CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

1105

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

1110

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr ( As Individual)

1115

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Don Chapman ( As Individual)

1125

1130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Don Chapman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

1135

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Don Chapman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1150

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1155

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Don Chapman

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

Mr. Don Chapman

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1205

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

Mr. Don Chapman

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1210

Mr. John Reynolds

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

1215

Mr. Don Chapman

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Don Chapman

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Don Chapman

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Don Chapman

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1220

Mr. Jack Silverstone (Executive Vice-President and General Counsel, Canadian Jewish Congress)

1225

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eric Vernon (Director of Government Relations, Canadian Jewish Congress)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Jack Silverstone

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Jack Silverstone

1235

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Jack Silverstone

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Eric Vernon

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Jack Silverstone

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1240

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Jack Silverstone

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Jack Silverstone

1245

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Jack Silverstone

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Jack Silverstone

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Jack Silverstone

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1250

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Eric Vernon

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 014

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call the meeting to order now.

Just before we get under way, folks, there are a couple of basic housekeeping issues we should deal with. In my understanding, the minister is willing to appear on February 6 on the issue of the national identity card. We will be meeting from 11 until 12 on February 6. That meeting will be televised.

Second, the Australian minister responsible for citizenship will be in Canada this next month, we're expecting the week of February 24. It has been suggested that on Tuesday, February 25, we have a meeting with the Australian minister. I think that is of interest to all of you as well.

Third, there was an SO39.5 submitted by Inky Mark. Inky, obviously, is in hospital at this point in time, and I think all members have been informed of that. But the minister had 45 days to respond, and the minister has not responded at this point, so it is, under the rules, the responsibility of the committee to deal with that issue within five sitting days. It has been suggested that Thursday at 1 o'clock, after our regular meeting, we could have half an hour to discuss what our next step will be on that issue.

Those three items I leave with you. Probably, at the end of this meeting, if you have comments about any of those three issues, we can raise them.

I would like to welcome our guests today. We have Don Chapman and Magali Castro-Gyr. Don has presented a written brief-- everyone has a copy of that--and so has Magali.

So, Magali, would you present your information?

Á (1110)

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr ( As Individual): Yes, thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak with you today. I am Magali Castro-Gyr, from Kelowna, British Columbia. I feel it is very befitting to speak with you in Ottawa about changes that are needed in current legislation because of past historical wrongs of law, in order that the changes more reflect Canada's historical reputation of embracing its citizens and others with compassion and integrity. Bill C-18 and Mr. John Reynolds' Bill C-343, his private member's bill, give us the vehicles to make all the necessary changes. A simple amendment would remedy the injustices I am witness to.

Who am I? To jump right to the heart of the matter, my citizenship story is basically this. I am a fourth-generation, natural-born Canadian who was born in Montreal, Quebec, in 1959. I have held and maintained Canadian citizenship my entire life and have done nothing to ever renounce it. I have with me my current, valid passport.

At the time of my birth, my parents were both Canadian. My mother, Lorraine Castro, née Laura Jane Gagnon, was also born in Montreal, Quebec, in 1936. She has also held and maintained Canadian citizenship her entire life. My father, Michel Castro, immigrated to Canada from France in 1952 as a landed immigrant and became a naturalized Canadian in 1958.

In 1964 my family emigrated to the United States for my father's employment. We were issued green cards, all the while maintaining our Canadian citizenship.

In 1975, when I was 16, my father decided to naturalize as an American. At that time, my Canadian mother went to great measures to ensure my brother and I maintained our Canadian citizenship. She contacted Canadian officials in Boston, who advised her that as long as she remained Canadian, then her children would continue to be Canadian citizens. We are now being told this was not true. It appears that under the 1947 Citizenship Act, minor children and women were considered to be the property of their father and husband, as he was recognized as the sole responsible parent.

Citizenship and Immigration is now arguing that I was no longer Canadian in 1975 when my father became an American. As a minor child, I was his property, and it followed that his act of obtaining American citizenship caused me to lose my Canadian citizenship. Consequently, I am being denied my right to preserve the birthright to Canadian citizenship that I have by virtue of being born here in Canada.

Think of this for a moment, please. Through no fault or action of my own, I suddenly became possibly stateless. From what I am only beginning to fathom of Canadian legislation, the laws clearly stated that it was illegal and unethical to render a minor child stateless.

It is important to note here that I have never applied for, nor obtained, nor had right to American citizenship, nor have either of my parents done so on my behalf. I have an official document from the American Immigration and Naturalization Service supporting this fact.

Further, since October 2000, my father has resumed his Canadian citizenship. Again, both my mother and I have held and maintained Canadian citizenship throughout our lives.

Citizenship and Immigration also declared that I was French from birth, since my father was born in France. If this is true, then acquisition of this French citizenship was again beyond my control as a minor child, as I did nothing to obtain it. However, I've been told by French officials, in referring to the French Civil Code, that proof of French citizenship is not just a possible birthright, not inscription in what's called the Livret de famille, which is the family book, nor a passport, but rather a receipt of what's called a certificat de nationalité française, or a certificate of French nationality. I have never been issued this, nor have I asked for it.

Acquisition of French citizenship brings us to the direct conflict and inequities in our citizenship laws. On the one hand, according to both Bill C-18 and current law, children born in Canada are Canadian citizens at birth. That's stated in paragraph 5(1)(a), and each and every natural-born Canadian I've spoken with over the last year and a half believes this as well, as I'm sure all of you do.

On the other hand, dual nationality was not allowed prior to 1977. This results in an absurd situation, in that any child born Canadian in Canada with possible rights to another citizenship automatically loses their Canadian citizenship and risks the possibility of being stateless. In my case, the French Civil Code clearly does not intend to detrimentally nor retroactively affect what's called porter atteinte in French and deprive me of my Canadian citizenship.

Á (1115)

My rights as a minor child and my mother's rights as a Canadian-born Canadian mother to pass on citizenship and, more importantly, to be seen as a responsible parent and to protect me from losing my Canadian citizenship have been discriminated against.

So just what is the problem here for us? To me, the problem seems to centre on the fact that our present citizenship laws in 2003 implicitly accept the inequities, the narrow and outdated definition, and the discriminatory thinking and effect of the 1947 Citizenship Act's definition of “responsible parent”. It becomes truly irrational and absurd to disentitle a Canadian-born child from his or her ability to retain Canadian citizenship solely on the basis of actions taken by her father or his father, in that he has acquired a new citizenship. Again, the law completely disregards the mother and her rights and any actions she has taken.

I have told you that I have held and maintained Canadian citizenship my entire life. My current, valid Canadian passport shows that. I have ordered my life as a Canadian. Please just allow me a moment to point out my connection, or as our law says, “significant attachment” to Canada, as you can witness by my forwarded documents.

[Translation]

I was born in this country, I am fluent in both of this country's languages and I hold a valid Canadian passport. I purchased these medallions at Expo 67. I attended summer camps in Saint-Jovite, Quebec. I have worked in Quebec City and in Montreal. I have a social security card first issued to me when I was 14 years old, along with a driver's licence and other documents. I spent numerous vacations and weekends in Quebec and in British Columbia.

