar against children who want to be adopted. But the important thing is that parents know what the health status is.

On the actual number of cases in a year, I've discussed that with most of the provincial health ministers, and there are relatively few cases where Canadians adopt children with medical difficulties or disabilities. At the present time, the policy you outlined is correct.

What I'm telling you today is a sneak preview of the intentions of the policy objectives, which I think were also contained in the white paper, so it's not a big sneak preview.

Mr. David Price: There's just a feeling we get from certain groups out there, in particular certain church groups, that they want to go after these children who are sick, who have certain problems.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Go after?

Mr. David Price: They would like to adopt them. It was more difficult before. Since it isn't really stated in here that it is a requirement—

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's not in this legislation.

Mr. David Price: Does this still mean that if a person wants to adopt a child, the child is found to have a particular disease and the person still wants them, they automatically become a Canadian citizen?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes.

Mr. David Price: That's clear.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That policy intent will also be identified when we table new legislation. The intention there is to remove an admissibility medical provision for children adopted abroad.

It's not included in this legislation because, as I said, the immigration provisions are separate from citizenship provisions. Once the adoption is complete, children will enter Canada as Canadian citizens, and in the future there will not be the same standard that presently applies.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Joan, do you want to add anything to that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Minister.

As the minister is saying, there will be absolutely no barrier or bar on children getting citizenship because they're sick, but it is our desire to ensure that before we grant citizenship we're satisfied the adoption is in the best interests of the child. In order to make sure of that, it's important that the adoptive parents know what they're getting themselves into, in terms of adopting a child who may have special needs.

It is not intended to refuse to grant citizenship to children at all. As the minister has stated, it's simply meant to inform the adoptive parents, so they understand. The purpose of any medical examination will be to inform.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

Do I still have a minute?

The Chair: You have about 45 seconds. If you can get answers that are a little shorter, you might be lucky.

Mr. David Price: I'll try to make it really short.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: We did a couple of yes and no answers.

• 1635

Mr. David Price: On citizenship judges being replaced by citizenship commissioners, you said they won't really have to do any judging. But in actual fact, from what we've heard here already, they will have to judge on the physical presence of somebody, because there isn't any really solid physical evidence there.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: No. That will be administrative and will be handled by the department. The commissioners will not be involved in determining the physical presence requirement.

Mr. David Price: Whereas the judges before were involved.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's correct.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have several more issues I want to ask questions on: I'd like to ask a lot more questions on the physical presence issue; the retroactivity of this act on the adoption issue, which was brought up by several witnesses; citizenship at birth; and other issues. I think I'll carry on with the adoption issue, as it has kind of been started.

In clause 8 it says:

The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who, after February 14, 1977, was adopted by a citizen while the person was a minor and whose adoption

(a) was in the best interests of the child;

How do you define the best interests of the child?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Joan, do you want to answer that one?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

The concept of best interests of the child is not defined in the act, and quite deliberately so. It is a concept that has to vary and change according to the individual circumstances. So there's no way we could define it and put all the factors that would be relevant in determining the best interests of the child in a piece of legislation like this.

It is a concept that is used in international conventions, specifically the Hague Convention the minister made mention of, to which we are a signatory. It's used in the international convention on the rights of the child, and it's used, importantly, in provincial law, as it relates to child welfare. So it is a concept that is quite widely used, but nowhere in any of these international conventions or provincial laws is it specifically defined.

Our intention, through the regulations, is to indicate those factors that could be considered by a citizenship officer to look at the sorts of evidence and documentation a citizenship officer would need to have in front of them to be satisfied that the adoption was done in the best interests of the child, in order to grant citizenship.

In the case of individuals who were adopted several years before, given the retroactivity provisions, obviously the evidence that will be required will vary. If the person was adopted several years ago as a minor by a Canadian citizen and is now an adult who is coming forward to seek citizenship, the evidence we would require to satisfy ourselves that it was done in the best interests of the child is going to be quite different from the evidence we would require if it were a baby who had just been adopted.

So the wording of the act and the regulations that flow from it will give us the flexibility to be able to adapt to the different circumstances.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're comfortable with the definition of the best interests of the child being decided through regulation?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, I am. I think there's sufficient jurisprudence and international convention requirements. The regulations will define, for example, whether a home study is required and under what circumstances. These are also the sorts of things that would be discussed in conjunction with the provinces, which have responsibility for adoption. But for the purposes of citizenship, I think it's important to have in the act the fact that the test of best interests of the child is appropriate, and through the regulation-making procedures it can be further defined.

