Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 5 - Evidence - Meeting of April 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 10, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:45 a.m. to examine Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Today we will study Bill C-37. Let me review the format we will follow. First, we will hear from Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is here with officials from the department. After that, we will have a panel of representatives who have observations to make about what they see are possible shortcomings to the proposed legislation. Then we will have another panel of representatives concerned with speedy passage of Bill C-37.
Once we have heard from all the witnesses, we will decide as a committee how we want to proceed and whether we want to begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37 today or at our meeting next Wednesday. At the end, we have the budget of the committee and its subcommittees for all of the work for the coming fiscal year. Do not leave, honourable senators, until we get to the budget.
This first segment will be 45 minutes in length. I am pleased to welcome and introduce the Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is the sponsor of the bill.
[Translation]
The Hon. Diane Finley, P.C., M.P., Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to appear before the committee today to address Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act. With me are Karen Mosher, Director General, Citizenship Branch, and Mark Davidson, Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch.
Today, I plan to outline the issues that were considered in the development of Bill C-37, which I tabled in the House on December 10, 2007.
[English]
I should first note, Mr. Chair, that few things in this world are more precious to Canadians than our citizenship. Sadly, due to certain provisions of the existing Citizenship Act and the previous Canadian Citizenship Act, some people who believed in their hearts that they were citizens of this country have discovered that, in fact, they are not Canadian citizens.
For example, some people may have learned this startling news only after they applied for a passport. These are often people who have lived, worked and paid taxes in Canada for years. Needless to say, being informed that you are no longer a citizen of a country, when you previously took it for granted, is no small revelation. It strikes at the very core of one's identity.
That is why, after becoming Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I quickly recognized that the status quo was unacceptable. The many problems with the previous versions of the Citizenship Act simply had to be addressed. I took action, and one the principal fruits of this action is the bill you have before you today.
[Translation]
This bill is a broad and generous legislative solution that will eliminate complex bureaucratic processes and give people the citizenship status they deserve. Through it, we aim to meet several key objectives.
[English]
First, people need stability, simplicity and consistency in their citizenship status. These are elements that did not always exist in the present and previous acts. Citizenship, I believe, should be conferred by law, not by filling in an application. The same rules should apply to everyone.
Second, the legacy of Canadian citizenship should not continue to be passed on through endless generations living abroad. We must protect its value by ensuring that our citizens have a real connection to this country. To do otherwise would be to sell our citizenship short and would not be fair to all those who have come to Canada and made it their home.
[Translation]
Allow me now to explain the issues we are currently addressing with Bill C-37. First, I should note that nothing in these proposals would take away citizenship from anyone who is currently a citizen of Canada.
[English]
Those who have Canadian citizenship when the amendments come into force would remain Canadian citizens. Second, anyone who became a citizen under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 and subsequently lost his or her citizenship would have it restored. Third, anyone who was born in Canada on or after January 1, 1947, and who subsequently lost his or her citizenship, would have it restored. Fourth, anyone who was naturalized as a citizen of Canada on or after January 1, 1947 and subsequently loss his or her citizenship, would have it restored. Finally, those born abroad to a Canadian citizen on or after January 1, 1947, who were not already citizens, would become Canadian citizens if they were the first generation born abroad.
The only exceptions would be those who were born in Canada to foreign diplomats; those who, as adults, renounced their citizenship to the Government of Canada; or those whose citizenship was revoked by the government because it was obtained by fraud.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, these proposed amendments would give Canadian citizenship to individuals who fall into different categories. These include individuals who may have lost citizenship when they took an oath of citizenship in another country and which included a clause that renounced Canadian citizenship.
[English]
They could have been born abroad and lost their Canadian citizenship under the 1947 act because they failed to take the required steps before their twenty-fourth birthday to keep it; or they could be one of the so-called border babies or DND babies, those who, under the 1947 act, were born outside Canada but who did not take necessary steps to register as Canadian citizens.
Bill C-37 would address these problems by giving citizenship retroactively to the date of loss or the date of birth, whichever is applicable. This means that persons who acquire citizenship under the bill would be considered to have always been citizens.
The proposed legislation would also protect citizenship for the future by limiting citizenship to the first generation of those born abroad. This means that subsequent generations born abroad would no longer be given Canadian citizenship automatically. They would, however, as children of Canadian citizens, be able to be sponsored for immigration as long as they are a dependent child. This means that parents would have a generous window of at least 22 years to choose to renew their family's connection to Canada.
As an additional backup, there is a new grant of citizenship for children who have always been stateless. It is important to note that this provision, and indeed the entire citizenship legislation, fully satisfies Canada's international obligations as a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I did not note that in 2005, the Senate, with the support of this committee, initiated an amendment to the Citizenship Act to address the case of children who had lost citizenship when their parents took out citizenship in another country.
[English]
This amendment permitted these persons to apply to resume their Canadian citizenship without having to first become a permanent resident of Canada. Bill C-37 expands and broadens that initiative. I would like to extend my thanks for the actions that the honourable senators took to address this matter in 2005.
Ultimately, Bill C-37 opens Canada's arms once again to almost all of the ``lost Canadians.'' I should add, however, that legislation cannot address every conceivable situation, which is why section 5(4) of the Citizenship Act exists.
This section gives the minister powers to recommend to the Governor-in-Council special grants of citizenship for certain individuals. Since becoming minister, I have used this authority a total of 270 times, and I will continue to do so to resolve deserving cases.
[Translation]
As most of you know, Joe Taylor was one of a group of people who, in light of the provisions of the 1947 Citizenship Act, discovered he was not a Canadian citizen.
[English]
It is important to remember that the modern concept of citizenship in Canada only began on January 1, 1947, when our first citizenship act came into force. This fact has been confirmed time and again by the courts.
Mr. Taylor believed for years that he was a citizen of Canada, and when he found out that he was not, he spent many years trying to become one. The government's issue was not with Mr. Taylor, but rather with the interpretation of the law by the lower court. Once that was resolved, we were pleased to grant Mr. Taylor his Canadian citizenship late last year. He became a citizen in January of this year at a special ceremony held in Vancouver.
With respect to this important legislation, Bill C-37 was approved by the House of Commons in mid-February with one substantive amendment, dealing with the coming-into-force day.
In conclusion, people need to know that their status as citizens is based, as I said earlier, on simplicity, certainty and stability. This has not always been the case with the current and previous citizenship legislation, but it is what we aim to achieve with Bill C-37.
I would like to thank you and the honourable senators for this chance to explain this very important legislation.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I would like to thank you for this chance to explain this important legislation. We would now welcome your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I think we all appreciate this legislation and we congratulate you for bringing it forward. We may want to find out more about some aspects, but it is welcome news and a good direction.
Thank you also for recognizing the work of the Senate and this committee with respect to raising this issue a couple of years ago.
I want to ask about the decision you have made with respect to citizenship beyond first generation. Why was the decision made to cut off citizenship after the first generation, and how does this relate to international practices? Is what you are doing similar to what is done by other countries?
I think we will hear later today about a concern of the Mennonite community, which has to do with people who went to Mexico in the 1920s and were married. The Mexican government subsequently did not recognize that form of marriage; they have a system whereby you are married by the state or under a state authorization. Even though they thought they were citizens, they later found out that this was not the case because of the Mexican government's non- recognition of their marriage. Could you describe how that matter is covered by this legislation?
Finally, on the question of the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, you said in your openings remarks that you fully comply with that. Some people think it is a bare minimum requirement as opposed to something more than that. How many people might be in that stateless situation? Will this cut down on that substantially, or will there still be many in that category?
Ms. Finley: To talk about the first aspect of it, we believe that citizenship has a value — Canadian citizenship in particular. There are many people, especially these days, who would love to claim Canadian citizenship because it brings with it a cachet that few other citizenships do in the world.
That being said, we believe that to have that citizenship, one should have a significant attachment to Canada. Under previous legislation, as long as you could trace back to your great- or great-great-grandfather or grandmother, you were allowed to claim Canadian citizenship, whether you had ever been to the country or even heard of it. We do not think that is right. We think that is a devaluation of the value of our citizenship.
We wanted to make sure that anyone who does have a legitimate and significant attachment to Canada can be a Canadian citizen. We have seen many cases where the second generation was born abroad. For example, if you were to have a child who was born abroad, that child would be automatically a Canadian citizen because of your citizenship. If your grandchild, however, were to be born abroad to that parent, that person may not assume Canadian citizenship under our proposal for the simple reason that your son or daughter may never have been back here and that child may never have been here. We want to make sure that citizens have a tie to this country.
Several countries have been taking similar steps to limit the derivative. The United States, Australia, Denmark and the U.K. are all comparable there.
The Chair: That is in terms of the UN convention.
Ms. Finley: No, I am referring to other countries that are limiting citizenship to the first generation born abroad.