My parents retired to British Columbia. Both are currently Canadian citizens. I decided to return to British Columbia and bought a house in Kelowna, where I have lived since 2001. I work as a substitute teacher for the French school board and I teach French and Spanish. I work as a volunteer at the Fine Arts Museum and I'm an enthusiastic hockey mom.

As the legislation is now drafted, people like myself are being denied a fundamental right, namely the right to an identity - not just any identity, but a Canadian identity. I can appreciate that amending legislation can be a difficult, complex and perhaps even frustrating process. However, failure to make the necessary, long-awaited legislative changes to protect Canadian-born adults and children would cause Canada even greater embarrassment. The solution could be as simple as moving immediately to pass these two bills.

I have spent $20,000 of my own money earned working as a teacher in an effort to protect that which our laws refer to as our birth rights. Neither I nor my mother has done anything to renounce my Canadian citizenship or to have it revoked. On the contrary, we have done everything to maintain it.

I'm told that Citizenship and Immigration Canada should have contacted me when I was 21 years old to discuss the option of retaining my citizenship. I was never contacted. I think I have amply demonstrated my determination and profound attachment to my Canadian citizenship. To deny people like myself their birth right, to deny mothers their rights and the right to pass this birth right on to their children is extremely unfair.

I urge you to adopt Bill C-18 and Bill C-343, both of which safeguard Canadian values such as equality, compassion and integrity for all citizens in 2003. A simple legislative amendment will correct past injustices.

In conclusion, I would have liked to bring my sons Brennan and Julien-Yves with me to Ottawa, had that been possible. They would have enjoyed telling you about all of the citations they have received over the past year since arriving in Canada for services in French, for their musical achievements and for receiving their citizenship certificates, a copy of which has been submitted to the committee.

My son Brennan received his certificate last June at 10 years of age, the same day I appeared in a Vancouver court to defend our citizenship. When I put the following question to him, without a word of a lie, this is the message he wanted me to convey to the committee:

Á (1120)

[English]

“What would you say to this committee for me?” He said “Mom, tell them this: I am Canadian, and tell them in capital letters, with an exclamation mark!”

[Translation]

He said to me: “I am Canadian and Mom, tell them in capital letters, with an exclamation mark!

Thank you for your attention. Merci.

[English]

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

Don.

Mr. Don Chapman ( As Individual): Thank you.

I was born in Vancouver in 1954 to Canadian parents. I'm fifth-generation Canadian, but I'm not Canadian. Under the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act, women were, in essence, property of their husbands and children were property of their fathers. So in 1961 when my father took out U.S. citizenship, Canada eliminated my citizenship as well. It was against my wishes then and it's against my wishes now. I have had no say in my own destiny. I don't mean to be ugly; I mean to tell it like it is. What's the definition for exile? It's being legally legislated out of existence against one's own will and from one's own country, and when you're sitting in my shoes, that's exactly the way it feels.

So let's look at the morals and the laws that were in place in 1947 Canada, when Canada came up with its first citizenship act. Morals are morals, right is right, and wrong is wrong, so I'm not going to justify them. They were wrong, but the laws allowed a lot of things that were wrong back then. It was okay in the 1940s to have white-only restaurants in Canada. If you were Jewish, you could be excluded from certain clubs or even living in certain parts of the city. Indo-Asian and native aboriginals were not allowed to vote. The Canadian government, with the RCMP, even went so far as to round up native aboriginal children between the ages of 5 and 18 and send them away from their families for months at a time to what's called residential schools, and the entire purpose of that was nothing shy of cultural genocide.

And I'm going to use that word with my family. My daughters are sixth-generation Canadian, and we have been trying unsuccessfully to come back to Canada since before they were born. They've grown up, and my daughter is now driving a car. She grew up in the United States, so of course today she feels rather American. The Canadian government erased a big part of her culture and her heritage. It was a shame for her and it's a shame for Canada, because she's a great kid and she'd be a great asset to Canada.

Let's go to some other values of Canada back then. In 1945 Canada became a charter member of the United Nations. In the adopted language of the UN Charter Canada agreed to uphold the rights of women and children, but in 1947 Canada wrote their first citizenship laws. We, the natural-born sons and daughters of Canada, what I have termed the lost Canadians, were ignored.

In 1960 Canada adopted the Canadian Bill of Rights, where once again we were supposed to be protected, but Canada once again ignored its own laws, and the lost Canadian children were once again the victims. In 1977 Canada recognized that the citizenship laws were in dire need of updating, and they changed many provisions of the 1947 act, but unfortunately, and once again, Canada ignored the lost Canadian children.

The only analogy I can think of is 1960s Mississippi. At that time it was immoral, but legal, to have white and black drinking fountains. The U.S. recognized the injustice; they corrected their laws. I applaud them for recognizing a mistake. I applaud them for correcting it. They changed their laws to say that anyone can drink out of any drinking fountain. But interestingly, if Canada had written the civil rights laws of the 1960s the way they wrote the 1977 citizenship laws, they would have said, if you're black and born from 1961 on, drink out of any drinking fountain, but if you're black and born prior to 1961, you will forever be stuck drinking out of the black man's drinking fountain. The lost Canadian children, unless you include them in Bill C-18, are forever stuck with the morality and the laws of 1947.

In the mid-1980s Canada passed and adopted and embraced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would make the discrimination imposed on the women and children of the 1947 act totally illegal. But of course the lost Canadian children weren't Canadians back then; we had already been erased from existence years before.

Á (1125)

Another interesting little tidbit that happened in the mid-1980s was that there was a man named Benner. Benner was born in the United States to a U.S. father but a Canadian mother. He sued the Government of Canada for his citizenship. It went to the highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Canada, where my great-great-uncle was one of the first justices. If you want to see the pictures, I have the archives in my bag.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the 1947 Citizenship Act was blatant discrimination. Thus they retroactively granted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all foreign-born children. But guess what? They didn't apply it to natural-born Canadians. So had I been born outside of Canada, or had Magali, we would in fact be Canadians right now. But we weren't. We're guilty of being born on Canadian soil. Of course, that in and of itself is discriminatory.

In the 1990s, Canada was the proud sponsor of CEDAW in the United Nations. That stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. So here we have Canada being rather hypocritical, preaching to other nations while at the same time vehemently defending the fact that women and children who fell under the 1947 act are property and chattel. I know that. I've been to Magali's trial. That was disgusting.

Here we are in a new millennium, and Canada clings to these old values. To me it is absolutely incredible. If there was ever a lesson to be learned from Germany in the 1940s, it's that you never create a class of people and take away all their rights. When you do that, bad things happen. So you just don't go there. But Canada has gone there, and it's time to correct it. Canada is just too good a country to allow the atrocities to continue and not learn from the mistakes of World War II.

Now let's fast forward to 2003. You have all agreed that the 1977 Citizenship Act needs to be amended and updated to the morals and values of today. I agree. The lost Canadian children finally need to be embraced by Canada. It would be easy. You incorporate John Reynolds' bill, Bill C-343, into Bill C-18, thus allowing the native children back to their home and native land. Interestingly, as proposed in Bill C-18, the government has actually addressed the women of the 1947 act. They embrace the women. In this round, it's the children they're leaving behind and ignoring.