The genuine relationship of parent and child is the other concept that is very important, so the adoption is not just for the purpose of attaining Canadian citizenship.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's interesting you bring that up, because the former chair of this committee, Rey Pagtakhan, on April 29, 1999, said, and I quote:

I...have concern about potential abuse. ... 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.

That's something Rey Pagtakhan stated as a concern about determining this parent-child relationship.

Are you going to have professionals available to help determine these things?

• 1640

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The point is an important one and a good one. The Supreme Court probably said it best in 1996. They said an attempt to define best interests of the child could in fact have a negative impact on the best interests of the child, and therefore it's best to do it in regulations, which are more flexible and more responsive and will vary. We have to be able to respond.

The concept is an important one to have in legislation. I am very confident that putting it in legislation and defining it by regulation is the appropriate legislative thing to do.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to go back to something that was said earlier by the minister when she referred to—I'm not sure exactly of the wording—a problem of about 1% of all border crossings.

You mentioned 200 million border crossings—not individuals, but times the border was crossed by individuals. Were you referring there to the number of people who were caught or were you referring to immigration problems or illegalities? Can you maybe expand on that a bit? Because there's a possibility it could be interpreted in a number of different ways.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's a very important question. I know you're from the border community of Windsor, which certainly relies on that kind of trade and border crossings, and you're also aware of the congestion that exists today, with the procedures we have in place, because of our determination to have as secure a border as possible.

I'm going to ask my deputy minister, who has a lot of experience, to share with you some of the discussions with the Americans and others and put the statistics in a context that might be helpful in answering your question.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Deputy.

Ms. Janice Cochrane (Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Minister.

The figure of less than 1% of 200 million crossings can refer to a variety of different circumstances. It can refer to people who are attempting to enter Canada without a valid visa if they've transited through the United States from another country, for example. It can refer to people who are inadmissible under our own law for a variety of different things. It's really difficult to be precise on exactly what kinds of cases those are. But they are of a sufficiently low number that we feel, with the help of technology advancements that are just on the horizon, we may be able to regulate flows better without causing problems for legitimate travellers, because 200 million crossings is a lot of people, and that represents a very small number of border crossings.

So the objective we have with the United States is to try to deal with legitimate travellers in a facilitative way, but to share information and share technology advances in such a way that we can help each other catch those cases that are not legitimate travellers.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you.

Just for further clarification, as the minister stated, I live on the busiest border crossing between our two nations, and with 1% of 200 million, you're still talking of a couple of million people potentially. Are we talking about those who were caught and turned back, just coming in our direction, or going in both directions? Or are we talking about immigration issues and illegality, perhaps bringing in firearms or any other number of things—smuggling and so on? What are you saying is that 1%? How are you defining that?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That's exactly how we're defining it. It does relate to crossings both ways, and it relates to travellers who are not essentially waved through—those travellers who are required for further examination, because they may pose problems due to questions arising in terms of their inadmissibility under the legislation.

Mr. Rick Limoges: So you're not in fact talking about the porosity of our border and saying those people actually make it through and you are estimating that so many are illegal?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: No indeed.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You are actually talking about people who have been stopped and/or had their legitimacy questioned?

Ms. Janice Cochrane: That's correct.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Okay, thank you. It's good to clarify that.

With regard to this legislation then, as you know, we've also been looking at the refugee determination system, and I think in the past, in some of your quotations, you've referred to some of the issues with regard to closing our back door. Is there anything you feel will help us in this legislation to promote the use of the front door, promote the usual process, and/or discourage people from trying to sneak in the back door?

• 1645

In addition to that, does this legislation do anything or do you have any other plans for us to be able to reach our immigration targets in this nation that is basically built on immigration?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm not going to give a full preview of the—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rick Limoges: Just from the standpoint of this legislation.

The Chair: But you have thirty seconds to do it in.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm looking forward to coming back for an important discussion on immigration and refugee protection. However, I would like to say this legislation is extremely important. We know that overwhelmingly the people who come to Canada not only want legal status but want to settle. They want roots; they want better opportunities, not only for themselves but for their children and grandchildren; and they want Canadian citizenship. They're proud to say they are Canadians.

So having this legislation in place is a very important message to all of those who choose Canada as their home, who want to build a better life, and who come here because of their dreams of better opportunities for themselves and future generations. Telling them how to apply for citizenship and being as generous as we are in our provisions is one way of sending the message that this country welcomes immigrants from around the world who want to come here legally, get status, and get citizenship in a relatively short period of time.