The Chair: All right.
Ms. Finley: Regarding the Mennonites, these are very complicated situations, without a doubt. In our Cape Breton office, we have bookcases full of genealogies of Mennonites that have been painstakingly put together over many years to try to identify the links to Canada. While this legislation will not cover many of the Mennonite cases, we have received a letter of support from William Janzen, the executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee. While he recognizes that not all of the Mennonites will be covered under this, he believes it is the right thing for the country to do.
Regarding the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, I will ask my officials to provide that answer.
Karen Mosher, Director General, Citizenship Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: The question was about whether we are doing more than the bare minimum of meeting our requirements and whether there is any sense that there will be an increase in the numbers.
The numbers that we deal with now are small. Our requirements under the convention are that we ensure that children born in Canada are not made stateless at birth and that we provide a mechanism for a grant of citizenship to individuals if they would otherwise be stateless. Those conditions are both met, either in the existing legislation or in these amendments in Bill C-37.
As to whether there will be an increase in the number of cases, we do not think so. This legislation provides us with a different way of dealing with those cases. It will require us to understand better, for instance, what the regimes are in corresponding countries for dealing with statelessness, but we do not believe that it will increase the numbers. However, it will change the way those cases are handled.
The Chair: Thank you. Let me move on to my colleagues. First, the deputy chair of this committee is Senator Keon, from Ontario, and right here in the city of Ottawa.
Senator Keon: Thank you very much, Madam minister, for coming before us this morning. I really do sincerely congratulate you on this legislation. Those congratulations extend far beyond those of us close to it.
There is one area that interests me, the special grant under section 5(4). I believe you mentioned that 270 people have received citizenship through the special grant process. Is that what you said?
Ms. Finley: Yes.
Senator Keon: I understand that it is a pretty cumbersome journey for you and for the citizen.
With the new legislation that eliminates so many of the problems, there will still be a few problems left, for example, with children born in Europe after the war, between 1945 and 1947, who were parented by a Canadian father and a European mother who were not married. Since it will become easier to become a Canadian citizen, they may become interested in so doing. How cumbersome will it be for them and for you, should they wish to pursue this?
Ms. Finley: I would like to clarify the number of special grants that have been awarded. For the anomaly cases, the lost Canadians, the number is 139. This is while I have been minister. I have also given 120 grants to deal with interim measure adoption cases. I am pleased that we will not need to do that as much anymore, since the foreign adoption bill went through with your approval. That is good news on that front, especially for those children.
In Toronto a couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of presenting a citizenship certificate to the first baby who was born in China and, when she landed here with her parents a couple of weeks later, was a citizen. It was a delightful moment. Everyone was happy about it. That is a good news story. We do not have to do those as much anymore.
In terms of going forward, there are many different circumstances, and all of these rules are complex. For your specific question, I would like to turn to Ms. Mosher.
Ms. Mosher: If the Governor-in-Council approval process is cumbersome, I do not know whether we will be able to remedy that. We anticipate that the handful of cases that have come forward this year under these ``other circumstances'' are small in number and manageable. We have an approval timing. Once all of the information is gathered and the minister has sent it to the cabinet, we are usually able to deal with it in a period of three to four months.
Ms. Finley: I might also add that, if this bill goes through, we estimate that it will take care of over 95 per cent of the cases of anomalies. That number of 139 cases that I have done will drop dramatically.
The Chair: Senator Keon is the sponsor of the bill in the Senate. Senator Lorna Milne is here today, and she is the critic of the bill. ``Critic'' is a title and does not necessarily mean that she is critical. We will not prejudge that but wait until she asks her questions.
Senator Milne: Madam Minister, when you proposed this bill, you freely admitted that it would not solve all the problems. You have that remaining 5 per cent, and you had to deal with 139 of the 270 times that you have had to get special permits through the Governor-in-Council, through cabinet.
Has your department estimated at all how many cases it will have to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis from now on? You are hoping that it will be fewer, but I suspect that it will become more as people are becoming more and more aware of the ability to come back to Canada.
Ms. Finley: One of the great virtues of this bill is that it clearly outlines, in law, who will be eligible for Canadian citizenship and who will not. I do not know whether you have received it, but we have a list of various scenarios — and they do get rather complex and confusing — and the possible outcomes for those scenarios. We are well versed in that.
In most of the cases, and in most of the inquiries that we have received through our hotline, what people were looking for was not an application for citizenship, but, rather, proof that they were citizens. We were able to determine that and provide them with the proof. The key thing here is that with this proposed legislation, citizenship will be conferred by law for virtually all cases. People will not have to apply to become a citizen of Canada. If they fit this criteria, they are either automatically citizens or they are not. We will be able to make a decision quickly and easily.
Senator Milne: My concern is for that further 5 per cent.
Ms. Finley: That is why section 5(4) is still available. The number of cases where we will have to use that discretionary judgment should be dramatically reduced.
Senator Milne: I have just come from the Energy Committee. We were talking about how long it takes to have regulations gazetted, commented on and then actually become part of the law. For the benefit of some of the lost Canadians here today and represented here today, how long will it be after Royal Assent for a bill like this? Will you have to promulgate regulations? Will it have to go through the Canada Gazette process? How long will it be before these people actually become citizens?
Ms. Mosher: As the minister mentioned, there was a substantive amendment at the standing committee in the other place that requires this bill to come into effect one year after the date of Royal Assent. That means that we will be working diligently over that year to ensure that our implementation, communication strategy and regulations are ready to roll out. We would be pre-publishing the regulations towards the end of this calendar year on the assumption that the bill will be passed at some point this spring so that we are ready to fully implement in spring 2009.
Senator Milne: The people who are now in that lost generation of Canadians must not leave here or turn off their televisions today expecting to be able to apply for citizenship tomorrow. That should be made absolutely clear.
Ms. Mosher: Precisely.
Senator Milne: In your view, minister, since you have been going over this bill and the Citizenship Act, which is such a patchwork, is it time to completely rewrite the Citizenship Act, and do you intend to do so?
Ms. Finley: At this point, my focus is on addressing this particular situation. There has been a lot of talk suggesting we should review the entire act. I did not want to take the delays to do that. I wanted to address this situation right away. That was the priority. The people who are designated as ``lost Canadians'' deserve that. My concern was that if we were to go after the entire act, given the way things are progressing in that other place these days, we might never get this resolved. It was important for me to fix this problem while we can and to do it as quickly as possible.
Senator Milne: On that, I have to agree with you.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: The bill proposes to cut off citizenship by descent after the first generation born abroad. However, the problem is that some children born abroad to Canadians could find themselves stateless. To correct this situation, under Bill C-37, these stateless children would be granted citizenship if they are under 23 years of age and if they have resided in Canada for at least three of the four years preceding their application.
Could you elaborate a little on this provision, since Bill C-37 does not specify how that person could enter and reside in Canada for four years without a passport. Is it possible to sponsor a person who is stateless or to grant that person a temporary resident visa?
[English]
Mark Davidson, Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: As the minister indicated in her speech, the bill includes a provision that we have been thinking of as an additional backup to the existing rules that are in place to deal with these kinds of cases. The existing rules include those that are in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Canadian citizen parents may sponsor their dependent children while they are overseas.
That sponsorship can take place while the sponsor and the child are living outside of Canada. That would be the main mechanism by which these second generation children could come to Canada, if the family chose to think that citizenship was so important that they wanted to take advantage of that. It is important to remember that they can do that within the first 22 years of the child's life, so there is a very generous window for them to take advantage of that.
If the child is stateless, there are mechanisms by which they can obtain travel documents. They may not be able to obtain a national passport, but there are other forms of travel documents that can be issued and that are recognized for travel to Canada.
As the minister says, that special statelessness provision grant for individuals who are stateless is a backup to all these other mechanisms. That provision, along with the other mechanisms in the Citizenship Act, fully satisfies Canada's obligations as a signatory to the international convention.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: That being the case, I am certain that the government will receive a number of applications.
[English]
Senator Cochrane: You mentioned the age of 22 years. At that age, a person is an adult. After that, if they decide they would prefer to be a Canadian, what do they do?
Ms. Finley: They would go through the normal process of applying for permanent residency, pass the minimum requirements and then apply for citizenship.
Senator Cochrane: Would they have to live in Canada?
Ms. Finley: Yes. There is a residency requirement for citizenship. They would be treated like any other newcomer to Canada through the normal process — apply for permanent residency, be accepted, and then meet the residency requirements, pass the test and get sworn in.
Senator Cochrane: I am looking at dual citizenship here. Some of our grandchildren have dual citizenship now. Some of our girls married Americans during the years when we had American bases here, and now some of their children have dual citizenship and some would like to have dual citizenship.
