Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Since it's 3:45, we will bring our meeting to order. Our apologies for keeping our witnesses waiting. We did have votes in the House today so we're a bit late getting here. I'm sorry about that.

We do want to welcome you here today for the pre-study of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, and we have with us today, and I want to welcome on behalf of our committee, from the Lost Canadian Organization, the person who needs no introduction to us--he's been here before on a number of occasions--Mr. Don Chapman.

Welcome, Don.

Representing Canadian War Brides is historian Melynda Jarrett.

You have been here before too, Melinda. Welcome to you.

And of course Mr. William Janzen, director of the Ottawa office of the Mennonite Central Committee, is a familiar face as well and has been here on a number of occasions.

Thank you.

So we'll pass it over to our witnesses, and I think, Mr. Clerk, it's a 10-minute opening statement from each of the individuals.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Chaplin]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Who do we begin with?

Mr. Janzen. Thank you.

[William Janzen, Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Everyone here is familiar with the proverb about the perfect being the enemy of the good, and this bill is good. Indeed, it's very good. It doesn't cover everything that we might wish it would cover, but the members of this committee have worked hard on these issues. They've submitted good reports, and the government has come forward with a bill that addresses far more than any piece of legislation hitherto has done.

It is tempting to put forth several suggestions for improvements, but I will refrain from doing that, because I want to emphasize the importance of the bill, and to express the strong hope that it can move through Parliament expeditiously and that it can be passed and adopted.

The main reason we strongly support this bill is that it will abolish the loss retention provision, which is section 8 in the current act. This provision states that if you are a second-generation born-abroad person, then you have citizenship until age 28. But before you turn 28, you have to go through a retention process. If you fail, then you cease to be a citizen at age 28.

We have never quarrelled with that principle: that second-generation people should be required to take some explicit steps if they want to remain Canadians. Our problem has been with the administrative confusion, because when this section came into force in 1977, the certificates of citizenship that were issued to people who came under it were identical to the certificates issued to people who did not come under it. Given that not nearly all second-generation born-abroad people came under it, there was a huge problem in identifying which second-generation born-abroad people do come under it.

The certificates looked exactly the same, so I could tell many stories of people going into citizenship offices with their certificates and saying, “Is it true that this certificate will cease to be valid when I turn 28?”, and the official looks at it and says, “It looks like it's perfectly valid to me.” And it does look like it's perfectly valid. Then they don't go through the retention process, and eventually they cease to be citizens when they turn 28.

There are other problems. Even people who know that they need to get a new certificate, they become confused with the word “retention”. Those of us who work on this issue all the time know that the term “getting a retention” is a little bit different from simply getting a new certificate. They go on to the Internet, they see an application form to apply for a new certificate, they apply for a new certificate, get a new certificate, and think they've met the retention requirement. They haven't. They need to fill in exactly the right form. So there's confusion.

We have not argued with the principle of the retention requirement, only with the confusion of administering it. But that confusion is so serious that we are very, very happy to see it abolished.

I'd like to give one more reason why it should be abolished, and that is--not from our perspective so much as from the perspective of Canadian society-- under the current law, as it stands, a person who's a second-generation born-abroad person may have a baby before turning 28. There's nothing unnatural about that. That baby is automatically a Canadian citizen until they turn 28. That baby has a child before their 28th birthday, so that baby is automatically a Canadian citizen until age 28. It can go on for an infinite number of generations. People can be Canadian citizens without ever developing any kind of connection with Canada. Surely it is in the interests of Canada not to allow citizenship to be cheapened so much in that way.

So for that reason also we are happy to see the loss retention provision abolished.

Some people will argue, well, what about the second-generation people? In reality, let's say, there's a family of first-generation people living outside of Canada and they have some children. Well, the children are second generation. That family, or even just one parent, can come to Canada at any time, as long as that child is a minor, and apply for permanent resident status quite easily and then get citizenship status. So it's not as if the door is absolutely closed to people who want to retain Canadian citizenship. It would not even take any more time than the current retention process would require. So we are willing to accept that as a trade-off. It involves a little more paperwork, but we think it's a reasonable way of dealing with it.

There are several other issues on which we could make suggestions for improvements, but I think given the time slot and my colleagues here, I will leave it at this, and if there's time later, I may return to some of these points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Janzen.