On closing the back door, we're also sending the message out that only legal status in Canada will count towards citizenship. That's an important message also, because those people who come here who don't have legal status will not be able to attain the goal of citizenship. Therefore we want to encourage people to respect our laws, respect our rules, apply properly, and have their status. That's the best way to get your citizenship, integrate quickly into Canadian life and Canadian society, and achieve your dreams and aspirations for the future.

The Chair: Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Still on the subject of adoption, there's a something I forgot to ask you earlier. Basically, as you see it, the bill does not affect Quebec or any adopted children brought into this province. Therefore, children adopted abroad will have to be sponsored and obtain permanent residency status in order to remain in Quebec until the adoption procedure is finalized. Therefore, Quebec parents will be required to pay sponsorship fees. Unless I'm missing something here, Quebec parents will still be required to pay sponsorship fees, unlike parents in other provinces.

If that is in fact the case, this provision is unfair. Since Quebec will not be affected by the bill insofar as international adoptions are concerned, why should Quebec parents still have to pay sponsorship fees when they adopt a child?

[English]

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to ask Joan to respond, but it's important that when we talk about adoption, we're talking about adoption of foreign-born children who will be coming into Canada as Canadian citizens.

Joan, do you want to explain what that procedure will be and how it will relate to provincial responsibility for adoption procedures?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: With respect to Quebec.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, with respect to Quebec.

[English]

First of all, we definitely do not want to discriminate against those children who are adopted by residents of Quebec because of the differences and the specifics of Quebec civil law. We're very well aware of the fairly unique situation in Quebec vis-à-vis the tribunal and the granting of adoption once a child arrives in the province of Quebec.

• 1650

We are working very closely with officials of the Province of Quebec to try to harmonize the provisions of the new citizenship bill with the provisions of the Quebec legislation, just as we are working with all the other provinces that have a very direct interest in the international adoption file. We are working with them to ensure that we are taking into account all of the different provincial laws that relate to international adoption.

Currently, a child to be adopted or a child who is adopted overseas must go through the immigration process. That means the adoptive parents must sponsor that child and must pay the cost-recovery fees related to processing. With C-16, the new citizenship bill, they will no longer go through an immigration process. There will be no sponsorship and there will be no immigration fees because they will go through a citizenship process. Under the new process, adoptive parents will contact our case processing centre in Sydney to apply for citizenship for their adopted children if they intend to adopt them abroad.

We will have a process through the citizenship process that will not involve sponsorship, but will involve some requirements and documents on the part of the adoptive parents, according to the requirements as we have set them out in clause 8 of the bill, and the accompanying regulations. That means the adoption must be in the best interests of the child, must create a genuine parent-child relationship, and must be done in accordance with the laws of the country where the child is to be adopted and the laws of the province of destination to which the child is destined. It must not be an adoption done for the purposes of circumventing citizenship or immigration laws, but solely for the purpose of gaining status.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Thank you, Joan. I think that was a very clear explanation.

The only thing there is to let you know that negotiations and discussions with all provinces are ongoing, particularly with Quebec because of the different statutes, and we expect that we will have a smooth transition.

The Chair: Mr. Anders.

Mr. Rob Anders: I believe it was Mr. Sabourin who said 15% of people don't paint a complete picture when it comes to the abuse of information in their statements. I take it that's with regard to citizenship or their application for citizenship. What I find interesting about this is that there has been talk about this 1% of 200 million. Mr. Limoges correctly points out that this is still a whopping two million cases as a sort of criminal problem here.

The Chair: I'm not sure he said there was a criminal problem here. Let's get it straight.

Mr. Rob Anders: That's the way it was stated, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No, I'm not sure that's the way it was stated.

Mr. Rob Anders: Never mind the one 1%, I'm wondering about the 15%. I assume that's the 15% that you catch, is that right? We can therefore assume that if you catch 15%, as with any law, there's a significant number above and beyond that who aren't caught. Maybe these people are using the Seattle routes or what not to evade Canadian taxes.

The Chair: Mr. Sabourin.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Chairman.

The 15% figure is a projection of all citizenship applicants. The national quality assurance program aims at trying to establish what is the proportion of applicants who don't give us all the information we need. I apologize to the committee if I gave the impression that this meant that 15% of people commit abuse. Some of the information they don't provide includes, for example, forgetting to tell us how tall they are. We need to know because we need to put that—

The Chair: I avoid that detail myself.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: With or without shoes, they don't always tell us, but we need to have that information in order to put it on the citizenship certificate. We need to know what colour their eyes are, and so on.