Ms. Finley: The dual citizenship can derive from the parents. If one parent is Canadian and one is American, their children can have dual citizenship, claiming it from each side. Beyond that, we are talking here about second generation born out of the country, and that is totally separate. Our citizenship will not be inherited by the grandchildren.
Senator Cochrane: I know it is a different issue.
Senator Munson: I would love to ask questions about the immigration bill. At another time, we can grill you on that subject. It is a pretty hot subject these days. Since are you here for Bill C-37, I will ask you about that. It will not help a group of lost Canadians, typified by the descendants of Mennonites, who are currently holding citizenship cards issued in error. Can you please describe the circumstances that have led to some people in this country holding citizenship cards issued in error and why the decision was taken not to help this group? Approximately how many people are in this group?
Ms. Finley: I will answer part of that and then ask my officials to provide more details.
There are a number of ways in which someone could have been issued a card in error. For example, there are children who were born in the U.S. by accident. Their parents lived in Windsor and went across to Detroit for Christmas. The babies were born there unintentionally, or unexpectedly, and they came back to Canada and thought that the babies were automatically Canadian citizens when in fact they were not. If the parents were not Canadian citizens and the children were born abroad, then there is no connection, but when they came back, the Canadian border official may have indicated to them they were and given them the card. It has happened that way. We are dealing with people here. Human error is a factor. Sometimes the research, particularly in the case of Mennonites, was not correct in determining their eligibility. There are a number of different ways that the situation could be created. With this legislation, we are trying to prevent those kinds of errors in the future so that we do not have competing and conflicting acts, which makes it difficult for people to understand whether they are eligible or not for Canadian citizenship.
We do have the support of the Mennonite Central Committee. We believe that if something was given in error, it is unfortunate that those people may believe that they are Canadian citizens. However, they were never entitled to that, so it is not sufficient reason to confer citizenship upon them.
Mr. Davidson: I am not sure I can answer the question on numbers directly.
To add to the minister's statement, some of the individuals who had certificates issued in error in the past will now benefit from Bill C-37. We are going back and changing some of the provisions by which they were not citizens in the past. Therefore, Bill C-37 will resolve a number of these cases.
Senator Munson: On a personal level, how do you give hope to that 5 per cent? It seems like an anonymous number, but they are real people living in this country who are still lost.
Ms. Finley: The simplest way to address that is to look at what we have done since I took over as minister. I identified the situation as being totally unacceptable. We established a hotline allowing people to call in and determine whether they are Canadian citizens. We set up a special group dedicated to addressing those cases. We got the story out as broadly as we could across the country to allow people to find out if they were in those circumstances — an awareness campaign, if you like. We tried to make people aware so that we could address the situation proactively. We have done 139 section 5(4) cases. We brought in legislation. There have been a number of other smaller things as well.
We took action on a problem that has been around for decades. Now we are trying to resolve the situation for as many as possible. Our estimate is that it will cover over 95 per cent of the cases. I think that is good news. I would like to resolve the situation for over 95 per cent rather than do nothing for the sake of the 5 per cent who will not be covered.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: My question arises in part because of the ``less than 23 years of age'' clause. I question how fair that is and how one would pick such an age or if one should choose an age at all. Why 23 rather than some other age? It will produce problems in families. It will produce problems among children. I would like you to comment on that.
Also, is there any instance in this bill that naturally born children and adopted children are treated differently? I ask that because I have direct experience in related matters in another country whose legislation may indeed reflect such a difference in treatment.
Ms. Finley: With regard to the age being set at 23, that is in the international convention. Therefore, we wanted to be consistent with that international standard.
For your second question, no, no distinction is made between naturally born and adopted children. That is another reason why we put through the foreign adoption bill, to make sure that adopted children would get fairer treatment and treatment more comparable to Canadian-born children.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Do you think that cutting citizenship off at 23 years is fair, considering that a child who is 21 will then be treated differently from someone who is 25, for example?
Ms. Finley: There has to be a cut-off somewhere. Otherwise, you could have 72-year-olds claiming citizenship. At what point do you draw the line and on what basis? The most objective way would be to follow the international protocol, which is set at 23 years.
Senator Callbeck: Bill C-37 is really amendments to the act. You already answered the question of why you did not come with a new act, and I accept that. That was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration from the other place.
It says here that Bill C-37 largely conforms to the recommendations included in the report of the Citizenship and Immigration Committee. There is one place where you did not accept the recommendation. Are there other recommendations from that unanimous committee in the other House that are not included in Bill C-37?
Ms. Finley: The primary one of which I am aware is citizenship certificates issued in error, and I have explained the rationale behind that. Other than that, we tried to tailor the legislation to match the committee's recommendations, as I indicated to them almost a year ago now that I would. I committed to committee members that if they came forward with a unanimous report, I would strongly consider the recommendations, which we have.
The Chair: The last clause of Bill C-37 is the standard provision for when the bill comes into force. It says that the bill comes into force, by order of the Governor-in-Council, within 365 days of Royal Assent. However, I know from phone calls and letters that many people are very anxious about this coming into effect. How much time do you think it will actually take to put it into effect? Are there provisions you need to get it ready or can it be done quickly? Can you give us an estimate of the time?
Ms. Finley: We want to get it done as quickly as possible. That is why we brought the legislation forward.
Certain steps have to be taken, for example gazetting. We want to make sure that when we do it, we do it right so that we do not issue certificates in error. Our estimate is that it will take a year.
In the meantime, we can issue a section 5(4) to people. If individuals qualify under the new legislation and they want a Canadian passport for travel or any number of reasons, they could apply for the section 5(4) now and not wait until the legislation comes into force. We could grant, and have granted, situations like that a section 5(4).
We do not want to hold people up because the law has not yet come into force when we anticipate that it will and it is the right thing to do for the right reasons. That is why I sign the section 5(4)s.
Senator Gustafson: I am not on this committee, but I thought it was an opportunity to clarify something. My father came from Illinois as a four-year old boy with my grandparents. He passed away in 1949. Settling his estate, we found that there was no record of his ever being in Canada. It was not hard to solve. We went to the Canadian Wheat Board and got a history of all the grain he had sold. I have often wondered how someone could fall through the cracks like that — operate all those years that he did and not be known as a Canadian.
Ms. Finley: Unfortunately, it happens too often. That is why we are bringing this legislation forward. There are many cases where people had every valid reason to believe they were Canadian citizens and then found out, perhaps only when applying for a passport, that they were not. That is why we are trying to get this through and correct the situation. In the meantime, in urgent cases, we can issue the section 5(4) to give these people what we believe they are entitled to.
Senator Gustafson: I do not think the revenue department missed him.
The Chair: On that note, we have come to the end of this segment of our consideration of Bill C-37. Again, thank you, Minister Finley, and thank you to your officials who have joined you today.
Our next panel consists of two witnesses. Janet Dench is the Executive Director of the Canadian Council for Refugees. This council is an umbrella organization committed to the protection of refugees in Canada and around the world and to the settlement of refugees and immigrants in Canada.
Professor Donald Galloway is from the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria. He specializes in immigration and refugee law. He is also a former board member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
Welcome to you both. If you could limit your remarks to about five minutes each, we will take it from there with a dialogue and questions.
Donald Galloway, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Victoria: Thank you for inviting me to appear here today. The sole focus of my comments is the set of provisions in Bill C-37 that denies citizenship by descent to those who are born or who are adopted outside Canada, where their Canadian parent is also born or adopted outside Canada.
The provisions retroactively remedying the situation of lost Canadians will not receive any comment from me; they are long overdue. The only comment I can give is to offer strong commendation to the minister for remedying this situation at long last in response to some tireless efforts by a number of individuals.
I should say that given my office is in Victoria, Mr. Joe Taylor was not shy about coming to see me frequently. I know the strain and the stresses that his case put on him.
What I do ask, though, is that you look for the reasons behind the provisions that were needed to remedy the situation of the lost Canadians to find out why this situation arose. I suggest that if you consider these reasons, you will see them replicated in the provisions dealing with the denial of citizenship to first generation Canadians. In other words, we may be recreating problems of lost generations for the current generation and their children.
I am suggesting that the provisions that deny citizenship by descent fail to take into account an important matter — the profound importance that individuals and community members place upon citizenship as an intergenerational concept. It is something that we pass on to each other. We pass on citizenship to our children because it is important. We see the project of community building and nation building as intergenerational; and to create barriers for that intergenerational community building is problematic. By cutting off citizenship by descent after one generation, I suggest we are going in that direction.
In the new provisions, the place of one's birth and the place of birth of one's parents are being used as a proxy. It is not important in itself. In her testimony here, the minister has not cited that the place of birth is important. It is being used as a proxy for one's attachment to one's community, to being Canadian.
