Bill C-37 (Historical)

An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts

This enactment amends the National Capital Act to
(a) modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission and increase its transparency;
(b) clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities, including those regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship;
(c) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;
(d) enhance the National Capital Commission’s regulation-making powers;
(e) remove the requirement that the National Capital Commission seek Governor in Council approval for real estate transactions; and
(f) harmonize that Act with the civil law regime of Quebec.
This enactment also amends the Official Residences Act to clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities regarding official residences. As well, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Action Plan for the National Capital Commission

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts.

First of all, we have serious questions about the bill regarding the changes made to the governance of the National Capital Commission and the management of Gatineau Park. We plan to support Bill C-37 in principle, so it may be referred to committee for further study.

The national capital is a symbol of our country. It is important to ensure that this vision is understood by all visitors from around the world.

The national capital is a symbol of our country and it is important to ensure it represents the vision of Canada to visitors from around the world. An open and transparent National Capital Commission is critical to ensure that the capital represents the values of Canadians.

The national capital region is one of the most beautiful capitals in the world and we are very proud of it.

This organization is an important part of the national capital region. We must maintain transparency within the National Capital Commission and continue to improve it if possible. An open and transparent corporation would reflect the values of Canadians.

This update is a reflection of the current political reality. The public wants to have access to the discussions that relate to where they live. Any decisions that are made will have considerable repercussions on their lives. It is also a matter of principle. So, we have some serious questions, as I was saying, regarding the administrative changes proposed for the NCC.

I would remind the House that it is an independent corporation. Here are a few lines from the National Capital Commission's web site regarding its mission:

to prepare plans for and assist in the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance;

to organize, sponsor or promote such public activities and events in the national capital region as will enrich the cultural and social fabric of Canada.

Generally speaking the role of the NCC is to develop the land in the National Capital Region and to promote our region.

This bill is a follow up to the recommendations of an ad hoc committee chaired by Mr. Gilles Paquet in 2006. The specific purpose of Bill C-37 is to amend the National Capital Act to:

(a) modify the governance structure of the National Capital Commission and increase its transparency;

(b) clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities, including those regarding planning and sound environmental stewardship;

(c) establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park;

(d) enhance the National Capital Commission’s regulation-making powers;

(e) remove the requirement that the National Capital Commission seek Governor in Council approval for real estate transactions; and

(f) harmonize that Act with the civil law regime of Quebec.

This enactment also amends the Official Residences Act to clarify the National Capital Commission’s responsibilities regarding official residences.

Along with the green belt, Gatineau Park is one of the jewels in the crown of Canada's capital. Born of the Greber plan, it has gone on to become the lifeblood of our capital. Today we have some serious questions about the boundaries of Gatineau Park. They need to be made very clear.

On page 13 of the bill, the description of the Gatineau Park boundaries reads as follows:

The boundaries of Gatineau Park are within the registration divisions of Hull, Gatineau and Pontiac, Province of Quebec, are located in the municipalities of Chelsea, La Pêche, Pontiac and the City of Gatineau, and form part of the cadastres of the Township of Aldfield, the Township of Eardley, the Township of Hull, the Township of Masham, the Township of Onslow and the Cadastre du Québec.

An examination of this bill leads one to immediately grasp the need for a thorough study of the matter. The description of the boundaries runs from page 12 through page 34, a very detailed description. So we will be in need of briefings, maps, engineers, and GPS to make sure that everything that needs to be included or excluded is properly delineated and identified. We therefore feel this requires a far more thorough examination in committee. There we need to clarify its functions and accessibility and set the boundaries.

For many reasons, I do not think that Gatineau Park should necessarily become a national park, basically because there are portions of land inside and around the park that belong to the government of Quebec. I also think that any protection afforded the park should not include a prohibition of citizens to have access and engage in activities there. However there should be some limits set.