In 7% of cases we find out there is something relevant that they didn't tell us. It's relevant to the determination of their status. And in 3.5% of their cases, more or less, we find out that they did not provide information that is relevant to the determination of status. But that is for all applicants. It's a projection for all applications.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Could you tell the committee approximately how many applications we deal with in a year?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: I expect that for 1999 it will be very close to 200,000 people, or over 200,000 people.

• 1655

Mr. Rob Anders: Okay, so we're looking at somewhere around 5,000 or so. No, it would be more than that. It would be closer to 10,000 people who are not providing relevant information. In other words, they're not providing important stuff that they're supposed to provide.

Okay, I'm going to ask another question, and it has to do with something that was brought up to me at citizenship court when I was taking that in, in Calgary. There was a gentleman who let me know that the dual citizenship provisions that we have are allowing people in this country who have dual citizenship to go ahead and kidnap their own children here and take them—

The Chair: You live in a strange place.

Mr. Rob Anders: No, I attend a lot of these ceremonies. I do, and I'm letting you know. I could even get you his name. I don't have it right here, right now, but I'm sure I can drag it up.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If you have any information about criminal activity, I would appreciate it if you would give it to us so that we could pass it on to the RCMP for appropriate action.

Mr. Rob Anders: Great, Madam Minister, and I'm sure that for that one particular case it will all be precious and you can deal with it. But the thing is that if there is the ability for abuse in this one particular case right now at least—and he knows of others—certainly he, himself, as a grandfather, is impacted directly by being deprived of his grandchildren. It was not his own child, but someone in the marriage took his grandchildren offshore because this person had dual citizenship. By the way, the grandfather did not have dual citizenship, but this individual, the spouse of his child, took his grandchild. There's no ability to get the child back, and this was all done by abusing the dual citizenship provisions.

If someone doesn't show the Canadian documentation but does show the documentation from the other country, the other citizenship, there's no real provision for when they take their children with them. If they're their kids, they're their kids and they can go. The kids are too young, they don't know what's happening, and pretty soon they're on a plane and they're an ocean away. Dual citizenship is allowing for this type of thing. I want to know what types of things we're doing to follow up on these types of kidnappings.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I will repeat that if you have any information about illegal or criminal activity, I would appreciate it if you would give it to me, and if you don't want to give it to me give then give it directly to the RCMP so that proper investigations can be done and appropriate charges can be placed.

I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are living in a country of over 30 million people, and we know there are some bad people and they do bad things. There are people who break our laws. When we find out, we contact the proper police authorities and they investigate, and where it's appropriate, they issue charges.

Mr. Rob Anders: You don't have a kidnapped grandkid, do you?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Whose kid is it? Have the parents taken his child away? What are you talking about?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: However, I want to point out, Mr. Speaker—and I would repeat this again—that Canada has had dual citizenship provisions since 1977. That is the trend in the world. Most countries are looking at dual citizenship as a positive feature. That does not mean it is not without some problems sometimes, somewhere, for someone, but certainly the trend overall internationally has been to encourage dual citizenship.

We respect the fact that people have the citizenship of other countries, yet they have enough of a relationship and allegiance and loyalty to Canada that we have decided to grant them the right of Canadian citizenship.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I can safely say, Madam Minister, that the NDP is quite well satisfied that the concerns we brought forward about Bill C-63 and the concerns that were brought forward by the advocacy groups we had contact with have been addressed and have found their way into Bill C-16. That is a very positive thing. As you said in your opening remarks, I think everybody is eager to move this forward and get it out of the way. We can then deal with the issues of greater substance that the whole country wants to talk about, the bigger pictures of immigration and refugee status. We're all looking forward to that, and we hope for a speedy passage of this bill, frankly.

The Chair: Do you have a question?

Mr. Pat Martin: I do. I have one more thing we'd like to have cleared up on the loss of citizenship: the revocation of the citizenship at age 28 for children born outside Canada to Canadian parents. The way I understand it, if you don't spend at least one year within the country, you're at risk of losing your citizenship. Does that one year have to be within any specific timeframe? What happens to that person if they do lose their Canadian citizenship? Do they then become stateless? If so, isn't there an obligation on Canada not to cause anyone to become stateless?

• 1700

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The answer to the last question is yes, and to the question before that it's no. Yes, we have an obligation, and our laws ensure that people do not become stateless.