There is a judgment that is being made, which is that if you and your parent are born outside the country, it is likely that you will not have an attachment to this country. I think that as people become more mobile, more globally connected, it is becoming even less likely that people who are born outside the country will have no connection to Canada.
I find it ironic that we have an exception to this rule that is made available to people who work for the government and people who are in the Armed Forces. The government recognizes that there are situations where people who are engaged in Canadian activities have to leave the country.
I suggest that professors are sometimes in that position, as are people who work for NGOs. It is important to recognize that this is not a stable world anymore, where people do not move. People move all the time.
Let us also think about the differential impact this has on women and men. If you are only allowing people to pass on their citizenship — which I suggest to you is very important to their children — by having them born in Canada, the global opportunities offered to women will be much fewer than those offered to men.
Women who are engaged in international work will have to plan their pregnancy to return to Canada. Women looking after their parents who are in Florida will have to return to Canada to give birth. There will be Canadians who will be hurt by this. The first generation rule — the rule that if your parents were born outside the country, you cannot get citizenship — is going to have an important negative effect.
A few months ago, the CBC reported that women in Calgary who were giving birth were being flown to the United States because of the lack of neonatal care in Calgary. The impact of that, suggested the CBC in a very upbeat mood, was that there will be a lot more dual citizens around.
After this bill, there will be a lot fewer Canadians around. Either that, or women will think twice before going to the United States to give birth in conditions that we cannot replicate here. There are serious ramifications for using this rule of proxy that says place of birth is connected to the connection you have with the country.
As a last comment, I want to draw attention to the effect that this rule may have on adopted children. The minister gave testimony about this wonderful, heart-warming occasion where adopted children are now granted citizenship automatically outside the country. Has she explained to the child who has come and their parents that their grandchildren may not be Canadian citizens? Will the generation of children born to international adoptees who are granted citizenship be given citizenship? I cannot tell from this bill. My daughter, who is with me today, is an international adoptee. I can guarantee her that her children will be Canadians because she came here through the naturalization process as a permanent resident. What about these new children? What will the status of their children be? Will the grandchildren who are being given the teddy bear by the minister be Canadians? I cannot tell by this bill, and I suspect that they are not.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Galloway. That will generate some questions, I am sure. First, we will hear from Janet Dench.
Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today on this bill. The Canadian Council for Refugees is concerned about statelessness. For some time now, our member organizations have been finding more and more that they are dealing with people who are in a state of legal limbo because they are stateless people in Canada. As a result, we have been informing ourselves, and we are increasingly concerned about the issue of statelessness in law and internationally.
We approach Bill C-37, as we have approached some of the predecessor amendments to the Citizenship Act, with a view to seeing whether Canada is living up to its obligations legally, as well as what we would hope Canada would do to reduce the problem of statelessness worldwide.
Our concern is that while Bill C-37 seeks to resolve some situations of lost Canadians, there will be a new category created of future lost Canadians, who, as stateless persons, will be left in an extreme state of vulnerability.
You may know that there are two international instruments dealing with statelessness. One is the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness; the second is the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. Canada, regrettably, is not a signatory to the 1954 convention, but we are a signatory to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
I will now turn to the details of Bill C-37 and how it can create statelessness. As you have heard, and as you have studied yourselves, children who are born abroad to Canadian citizens will not be entitled to Canadian citizenship at birth if their parents were citizens by descent — that is, if their parents were born or possibly adopted abroad. If these children are not entitled to some other citizenship, they will be stateless.
[Translation]
To give you a more concrete example, consider the following hypothetical case of a Canadian couple travelling abroad for a few years that have a child while abroad. This child, who we will call Anna, is a Canadian citizen by virtue of the fact that her parents are Canadian citizens. The family returns to Canada when Anna is six months old and the child grows up in Canada. As a young adult, Anna decides to study abroad and becomes pregnant.
Under Bill C-37, if Anna gives birth abroad, her child will not be a Canadian citizen. If that child, who we will call Mariam, is not entitled to any other citizenship, she will be stateless.
[English]
Bill C-37 does contain a provision to allow Mariam and others like her to apply for citizenship if they are stateless. However, there are a number of conditions that must be met, including the requirement that the stateless child of a Canadian citizen have resided in Canada for three of four years preceding the application. This means that the child will have to remain stateless for at least three years. The bill also fails to explain on what basis Mariam will be allowed to enter Canada and live here in order to meet the three-year residency requirement. Even if Anna attempts to sponsor her child as an immigrant — and there are conditions to that, so she may not be able to do so — she will face a challenge in finding travel documents for Mariam so that she can travel to Canada. As stateless person, she is not entitled to any passport.
The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness contains a provision that talks about children born to citizens of the country who are born in another territory. As the first option, the convention states that if the child will otherwise be stateless, the child should receive citizenship at birth by operation of law. That is the first recommendation in the convention. The convention also gives an alternative. What the Canadian government is proposing in Bill C-37 is to go with the alternative. They have set certain limits that must be met, and the Canadian government has followed all of those limits to the maximum, which means that the bill does the absolute minimum that is proposed in the convention. We find this unworthy of Canada.
The Canadian Council for Refugees holds that it is an important principle that all citizens have equal rights and obligations without regard to the manner in which they acquired citizenship. Bill C-37 is therefore disturbing in that it deepens an inequality in the right to pass on citizenship to one's own children. If Bill C-37 is passed in its current form, a Canadian citizen who has acquired her citizenship through birth outside Canada does not have the same right to pass on her citizenship to a child as a citizen who was born in Canada or who was naturalized. She must be careful not to give birth outside Canada herself, because her baby will not be a Canadian citizen and might even be stateless. This applies even if she has lived in Canada all her life, apart from the first few months. On the other hand, a citizen by birth in Canada, or who came to Canada as an immigrant, does not need to worry about, for example, taking a job in another country or having a baby there, since the baby will be a Canadian citizen.
Therefore, our recommendations are to add provisions stating that the act is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principle of reducing statelessness. We are calling for the deletion of subclause 2(2) of the bill so that second generation children born abroad are Canadian citizens or, in the alternative, the amendment of subsection 4(2) of the act so that second generation children born abroad are granted citizenship by operation of law, if they would otherwise be stateless.
The Chair: Thank you both very much. Now we will have questions and dialogue.
Professor Galloway, Ms. Dench has suggested specific amendments to the legislation. With respect to the second generation issue, are you also suggesting amendments to this particular bill, or do you think we should be redoing the Citizenship Act?
The minister said that there are people who were born to people who were born outside the country who have no attachment to this country. In fact, she said that they may never have heard of Canada. I think many of us can understand and appreciate that. We can also understand the compelling arguments that you give as well. Where do you draw the line here? Ms. Dench says we should remove that provision altogether so that the second generation is automatically covered. I am wondering whether you are suggesting something in between. If so, returning to what I said a moment ago, does that involve an amendment to this bill, or is it something completely different?
Mr. Galloway: I have not, in my written submissions or orally, made any recommendation. I decided not to do so and to leave it to you to decide what the right thing to do is here. I thought I would give you what I think are compelling arguments for not including the provisions that relate to second generation Canadians. I think they are easily excisable from this statute. The statute can achieve its worthy goals without including these elements.
I am not at all happy with the situation in the current act relating to first generation children who get citizenship automatically but before age 28 have to declare that they want to retain it. Certain problems can happen with that situation, but I see it as far preferable to this situation.
The difficulty I find myself in with suggesting an amendment is that I am a huge supporter of the lost Canadians. I do not know what recommending an amendment would actually mean for the passage of the bill. That is a matter of politics and not of law. I have come with what I think are compelling legal arguments for not proceeding with the bill as is, but at the end of my written submissions I say that these two matters, one a totally good news issue, and one, I completely agree with my colleague, a totally bad news issue, are completely separate. That is my answer to your first question, and I do not want to go further than that.
On the question of no attachment, I have suggested that birth and place of birth is a proxy for attachment to the community. Other countries I have noted in my written submissions, particularly the United States, identify that if you are going to pass on citizenship by descent, there must actually be some element of connection with the country. They use the notion of residence. You have to have resided in the country for a certain number of years in order to pass it on to your children. That makes eminent sense to me. There may be some difficulties with it, but it is not a proxy. It is not something being used in place of what really counts. It is a political determination that people who are resident have the required connection. There is no such connection with the place of birth of your parents.
Senator Keon: Thank you both for your interesting analyses. Mr. Galloway, I have two children who live in other countries, and I have three grandchildren who are citizens of other countries. It seems to me that the international community is now saying, ``Make up your mind. You can be a Canadian citizen or you can be a citizen of country X, but you cannot be both.'' The problem I have with your position, Mr. Galloway, is that I think people will be confronted with the question, ``What citizenship do you want?'' How do you answer that?