We'll now go to Ms. Jarratt.

[Melynda Jarratt, Historian, Canadian War Brides]

Thank you for inviting me today. This is my fifth appearance before the committee, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed that Bill C-37 has not become reality.

I wrote some notes so I could at least have some thoughts to refer to.

After listening to Bill, I think it's important to clarify the process and who's responsible. It's my understanding that the bill has had first reading and it has to be brought forward to the committee. However, that has not happened yet. Nearly 60 days have passed since the bill was introduced in the House of Commons, on December 10.

I was full of hope in December that we could have this bill passed very, very quickly. As far as I know, everyone is in favour of it. I am. War brides and war bride children are in favour of it, and they're expecting it. In fact they think it has been passed; they don't know that it hasn't.

When the minister, Diane Finley, phoned me on December 10 to explain Bill C-37--as she did with Bill and a number of us who were involved in this issue--I was virtually assured that the passage of the legislation was guaranteed. I wrote down what she said that day because I wanted to remember it; I'm a notetaker, anyway. I asked her how fast this bill could be passed. She said, and I quote, “The ideal is that the committee will push it through as fast as possible. It's entirely up to the committee.”

But the committee can't deal with legislation that has not been sent to it. It's easier for me to travel all the way from Fredericton, New Brunswick, through snowstorms, sitting on the tarmac for an hour, rerouting to Montreal and Toronto, losing my luggage, staying a night in the hotel, and getting here by taxi, than it is for the bill to make its way from down the hall somewhere to this committee.

There is something wrong with the process. We need to get this process speeded up. It's absolutely imperative. It is stalled at the most critical time, given the election fever in Ottawa. I'm not impressed, and neither are most Canadians, that there's talk about an election right when we need to get these very important bills passed that people are waiting for, and they have been waiting a lifetime for in some cases.

Why am I here for a fifth time to speak about this bill? It has still not been brought forward to the committee. It has been 60 days now. It's inexcusable. It's an insult to the 43,454 war brides and their 20,997 children, who they brought to this country in 1946, that it has not been brought before the committee. The committee cannot deal with legislation that has not been brought to it.

It's a national disgrace that these elderly women and their children, especially those who are now in their sixties.... It's these 20,997 children. They are the ones who are most affected by this. These kids--they're not kids anymore--are now 63, 64, 65, and they're approaching CPP and OAP time. Many of them, for the first time in their lives, have been confronted with the reality that the status of their citizenship is in doubt. It's upsetting. I don't have to tell you how upsetting it is. They're afraid. The war brides are afraid to come forward. The ones who never ever left the country, never applied for passports, and who've never had an issue with their citizenship are afraid with all this talk now. They're afraid to come forward with all this uncertainty.

And believe me, I know first-hand about the very personal impact this is having on their lives and how they fear applying for a passport in case their citizenship status is detected by some ill-informed bureaucrat within the department. For example, I know of an 86-year-old woman who was stopped at the border between the United States and New Brunswick two and a half months ago, and she was told to go back. She wasn't allowed in the country because she didn't have her citizenship card.

And there are the children. Let's face it, most of the elderly ladies have dealt with it by now. Those who haven't are going to hide their heads in the sand. They will go away very quietly, and they will die away. But the children have a good long life ahead of them. They've had their lives turned upside down when they found out, after living here all their lives, since the day they stepped off the boat as babes in arms, as Senator Roméo Dallaire did on December 13, 1946.... He arrived here on the Empire Brent with his mother, a Dutch war bride. He found out when he was 21 years old that he was not a Canadian citizen.

It's infuriating to them that they're told they can't vote, that they have to apply for permanent resident status, or they're a subsection 5(4), a special discretionary grant from the minister.

These people have worked all their lives in Canada. They've voted in every election. Some of them have worked as enumerators, for goodness' sake. They've paid taxes. They've even served in the military. Their fathers served Canada with honour during World War II. Their mothers are Canadian war brides. Is this the way we treat the children of war brides?

Subsection 5(4) is not an answer. And it's not the rule of law; it's a special favour of the minister. That's not the way citizenship should be dealt with in this country.

If their fathers were Canadian veterans and their mothers were British war brides, and if they came to this country with the mass transport of war brides at the end of World War II, they are Canadian citizens. If you take the temperature of Canada on this subject, Canadians are going to agree with you on that one.