It's actually not one year, it's three years, and I'll tell you the way it will work. For a child born of a Canadian citizen abroad, up to the age of 28 they will have the opportunity to spend three years in Canada and apply for Canadian citizenship automatically without having to apply for landed immigrant status. After the age of 28, if they have not spent three years in Canada, they would then have to apply as an immigrant like anyone else.

Joan, is that accurate?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's for the second generation.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's second generation, so that would be grandchildren.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's for the second generation. That's right. But aren't they already Canadians?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Who's going to take that? Rosaline?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: The second-generation child, when born, is a Canadian citizen up until the age of 28. They will have to apply to retain that citizenship before the age of 28, and they will have to acquire three years of physical presence in Canada within the six years before applying.

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay, so it's three out of six, which is the same rule as for anyone else.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Yes, it's the same three-of-six rule, but they are automatically citizens until the age of 28. If they haven't done it before that, then the citizenship is lost.

Mr. Pat Martin: But what happens to them then, when their citizenship is lost? Who are they then? Who do they belong to?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: If they do not have a citizenship in another country, we would be dealing with them under our responsibility to not create a stateless person. They likely would acquire Canadian citizenship or retain Canadian citizenship.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That would be the kind of case that would go to the Governor in Council.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: It could, or it could fall within a special provision of the act dealing with statelessness.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is a special provision on statelessness in the act, but there is always the other ability to do it through Order in Council in those kinds of situations.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: If I could, Mr. Chair, in response to the question on child abductions, the committee should be aware that there are international conventions and procedures that deal with the status of children. The Hague Convention is just one. There are a number of international conventions that deal with this issue, because it is international in its scope. It's not something Canada can do on its own, but we are a signatory to those conventions and are participating internationally to ensure that the rights of children are respected.

The Chair: Thank you.

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by apologizing to the minister for coming in late. I was trying to be in two places at the same time, so I missed the presentation.

We've worked long and hard on this, and I think the communities that have come and spoken to us would see a good deal of their recommendations in here. I want to ask you about ministerial discretion and compassionate grounds. Could you cite a couple of places in which there is ministerial discretion or compassionate grounds?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: For citizenship?

Ms. Jean Augustine: For citizenship, yes.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It's actually at the discretion of the cabinet. Because the core feature of this bill is a change in the residency provision to a physical presence provision, there is the ability to apply to the cabinet, to the executive in council, if you feel that your circumstance is unique and should be given special consideration. That is through the minister, but it is the cabinet that makes that decision.

• 1705

On language, I mentioned this before you got here, actually. On the issue of language ability, it will be an administrative test, but where an individual doesn't pass the administrative test and wants to ask for humanitarian consideration, there is the ability to ask for ministerial discretion. I would say almost automatic discretion is given for those 60 and over and for anyone with a physical disability.

The other thing you should know is that the testing can be oral for those who do not have good literacy skills.

I think we go out of our way to encourage and accommodate so that the actual request for humanitarian discretion will not be something too many people have to undertake. It is my intention, however, to consult with the new commissioners to see if they would like to play a role. As minister, I can delegate to them that discretion. If someone doesn't pass the administrative or language test and if the commissioners are interested, they could assist, I think, in determining whether the language capability is adequate, and give that advice.

That's something I'm considering and will be discussing with the commissioners after the passage of this bill.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, you mentioned earlier the global economy, and how there is an effect in this bill. We know of a lot of people today who are based in Canada but really spend a lot of time working out of it. Pat gave you an example, and I can give you another one.

A friend of mine who's Vietnamese came to Canada for a year and started a business here. His business is teaching French to people in Asian countries. He usually spends at least ten months of the year out of the country. He's been doing this for the past seven or eight years, running back and forth. His family members have become citizens, but he hasn't.

One of the things we see, too, travelling back and forth between countries these days, is that quite often our passports don't get stamped. They don't bother any more. Therein lies the problem of proving that you have been in the country, or, even going the other way, saying “Sure, I've been here. I have a business. My family's here and everything else.” How do we go about verifying that? Are we still going on a trust basis?

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm going to ask Rosaline to repeat this. I think it is important. There are a number of things people can use, but the basis of this is trust. If we have evidence to suggest that a person has not told us the truth, that has very serious implications.

Rosaline, do you want to talk about what happens if we discover that you haven't told us the truth and you've obtained your citizenship fraudulently, or you've misrepresented the facts material to the granting of citizenship?