Understanding the immigration process—as I do, because I'm going through it—I find it insulting to have to apply and pay thousands and thousands of dollars for what is my birthright. You know, I have no problem if Canada wants to do a thorough background check on people like me. But I shouldn't have to pay money for it. I shouldn't have to stand in line. I should be put at the top of the list.

Elinor Caplan herself said you can process anybody in 24 hours. Let's give you six weeks. Process our applications, do thorough background checks, make sure we're not terrorists, war criminals, felons, rapists, or other subversives. It's my Canada too; I don't want those people here. But if we come up clean, then give us our citizenship back, and the citizenship of my children.

I am asking no more and no less than any other Canadian has. It's equality of the law—a novel idea. After 56 years, it's high time Canada joined pretty much all the other nations of the world.

As a final ending, let me quote from an actual history book being taught in Canada in the 1940s. It's called Building the Canadian Nation, by George W. Brown. From the chapter, “Canadian Democracy in Action”, I quote:

--the “civil liberties” they are called, and we can be sure that we shall enjoy them only so long as we value them enough to preserve them. They did not come easily.

Therefore, the responsibility of protecting civil liberties rests where it must always rest in a democracy, on the people themselves. You as committee members have the power to effect real change in Canada, just like they did in the civil rights of the 1960s. In your actions you are writing Canadian history. Interestingly, I happen to know there are some actual members of Parliament and some of their spouses falling under these laws. There are Canadians living in Canada who don't even know they are not Canadian, and some are members of Parliament. So when you're effecting this act, you just might be affecting your own legislation and that of your grandchildren.

Á (1130)

As always, do unto others: peace, order, and good government. Certainly equality of rights has something to do with all three.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Magali and Don. Both presentations were very good.

Magali, you were very specific about having no other citizenship at this time, I believe.

Don, one of the questions that is very pertinent to that issue is whether you're in the same category of having no citizenship. Is that accurate or inaccurate?

Mr. Don Chapman: It's not only that. I put out a web page and have had other responses on it. It's not just me. I've heard from World War II veterans. One gentleman got his citizenship back. It was 1970. It took him four years. He got a knock on the door and it was an RCMP officer saying, “Are you Patrick Forbes?” When he said yes, they told him to come with them. When he asked what he had done they told him, “You are an American. You have an appointment with Vietnam.” We also know that 30 Canadians have their names on the wall in Vietnam. Does Canada have blood on its hands?

Even though I have never vowed citizenship to another country, I happen to be a 747 pilot in the United States. This is called a CRAF card--Civil Reserve Air Fleet. So it looks like there could be a war, and guess who's going to fly troops? I'm glad to do it, but it is interesting that Canada was embracing draft dodgers and at the same time turning Canadians back to the United States.

Yes, I'm in the same boat.

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

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I want to thank Don and Magali for excellent presentations.

Just for the committee's information, I understand you're getting a copy of my bill. I've been working on Don's case since 1997 when I first met him in Gibsons in my riding. I've gone through a couple of ministers trying to say it didn't make any sense to me. Somebody said to me “I've got this fellow who was born in Canada. He can't....” I said “I don't believe that.” So we started the process of writing ministers, and I could not believe the answers I was getting back. I was told that was the law and he had to apply. One minister even told me “Tell him to apply for his landed immigrant status and I'll give him his citizenship within the year. He won't have to wait the full three years.” I said “This is ridiculous, if you were born in Canada.”

I can understand if somebody leaves this country and stands at the border and says “I'm leaving Canada. I denounce you. I'm going to take out citizenship in France or the United States.” Maybe we should think twice before we invite them back. But somebody who as a child loses their citizenship, through no fault of their own.... It doesn't happen today. It's an old law, and it should be changed.

I went to work with the people who draft bills for the House of Commons, but also the department. We drafted a bill that would solve this problem, if it were used with the present Bill C-18. It's very simple. I think you all have copies of it. It says the enactment is designed to remedy the situation where a person has, as a child, been deprived of their Canadian citizenship as a result of the operation of section 18 of the Canadian Citizenship Act.

Chapter 15 of the Statutes of Canada, 1946, which was enforced until February 14, 1977, provided that a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen upon their responsible parent becoming a citizen of another country. This enactment makes it easier for such a person to regain their Canadian citizenship, as they will no longer have to be established as a permanent resident in order to do so.

It's a very simple change to the act that would allow those Canadians who lost their citizenship through an act of their fathers--not their mothers--to regain what I think is their right and their family's right. It's a very simple draft, and I hope this committee, after listening to this testimony today, will see fit to use this as an amendment when this bill gets to the stage where you're putting amendments to it. I don't need my name on the bill, and I'm sure Don or Magali or all the others don't care about who puts the amendment in, but it's something that should be corrected.

Maybe Don and Magali would like to comment on what it would mean to them, if this were put into Bill C-18 and passed in the next few weeks.

Á (1135)

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: It would mean peace.

Mr. Don Chapman: I would finally be able to call myself what my neighbours and everybody else have called me all these years...[Technical difficulty--Editor]

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

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much for your testimony. I found it quite shocking. As a member of Parliament, let me start by apologizing because this clearly should not be happening. I'm very pleased that John has come in on this.

You mentioned lost Canadians. Do you have any idea how many we're talking about?

Mr. Don Chapman: I think the Benner v. Canada decision affects over 100,000 people, but there are a great deal more--children born outside of Canada. You also have to realize...the law changed in 1977. People have died before they were able to get back. We're some of the younger people here, so I don't know. From the estimates, I would guess it's 10,000 people.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: The term “lost Canadians” is right.

I appreciated your commentary on the policy of the law. That's a very fundamental principle covered by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I don't mean to interrupt, but we're having problems with the equipment, so we're not able to record what you're saying or what witnesses are saying. To have a proper record, we will hold for a minute to find out what the problem is.

May I make a suggestion, folks? The committee room across the way is open. We can walk over there and resume as soon as we get in place. Pick up what you have, move over, and go across the way.

Á (1140)

Á (1146)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard) I'll call us back to order.

Andrew, I apologize for the interruption, but I think we can now get your comments on record. You have the floor.

Á (1150)

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

In these brief few minutes I've become even more shocked as this has been sinking in. The thought that we could have 10,000 more people involved in this certainly makes a mockery, in a way, of section 7 of the charter. I'm not sure if you checked section 7 of the charter, Don, but it says:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

In terms of security of the person, nothing is more fundamental than citizenship. For you to be so stripped of it, I just find it quite incomprehensible. I don't know if you were looking at that.

It's the same with you, Mr. Reynolds. If you look at part 1 of the bill, subclause 5(1) says “A person acquires citizenship at birth if, after the coming into force of this section”. We could take out that second part and just state that “A person acquires citizenship at birth if (a) the person is born in Canada”. That would make it very clear that if you are born in Canada, you get citizenship.

We could put in a proviso to deal with the diplomats and what have you, of course, which we have already done. We could also put in a proviso for cases in which people denounce citizenship. But it would be right up there at the front end, and it would be very clear that a person acquires citizenship at birth, period, and unless you have asked for it to be revoked, it would stand.

I just find this incredible. One of the things that really bothers me...I've been around this committee for quite a number of years, and what I find most shocking is that I didn't know about this. What I'm wondering is why we, at the policy end of things, weren't informed about this by the bureaucracy. I'm sure we'll get a chance to query them on this, because I'm sure the sentiments I have are shared by all members of the House. This is just an outrage.