Mr. Galloway: My first response is the empirical or factual response that I just disagree. I think that second citizenship, second nationality, multiple nationalities are now a fact of life and that governments recognize this. We are now having negotiations about what it means when one of your citizens who is also a second national in another country goes there and is arrested. We recognize these difficulties as a fact of life. I do not think that there is any credible movement to try to reduce second and multiple citizenships in this world. It is impossible to negotiate. We have gone too far in recognizing this.
In terms of choice, we can and do place a number of restrictions on people who hold second nationality and do not live in Canada. We do not have to pay for them to be brought back from war zones. We do, but we do not have to. We do not automatically grant them a passport. The passport order does not actually say that they are entitled to a passport. We require that they pay taxation. We could require that they pay extra taxation if they are going to use this. There are a number of ways that we can show that certain individuals who are not in Canada can fulfill their obligations to the Canadian community.
Taking away citizenship of another state created lost Canadians in the past. That is part of the real problem. In the 1950s we had this sort of modulating attitude towards dual nationality. Sometimes it was in, and sometimes it was not. Taking away citizenship creates people who are stateless.
Senator Keon: Is it not true now that if you want to become an American citizen, you must renounce your Canadian citizenship?
Mr. Galloway: All works I have read by my colleagues in the United States suggest that this may be a law on the books but not a law that is enforced. It is not a law that anybody takes seriously, although it actually may be there in writing.
Senator Milne: The two of you have reinforced for me what I was asking the minister. The whole Citizenship Act needs to be completely rewritten so that people can read it and understand it. The law is ineffective unless citizens are able to comprehend it. I have a great deal of sympathy with what you are saying. On the other hand, I come back to this bill and the lost Canadians. We really should not be holding them up any longer than we absolutely need to. That goes to the further step of rewriting the act in the future and ensuring that some of these problems are cleared up.
Ms. Dench, I will display my complete ignorance of Canadian citizenship. We have stateless people living here in Canada. If they have babies in Canada, can those children not claim Canadian citizenship? They are born here.
Ms. Dench: Yes, if they have children, the children will be citizens, but the parents can continue to be stateless.
Senator Milne: I gathered from what you said that the children would also be stateless, and I wanted to make sure that that was absolutely clear on the record.
Ms. Dench: No, I was only talking about stateless people in Canada in relation to how our organization got involved in the issue of statelessness. For example, some of our member organizations would be meeting people in immigration detention centres who could not be deported from Canada because they are stateless, but they have no right to be in Canada because of our immigration laws, and so they find themselves in a situation of legal limbo. This issue has been of concern to us, obviously.
Senator Milne: Are many people currently in that legal limbo and in some sort of detention? There used to be a hotel full of them.
Ms. Dench: Generally, they may stay in detention for some time, but eventually they are released because they cannot be deported. Then they find themselves in a legal limbo, because they do not have the right to stay here but they cannot go anywhere else, so how can they get on with their lives. They are falling in between two chairs. That is a very difficult situation. We have been urging the government to respond by allowing people the right to regularize their status in Canada if they are stateless.
Senator Munson: Professor Galloway, this is close to my heart as well because, when I was at CTV, I did the first stories dealing with adopted children from China in the 1990s. You piqued my curiosity when you said, as did the minister, that an adopted child automatically becomes a Canadian citizen, but the child of an adopted child does not have that guarantee.
Mr. Galloway: I think Senator Pépin raised the question of whether there is any difference between a child born overseas and an international adoptee; and the minister's answer was that there is absolutely none. If we are to treat them the same, the child of the adoptee who was born outside the country, as I understand it, would not be a Canadian citizen.
That is my reading of the act. One of my difficulties with the act is that I find it so hard to understand these cross- provisions, and I am a professional in this area. I look at this section and that is the best judgment I can offer you of what this act says; it is treating Canadians born outside of the country the same as international adoptees.
Senator Munson: If that is the case, perhaps this committee can look at that. I do not know about this particular bill, but as the senator said, looking at the Citizenship Act itself, it seems unusual.
Senator Pépin: Did I understand well that if a Canadian woman spent all her life in Canada, went to work in the United States or somewhere else and gave birth to a child, that child would not be recognized as a Canadian?
Mr. Galloway: If the woman herself was born outside the country — she may have been a cross-border baby, transferred across the border because it was cheaper in the old days to be born in the United States or it had the closest hospital — before giving birth, she would have to think seriously about the consequences for the citizenship of her child. She would probably need to get leave from her employment to come back to Canada if she wanted to transfer Canadian citizenship to her offspring.
Senator Pépin: I have one other clarification. I have a friend who has adopted a child from another country, who was recognized as a Canadian. If that child gives birth to a child, that newborn child will not be recognized as a Canadian, is that right?
Mr. Galloway: Under the old system, the international adoptee became a permanent resident first and then got citizenship through naturalization — no problem. I do not understand the new system. That is my question.
Under the new system, there is a grant of citizenship outside the country in order to treat the adopted child the same as a child who was born outside the country. I do not know what the consequences of that will be. I may have missed something in the bill. I am willing to acknowledge that, but I read this as being a live issue with this provision.
Senator Brown: How many countries are there in the world where persons can be born and have no citizenship?
Ms. Dench: I think pretty much all the countries in the world.
Senator Brown: Why are we using the word stateless? A person born in a country has citizenship. If they come to Canada, you are suddenly calling them stateless.
Ms. Dench: No; stateless means there is no state that recognizes them as a citizen of their country.
Senator Brown: Did not you just say that almost every country confers citizenship with birth?
Ms. Dench: I am sorry; I obviously spoke unclearly. I am saying the opposite, that there are people who do not have citizenship in all countries of the world. If you are born in Canada, you get citizenship by birth, and that is the situation in a number of other countries. However, in many countries it is not the case.
Senator Brown: My question was how many countries are there that do not confer citizenship with birth.
Ms. Dench: I do not know the exact number, but I believe it is a very large number.
Senator Brown: Where are those countries?
Ms. Dench: Quite a few of the European countries do not give citizenship by birth. I am not an expert in this area.
Senator Brown: Are you talking about England, Germany and France? You say they do not have citizenship with birth?
Ms. Dench: By birth in the territory?
Senator Brown: By birth in that country.
Mr. Galloway: In many situations in Europe the parents must have citizenship; if the parents do not have citizenship, then just birth within the country is not sufficient to grant citizenship to their children.
Senator Brown: Can you give me some examples?
Mr. Galloway: France has had that problem; Germany has had that problem; Austria has that problem.
Senator Brown: I have another question then. You do not give a recommendation for the second generation born outside the country. You want it to be included in Canadian citizenship, even though it is the second generation born outside the country.
At what point do we say that Canadian citizenship is worth something, so that you cannot have three, four or five generations born outside the country that are still Canadians? How do we manage that?
Mr. Galloway: We do that at the moment by saying that if you are a person who was born outside the country to a Canadian citizen who is outside the country, you have to, before the age of 28, announce that you are retaining your citizenship.
Senator Brown: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Galloway: That is the system that exists before these provisions. What is wrong is that people do not know that rule exists. People find themselves in a situation where they do not know where their parents were born. They do not know that this rule applies to them.
Senator Gustafson gave examples earlier of people falling through the cracks, and these are big cracks that people fall into. The problem can be resolved by calling a spade a spade and saying that if we think that people should have the connection with the country, let us identify what the nature of that connection has to be.
Senator Brown: I am trying to get at how many generations they can live outside of Canada before we say you do not have citizenship anymore.
Mr. Galloway: In a mobile world, my response is, if people have no connection with Canada — none whatsoever, they have not been born here or lived here — we have a real problem with granting them Canadian citizenship. If they were born outside the country, spent 10 years here, spent two years abroad, came back and spent another two years here, moved around the world, in those circumstances, I think we have people who have identified their connection with Canada. If they are working with Oxfam Canada or other groups overseas, devoting their life to Canadian charities overseas, I am quite happy saying they are Canadian.
Senator Brown: Their children's children are what I am getting at. What connection have their children's children got to Canada?
Mr. Galloway: If you are looking for a rule that identifies where you draw the line, somewhere in that rule there has to be a reference to what is a substantial contribution to the community, either by residence or by other devices. That is how you would draw the line.
Senator Brown: If people who were working for Oxfam gave birth to children, who then gave birth to other children, and neither generation was working for Oxfam or anything that was connected to the Canadian government, would that be enough for them not to have citizenship?
Mr. Galloway: Yes, I would like to see the rules recognize that, in the best of all possible worlds.
Senator Brown: If you have no connection to Canada and you are the second or third generation born outside the country, would you no longer have Canadian citizenship?