That's where the ability to both annul and revoke comes in. It's in those cases. While we do grant citizenship on the basis of trust, there are very serious implications around not telling the truth or applying fraudulently. Citizenship can and will be annulled, and can be revoked if you're not forthcoming and don't give the truth.

Rosaline.

Ms. Rosaline Frith: As I said, essentially we would assume in the first place that people are telling us the truth. If we feel that we don't have sufficient information, we ask for additional information, and they provide it. Should one of those pieces of additional information be a statement made under oath, a sworn statement that they were here, and should we at some later date find out that was not so, then we could pursue and take up action with that person in terms of their having obtained citizenship under a false pretence, having fraudulently applied for it. There would be grounds for revocation in that case.

Mr. David Price: On the other side of the coin, for this person who gets a chance to spend only a couple of months of the year in a country so that it's taking forever to get enough time in to become a citizen, is there any provision there, or any special circumstances, where that person could apply? You mentioned certain circumstances before, but would this type fit into that?

• 1710

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I think the answer to that is the provision and the ability to be able to make your case in writing to the cabinet—to make the case that your family is here, your business is here, you pay your taxes here, you've been here ten years or more, for business purposes you travel. That's the sort of thing cabinet would take into consideration when deciding whether this appeal to the cabinet for special consideration would be granted.

I don't want to give the impression that it's going to be an easy test. It's not. We take the granting of citizenship very seriously. One of the changes in this legislation is that citizenship is not a right. One of the problems we have with the existing laws right now is that it's very difficult to deny citizenship to someone you would not be proud, as a Canadian, to call a Canadian citizen.

We have made provisions in the legislation for the ability to deny Canadian citizenship to those who would not bring honour to Canada. We have also made provision in exceptional circumstances for an individual to be able to appeal to the cabinet. But it would be a very high test, I think, and it should be.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, one question, if you could, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The issue of retroactivity is one that came up during the hearings very often, in fact. It's something that hasn't been changed in Bill C-16 from the former Bill C-63.

Subclause 55.(1) states:

Proceedings in relation to an application...pending on the day on which section 72 of this Act comes into force must be dealt with under this Act.

However, subclause 55.(2) stipulates that if in fact the application is being considered by a citizenship judge at the time, the application will be considered under the old act.

The department has stated that processing times vary from eight to 12 months. In fact, the time is about 17 months. There shouldn't be, to my way of thinking, two different paths that applicants will follow, depending on the speed of departmental processing. I think that is unfair.

One Liberal member of the committee, Tom Wappel, who was at the committee meeting April 28, said, and I quote:

I do take a position...on the traditional, historical pattern of the Liberal Party of not having retroactive legislation.

...

If this citizenship law passes as is, as I understand it, notwithstanding that someone has been making his plans in anticipation of the law as it currently exists, he...will have to wait, for no apparent reason other than a change in the law...to apply for Canadian citizenship. That to me is retroactivity. That to me is taking away from people who have relied on an existing law, and that is un-Liberal.

Tom Wappel goes on to say he would like to know why the immigration officials recommended that to a Liberal immigration minister, “because retroactivity is, generally speaking, anathema to the Liberal Party”.

I think every one of us, every member of Parliament here, knows of a constituent who will get caught due to this retroactivity. That's a concern, again, that was expressed by several committee members.

Madam Minister, if you could, I would like you to explain why you would allow something to be in legislation that is so “un-Liberal”. To me, un-Liberal may be a positive thing, but to Mr. Wappel it certainly wasn't.

The Chair: If you could be very liberal with your time, like approximately two and a half minutes, I would love you for that.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Right. I'm going to take about 30 seconds, and then I am going to ask Norman to explain to the committee the administrative remedy that should solve most of these concerns.

I want to make this point. There's been about three years' notice. From the point at which Bill C-63 was tabled for first reading discussion until we actually have proclamation of Bill C-16, three years will have elapsed as far as the time of this bill. So everyone knows the rules. There's no suggestion, I think, that anyone applying for citizenship is not aware of the changing provisions.

• 1715

The second point I want to make is that an application for citizenship doesn't create a right, and there is no retroactivity in this legislation. The legislation will become effective on the day of proclamation, but we have put in place an administrative remedy to deal with any of the concerns about those who are currently in the process.

Norman is going to take the rest of the two minutes to explain it.

Mr. Norman Sabourin: Thank you, Minister and Chairman.