The surviving war brides and their children don't want to hear any more excuses. They've waited long enough. They've waited 62 years. It's long enough, wouldn't you agree? Their children especially, the war bride children, the 65-, 66-, and 67-year-olds, want to move forward. They want to have a future. They want to make plans. They want to get their lives in order. They want to apply for their Canada pension. They want to apply for their OAP. They may want to take a trip and get a passport. Guess what? It's all held up.

They absolutely have to have this very central part of their identity straightened out so they can get ahead with their lives, make these applications and go on trips, but they're afraid they can't. They don't want to be used as political pawns. They're upset. They're nervous. They're worried. They're fed up. That is not the feel-good story that should be coming out of the very good, hard work of the people of this committee.

You guys have heard a tremendous amount of emotion poured out in front of you here at this committee, the heart and soul of individuals across this country. So many good people from the four parties have sat here and listened to that. They're heart-wrenching stories from people who have cried here. We've had to watch helplessly as the tears in their eyes just spilled out like a flood, and they've been spilled in front of you here in this committee.

It's not the story that politicians want to hear on the eve of an election, which, I tell you, I don't want to hear about, and I don't think the war brides, and their children especially, want to hear about, especially if this bill doesn't pass. The Canadian war brides and their children are not props to be used for political advantage. They are a Canadian icon. They are the most revered and respected citizens, whom Canadians have fallen in love with. The story of love and war, of passion and tragedy, of overcoming so many obstacles, of courage and strength in the face of adversity--it has been the subject of Hollywood movies, of television documentaries, of countless radio interviews, of innumerable print media, Internet articles and books, including my own: War Brides: The stories of the women who left everything behind to follow the men they loved .

I have an entire chapter on the issue of Canadian children of war brides and the issue of citizenship. It's gone out of print. It sold out in Britain. I'm going to be rewriting chapter eight, and I would like to have a happy ending to this story, and I'm sure you guys on this committee, who have worked so hard, all of you—Andrew Telegdi, Meili Faille, Bill Siksay, Ed Komarnicki, Norman Doyle.... There are so many people. I've seen the same faces over and over again here. It's very sad. At this point, all of you have worked so doggedly for the citizenship of people you don't even know, and you knew it was the right thing to do. You can be the heroes of the day. But if this keeps up and the committee does not get the bill immediately—this process I was referring to earlier—I'm not the one who's going to be saying very nice things. I'm not. I'm not going to say nice things, because you guys are in control of the process and you haven't done what you're supposed to do.

Who's “they”? Well, you figure it out yourselves.

Two months ago, I praised the minister when she introduced Bill C-37 in the House of Commons. Just last week I was in Vancouver for the citizenship ceremony of Joe Taylor, who was granted a subsection 5(4). In an interview with Curt Petrovich of CBC's national news, I said, “I've got to give credit where credit's due.” The Tories introduced a bill when no one else would do it. And that is true. I have to give credit where credit's due.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Jarratt, you have half a minute.

[Melynda Jarratt]

Okay, I'm getting to the end.

It doesn't seem to have been carried through.

Ed, you said it wasn't personal, but you know the war brides and their children are going to feel that it's personal. When discussing strippers is more important than discussing war brides and their citizenship at this committee, it's infuriating.

Where is the blame going to lie? It's going to fall where the deck of cards is going to fall.

I want to see this passed. Let's get it passed. It's the right thing to do. It'll look good for everybody, and it's time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much for that passionate presentation. It was good.

Mr. Chapman.

[Don Chapman, Lost Canadian Organization]

I guess I should start with kind of a show and tell. I don't even mind passing them around.

This is a picture of a bunch of women in World War II in the air force for Canada. One of them, with the little arrow, is Kathleen Fremont, who is a lost Canadian. Her brother served in the Pacific, and she really wants to come home.

This is a picture of me holding my daughter, who's now 21--she's just a baby--standing on the border of Canada, and I'm trying to get my citizenship.

I started this process 36 years ago, and I was born in Canada. Here's my birth certificate.

We've done something very good. Everybody now recognizes that there are hundreds of thousands of people affected by this. We're down to, let's say, killing this bill or passing the bill. There's no question; everybody I talk to is on board. The only ones who are not on board are politicians. But the people who are affected are all on board for this bill. Frankly, given Ottawa politics, the way they are right now, this bill might die. So time is really of the essence.