Someplace along the line we had a breakdown in communication. To me, this is a slam dunk. We shouldn't even be debating it, because it shouldn't exist. Clearly we have an opportunity to correct this, and I again make the comment that we should look at clause 5, as well as the others, in terms of fixing this.

Nothing is more fundamental to people than their citizenship, and I really feel bad about the struggles you have gone through, along with other people like yourselves. We'll do our best to get that—

Mr. Don Chapman: It's particularly interesting when you travel through airports and you're coming through Canadian Customs. When they ask to see my identification, I show them my Canadian birth certificate and a Royal Canadian Legion card, since I'm a member of the legion. They then say to me that I haven't filled out the country of citizenship. I say that's what I'm there for them to decide. They start writing in Canadian and I say, no, I'm not Canadian. They get in an argument with me and say I am Canadian. I again say, no, I'm not Canadian but I wish I was, and that I'll take it if they'll give it to me.

So thank you for your support.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi Thank you very much.

Á (1155)

[Translation]

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

First off, I'd like to thank our two witnesses for appearing. Their testimony illustrates very clearly the shortcomings in our laws because laws are made by human beings. You've given us a fine example of how lawmakers can be incompetent. This is a case where the law has suppressed that which is legitimate, morally right and ethically desirable. Each time legislation adversely affects a person's fundamental... I understand perfectly that it's as important for you to be Canadians as it is for me to be a Quebecker. I understand that perfectly.

As I see it, even with my relative lack of expertise in this area, it would be a relatively simple matter to make the law worthy of this millennium. And I would even take it a step further. When you say that 10,000 people are unaware of the fact that legally speaking, they are not Canadian citizens, that's an incredible number of people. Therefore, if the legislation is amended as John is proposing it be -- and I thank him for this initiative -- we have an obligation to seek out and inform the individuals concerned. In my view, that's absolutely essential.

Of course, this will entail some costs and perhaps the Finance Minister won't be too happy about it, but finance ministers can't always be happy and I think Parliament has a duty to take steps to rectify the situation.

I recall the story of one person who left for Australia and who was convinced that he was still a Canadian citizen. When he returned to Canada, he discovered that that was no longer the case. There are many such stories.

Thank you both for your presentations. Most likely we'll have good reason for celebrating before the end of June.

[English]

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

Now we'll hear from John, and we'll come back to Judy, Diane, and Lynn.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I'm struggling with this a little bit. Let me get it straight. What are your nationalities now, if any?

Mr. Don Chapman: I have never vowed citizenship to any other country. I happened to be given U.S. citizenship, so I have that, but Canada made minor children stateless.

You'll be hearing about the situation of one gentleman in Halifax. He was born in Canada, but his brothers were born in the United States. His brothers are Canadian and he is not. This has split up families.

In my brother's and sister's case, they are Canadian adopted children. They are Canadians today, but I'm not. There are some kids who were stateless. So the question is...it varies depending on the individual.

Mr. John Bryden: Would you be prepared to give up your American citizenship if you were given Canadian citizenship?

Mr. Don Chapman: I was extremely well prepared to do so when I was 18 years of age, but now that would be asking for something that is specific to me. I've always been a Canadian--a Canadian first. But you're now asking me to also give up my job, because the United States has securities in place for airline pilots. Now I almost have be an American to fly on a U.S. airline.

So, yes, I'm Canadian--I'd have no problem--but then you would also be asking me to give up something nobody else in this room or no other Canadian has to give up.

Mr. John Bryden: Don't worry about it. This is hypothetical. This is an emotional thing and I....

Mr. Don Chapman: Absolutely it's emotional. I'm Canadian. I've never been an American, ever.

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: I am Canadian, and I am still Canadian. I have held this passport through my whole life. I was born here and I have been issued this passport every five years.

In October 2001 I received a letter from Citizenship and Immigration saying I was no longer Canadian because of actions my father took in 1975. But because this matter is before you and before the courts now, because I suddenly have been thrust forward--all five foot one of me--into the judicial system, and I have a test case before the courts....

I was married in 1988, and my husband is Swiss-American. Consequently, I am Swiss through marriage, which doesn't pose a problem at all. As I mentioned in my speech, because my father was born in France, they are saying, as of 1975 you're no longer Canadian, because your father became American. I said to them, what does that leave me, stateless? I have a document as well, as I mentioned, that shows that I have no right to American citizenship, so what does it leave me? Am I stateless? They said, oh no, you became French, which is easy for them. But the whole thing with the French citizenship came into our lives in 1988, when dual citizenship was allowed in Canada. So even if that were all true and they were going to prove I was French, dual citizenship is allowed as of 1977, if I understand things correctly. But even today I hold this valid Canadian passport and I have Canadian citizenship.

Â (1200)

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

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I want to thank both Magali and Don for their presentations. I'm sorry I missed the oral presentations, but I've glanced through the written briefs and appreciate the testimony.

I think the real question for all of us is Andrew's, which is how, in the process of looking at updating a law that's been in place for over 25 years, we didn't receive some information from departmental officials about this outstanding matter that seems to be based on antiquated views of the world, as Magali says in her brief, from a time when women and children were considered property of the man and of the father. It just floors all of us, I think, that this wasn't at least put on the table for us to consider at the start of the process. But it's not too late.

I have two questions. I think the logical thing would be to accommodate your concerns in Bill C-18 under clause 5, and we should push for that. I just want to know if that's adequate.

Second, Don, when you've written to the government before, they've always come back to you and said, it's not a problem, there's a provision under the Citizenship Act for resumption of citizenship for a person who has ceased to be a Canadian citizen, as long as they meet two requirements, lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence and residence in Canada as a landed immigrant for at least one year. Therefore, they are saying you could apply for permanent residence. My question is, what's wrong with that?

Mr. Don Chapman: I have applied to Canada for landed immigrant status. I am in the process, but it's a very long process. What's wrong with it? There are a lot of people over the age of 50. We're some of the younger ones--I'm 48. So in the next couple of years we won't have enough points to qualify to come back. I have one gentleman who is a World War II veteran who applied, and they wrote him back and said, we don't want you back. Somebody might have a medical condition. Somehow it might be that somebody doesn't qualify. Either way, it's not an option for everybody, despite the fact that it sounds good.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Magali.

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: They said the same thing to me. To me, as you mentioned before, Mr. Telegdi, it's an emotional connection with Canada. I am not an immigrant; I was born here. Yes, I left for the United States as a minor with my parents, but we kept ties with Canada through my entire life. My mother was born here; she's Québécoise. I was raised bilingually. She maintained her citizenship through her whole life, and she's being denied her rights right now to protect me in keeping my citizenship. I don't want to apply for immigrant status. I'm not an immigrant. I have lived here for the past year and a half, and I have shown Canada that I came back here after living 16 years in Switzerland and my feet hit the ground running.

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

I want to give us a timeline. We started nine minutes late and took six minutes to move. We have 15 minutes left. I have three people, and Madeleine would like another point, so we'll try in that fifteen minutes to get everybody on.

Diane.

Â (1205)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): I have just two points, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the witnesses for very effective presentations. You really covered the salient points.