The remedy we've developed in the department under the instructions of the minister is twofold. First of all, we want to make sure that this idea of backlog of work in progress, or inventory or whatever term you want to use to describe the number of cases that are at any time being worked on.... In any instance when there is a question of potential different interpretation of “residence” that could be given—and let's be clear, that's the only issue on which applicants could really be prejudiced—for those cases we will make sure they're referred to a citizenship judge so that the judge can be seized with it and can examine it under the rules that exist under the current case law.

In complement to this process, the other thing we want to do is to make sure that people who have applied for citizenship before the proclamation of the new legislation are not penalized by these processing times we've been talking about. We want to make sure that doesn't happen simply by asking applicants, at the time they come forward for their citizenship test, whether they've been absent from Canada since the time they applied.

Let me give you an example. A person came as a permanent resident in 1996. They applied for citizenship in January 2000. Because it's an application we took a long time to process, it's going to be heard a couple of weeks after the proclamation of the legislation. But they would be missing a bit of time, because at the time they applied they were missing say three, four, five months of residence in Canada. Because of the liberal interpretation of “residence” they would have met the rule, but because the new act comes into force just before they are heard for a decision, they no longer meet the residence requirement. We're going to ask them, “Have you been in Canada since the time you applied and the time you were here? If so, could you update your application?” And since it took us eight or nine months to process the application, the time they were in Canada will be credited toward their application.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: There is a bit of information I'd like to leave you with, because I don't want to leave a misimpression. My deputy has just informed me that in fact the backlog is pretty much cleared up, and that the goal for Sydney, which does the processing, over the next year is to reduce the processing time to six months.

The Chair: One question, Andrew Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I was reading one of the books on immigration, and there is a foreword by Irving Abella that said that we are a nation of immigrants who have this curious habit of hating immigrants or immigration. I guess our Reform colleagues give new meaning to that for me.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A point of order, Mr. Chair. That's ridiculous, and the member should withdraw that.

The Chair: I don't hear a point of order.

Go ahead, Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Madam Minister, recognizing that this is a draft bill before us and that we will be working on it, there's one section of the bill.... I speak for myself and people who have become Canadian by choice. Some would say we really didn't have a choice, that we went wherever we could.

One part of the bill, clause 12, talks about Canadians who obtain citizenship having the rights and entitlements of all other Canadians. The part of the bill that gives me discomfort—because to me citizenship is part of my essence, and I couldn't think of myself being anything else but Canadian—is when I look at revocation. What gives me discomfort is the way I read it, a Federal Court judge can make a ruling, and now the process is it goes to the minister and the cabinet, but I have no right to appeal the decision of a Federal Court judge. This has me thinking that if I were to be charged with a minor offence and if a court finds me guilty, I'm able to go to an appeal court.

• 1720

When I talk about citizenship being part of my identity—and I really believe in clause 12—this causes me some discomfort. And it causes discomfort to one out of six Canadians—not all of them, because all of them would not be aware. It causes discomfort to many of them who are aware that maybe we aren't totally first-class citizens if you don't have the right of judicial appeal.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: I'm happy to answer that question, because certainly revocation of citizenship is very serious. As I've said, obtaining citizenship is not a right; it is something the state confers. And where someone has obtained citizenship through fraudulent means or by concealing material circumstances through fraud or misrepresentation, the state has the right to revoke citizenship.

There is a process that's put in place to protect individual rights. First the case has to be made at the Federal Court. The federal judge has to determine whether the case has been made and sufficient evidence has been provided to show that citizenship was obtained fraudulently—where material facts were withheld, where information was not put forward and was concealed. After the federal judge's decision, there is then in this legislation a requirement for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to inform persons that a report is being made to the Governor in Council so that they know that they have an opportunity to request a judicial review and that there's a 30-day opportunity to request that the matter be referred to the Federal Court of Canada.

So we take this very seriously. Ultimately, it is a decision not of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, but of the cabinet, to determine whether, based on the facts, after full judicial process, following a Federal Court decision with information being made available and full judicial review, citizenship can and will be revoked in those circumstances where it is deemed serious.

As I think we've said during these discussions, citizenship is something we all hold very dear. We have an expectation: when someone comes to this country and applies for citizenship, we trust them to give us all the facts and all the information. When they come and apply for permanent resident status, we trust them to give all of the information and to be forthcoming. And there must be a remedy if at the end of the day it is determined that people were not forthcoming, did not give truthful information, and in fact were inadmissible to the country to begin with or obtained citizenship through fraud and misrepresentation.