Highway developments in recent years have improved access for residents to the western part of the city of Gatineau and to the park. Like the greenbelt in Ottawa, Gatineau Park is an ecological treasure, but it must also be able to grow and adapt to the human environment. There must be a balance between the two. Protecting the park is essential. To do so, we have to know its physical boundaries and put protective mechanisms in place.

Some are disappointed that Bill C-37 does not go far enough, but others are happy to begin the discussion. That is the gist of the message I want to deliver today. We must vote in favour of the bill so that it can be studied in depth in committee. In the course of that process, we will have to pay attention to certain concepts included in the bill so that they are fully understood and defined. I cite for example two terms used in the bill which must be studied, explained and explored. The first is the reference to a national interest land mass and the second concerns the ecological integrity of the park.

The bill raises other questions. Would the NCC charge user fees? Also, is there a possibility of privatizing the park, certain parts of it or certain works arising from the use and preservation of the park? In addition, this bill raises the issue of public transit in the region. This whole issue, and its local and regional impact, must be studied. The issue of transportation in the region is nothing new, even though it is included in this bill. It is part of the original mandate of the National Capital Commission. That is why the commission has already participated and is now participating in studies and in some planning of transportation. The use and disposition of properties in the park must also be very clear, so as to cause no prejudice to anyone.

In conclusion, the Liberal Party of Canada will support Bill C-37 in principle, in the interest of its further study in committee.

At this time we support the bill proceeding to committee stage. In principle, the bill adds clarity and transparency to the National Capital Commission and grants it clearer responsibilities in which to manage itself. There are questions on how these administrative changes will work and we will need to examine these in committee. The issue of setting the boundaries of Gatineau Park must also be examined closely. This issue has the potential to be controversial. We will examine this issue more closely over the summer and in committee.

In principle, the bill brings clarity and transparency to the National Capital Commission, and assigns it clear management responsibilities. We have questions about how these administrative changes will function, and so will need to have them studied in committee.

Any question relating to the boundaries of Gatineau Park must also be very closely examined.

We will work on this over the summer and during its study in committee, seeking the clarifications to all the issues we raise.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

moved that Bill C-37, An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, since its creation in 1959 the National Capital Commission has ensured that the national capital region would remain a place of which all Canadians can be proud. Our government believes that this region is a second home for every Canadian.

In fact, the national capital region has a special place in our history and heritage. It is for that reason among others that we must take action to promote and protect it.

That is officially the mission of the National Capital Commission.

The decisions made by the commission are consistent with the role of the region, not only for those who have the privilege of living here, but also for all those who have the good fortune to call Canada their home.

The mandate of the commission is to plan and build a national capital that is beautiful and that reflects the unique character and significance of the seat of the Government of Canada.

Not only does the NCC develop, conserve and improve the national capital region, but it also organizes and sponsors a great number of events that enrich the cultural and social fabric of the region and of the country as a whole.

Before I outline our government's action plan for the National Capital Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the important role this city and surrounding area have played in Canada's development.

From the time when the Ottawa River was jam-packed with fallen white pines on their way to Quebec City and onward, to the vibrant G8 centre of today, Canada's capital has evolved with the nation.

From its humble beginnings as a rough-and-tumble shantytown far from major centres of Toronto and Montreal, today the capital region is a thriving metropolis straddling the border of Canada's two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec.

The desire to protect and maintain the beauty of this region is almost as old as Canada itself. In 1899 the Government of Canada established the Ottawa Improvement Commission in order to beautify the city, including its parks and lands along the Ottawa River.

A series of unfortunate incidents occurred in the early 20th century that had a noticeable impact on the region. Among the most damaging, the great fire of 1900 and another fire in 1916 which destroyed the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings.

If not for the dedicated efforts of many people, the Centre Block may have never been rebuilt and our two cities would have evolved very differently. Instead, successive governments realized how important it was to build a strong capital region in the image of the country and for all Canadians.

By the start of the second world war, attractive parks and driveways and public buildings were seen around the capital. Initiatives were well underway to protect the forests in the Gatineau Park.

Ten years later, the government asked French architect Jacques Gréber to develop a strategic plan for the national capital region.