I know that the government and other parties have a commitment to look at all legislation through the lens of its fairness to women. This clearly fails that test big time. On that grounds alone, we on the committee should redress that injustice and that imbalance. I know from talking to Mr. Reynolds about his bill that when he discussed it previously, when he brought it out with the minister at the time and the department, the bureaucracy said it had no problem with his bill. I suspect there was a little inertia that kept this matter from being dealt with, because then you have to deal with that extra application and you have to issue proper documents and all of that. It's just easier to ignore one or two applicants rather than do the thing right.

I think that now that the new citizenship act is coming in, this is a perfect time to make sure it is crafted in a way that redresses this imbalance, because we're dealing with changes to the bill in any case, so it isn't just a one-off situation. I think there is a willingness on the part of the committee to strongly recommend this.

I wonder if you could help us. A number of us have mentioned our shock and surprise that this situation was not brought to our attention as an issue with respect to citizenship when we're looking at dealing with upgrading, updating, and modernizing the act. Do you have any information for us as to the attitudes you have received from your applications, or any response that would explain why this situation has not been addressed?

Mr. Don Chapman: Yes, I do have that. Basically it says, you know the laws, conform to them, goodbye, that's my response.

I'd be happy to share anything you like. If there's anything I can do to change this law, I will help, but that is the official response.

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

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: This story really came out for me 12 years ago when I was living in Switzerland and my first-born son, Julien, was born. At that time I applied for his Canadian citizenship because I had a Canadian passport. So it was when I was living in Switzerland and applied for his citizenship that this started coming out. The response was, “Your father became an American so you're no longer Canadian.” What does that have to do with anything, I thought, my mother is still Canadian. Doesn't that do anything?

Concerning the attitudes I've had, I feel that when I've come across officials working in the embassies they've been helpful. They appeared to be pleasant and wanting to help, yet in reality that's not what they were doing.

In the past year it's been much more blatant than that. I can honestly tell you I have been lied to. When I asked the woman who wrote this letter to me in October right out why she wanted this official document from the French embassy officials, and I asked her if it would affect my Canadian citizenship, she answered me, no, it will be a matter of process, and I will issue your boy's certificates. Three weeks later I got a letter saying, thank you for the document you sent us, you're no longer Canadian. I find that shocking.

I feel I've been honest with all the officials I've met. I wrote on an application that I'm Canadian. On all the papers that we have had given to us in this process a lot of information had to be provided. I've provided that information, as requested by those documents, honestly, and I expect people to deal with me honestly. That hasn't been the case.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard) In the interest of getting everybody in, John, you said you have 30 seconds, and we're going to Sarkis right after. We'll give John 30 seconds, and I have Lynne, if she has anything further, and Madeleine. Then John has asked for another second. So if everybody keeps it as short as we can, I'll try not to interject, and we'll get everybody on for that remaining time.

John.

Â (1210)

Mr. John Reynolds: I just want to make one comment because of John's comments about whether you'd become a Canadian or an American.

I've known Don for a while now. He's very modest and probably wouldn't tell you this, but his family has a very large charitable trust of which Don is now the chairman. That family has donated money to universities, both in Ontario and British Columbia, in the millions of dollars in the last few years, and other causes in Canada, as well as many in the United States. But they're very good citizens of Canada, even if they don't have their citizenship.

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

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank you for your very nice, moving presentation. It's especially moving for me. I was not born here. I did not lose my citizenship; I earned my citizenship. It took only five years. I came in 1970, and in 1975 I was a citizen. I notice that you have been here longer than me. It's really, really odd. But I'd like to thank you for your strong commitment to Canada.

I have a couple of questions.

Ms. Castro-Gyr, you have a passport here. It expires July 15, 2003. You received a letter from the immigration department saying you are no longer a citizen. What happens after July 15? Do you get the passport or do you not? What's the story?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: It's an excellent question. It's a question I'm asking myself, and I'm addressing Citizenship: What do I do in July when my passport expires?

To live in Canada, you don't have to have a passport. In anything I do here, the first thing people will say is, do you have a birth certificate? That's all I need to show. When I show my birth certificate, which is the only document I have, I am Canadian in the eyes of everyone. For example, I was able to sponsor my husband.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Because of shortness of time, I want to ask one more question.

To get a passport with a Quebec birth certificate, I believe there were some changes there. I don't recall, but I want to comment on that.

The other point I'd like to ask is if it's possible to share with the committee the letter you received from Immigration. Maybe you can leave it with the clerk so we can share the correspondence.

If you could answer those two questions....

Also, I have a question for Mr. Chapman. You said you were given U.S. citizenship. How did they give you that? Just out of the blue they gave you citizenship?

Mr. Don Chapman: I woke up one day and they said, congratulations, you are a U.S. citizen. I was seven years old. I remember sitting under the Peace Arch Park that separates Canada and the United States, in Blaine, looking up and seeing children of a common mother and thinking, “But I'm Canadian; I don't want to be an American.” The feelings have stayed all my life. So it just happened.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So when you were seven they said, here it is, you are an American citizen.

Mr. Don Chapman: It was handed to me.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You are an American citizen. They never changed your name, though.

Mr. Don Chapman: It happened.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Could you answer the other two questions, please, if you don't mind?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: What will I do when my passport expires? I'm still trying to find the answer to that question. My case is before the courts, and I'm hoping it will be settled way before then. I don't know.

I live here. I've bought a house here. I'm working here. I don't know.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How about the provincial...? You live in Vancouver now, you say?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: I live in Kelowna, British Columbia.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: How about provincial health care systems? You share all those benefits--

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: Yes

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: --but you are not a citizen?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: I am.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: As of July 13 you won't be a citizen, when your passport expires.

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: This is the question we're trying to answer here, I think. A Canadian passport does say that the bearer of this passport is Canadian. But the fact that I don't have a passport doesn't mean I'm not Canadian, because I have a birth certificate that shows that I'm born in Canada. You have legislative laws that say people born in Canada are Canadian. But there are a lot of Canadians who do not have passports.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If you asked for an extension on this passport, what would happen to it?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: I haven't asked for an extension.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Why don't you ask for it and see what happens?

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: Okay. I'll call you and tell you.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

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

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's fine. Mr. Assadourian asked my question.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Okay, good, Madeleine. Thank you.

Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) I really just want to thank you both very much for sharing this with us.

I have been on immigration for two years, and I've heard a lot of sad stories at that end, but I think this is one of the most shocking. As Andrew says, this should be a slam-dunk deal. You shouldn't even be wasting any more time or money. That is the next most shocking thing, that you would actually be spending $20,000, being born in Quebec--and raised, and working. I just cannot believe it.

Thank you.

Â (1215)

Mr. Don Chapman: By the way, I own a home in Canada.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: To be told to apply for immigrant status....

Mr. Don Chapman: My daughters march in the annual Canada Day parade.

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: My sons do too.

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

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Magali and Don, we appreciate....

I'm sorry, John.

Mr. John Bryden: I have just one quick question. I've asked this same question of many categories of people over the last eight years on this committee, but you're a special category, an entirely different category, so I'm going to ask it of you now. What's so special about being Canadian?

Mr. Don Chapman: I think it was Andrew who answered that question, or it might have been you.