I believe this legislation puts in place a procedure that protects individual rights from frivolous action to revoke citizenship. But it also puts in place the right of the Government of Canada to revoke citizenship from those individuals who obtained it when they should not have been granted citizenship. It also gives us the ability to annul citizenship when it should never have been granted in the first place.

Those are important safeguards so that we will know the value of Canadian citizenship for all of those who come here by choice or because we were the only country that would take them—that we offer them a wonderful country, a land of immigrants and refuges, but we have expectations that they will be truthful and forthcoming when applying for both landed immigrant status and for permanent citizenship in this country.

• 1725

The Chair: I wonder, Minister, if I could be permitted a couple of very short questions supplementary to some I've heard, especially the ones Pat and David have spoken about, and that's the residency requirement and/or physical presence.

I'm trying to picture a commitment made by a particular person to bring their family over. In light of the global economy and in light of certain opportunities that sometimes have to be taken, and if the head of the household had to be away for longer than what the law permits.... And I can appreciate that it's three out of four now, that three out of five is what the committee had suggested before, and it is now three out of six thanks to the good work of yourself and the committee.

I'm just wondering, why is physical presence the determining factor about a person's allegiance to one's country, if in fact they are paying taxes and their family is here? Say the head of the household has to be out of the country, but his children and his spouse are living in the house and they're going to school. Essentially, technically speaking the children and the spouse could meet the requirements of citizenship, but he might not, by virtue of the fact that he has to sometimes work outside the country.

I know you're trying to strike a balance, but I'm just wondering whether one should take those kinds of considerations into account—the changing nature of work and globalization, and the need for people sometimes to have to be physically outside of the country.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: The physical presence requirement is a cornerstone of the bill. That's because we are talking about the value of citizenship attachment to Canada and integration into Canadian society.

I think it's also an issue of fairness, so that everyone knows what the rules are and what the expectations are before you acquire citizenship. As I said, we also recognize that there may be some very exceptional circumstances, and that's why there is the ability to make an appeal to the government, to the cabinet, in those exceptional circumstances.

When we compare our physical presence requirement to the rest of the world, I think we are generous. If we compare the residency provisions of the existing act, as I said in a review of Hansard, there was always an expectation that there would be physical presence, and that has been interpreted in a way that has been inconsistent, and because of that inconsistency unfair. It was important in legislation to put in objective criteria against which you could determine attachment to Canada.

By any international standard, I believe that the 1,095 days, three years out of six, is a reasonable standard.

The Chair: It's in the middle of the pack.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's right. I think it's important.

Rosaline, did you want to add something about spouses and children?

Ms. Rosaline Frith: I was just going to say that in the case where the head of the household may be away for a significant period of time, it would not stop the spouse and the children who are also landed immigrants from applying for citizenship after they have acquired the three in six years. The family could become Canadians, even though the head of the household still did not meet the requirements of the act.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: It might take a little longer for the head of the household, but there's no requirement that the whole family be processed together.

The Chair: That was my point.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: That's the point. Everyone is considered an individual.

How do we deal with children under the age of 18 in their ability to apply for citizenship?

Mr. Norman Sabourin: If one parent is a Canadian, a child can become a citizen without residency requirements.

The Chair: Madam Minister, thank you so much.

I know that as you started to speak you said that when you reaffirmed your citizenship it was a very moving experience. I can tell you it was a very moving experience for me to get my citizenship by choice, obviously coming to this country. And I had to do it all over again, because I was a little tot when in fact my father and mother became.... I'm sorry: my mother was born here. I had to reaffirm it when I was over the age of 18. It is a moving experience for an awful lot of Canadians, not only those who were born here, but those who chose to come here. It is an important ceremony. I attend, and I heard some of our colleagues indicate that they attend that ceremony. It really is a moving experience to see people from all over the world finally get that little piece of paper that says they are Canadian, something that's really treasured by a great many people around the world.

• 1730

Thank you. Thank you for the department. As we get into clause-by-clause next week, I think the department officials will be here to guide us through some of the technical questions we might have.

We will be hearing some witnesses tomorrow and next week. I think we have an aggressive plan to get this back into the House in the next couple of weeks, so we appreciate your input.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: Can I give a commercial?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Elinor Caplan: For anyone who has never attended a citizenship ceremony, July 1 is a big day for citizenship ceremonies, for the obvious reasons. Also, October is citizenship week, and during that week there will be many citizenship courts and citizenship ceremonies right across the country. I would encourage anyone who has never attended or who has never reaffirmed their citizenship to take the opportunity in this year 2000 to do that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Room 112-North tomorrow morning.

The meeting is adjourned.