His vision, explained in a document known as the Gréber report or the Gréber plan, was presented to the House of Commons in 1951, before it would significantly shape changes in the capital region, during the second half of the last century.

Indeed, the National Capital Act came into effect in 1958. The national capital region was then officially defined as an area of approximately 4,700 square kilometres that included 27 municipalities, in two different provinces. The act also established the National Capital Commission as the federal body responsible for the capital region.

The commission is now responsible for a large number of properties and popular events in the region, to which both locals and visitors are deeply attached.

Indeed, many Canadians have had the opportunity to enjoy these activities, whether it is skating on the Rideau Canal during Winterlude, or admiring the fireworks from Parliament Hill. Thanks to the NCC, the national capital has all kinds of exciting attractions for Canadians.

However, the National Capital Commission is responsible for more than just annual celebrations. It also oversees the Greenbelt, the parkways, bike paths and the Gatineau Park.

This government recognizes the importance of the National Capital Commission in the region and the rest of the country. This is why we have sought to keep it relevant to the times.

In 2006 the Prime Minister named me minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Shortly after I launched a review of the commission to assess the continuing relevance of its mandate, mission and activities.

An independent panel, chaired by Gilles Paquet, recognized that capital cities were distinct and most capitals had an agency responsible for their oversight. These agencies are charged with planning work, reviewing architecture and design, handling heritage buildings and managing public programming events.

During its review, the independent panel held meetings with numerous experts, received written briefs and heard oral presentations at public meetings in Ottawa and Gatineau from more than 100 people. The panel considered the opinions raised by all stakeholders, including concerns regarding the expansion of the National Capital Commission's mandate, governance mechanisms and lack of clarity in legislation.

In December 2006, the independent panel released its report to the public. The panel's report was comprised of 31 recommendations, including renewed funding, new rules for openness for board meetings, separation of the roles of the chief executive officer and board chair, a more direct connection to Parliament and a new focus on the environment.

Our government has implemented a number of measures to follow up on the panel's recommendations. For example, in the 2007 budget, we increased NCC funding to $15 million. This additional money has allowed the National Capital Commission to continue its important work, without having to give up on some assets, such as the Greenbelt.

We have also established the distinct positions of chairperson and chief executive officer. Then, in September of last year, the government authorized the National Capital Commission to acquire private properties located in Gatineau Park, without having to seek approval for every single transaction.

We have achieved a lot in terms of implementing the independent panel's recommendations.

The amendments being proposed in the bill take into account the majority of the panel's remaining recommendations, the intentions of private members' bills presented in Parliament and public comments. If passed, the amendments proposed by the government will make the NCC operations more transparent and accountable and will allow the NCC to better fulfill its mandate.

Among the major changes brought forward, let me review a few.

The first requires the board directors to hold at least four meetings in public per year, while still maintaining the option to have closed-door meetings, if necessary. This was an extremely important issue when I sat as a town councillor in Gatineau city hall. This was an important area because town councils in both cities were open to public discussion. It was, needless to say, an extremely important element.

The second requires the board of directors to submit once every 10 years a 50-year master plan to the National Capital Region to be tabled in the House of Commons. This is similar to what we see in many municipalities across the country, where the schema is tabled so that everybody can have a better view of where their community is going over the course of the next several years.

Through these changes, we are formally recognizing the fact that the NCC is already responsible for six official residences, and we are also recognizing the role that it is already playing in transport planning in the capital region.

The NCC will no longer have to seek cabinet approval for individual real estate transactions such as acquisitions, disposals and leasing. From now on, the way the NCC manages this type of transactions will be subject to approval under the current annual corporate planning process.

This legislation establishes the boundaries of Gatineau Park, and it emphasizes sound environmental stewardship.

Moreover, the regulatory powers of the National Capital Commission would be strengthened to better protect its lands and natural habitats.

As the legislation currently exists, there is no legal requirement to hold any meetings in public at all. Therefore, in 2007, following the mandate review of 2006, the commission took the initiative to become a more open and transparent organization. It invited the public to come to its board meetings. The first of these meetings took place in November 2007, and this was a good step toward modernizing the crown corporation.