It's who you are; it's who you identify with. It's a part of me, and it's just who I am, who my family was. You know, my family goes back to the roots of this country. I have a great-great-uncle who's pictured among the Fathers of Confederation. My grandmother taught me as a little child, don't forget that you are Canadian. It was a part of me; it's who I am.

Mr. John Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that when I was in Miami on vacation, I met with the Canadian consul in Miami. He told me that Canada Day on the west coast of Florida had 40,000 people there, and on the east coast, for the francophone Canada Day, there were 100,000. So if you wonder why it's great to be a Canadian, even when you're down in the States on vacation, we show up for a Canada Day celebration.

Mr. Don Chapman: John, when I went to the Olympics in Sydney, Australia, I went to the whitewater rafting. The Canadian was in absolutely last place at that event, and it was the only country that had all the other athletes cheering the Canadian on, including me.

Ms. Magali Castro-Gyr: You ask what's so special. To answer, I think what makes it special for me is that I can actually embrace both sides of Canada. I have been raised fully bilingual. I have family in Quebec, and I can embrace the French-speaking side and the whole cultural and heritage background that brings with it, as I can embrace the English-speaking side and all its culture.

Several times in my speech I think I mentioned that Canada is known nationally and internationally for its compassion and its humanity, and I think that's what's so special about being Canadian. We have compassion, and to deny me of this is just absolutely un-Canadian. My children feel that they're Canadian.

Mr. John Bryden: I think you answered the question with exactly the answer that I thought was there. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Magali and Don. We very much appreciate your straightforwardness. Your presentations were well put, and as a committee we will make certain your testimony is brought forward properly.

I'm glad no one answered “the oath” to John's question, because that would have been something John would have smiled at. You don't know that; that's a little bit of inside information. He has been working at changing the oath ever since he has been coming to the committee.

But we appreciate it, and your information will be taken forward.

Ladies and gentlemen, before everyone is up and gone, we do have another witness and some very important testimony to come forward. So we will change witnesses and carry on.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call us back to order again, including you, John.

We have two witnesses from the Canadian Jewish Congress, Jack Silverstone and Eric Vernon. Jack Silverstone is the executive vice-president and general counsel at this point in time. Eric is the director of government relations.

Welcome, gentlemen. We very much appreciate you coming before the committee.

Jack, I'll leave the floor to you. Usually, as you are well aware, presentations are kept to approximately 10 to 15 minutes. Then there'll be a general question period after that.

Jack has a plane to catch at 2:15, so we'll try to wrap this up in a half an hour to 45 minutes.

Jack, the floor is yours.

Â (1220)

Mr. Jack Silverstone (Executive Vice-President and General Counsel, Canadian Jewish Congress): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

First of all, I apologize for the fact that our written submission is in English only. We ran out of time this morning. We made changes up until the last minute and we didn't have enough time to get the text translated into French. I ask for your understanding, and again, we apologize. Thank you.

[English]

The Canadian Jewish Congress, Mr. Chairman, is the national organizational voice of the Jewish community of Canada. It was founded in 1919. Its head office is in Montreal. Its national office is here in Ottawa. We have regional offices throughout the country.

Our organization's mandate extends to combating all forms of racism, anti-Semitism, discrimination, and intolerance in this country, and working with our fellow Canadians toward building Canadian values, multiculturalism, and opportunity for all in this country.

Our nexus with the issue of citizenship and citizenship legislation primarily, but not exclusively, revolves around the issue of suspected war criminals in Canada. This is an issue that has been on our agenda since the 1950s, and unfortunately it is still on the agenda today.

A further point of connection to the issue of citizenship now, certainly post-9/11, but on our agenda prior to 9/11, is the issue of terrorism and the desirability of Canada for terrorists seeking haven and a base of operations, and I suspect seeking citizenship from time to time.

On the issue of suspected war criminals, suspected Nazi war criminals, and suspected war criminals from contemporary conflicts, the landmark piece of work in this field was the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Nazi War Criminals, presided over by the former Chief Justice of Quebec, the late Mr. Justice Jules Deschênes, who in 1987 submitted his very comprehensive report. I suspect there are not too many copies available any more. We guard ours jealously.

[Translation]

The report was also translated into French and copies are available in French. I have one such copy, but they are hard to come by.

[English]

In that report Mr. Justice Deschênes made a number of important recommendations dealing with the issue of suspected Nazi war criminals in Canada. One of the most important recommendations, which unfortunately was not implemented by the government at the time, was that the procedures for revocation of citizenship and deportation be consolidated, so as to prevent an endless number of appeals and court proceedings that would drag a matter out to the point where it would become an issue of justice delayed being justice denied. Unfortunately, that recommendation in the made-in-Canada solution that was adopted by the government in 1987 was not implemented. We have seen, I fear, the unfortunate results of that, as now we're here some 15 or 16 years after the report having not really been successful in dealing with suspected Nazi war criminals via the criminal route, for other reasons, and via the denaturalization and deportation route. There are cases extant as we speak. I will avoid addressing specific cases, because they are, in certain instances, before the courts, but it has been a frustrating and disturbing process. We have had minimal results, and I am confident that one of the reasons is that the procedures for revocation of citizenship and subsequent deportation were not consolidated in the first place. We have in fact changed our policy and our position over the past couple of years. We are here today to support judicializing the system.

As you know, the revocation of citizenship procedure rests with the Governor in Council, predicated upon a notice being sent to the suspected individual, who then applies to the Federal Court. Once the Federal Court makes a determination as to the fact that citizenship was obtained by misrepresentation, it's then up to the Governor in Council to remove that citizenship. We believe there are cases pending that require urgent attention by the government. They have been on the docket for too long. There have been interminable court proceedings. I am a lawyer by profession, and I have the highest respect for the court structure, but as I said, justice delayed can be justice denied. We urge the government, in the context of this legislation, to discharge its responsibilities with existing cases. Given the fact that the situation has been so unsatisfactory for so long, the current legislation, which goes some way towards implementing Mr. Justice Deschêne's recommendation in consolidating the system for revocation of citizenship and deportation, would be useful in cases in future for suspected war criminals who may have reached our shores from contemporary conflicts, of which there have been numerous reports.

Â (1225)

Currently, we believe it requires a two-step solution. The cases that are extant now need to be dealt with by the current system. The legislation you have before you and are considering now is the correct step, given the experience we've had over the past fifteen or more years.

In the interest of time, I would like, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to call on my colleague Mr. Vernon to highlight a few of the more trenchant provisions in our recommendations, and we would then be very pleased to accept questions.

Â (1230)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): If you could keep it as concise as possible, it would help.

Mr. Eric Vernon (Director of Government Relations, Canadian Jewish Congress): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly will do that. In fact, you have the summary of our recommendations before you, at the back of our brief. I just want to highlight a couple of things.

During the testimony of the previous witnesses the questions were asked, what is so special about being Canadian and why are they making that effort to make sure their Canadian citizenship is on solid footing? We've suggested that one thing to do is include a preamble. There is a very useful purpose clause in this legislation, but it might be beneficial to elaborate on some of the things that do make Canada special. We are, after all, working on legislation designed to protect Canadian citizenship, but also to celebrate it, and it would be useful up front if there were a statement by the Parliament of Canada indicating what it is that is so precious about Canada. We've offered some draft wording. We acknowledge the effort of Senator Noel Kinsella, who included something along these lines in a draft bill he put forward in the Senate a little while ago. So that's one thing we bring to your attention for consideration.