We have a lot of solutions on this one. I've been dealing with all parties along the way.

Here's something. This was brought out just at the end of December. The Civil Liberties Association names the best and worst of 2007. Among the best things in Canada was the lost Canadian stuff that you guys have been doing here in committee.

We're there at the end. I don't want it killed.

Here's something. I have three copies of this if you want to take a look. Here's the United Nations magazine Refugees. If you look at the cover, they're dealing with this strange, hidden world of the stateless. And you look at it and say, what kind of country would do that? And as you turn the page, it just becomes appalling--until you get to dead centre, and they're highlighting the lost Canadians of Canada.

The Economist did a thing on Canada. This is our chance to show the world by our actions that we can easily correct human rights, and this is a human rights abuse. Everybody agrees with it. So it might not be perfect, but hundreds of thousands of people are affected, and believe me, I know the law really well.

Here's the 1947 act, and it says that Canada will give me back my citizenship. But somehow we've fallen through the cracks, and they haven't for 36 years. In all that time--going back 61 years, since the politicians made a mistake--nobody's had the guts to really turn around and correct it until now. So thank you to all of you for putting in all the work you have.

The only thing I can say is let's pass it. It doesn't look as though it's going to go with amendments, so we're saying we'll deal with that down the road, but at least we get our citizenship. This is truly a life-and-death situation for an awful lot of people. When you're dealing with World War II veterans, if we go further, a lot of them won't be alive. Unfortunately, I've been at this a long time. I am the centre of this thing, and I have seen a lot of people die over the years, disenfranchised from the country they defended.

I can get into a lot of very specific issues, but we'll do that in question period, I think, Norman. I'm ready at any time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much, Don.

We've been given great information today.

I would imagine there are a lot of questions that want to be asked, and I will go first of all to our seven-minute round, to Mr. Karygiannis and then Mr. St-Cyr.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I listened with interest to Mr. Janzen when he said that people, instead of applying for retention under this new scheme that the Conservatives are doing, can apply for citizenship and/or apply to sponsor their children. This is something that you alluded to, sir. So if somebody is a Canadian who was born abroad, and their children, the second generation, are born abroad, they can apply to sponsor the children. Is this what you suggested, or am I mistaken?

[William Janzen]

Yes, they can come to Canada.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

The window of opportunity is 22 years.

[William Janzen]

Yes, there's a substantial window.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Here is my thought. My daughter was born abroad to a Canadian citizen and came to this country at two months old. She is one of five children. If, for whatever reason, she decides she wants to live abroad for a couple of years and has a child, under the new scheme the Conservative government is bringing in, only the first generation born abroad would be Canadian citizens.

You're telling me that my grandchild would have to be sponsored into Canada by his or her mother. Is this what you're suggesting?

[William Janzen]

Yes.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Isn't that something similar to the troubles and tribulations that you're going through? Mr. Chapman said that he was with his one-month-old daughter at the border applying to get what was rightfully his, to come back into Canada.

[Don Chapman]

Can I respond to that?

I was born in Canada, and under the current act I'm the one who was stripped of citizenship. So it's not the first generation born abroad; the generation born in Canada, under the current laws, are the ones most affected.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Are you stateless?

[Don Chapman]

No, the United States gave me citizenship, but I've never vowed citizenship to the United States.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Let me give you another situation that could happen. I can talk to you about a child that will be stateless. My daughter was born in Greece. Her parents were Canadian, but because they've taken out Canadian citizenship and were also Greek citizens, the child who was born in Greece was stateless and had to be given Canadian citizenship.

[Don Chapman]

Correct.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Let me finish, Mr. Chapman.

If my daughter marries a Greek and they go back to Greece and have a child there, if that gentleman is also a Canadian, her child will be virtually stateless, because Greece will not give them citizenship. The child, being second generation, will not have citizenship. At least you had an opportunity to be an American.

[Don Chapman]

Actually, no, I never vowed citizenship to the United States. They gave it to me; otherwise I would have been stateless. It was the United States that came to my rescue.

As far as applying is concerned, I know about that very well, because I had to apply to become a landed immigrant in the country I was born in. I was a Canadian citizen. I know the ropes. But Canada has signed a convention against statelessness. I've had several talks with legal departments on this.