The amendments proposed by our government will require that the commission's board of directors meet in public meetings at least four times a year. This will help make the more organization more transparent and accountable.

Currently the National Capital Commission does not have any requirements to publish any planning reports. However, by requiring the organization to submit a 50-year master plan at least every 10 years to the Governor-in-Council and table it in the House, the public will have a better sense of the overall direction and plan for our national capital region.

For many residents, the national capital region's Gatineau Park is an important green space and one of the most popular regional amenities throughout the year. Over the past few years, this government has heard from stakeholders, including members of Parliament, that the park is not being adequately protected.

The changes that we are making to the National Capital Act would require the commission to manage its properties in accordance with the principles of responsible environmental stewardship, with particular attention being given to maintain its ecological integrity. These changes would ensure that the Gatineau Park's breathtaking beauty and rich history would remain preserved for generations to come.

One key element in the mandate of the National Capital Commission is the National Interest Land Mass. These lands are located in the national capital region and have been acquired by the federal government over the past century. This land is considered essential to the functioning and experience of the capital, including the greenbelt, the Gatineau Park, riverbanks, public places and commemorations.

The existing National Capital Act is silent on the National Interest Land Mass. This has caused confusion among stakeholders, specifically regarding the types of properties to be included as part of this collection of lands and the process used to designate these properties.

The bill before the House proposes that the commission may designate or remove designations of properties that are part of the National Interest Land Mass only if pertinent regulations have been approved by the Governor-in-Council. These regulations would set out the criteria that are used in deciding which properties should be included and the process followed by the commission in arriving at these designations.

The National Capital Commission has a number of tools at its disposal to ensure that the lands for which it is responsible are properly administered in the interests of Canadians over the long term. Currently, the NCC's responsibilities are limited to protecting property, preserving order and preventing accidents.

The proposed legislation would allow the Governor in Council to make regulations governing the use of the property and the activities that take place there, and protecting the area's environment, the goal being to improve real property management and environmental stewardship. The National Capital Commission should have the means to enforce these regulations. Accordingly, the bill provides that any person who contravenes these regulations can be fined.

The proposed changes to the legislation also aim to make the commission, and specifically the deliberations of its board of directors, its long-term planning activities, and its decisions related to the national interest land mass, more transparent. In addition, the bill places a special emphasis on the protection of not only the real property for which the NCC is responsible, but also the environment and ecological integrity of Gatineau Park. As well, the bill recognizes the role the commission plays in areas such as transportation planning and the management of official residences in the national capital region.

I urge all members to vote in favour of this bill to keep our national capital region vibrant and a place of well-being for future generations.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Thursday question, and I will not suggest that it was a little bit crazy for the hon. member to suggest that this is the last Thursday, because even if the House would be sitting Monday and Tuesday, it would still be the last Thursday of this session, if I have read my calendar properly.

I will get to his two specific questions later. First, I would like to inform the House that we will continue debate today with Bill C-36, our serious time for the most serious crime bill, and then Bill C-37, concerning the National Capital Act.

Tomorrow is the last allotted day for this supply period. Pursuant to a special order made earlier today, government business will begin one hour earlier than normal, at 9 a.m., and conclude at 1 p.m., which, for a normal Friday, is half an hour earlier.

Since there is no private members' business on the last allotted day, the bells to call in the members to dispose of all business relating to supply will begin at 1 p.m. tomorrow. The voting will thus begin at 1:15. When the votes are concluded, the House will adjourn for the summer, pursuant to the opposition motion.

I note that there is an opposition motion dealing with the business of opposition days, allotted days for the fall session. There was, I understand, some extensive discussion and consultation between the Prime Minister and the leader of the official opposition in that regard. Of course, if that opposition motion tomorrow passes, I will give careful consideration to the first opposition day and when it will be in September. I will think about that long and hard over the summer.