We also would draw to your attention that it would be helpful to have the legislation indicate that the minister has the discretion to consider humanitarian and compassionate factors. It was indicated in the briefing material from the minister that this was in place, but it might be important to put that into the statute, so that it's there for sure.

We would like also, in clause 16, to have used the language we've put in there under our third bullet in the summary recommendations, to make sure there are no time bars or statutes of limitations that apply to any of these cases.

There have been a number of briefs working their way through the NGO community--I imagine you'll be hearing from some of them, if you haven't already--that have some concerns about clauses 17 and 18. We don't necessarily share all those concerns, but out of respect for their perspectives, we've suggested that perhaps there be a five-year review of those sections, to see if their concerns are borne out or not.

The last recommendation I'll draw to your attention deals with clause 21. Under the last round of legislation there was an attempt to use the phrase “in the public interest” as the main criterion for the ministerial authority to keep people out. There was a lot of concern expressed about that phrase being too vague. The legislative drafters in this case have used the term “principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. Our view is that for greater clarity it should say “principles and values underlying Canada's free and democratic society”, because although we certainly share values and principles with our sister democracies, they don't all play out in exactly the same way. We've given the example of free speech laws as one where we differ dramatically from the United States. This is one important example.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll conclude my remarks, and we invite questions.

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

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you for this, and particularly for being so specific. That's very helpful to us.

I wonder if you could just summarize what your main concern is, what the problem or the issue is you would like to have addressed, and why you would like us to address it.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: As my colleague has pointed out, and if you look at the preamble we had proposed, for us, Canadian citizenship is a very precious and very valuable thing.

In the late forties and throughout the fifties, for a variety of reasons, which we really don't have time to go into here--historical reasons, cold war reasons--a number of individuals who participated in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Second World War came to this country.

When the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals was established in 1985 under the chairmanship of Justice Deschênes, very extensive hearings were conducted. The members of his counsel were Mr. Yves Fortier and Senator Michael Meighen. At the end of the procedure he produced this report in which he suggested a number of remedies for dealing with suspected Nazi war criminals in Canada. One of those remedies was the removal of citizenship and then deportation. That was not the only remedy. At the time the government of the day said, no, we prefer criminal prosecution, but they never said they weren't going to consider extradition or denaturalization.

For a variety of reasons up until the mid-nineties, successive governments held to that policy. Some time toward the latter part of the nineties they decided that in fact Mr. Justice Deschênes had some very good ideas with regard to denaturalization being a useful remedy in terms of removing people who should not have had the citizenship in the first place...first removing their citizenship and then deporting them.

The problem is that the process is a two-step process, and it becomes a very lengthy process, with each procedure having a certain number of statutory or by-leave appeals to various levels of court. The end result has been that effectively nobody has yet been removed from this country, even though there have been findings by the Federal Court that they did obtain their citizenship under false pretences or by misrepresentation or by fraud, relating primarily to their history during the Second World War.

We had always taken the position that the removal of citizenship would correctly be within the hands of the cabinet, after a finding by the Federal Court. Our experience over the past several years has been--for reasons that I suggest persons other than myself would be best able to answer--that they have not discharged that responsibility with alacrity and with the speed that's necessary, given the fact that these criminal events and the individuals who perpetrated them and the victims are getting very old now and already many years have been lost.

Consequently, we believe that the current legislation, which is proposing in a way to amalgamate the procedures, is appropriate at this point in time. That marks a change in our policy, and we believe it is the correct thing to do to proceed with having this in the hands of the courts rather than in the hands of the cabinet.

I should correct something. I indicated that nobody was removed from Canada. That's not correct. I apologize. There was one removal from this country that preceded the criminal procedures. It goes back to the late eighties, and that's the case of Luitjens in Vancouver who was removed from Canada and deported to Holland where he served a sentence for collaboration during the war.

So that's the essence of it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I think I had better defer to other members.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I appreciate that.

John.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Silverstone, isn't it true that the courts, when they come to consider legislation, are not obligated to consider a preamble? I like your preamble, but my problem with your preamble is that while it has been a habit of this government to create nicely worded preambles, you will agree that the courts can ignore preambles, and they usually do.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: Nevertheless, preambles do have weight in terms of interpreting statutes, certainly, as do the records of proceedings in terms of adopting statutes. While courts are not obliged to consider them as part of the legislation, they sometimes do have a persuasive effect, and they certainly have a salutary effect on general Canadians who may want to have a better understanding of the purpose of the legislation.

Â (1235)

Mr. John Bryden: The point is, however, that they're not part of the actual law.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: No, they're not.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Mr. Vernon, I really like the point you made about how the expression “free and democratic society” in clause 21 is inadequate. I think you've given a perfect example of it, and there are many other examples that could be brought forward.

However, your suggestion changes the wording so that it says “the principles and values underlying Canada's free and democratic society”. Wouldn't it be more effective simply to change those words to the “principles and values of Canada's Constitution, which includes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms”? Why shouldn't we just mention the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which contains, of course, Canada's principal values underlying our democratic society?

Mr. Eric Vernon: There is merit to that, Mr. Bryden, but I think this phrasing goes beyond that. I think it certainly captures that, but it talks about...at least in our minds, it also deals with certain Canadian values of decency, civility, tolerance, and multiculturalism. Maybe these things are captured by the Constitution and by the charter in a legal way, but if we restrict it only to that, then I think we're perhaps doing a little bit of a disservice.

Mr. John Bryden: But, Mr. Vernon, I point out that clause 21 is a powerful section that gives the minister the opportunity to refuse a person who wishes to take an oath of citizenship. Surely, then, we want to be specific in the law in terms of what it is we're instructing the minister to be guided by. I therefore come back to the point about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Silverstone, would you like to get in on that, as a lawyer?

Mr. Jack Silverstone: I think your point is well taken, but I think our point is well taken as well. Frankly, I'm not sure what the best way to do it is. What we are trying to capture here is that the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and many other countries are free and democratic societies, but they have different ways of interpreting what the extent of freedom and democracy mean, not necessarily better and not necessarily worse. My colleague endeavoured to give the obvious example, that being that we have laws against hate speech in Canada. They do not have them in the United States, but that does not make the U.S. less free and democratic. We simply believe these represent fundamental Canadian values.

The Constitution and the charter as part of it are documents that reflect those values, certainly. In a way, I suspect the words “free and democratic society” are more emotive, if you will, than “charter”, but I don't—

Mr. John Bryden: I want to say that you are lawyers, and surely you would want to instruct ministers to obey laws, to be guided by laws, rather than to be guided by gut feelings or senses of decency. Again, then, I come back to the point, because it's a very important point. Surely what defines us as Canadians in law, in terms of the principles and values and rule of law and all the rest of it, is the Constitution, and specifically the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which I don't think even the United Kingdom has at this time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thanks, John. It's a very good point, but I'm not going to belabour it. I think everybody has had an opportunity.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good morning, sirs.

I agree with you that justice delayed is ultimately justice denied. However, when the justice process moves too quickly, this can also result in justice denied. With respect to Bill C-18, my party and I agree in so far as the principle is concerned. However, we are concerned about certain provisions, specifically the elimination of the appeals process every time a matter of State security is involved.