Mr. Galloway: I think that is right. In the old days, if you could trace multi-generations of an Irish person, you could claim a little bit of the green. Well, no longer, according to the Irish constitution — and I think rightly so. Ireland has gone into a very draconian mode, but they identify ``substantial contribution'' as being the test for your parent.
The Chair: I will have to draw this to a conclusion. Thank you very much to both Professor Galloway and Ms. Dench.
We have three people on our third panel. Don Chapman is a representative of the Lost Canadians Organization. He has been working as an advocate for people who lost Canadian citizenship. He lost his citizenship as a child when his father took American citizenship. We have all heard from Mr. Chapman on this issue previously.
We also have with us Melynda Jarratt, an historian who has taken a special interest in research relating to the nearly 43,500 British and European war brides who came to Canada to live. Finally, we have William Janzen, mentioned earlier by the minister, who is Director of the Ottawa Office of the Mennonite Central Committee Canada. In North America, the Mennonite Central Committee is involved with immigration, refugee assistance, job creation, people with disabilities, offenders and victims of crime.
William Janzen, Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada: My colleagues and I all support this bill strongly. They have their reasons; mine are a little different. The Mennonite Central Committee's reasons for supporting the bill relate to the confusion around the current retention issue. I will illustrate that with a few stories, some of which have come to my desk very recently.
There is a gentleman who came to Canada when he was 10 years old. He was born abroad. He was a Canadian citizen and he received his certificate when he was five years old. He heard somewhere that he needed to go through a retention process. He went to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office and asked about it. The official looked at his certificate, told him it looked as if it was permanently valid and told him not to worry about it. He did that twice and both times was told not to worry. He went on with his life.
He is now 30 years old and has exceeded the age of 28. He is no longer a citizen. He runs a small construction company. He has employees. Not being a citizen is creating significant confusion for him. Fortunately, he has been in Canada for over half of his life, so by the ministerial guidelines he qualifies for using section 5(4). That will help to resolve his case, though it will still take time.
A second case is very similar. He is also a person who came to Canada specifically understanding that he needed to go through the retention process. He went to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office and was also told that he had nothing to worry about, that his certificate looked permanently valid and to proceed with his life. Now this person is in more difficulty because he has not been in Canada for over half of his life. The under the current guidelines, section 5(4) may not help him much. He will have to become a landed immigrant. That takes a long time, and during that time the question of whether he is able to take employment and get health insurance is up in the air.
The third case is also similar. This person came to Canada. He had heard that he was supposed to go through the retention process and he wanted to do that. He was living outside of Canada. He came to Canada and spent one year here because that is what the retention requirement stated. Then he went to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada office to apply for retention. He was told that his certificate was permanently valid and that he had nothing to worry about. Therefore, he went back to his native country and a year later applied for a Canadian passport. He was then told that he was not a citizen and had ceased to be a citizen at age 28.
This fourth case is the last one. A couple came to the border. The wife was a Canadian citizen. She knew that she needed to be here one year before turning 28 and to go through the retention process. However, the husband is not a citizen and does not have a right to citizenship. When they came to the border, they were asked by the border officials what the husband would do and on what basis could he be admitted. He is not actually coming to visit, so they said that the husband was inadmissible. Therefore, here is this woman with a couple of children who would like to retain Canadian citizenship, but she cannot bring her husband into the country to spend the year here.
Those are four illustrations of the enormous confusion resulting from the current section 8 of the law, the retention process.
To its credit, in 2007, the government started putting expiry notices on certificates issued to people who fall into that category. If that had been started when this act first came into force in 1977, we would not have any complaint. Everything would be clear. However, as it is, tens of thousands of people in this category received certificates of citizenship. Those certificates appear to be permanently valid, but in many cases they are not. Therefore, there is this confusion. That is why we plead with you to support this bill and get it through as soon as possible. The situation is just so confusing for these people.
Admittedly, this bill does cut off citizenship after the first generation. I would like to point out how it works in the current law. If you are second generation born abroad, you are automatically a Canadian citizen until age 28. Many people have babies before they turn 28, so that third generation baby is born to a Canadian citizen. Therefore, that third generation baby is automatically a citizen until age 28. It goes on for an indefinite number of generations as long as you can claim that you were always born before the parent was 28 years old.
I think most people here would say there has to be a cut-off somewhere. It does not make sense otherwise. One could quarrel about whether it has to be the first generation. From our perspective, the benefits of removing this confusion outweigh the other arguments. For that reason, we plead with you to pass this bill.
As has been indicated, it is not particularly difficult for people to still get Canadian citizenship for their children. When a Canadian parent comes here with a child under the age of 22 years, which is a generous period of time, that child can become a permanent resident without having to meet the point system. As soon as that child is a permanent resident, he or she can immediately apply for Canadian citizenship. Therefore, it is not that long.
I could talk about the marriage question and other issues.
The Chair: We can get to that with questions.
Melynda Jarratt, Historian, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me here. I have appeared five times before the other place, and this is my first time in front of the Senate on this issue.
I have heard a lot of talk here today about stateless people falling through the cracks. I suggest, in fact, that the floor boards are completely demolished and that the basement is full of lost Canadians: Mennonites, border babies, military brats, and war brides and their children. It is war brides that are my interest here today.
During the Second World War, Canadian servicemen married nearly 48,000 British and European women. During the course of the war and up to 1948, the Canadian government organized and paid for their transportation to Canada. By the time it was all over, they brought 43,454 war brides and 20,997 children to this country, the bulk of them arriving during 1946.
When these 64,451 war brides and their children came to this country, they were told that they were Canadian citizens. With the introduction of the new Citizenship Act, which was then Canada's first, on January 1, 1947, everything changed for these Canadian war brides and their foreign born children they brought with them. From then on, they had to apply for their citizenship.
War brides who read the newspapers, who lived in suburban areas, who maybe had a friend and this kind of conversation came up over the dinner table, and those who travelled back overseas to the old country during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s did apply for their citizenship, and they did straighten out their citizenship problems and those of their children. However, many people did not live in suburban areas and get the newspaper or have friends. War brides also lived in the middle of nowhere in Saskatchewan, Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick — provinces where the majority of the population lived in rural areas. For example, 1,000 of the 1,820 war brides who came to New Brunswick ended up in rural homesteads. You can be sure that they did not read the newspaper every day and they did not know about the changes to the Citizenship Act.
Richard Cooper of Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, was brought to this country as the brother of a war bride whose family had been killed. He came and was sponsored and ended up here as a child. Fast-forward to 60 years later, and he finds out he is not a citizen.
The most seriously affected are the foreign-born war bride children who unwittingly violated something they did not know about, which was the Canadian domicile rule by age 24. This could happen to anyone who was visiting or working oversees, going to school or even serving in the military, as happened to Senator Roméo Dallaire. It also happened to Elizabeth Towner, whose family lives here in Ottawa. She went to school and was taking a psychiatric nursing degree in London, England, and she lost her citizenship.
The problem will only get a worse as these war bride children reach the age for pensions. Other people find out they are not citizens when they apply for something so simple as a driver's licence, and that happened to Suzanne Rouleau, and then there is a snowball effect. It affected her sister, Denise Tessier, who testified last year in the other place. They find out that they are not citizens. It also happens to people who found out they are not citizens when they apply for passports, and these people may have had passports in the past, like the Mennonites who were told they were citizens. It starts getting ridiculous.
Everything is different now. The application process is far more rigorous than it was in the old days when could you pick up the phone and call someone up and a real live human being answered the telephone. It is not like that any more, especially since 9/11. There are many examples of war brides and children whose citizenship is in doubt today. These women survived World War II, and their parents survived World War I. They know more than anyone else what it is like to be stateless and the importance of having one's citizenship.
While I have faith that the department will not throw out an 87-year-old, cane-waving war bride like my friend Doris Lloyd, who has told me to tell you that she is not happy about this situation, I am not so sure what they will do with the children. The plight of the lost Canadians strikes fear in the hearts of these war brides. They are very much afraid for their foreign-born children who were brought to Canada as babes in arms on the war bride ships more than 60 years ago. Many of these children never did get a passport or apply for citizenship and they did not know about the age 24 rule. These are the ones who through no fault of their own are most affected by the Citizenship Act of 1947. They did not know the rules had changed. Bill C-37 will fix the problem facing war brides and their foreign-born children, and it will allow these war brides who are age 85, 86, 87 and as old as 92, to sleep well knowing that their children's citizenship is assured. Please believe me when I tell you that many war bride children have been told they are not citizens and they are not welcome back to this country for anything more than a visit, as was Elizabeth Towner. Her mother and father died waiting for her to get her citizenship back.