With respect to the other question, about the honorary citizenship for the Aga Khan, I will be circulating a motion to that effect to the other parties, and perhaps we can do that tomorrow. On the last day, I think that might be suitable, and hopefully everybody will agree to that.

Finally, since this will be my last response to a Thursday question before we adjourn for the summer, I would like to thank all hon. members for their co-operation during this session. I think we achieved a great deal during our spring sitting. This afternoon, Her Excellency, the Governor General, will be granting royal assent to eight additional bills. Next week we expect to add to that list, and 12 bills have already received royal assent during this session.

Politicians often talk about how they want this Parliament to work, and what they are referring to is the co-operation I just mentioned. However, as the hon. House leader for the official opposition mentioned, and I want to add my words of praise, the true folks who really make Parliament work are the hard-working, professional, dedicated staff of the House of Commons. You, Mr. Speaker, and Madam Clerk should be very proud of them, because, and I think I can speak for all members, we here in the House certainly appreciate everything they do for us every day, every minute of every day, in fact.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not specifically single out our pages for the exemplary work they did throughout the session. They will be leaving us, I know, with great sadness. Tomorrow will be their last day. We will certainly miss them. On behalf of the government, I would like to extend our very best wishes for a terrific future on whatever paths their future takes them.

[Rick Stewart]

I'm going to turn to my colleague to talk about the practice of other countries in terms of limits on citizenship by descent and the communication strategy. This is with respect to your question about the provisions to meet the increased demand for proof applications that might emerge from Bill C-37.

Given the significant uncertainty at the time, when we were drafting the bill and putting into place the operational plans, regarding the number of individuals who would actually come forward to avail themselves of the provisions of Bill C-37--the uncertainty about just how many are actually out there in the world who might meet the criteria of Bill C-37--the decision was taken that rather than seeking dedicated additional resources, we would closely monitor the take-up of the provisions of the act.

We are committed to managing a certain increase within existing resources, as we do on our day-to-day business in managing the pressures of the business. If we find that the demand for proofs that emerges out of Bill C-37 is placing an undue hardship on the department, then we will take the appropriate measures to seek the additional resources we need to be able to keep up with the demand. For now, we're managing within our existing resource base, to the best of our ability, and so far we have not seen a surge in demand related to Bill C-37. But it is early days.

With respect to your comment about the lost Canadians and the provisions we have if they're not eligible under the provisions of Bill C-37, unfortunately, I will go back to the special discretionary grant of citizenship in subsection 5(4) under the act. That is the means in which we will consider the merits of individuals' cases who do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of the normal legislative provisions.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much.

And I do ask this question on behalf of the chair, who has directed me to ask this question in the spirit of cooperation. Let me just say very quickly that I'm sure you've already clearly identified the two points that the committee is concerned with, but I do have to ask these questions. These questions were written by our very capable researchers, who do a fine job to provide us with information.

What communication plan has Citizenship and Immigration Canada implemented to inform people about the changes of Canadian citizenship? As a result of the implementation of Bill C-37, CIC can expect an increased demand for certain services--for example, the volume of applications for proof of Canadian citizenship could rise and more inquiries could be made to CIC offices. What measures has the department put in place to prepare for increased demand for citizenship-related services?

Finally, the situation of certain lost Canadians will not be resolved by Bill C-37. What other solutions are available to these groups?

As a result of Bill C-37, citizenship by descent is now limited to the first generation born abroad. How does this provision compare to citizenship laws of other countries?

I think you understand that this is a really important issue. At the human level, you're talking about something very fundamental in the sense that citizenship gives individuals a sense of belonging. In our lives, it's very important as human beings to belong to a group, to a family, to a community. The highest form of expression of belonging to a country is actually through citizenship. So that is of concern.

On a lighter note, but deep down I think it's important, you say here, “The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian”. My question is, do dreams qualify you as a Canadian citizen?

[Andrew Griffith, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Andrew Griffith. I am the director general of citizenship and multiculturalism branch at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. As the chair noted, I am accompanied by my colleagues Rick Stewart and Nicole Girard. We appear in connection with your study of the subject matter of Bill C-37.