I can appreciate that when it comes to war crimes -- and obviously, war crimes affect State security since they affect personal security as well -- it's abundantly clear that Bill C-18 needs to be amended to formally acknowledge that Canada is a constitutional state, because miscarriages of justice do occur. You've been around long enough to know that.

I realize that as time passes, horrific crimes that have been committed could...Sometimes, there's no one left to continue the fight! I understand that, but I maintain that even so -- and I'm not a lawyer, thank God -- the first rule must be to proceed with caution and with an eye to justice.

I haven't had time yet to go over your appended proposals thoroughly. What I have seen...I have no problem with certain provisions that I can very well see enforced in Canada. When I glanced at the appended proposals, I asked myself if I would like to see some of these elements incorporated in a Quebec bill respecting citizenship and citizenship revocation. Naturally, I'd make some changes, but I do find the proposals rather interesting. There's nothing further to say. To maintain that it was perfect...

Â (1240)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Madeleine. I think that was more a general statement you were making, and that's fine. If you care to try to respond, that's fine too.

[Translation]

Mr. Jack Silverstone: After listening to Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, what more could I say? Nothing at all.

[English]

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

Judy, then Andrew.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I'll say ditto to Madeleine's comments. I think she made a very eloquent statement, and it reflects the general feelings of people at this committee. I particularly appreciate the recommended wording with respect to the preamble, and I think even Mr. Bryden, although he posed a tough question to you, appreciates that words matter, and that's precisely why he's suggesting new wording for the oath of citizenship. I think both proposals need to be looked at carefully in view of the reality of Canadian life and our history and commitment to recognizing the need for integration, not assimilation, and to fight on every turn against any intolerance or signs of hatred and racism.

That's my general statement. My question, though, is this--I think I know the answer, but I want to check. We had a presentation from David Matas, and he basically said he thinks Bill C-18 is an improvement on the existing act, but he sees two problems: the fact that the power to deport doesn't match the power to revoke, and also that you go through the Federal Court trial division to get to the Court of Appeal on an automatic basis, rather than on the basis of written permission. I think you've dealt with that through points three and four in your summary list, and then down further in relation to clause 21, but I'd like to hear from you if that's an adequate summary of the outstanding major concerns with respect to this whole area, and if you can point out to me where you're addressing those issues in the summary.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: To begin, I would say that we were dealing with this piece of legislation primarily from a citizenship perspective. I concur with the view that the power to deport is not precisely equivalent to the revocation issue, but it's a complicated issue.

The value of revocation lies not only in the fact that it's a preamble to deportation. It's also a statement, a very strong statement, to people who obtain citizenship improperly in the first place that this is not acceptable in this country.

The deportation issue is a very complicated procedure that involves other legislation and other legal challenges and legal channels. The problem is real, but it's not necessarily going to be resolved by this legislation. It is an issue.

Â (1245)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I think you deal with it under the Federal Court of Appeal. It's your point five, I think.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: We believe it is preferable to have the appeal by leave, not automatically. We have always called for due process to be available to everyone in this country, regardless of what they're accused of. Due process, when it becomes an interminable series of appeals, tends to demean or devalue the process ultimately.

We have the results of the situation now. We have individuals who have been found to have lied about their war records and obtained Canadian citizenship. They are still here, even though courts have produced extensive judgments indicating that the weight of evidence indicates that they did lie. Had the information been available, they never would have been admissible in the first place.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you. It's a matter of time.

Andrew, you're up next.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation and for coming to this committee. I'm very pleased to see, and I applaud, your switch in policy to now favour a judicial process versus the one where the politicians are improperly involved.

I think the Jewish Congress and I will continue to disagree in terms of how we do the citizenship revocation process and on the standards we apply.

I happen to believe in section 7 of the charter. It talks about the security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I can appreciate the urgency that you might be coming at it from as an organization. I can also appreciate that there are almost six million Canadians who are citizens by choice, not by birth. As we heard, there was some very dramatic testimony on citizenship from people here previous to you. I think it's very much an emotional issue to those of us who are not born in this country, including the new parliamentary secretary. That's where we will disagree.

Quite genuinely, I applaud your position to come back to a judicial process that is preferable to the one where we have politicians making decisions they're not qualified to make.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jack Silverstone: May I, Mr. Chair?

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

Mr. Jack Silverstone: Thank you for your comments. I only want to clarify that we favour the change going forward, but not for existing cases. I want to clarify that there's not going to be a retroactive change. The cases that are before your governor in council now are before the governor in council. We don't expect that they will be altered.

I do want to also indicate to you that we have the utmost regard for the six million Canadians who are Canadians by choice. My grandparents and great grandparents are among people who came to this country by choice. We have the utmost regard for that.

Obviously, it's the exceptions that need to be dealt with, not the overwhelming majority of individuals who choose this country to make a home and to make a life. It's those who abuse the privilege that we are interested in.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I wouldn't disagree with you on that, except that if we're going to revoke citizenship, I want to make sure we don't make any mistake in the process, just as Madeleine has mentioned. I think its very important, because, yes, in some cases, the guilty will go free because we don't want to execute an innocent person. This has always been the fundamental basis of our judicial system.

It's an issue, and I'm sure we will continue to disagree on it. I know where your position is, and you know my position. But I appreciate the fact that you recognize that eliminating the politician, or the political involvement, in the process is a welcome thing and better conforms to the charter than the present situation does. That's all.

Â (1250)

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

Mr. Eric Vernon: Mr. Chair, if I may make one quick comment, I think it's important to keep in mind that accelerating the process doesn't necessarily mean that shortcuts are going to be made or that due process is going to be denied in any significant way. In fact, if you go through the way the system is designed, there is eminent due process available with layers of appeal. So we're not talking about doing anything that would fundamentally betray our commitment to due process and to the rule of law.

All we're asking is that the extraneous elements and duplication of processes be removed, that the processes be streamlined, and that where there is some discretion at the judicial level for continuances and hearing defence motions, the time factor be taken into account.

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

Does anybody else have any further comments?

I would say to you, Jack and Eric, thank you very much for coming forward and presenting your views. They will be dealt with appropriately by the committee, and we thank you for your time.

Mr. Eric Vernon: Thanks for having us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): To the rest of the committee members, before you slide away, I've got a question.

I raised three issues at the beginning of the meeting. It's fine to go ahead on February 6 with the meeting on identity cards with the minister. The second issue I raised was about the meeting with Australian minister, tentatively scheduled at this point in time for February 25. We'll plan this.

The third issue was the report on Inky Mark's presentation. We have the parliamentary secretary here today. There could have been a lot of reasons why the time period lapsed; the minister could have been away. Sarkis, could you check why and give us the reasoning at 1 p.m. on Thursday? There hasn't been a response up to this point in time. If Sarkis came back with the answer, it may be a pretty simple answer rather than having a major discussion. Would this be adequate for the committee?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When was it due?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You mentioned the response was due when?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): The timeline was that it be due yesterday. As I understand it, the minister was going to.... There was the potential for clarification today, but this did not happen—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It was basically due yesterday and we didn't get it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Therefore, we as a committee are obliged to ask for the reasoning. Okay?

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay. Thank you.

That's my question as the PS.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We're adjourned, ladies and gentlemen.