Two years ago, Canadians celebrated the Year of the War Bride, and we rolled out the carpet for them across the country. Since then, 2006 has passed into 2007 and 2008, and there have been many opportunities to assess the war bride's role in Canadian history and their place in the Canadian cultural mosaic. As an historian who specializes in the Canadian war brides, it has become clear to me that the Canadian war brides are different. They are different, and their children are different. They were brought to this country in an organized transport that was paid for by the Canadian government. They are the sweethearts of Canada. People love the war brides. They do not like the way war brides are being treated by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The war brides have been the subject of numerous television documentaries, of magazine articles, of television and radio. It goes on and on. People love Canada's war brides, and they do not like the way they are being treated. The oldest women, who are now in their late 80s and into their 90s, are worried that they will die and their citizenship and that of their children will not be sorted out.
I urge you to pass Bill C-37. I am in full support of this. I cannot tell you enough how important it is to this particular group to pass Bill C-37.
The Chair: Thank you for the war bride perspective.
Don Chapman, Representative, Lost Canadians Organization: I do not think one question has been asked today that could not somehow touch the 47 years since I was last a Canadian citizen. I was stripped of my citizenship when I was 6 years old, and I have been fighting since I was 18. As a matter of fact, this pile of paper here is Citizenship and Immigration Canada's case file on me since I was 18 years of age trying to regain my Canadian citizenship. In my passport, it shows I was born in Canada, but I am an immigrant Canadian, and my brother and sister are adopted. They are six and seven years older than me. They became stateless for one year of their life as Canada did not recognize them, and today now Canada is recognizing them but Canada will not recognize me — same parents, same everything. My dad, by the way, was a colonel for Canada in World War II. He died being disenfranchised from his own country, the one he defended. He could not even be a member of the Canadian Legion because he had taken out U.S. citizenship. I have been in this fight a long time.
I will start by saying that Bill C-37 is certainly not the final answer here. Canada is in desperate need of a new, complete, dramatic rewrite of the Citizenship Act. Under the current citizenship laws, citizenship is a legislated right in Canada. In most countries, it is a constitutional right. It is like a speed limit sign; that is the way I would put it. We should have a little bit more to our citizenship than have it equate to the speed limit.
Very few people in Canada ever recognized our problem. As a matter of fact, they have been thinking I have been a nut case all these years trying to correct this. I am the founder and leader of the Lost Canadians Organization. I am like Erin Brockovich. That describes my struggle. I have gotten to know all these groups over the years. For years, people who have been stripped of their citizenship have been contacting me. They live all over the world, but the greatest number are here in Canada. It has been documented that about 200,000 to 250,000 people are right here in Canada. I have never vowed citizenship to another country. I was born a Canadian and I have remained in my heart a proud Canadian. This is about a half century journey for me, and I cannot possibly tell you in five minutes.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and Bill C-37 does in fact comply with that convention. Last year the United Nations magazine Refugees did an entire issue on statelessness, and dead centre to the magazine they highlighted Canada's lost Canadians. That opened many people's eyes, because Canadians really did not believe that they were doing this to their own people. It is very embarrassing, I think, that in this magazine Canada was compared to Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh on citizenship rights.
Over the years I have discovered many variations of lost Canadians, and I have become a little bit of an expert both on citizenship and on identity. We are dealing with very old, antiquated laws. As I testified before this committee four years ago, unfortunately, as a result, the bureaucracy cancelled a unanimous Supreme Court decision and created about another 150 lost Canadians because of it.
However, I remember saying that in many ways, we are the children of the Famous Five. Canada became a country in 1867; in 1868, it adopted its first form of Canadian identity, which was the Naturalization Act. Word for word, it said, ``married women, minors, lunatics and idiots shall be classified under the same disability for their national status.'' Women and children were chattel of their husbands or fathers. You could be affected by this, because I think we were all born after 1868. If you go back, your citizenship may not be based on you; it may have been based on your father.
In 1793, Canada abolished slavery, but here is how they did it. They said that anybody who is currently enslaved will remain a slave until they die, but their children will be free.
In 1977, when Canada adopted its latest Citizenship Act, this barnacled creature it has become, the government said that the children of Canada born prior to 1977 will be dealt with in a certain way. You can actually, like me, be disenfranchised from your own country for life. However, for those born afterwards, no, they will be okay.
Today, right here in the Senate, 140 years of discrimination should come to an end. Bill C-37 should be passed immediately and without any further amendments. It is like a game of pick-up sticks. If we try to do anything, the entire pile will start to crumble.
In the last year, I have probably testified more than a dozen times before the other place. This has gotten great scrutiny, and they have passed this bill unanimously. However, that said, this is not the final answer. Canada has a Citizenship Act that even Donald Galloway, for whom I have great respect, cannot understand. It has had so many lawsuits that it is now unworkable.
This is my fifth bill; there was Bill C-428, Bill C-323, Bill S-17, Bill S-2 and now we are at Bill C-37. Since I have been working on this, which is a long time, it is you, the Senate of Canada, that has been our saviour. We cannot get anything done in the other place; they are arguing politics.
Citizenship is not a political beast; it belongs to everyone. As soon as Bill C-37 is passed — and it should be passed immediately — we should start to work on a new Citizenship Act. That is the key here.
We can deal with the Canadian Council for Refugees, because this bill has one year for implementation. Hopefully, we can get a new Citizenship Act in the meantime, which will allow people who innocently went to the United States for valid reasons to retain their citizenship.
One such person, who is at the end stage of renal failure, called me and said, ``I went to the United States and they are saying I am an illegal alien; yet I cannot go back to my own country because now they tell me I am not a Canadian anymore. I cannot even go back to my own country to die.''
We cannot allow people and Second World War veterans to be disenfranchised. Pass Bill C-37 now and immediately start work on a new Citizenship Act.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I am sure many people are very grateful for all the work you have done over the years in dealing with the issue of lost Canadians — both your personal case and also helping other people.
Mr. Chapman: It ceased to be about me a long time ago.
The Chair: I will ask a question of Mr. Janzen. I want to give him a chance to get this Mexican matter out on the table.
Mr. Janzen, you mentioned some worthy cases, but Bill C-37 will not catch them all, as I heard you. Maybe you could comment on that, and Mexico case in particular.
Mr. Janzen: Once this bill becomes law, those four situations that I mentioned will not happen. We still have those who are turning 28; the first ones born in 1977 turned 28 in 2005. A bunch of people will have turned 28 between 2005 and the day this bill comes into force. We will have to mop up with that, and I hope very much that the minister will take a generous approach to section 5(4) so we can do that.
Those four illustrations that I used cannot happen again, nor situations like them. I assure you that they are not isolated incidents at present. There are many, and that is why I hope so much that you can pass this bill quickly.
The Chair: Could you tell us about Mexico?
Mr. Janzen: About the marriage situation?
The Chair: Yes. Are they affected by this?
Mr. Janzen: The 1947 Canadian citizenship law interfaced with the previous imperial naturalization law, and the effect was this: if you were born outside of Canada, you became a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947, if you were born in wedlock to a Canadian father and you were not yet 21 on January 1, 1947.
The ``in wedlock'' situation is that the Mennonites who were living in Mexico were following the practice that they followed here in Canada of having church marriages. They were not aware that Mexican law gives no legal standing whatsoever to church marriages. You have to have a civil marriage or, in the eyes of the Mexican law, you are not legally married.
Many things were more relaxed in those years, and Canadian officials issued certificates of citizenship to people assuming they were born in wedlock. In some cases, I know they simply presented evidence of a church marriage; I do not know how often that happened. However, I know there were quite a few cases in later years where people got a civil marriage certificate that referred to an earlier marriage, and for a while that was considered adequate.
Therefore, you have different certificates that were issued to a parent and now to a child. There are two aspects. First, when certificates like that have been issued, can they be recalled? You heard the minister say here this morning that if they really were not citizens, then we made a mistake in issuing certificates to them. They were not entitled to the certificates, so we have the right to recall them.
If you listen to it like that, it sounds logical. However, if people have carried a certificate of citizenship for 20 or 30 years, or two or three generations, and there is no element of bad faith on their part, you wish for some mercy and some clemency. Why do you not just let them have it?
The matter of recalling certificates is one part.
The Chair: Are those people covered by Bill C-37?
Mr. Janzen: No, that is not covered. We do not want to hold up this bill to deal with that. I think a certain policy from the government would be fine to cover that. We are not asking that this bill be held up because of that.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Janzen: That is another issue.
Senator Keon: The recommendations of all three of you are very clear. I am hoping that we get speedy passage of this bill, which is what I will be recommending.
I will not go into all the complexities and nuances. Senator Milne and I both spoke on this bill at second reading and fundamentally we said the same thing. It is not perfect, but it is the best we have, so let us get on with it.
I will not question you.
Senator Milne: Ms. Jarratt, regarding the war brides who came here with foreign-born children, under this bill now, will their grandchildren be able to claim citizenship if those grandchildren happen to be born outside the country?