As you know, Bill C-37 was passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament, received royal assent on April 17, 2008, and was implemented a year later on April 17, 2009.

In the past, the committee had expressed concern about implementing the law within a year and raising awareness about the new law. Today, I would like to take a moment to briefly describe the legislative amendments, the implementation efforts and steps taken to communicate those changes to the public.

I'd also like to address the situation of individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situation merited special consideration.

Because of the demonstrated need for stability, simplicity, and consistency in citizenship status, what follows is the basic outline of the amendments provided in Bill C-37.

Mr. Chair, these amendments restore or give Canadian citizenship to many who never had it or who lost it due to previous laws; limit Canadian citizenship to the first generation born to Canadian parents outside Canada; and allow people adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977, to apply for a grant of citizenship. This expands on the provision implemented in December 2007 to allow children adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents since February 15, 1977, to apply directly for citizenship without first having to become permanent residents, also known as Bill C-14.

Under the old rules, it was possible for Canadians to pass on their citizenship to endless generations born outside Canada. To protect the value of Canadian citizenship for the future, the new law limits citizenship by descent to one generation born outside Canada, similar to rules in other countries like the UK and New Zealand.

This means that children born to Canadian parents in the first generation outside Canada will be Canadian at birth only if one parent was born in Canada or one parent became a Canadian citizen by immigrating to Canada and was later granted citizenship, also known as naturalization.

Canadian citizens who have children born outside of Canada who are not eligible for automatic citizenship may be eligible to sponsor them for permanent residence, and once in Canada they can apply for citizenship. This of course includes children who are stateless. Stateless children who are unable to obtain a travel document may be issued a single-journey travel document by the department to enable them to come to Canada.

As an additional safeguard against statelessness, Bill C-37 contained a provision for a grant of citizenship for children who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, who were born stateless, and who have always been stateless. These persons are not required to become permanent residents; however, three years' residence in Canada is required in order to access a grant under this provision. This provision meets Canada's obligations under the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

While Bill C-37 restored or granted citizenship to the majority of those who lost citizenship or who never had it due to outdated provisions in past legislation, there may be individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situations may merit special consideration. Individuals who lost citizenship and who do not qualify under Bill C-37 may either apply for permanent residence and then for citizenship, or request consideration for a discretionary grant of citizenship without going through the immigration process.

I understand that concerns were raised by witnesses at last week's standing committee meeting about the use of the discretionary powers under section 5(4) to resolve citizenship anomaly cases not covered by Bill C-37.

On May 29, 2007, when announcing her intention to table legislation to deal with lost Canadians, then Minister Diane Finley acknowledged that the legislative proposals would not resolve all cases. She said, “Those rare cases where the facts turn on circumstance of birth outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947, and where citizenship is in doubt, would remain”.

She went on: “Given the variety of individual circumstances in these cases, I believe that we must continue the current approach—to judge each case on its merits, and as warranted, use the powers available to me as minister to bestow special grants of citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act.”

The section 5(4) provision of the Citizenship Act addresses exceptional cases. Each of these cases is considered on its own merit. Since decisions to grant citizenship rest with the Governor in Council, there is no guarantee that an application will be approved.

Since 2007, 184 lost Canadian cases have been approved by the Governor in Council for a discretionary grant of citizenship. This includes 104 in 2007, 69 in 2008 and 11 in 2009. The total number of 5(4) grants for 2009 is 21 to date—this includes lost Canadians as well as all others.

We are aware of concerns that this exceptional authority is not being used enough. However, generally speaking, anyone who has never been Canadian, who has not lived here for many years, or who has never lived here and has a citizenship of another country in which they have resided most of their life likely does not have a strong case for the exceptional use of this discretionary authority to grant citizenship. However, where appropriate, given the facts of the case, an exceptional grant of citizenship has been made or we have made other arrangements, such as issuing temporary residence permits.

The department has taken numerous steps to prepare for the implementation of Bill C-37, including the development of regulations, policies, and procedures; manual updates; new application forms and kits; and changes to the global case management system to enable processing, training for staff, and the implementation of an innovative and cost-effective communications strategy to promote awareness of the changes.

CIC staff, including case officers and call-centre agents, have been trained in the new law. As part of its communications strategy, CIC has taken steps to ensure that the new rules are reaching Canadians inside and outside Canada.

The CIC has used a wide variety of channels to spread the word on the new law, including building a web landing page, www.cic.gc.ca/citizenship; reaching out to federal partners such as Passport Canada, Service Canada, and DFAIT; and getting the provinces and territories to use their channels to inform clientele of citizenship changes.

CIC has also used an innovative approach, disseminating the message on the changes through social marketing, including designing and implementing a YouTube video called Waking up Canadian. The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian on April 17, 2009, and directs people to CIC's website for more information on the changes. The video has had over 185,000 hits.

CIC partnered with the Canadian embassy in Washington to raise awareness of the changes among Canadians living in the United States. The embassy helped us spread the word through organizations like Connect to Canada, a virtual network of more than 43,000 people who share a link to Canada, many of whom are Canadian expats.

CIC has also implemented an online self-assessment tool on its website to give people an idea, through a series of questions and answers, whether they are likely citizens under the new law. Close to 110,000 people have used the self-assessment tool.

Because we do not know exactly how many individuals will be affected by these changes, nor where they live, the video is proving to be an effective and low-cost way of drawing people to the CIC website for more information.

Thank you. That concludes my statement. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to not just the regular Thursday question about the business of the House for the next week, but indeed to respond to all the questions from my colleague across the way.

In the order that we will dealing with it, today we are debating a motion from the New Democratic Party, which has its supply day today.

Tomorrow we will continue, and hopefully conclude, the third reading stage of Bill C-6, product safety, followed by Bill C-36, the faint hope bill. The backup bill tomorrow will be Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Monday, June 15 and Friday, June 19, 2009 shall be allotted days.

On Monday, we will be introducing a bill regarding the Maa-nulth First Nations agreement. It is my intention, provided that I have an agreement from all the other parties, to call and complete that bill on Tuesday. On behalf of that first nation, I express my appreciation to all hon. members and all the parties in the House.

Next week, I will also call Bill C-26, auto theft, for report and third reading. My hope is that we will get that down the hall to get it dealt with at the Senate.

In addition to Bill C-26, we will also consider Bill C-36, the faint hope bill; Bill C-37, National Capital Act; Bill C-38, Nahanni; and Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure. All of these bills, as we know, are at second reading.

I am hoping that Bill S-4, identity theft, can be sent over from the Senate expeditiously. If and when it arrives, I will be seeking the cooperation of the opposition to try to expedite that bill in our Chamber.

I might add that despite the assurance of the hon. opposition House leader last week, after we had passed Bill C-33 at all stages, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families, I expected the Senate to quickly follow suit. Although sad, it is true that time is running out for some of these veterans and their families. They are waiting to receive these benefits. This bill is not controversial, but the delay of this bill by Liberal senators will become controversial very quickly.

Last week I also mentioned Bill C-29 in my Thursday reply, which the hon. member for Wascana mentioned a minute ago. That is the agricultural loans bill, which will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. Today the Liberal senators did not grant leave to even consider the bill, let alone agree to adopt it.

Another week has come and gone. I am not sure how the member for Wascana intends to return to farm families in Saskatchewan and explain why his senators in the other place are delaying the passage of Bill C-29.

[Sandra Forbes]

The issue here, though, is that in Bill C-37, adopted persons are identified specifically.

[Sandra Forbes]

That's the problem with Bill C-37.

[Andrew Bilski, Concerned adoptive parent, As an Individual]

Good morning.

I'm an adoptive parent and a past board member of the Children's Bridge Foundation, which is the charitable arm of Children's Bridge.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a subject that's very important to me, my family, and thousands of other Canadian families with adopted children from other countries.

Canada, of course, is a nation of immigrants. Haitian-born Michaëlle Jean came here as a child refugee some 40 years ago, and now serves as Canada's 27th Governor General. Countless other immigrants, whether famous or not, have made significant contributions to their adopted country. They've served in Parliament, started companies, taught in schools, created art, policed our streets, grown our food and infrastructure, and raised civic-minded families.

I too immigrated here from the United States in 1976. To me, Canada represented multiculturalism, equality, justice, multi-party democracy, progressive social policy, and a voice of reason in an increasingly hostile world. I worked as a journalist here for nearly 30 years, and in that time I have never regretted my decision to become part of this great country. But lately I have been troubled by some aspects of Bill C-37, which ostensibly and laudably restores citizenship rights to so-called lost Canadians, but also perhaps unintentionally creates two-tiered Canadian citizenship.

My Canadian-born wife, Pamela, and I have two daughters. Bridget, born in Toronto in 1990, who will be entering her second year at the University of Western Ontario this September, and Nina, born in Zhangjiagang, China, in 1998, who is a grade five student at Clinton Street Junior Public School in Toronto. Nina, thankfully, is not subject to Bill C-37, and has the same citizenship rights as her Canadian-born sister.

I'm here today to speak for the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of other children who will not be so fortunate.

When Canadians adopt internationally, they give their children their surname, their love, their emotional and financial support, and their citizenship. With the passage of Bill C-37, however, thousands of foreign adopted children become second-class citizens. Unlike their Canadian-born siblings and friends, they've been stripped of the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to their own children born or adopted abroad.

To make matters worse, this deplorable situation seems to hinge on the mere method by which these foreign adopted children acquire Canadian citizenship in the first place. One group of children who come to Canada on a permanent resident visa and subsequently obtain citizenship through naturalization are not subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they're considered first-class citizens with the rights that most of us here enjoy. However, a second group that acquires citizenship by grant through direct route, the most popular method since December 2007, are subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they become second-class citizens with no right to pass on their Canadian citizenship to future generations born or adopted abroad.

My question is, why? What possible reason could the framers of this bill have to distinguish between these two groups of adopted children? Commenting on the intent of the bill, Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, has stated that the government wants to limit the right of citizenship to “those people who have some kind of enduring presence or commitment to Canada”.

If so, what's the evidence that the second group of children, the foreign adopted ones who acquired citizenship through the direct route, will not have an enduring presence or commitment to Canada? Are they more likely than other Canadians, such as Liberal Party of Canada Leader Michael Ignatieff, to live abroad for vast periods of their lives? Are they less likely than other Canadians, such as the 40% or so who don't even both to vote in federal elections, to be committed to this country?

I'd like to remind the committee that many countries, including China, revoke the citizenship of a child upon foreign adoption. If these adopted children are not Canadian, then what are they? Their only national allegiance is to their adopted country.

I've come here today to respectfully ask you to right this injustice. In attempting to bolster the value of Canadian citizenship, Bill C-37 diminishes the rights of many foreign-adopted children. In so doing, it tarnishes Canada's international reputation as a champion of human rights.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Completely. That served its purpose very well, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask you, though, Mr. Noorani, about your thoughts. You were going to give some further thoughts, and of course, because of the time limit, it was cut down. What are your thoughts on the second-generation born-abroad provisions of the Citizenship Act and Bill C-37?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Let's get back to Bill C-37, Mr. Dykstra.

[Jacqueline Scott]

If I had been born two years later, I would be covered by Bill C-37, but I was born in 1945.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I have here speaking notes from Mark Davidson, director of legislation and program policy, citizenship division, regarding a study on Bill C-37. That was given to us on February 11, 2008, and it said, “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will still have the authority, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to grant citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act in special cases”.

These special cases are the 71. That would then deal with all the problems, putting aside second generation. Let me ask Jacqueline Scott and Marcel Gélinas: in both of your situations, upon granting through this subsection 5(4), would you be proud Canadians? Even though in your hearts you're Canadians, now, on paper, you will be proud Canadians. Am I correct in that?