Mr. Chapman: I think I can answer that. I have been briefed by the officials, and it is a good question to clarify with the officials. This will deem them to have been Canadian, because back then there was an Order-in-Council that deemed the war bride children to have the same status as their fathers. Therefore, they will have been deemed to have been Canadian, starting January 1, 1947, born in or out of wedlock. They will have been deemed to have been born in Canada, so their children will be Canadian.
Senator Milne: They will be okay for another generation.
Mr. Chapman: By the way, my children were born out of Canada. I am affected by this, but I am okay with it. We have 22 years.
Senator Milne: Mr. Chapman, you said that the bureaucracy cancelled a Supreme Court decision.
Mr. Chapman: Yes.
Senator Milne: They cannot do that.
Mr. Chapman: Let me try to clarify. I sat before you and I told you that had I been born outside of Canada in any country in the world outside of Canada, today I would be Canadian and so would my children. Because I was born in Canada, I am not Canadian, and neither are my children. Every one of you sat there and thought that this does not make any sense. You are right. None of this makes sense. The laws are really wacky. That was the Supreme Court decision of Benner v. Canada, which ruled that the 1947 Citizenship Act was blatantly discriminatory, mainly against women, because they did not have the rights.
The gist of it was that they granted citizenship to all foreign-born children of a Canadian parent. They assumed that Canadian kids would already be covered, but we were not. When I testified about that, the director general came in one week later and said that the witness was referring to a decision by the Supreme Court that was transitional, that will expire August 14, 2004. That brought back all the antiquated provisions that created all of these things, and it happened right before you people. It was a huge deal.
This is the ultimate, if you will, of identity theft.
Senator Milne: It was not the bureaucracy cancelling it. It was because this was provisional; there was an expiry date.
Mr. Chapman: It was provisional, but the Supreme Court does not want to make law; they want to interpret law. They threw it back to Parliament and said, ``Do it,'' but they never did. As soon as we did that, it got very complicated. In essence, the whole thing was that women did not have the same equality of rights as men. We are the Famous Five children today. You could be active participants in their story and end up as the Famous Five.
Senator Milne: We will not go there.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support passing this bill as quickly as possible. I have agreed with everything that the witnesses have said. Something needs to be done desperately about the Citizenship Act itself, but passing this bill is essential.
The Chair: Mr. Janzen, do you have a comment?
Mr. Janzen: I would like comment with regard to the whole matter of people working in international charitable work and international development work. Our organization has, at any given time, several hundred people working abroad in health, agriculture and education. I am very sympathetic to the argument advanced here. I have had quite a few discussions with officials over the years. I have a certain sympathy for their need to have something that is very clear; otherwise, it will not withstand the Charter. In the present law, there is something called a ``substantial connection.'' How to interpret that phrase ``substantial connection'' is the subject of endless debate.
Even though I am sympathetic towards acknowledging people who are born of international development workers and so on, I also have some sympathy for the need for something clear so that people will know where they stand.
Senator Brown: I support the bill 100 per cent as well.
Could you clarify something for me? My daughter was born out of the country 40 years ago, but she is considered to be both an American and a Canadian because she was born to me, a Canadian, and my wife, who was American only at that time. Then she was required only to be in the United States for one year before she was 25 to reaffirm her American citizenship. I am a little confused.
Mr. Chapman: The confusion has lasted since the beginning of Canadian citizenship. Hopefully it will come to an end. You might have one bureaucrat rule against your daughter and you might have one rule in her favour. We had a World War II veteran who was not denied his citizenship until he went into hospital. All these years he has been considered a Canadian. This bill will clear that up. Once and for all, there will be no more questions. Your daughter will be Canadian.
Senator Brown: I understand that. I support the bill. My daughter and my wife each carried both passports. My wife had to fight 19 years with the American government to retain her American citizenship and, at the same time, get Canadian citizenship without giving up her American citizenship.
Mr. Chapman: You are indicating quite a problem here, because years ago borders were porous. This was very common. Now we are having this problem.
Citizenship in this country is not Charter-compliant. The Citizenship Act should now become Charter-compliant.
The Chair: I thank all the people who were here today, the two panels and the minister, who was here at the beginning of the meeting. We will excuse you now and the committee will take the matter under consideration.
Members of the committee, we have heard the evidence. We can now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-37, either today or, if you want more time to reflect, next Wednesday. You can deal with the bill as it is; you can amend it if you want; or you can make other comments. Further to some of the comments that we have heard today with respect to an overhaul of the Citizenship Act, you may want to get into that kind of commentary as an addendum, or you may want to deal with that on third reading of the bill in the Senate. Those are some of the options you have for dealing with this bill.
Senator Milne: I move that we proceed clause by clause today.
Senator Cordy: I think we should pass the bill today also, but I wonder if we could make an addendum to the bill, passing it without amendment, because we have heard from witnesses that expediency is important, but in the addendum we should recommend that the Citizenship Act be looked at. I heard mention of the recalling of certificates. Mr. Janzen talked about recalling certificates and said that perhaps the minister should look more favourably at those who have had certificates for extended periods of time and be a little generous with those.
Senator Callbeck: I agree that we should pass the bill, but there should be comments. One of those should be that the act needs to be overhauled. Obviously, there are some serious problems there.
Senator Brown: I would like to see the bill passed as well because I am worried that if we start thinking about amendments, this bill will be delayed many of weeks or even into the fall.
The Chair: If there were amendments, the amendments would eventually not only be dealt with by the Senate, but the bill would have to go back to the House of Commons.
Senator Fairbairn: I agree. We have heard significant comments here. I do agree with passing the bill as quickly as we can and getting it done, but I do think there should be comments to it because these are important, maybe not so important for the people who were telling us the story, but they have families too. It would be useful if we had an addendum coming out of this committee.
The Chair: Let me try to summarize. I am hearing that you want to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration today. The inclination of the committee is to pass the bill without amendment and to report it thereon, but it is also to add comments to our report that deal with the need to consider the Citizenship Act in total for possible overhaul and the need perhaps to look at other categories of people whom we have heard about today, including the recalling issue, as Senator Cordy says.
Senator Milne: Charter compliance as well.
The Chair: Charter compliance, yes. We can add those as a commentary. They do not amend or hold up the bill. It is commentary that goes back to the minister and becomes part of the record.
Senator Brown: Could we add to Senator Cordy's comments some kind of an amnesty for these war brides we have heard about? We obviously could not do it ourselves, but we could make a suggestion.
The Chair: I think they are all covered. I think we heard in the testimony that this amendment, Bill C-37, would cover war brides.
Senator Brown: Thank you.
The Chair: I think that is the flavour of the meeting. Do the researchers know what we want in the terms of the commentary?
Senator Keon: We want two clauses: one is a review of the Citizenship Act, and the other is compliance with the Charter.
Senator Milne: A law professor specializing in immigration law cannot understand it.
The Chair: I am being asked by Ms. Reynolds about the draft of the observations. I will work with the researcher on getting this done and will distribute it to members. Then we will not have to deal with this at a further meeting. That is why I wanted to get the flavour of the observations.
Senator Milne: I would suggest that the steering committee could deal with the draft observations.
The Chair: That would be okay too. That is fine by me. The steering committee is myself, Senator Keon and Senator Pépin. We will deal with that and submit it.
We have agreed that we should now deal with clause-by-clause consideration. This is standard jargon.
Shall the title and clause 1 stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall call 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We are back to clause 1 that stood postponed. Shall that carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that this bill be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: With observations. Is it agreed that I report this bill with observations at the next sitting of the Senate or when we have the observations ready next week?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
That means that Bill C-37 has been adopted without amendment but with observations. That will be reported back to the Senate. That completes Bill C-37.
Could you please turn your attention to the budgets documents. These are budgets from our two subcommittees, one on the study of cities and the other on the study of population health. There is also one for the special study on early learning and child care. We had authorized this one in the last fiscal year, but this completes it in this fiscal year and provides for additional funds that may or may not be necessary. Finally we have the budget on the legislation portion of our program, which, as you can see, deals with meals.
Are there any questions or comments about the budgets that we have before us? There is over $600,000 involved here. This is more than we spent in probably the last two years combined, although we have not traveled as much as we are travelling now.
Senator Keon: Mr. Chair, for information for when you go in front of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, I understand that this is also the busiest committee in the Senate.
The Chair: It certainly is a busy committee, no doubt about it.
Honourable senators, I know that you are paying rapt attention to the budget, but can we agree on this? Are there any questions or comments on the budget items? If not, we need a motion on each budget.
We have a motion on the cities study from Senator Pépin. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have a motion on the population health budget from Senator Keon. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have a motion from Senator Pépin on the special study on early learning. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have a motion from Senator Keon on the legislation budget. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
If there is nothing else, this committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned.