Evidence of meeting #41 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizen.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
But it deals with a very narrow issue, and it's certainly not in the context of what you're suggesting in this committee. I appreciate that.
12:05 p.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
No, and when these amendments, in whatever form, come out, that should be done. But let us not forget that overall we need a new citizenship act that is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that has equality of citizenship revocation and restoration.
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, Mr. Chapman.
You do have one minute left if you want to pursue it.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I might mention that at least in a small way, in your instance, the minister did proceed with your case and actually ensured that you were able to obtain Canadian citizenship, as well as your mother, I understand. Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
Member, Private Citizen Leamington (Ontario), Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Yes, we actually picked it up in Windsor on February 28 this year, so I'm very thankful for that.
12:05 p.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Can I make one comment? You mentioned his parents being born out of wedlock. Your parents were born in wedlock; it was the grandfather.... And really, the grandfather was born in wedlock; the difference was whether it was religious or legal. So it's on the record forever, on the Hansard, on the legality side.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Your time is up, Mr. Komarnicki.
We have only about two minutes left, so I'm inclined not to go to another round, but to go back to the witnesses, on behalf of the committee, to see if you have any wrap-up remarks to make, Mr. Chapman. We have only a minute or so, so there's no point in going to another round.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I think Mr. Bill Janzen wants to make a one-minute comment.
Yes.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I have one simple question for Mr. Teichroeb. Can he tell us what this cost him financially, how much? I'm trying to get a dollar figure for it.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, that's a very good question. I think the committee would be curious about that. Sir, would you have any idea?
12:05 p.m.
Member, Private Citizen Leamington (Ontario), Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I have a close idea. Considering that I lost the house and I lost everything, if I were going to be where I was four years ago, today, with everything going up so far in the market, I'm pretty sure it's well over $100,000.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
I don't think we have much time left, Mr. Janzen, but a very brief comment, if you will.
12:05 p.m.
Bill Janzen Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Thank you.
By way of a solution, I think there could be a policy that citizenship certificates will not be declared invalid if the only reason for doing so is that an ancestor had only a church marriage and not a civil marriage.
12:10 p.m.
Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
Such certificates will not be declared invalid; people will simply be allowed to continue to hold them. That will be something like an amnesty. It would solve a lot of problems. That's a matter of policy; you don't need an amendment to the act.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, thank you.
I want to thank the various witnesses who came here today. As you know from the questioning, our committee is very anxious to find a solution. Hopefully, before too long a solution will be forthcoming. Thank you.
Now we go to our next panel. We will suspend for a minute. It says two minutes here, but I don't think we have two minutes. We'll suspend for a minute and invite our second panel to come to the table.
12:12 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
We will come to order, please.
I want to welcome our second panel of witnesses to our committee hearing today: from the Royal Canadian Legion, Mr. Pierre Allard, director of the service bureau, Dominion Command, and Mr. Earl Kish, Dominion Vice-President; and June Francis, professor at Simon Fraser University. Thank you.
I think you know the drill we use here. You will make some opening comments and we will go to our committee for some comments to you.
Oh, I'm sorry, I left out another individual: Marian Vermeersch, Lost Canadians. I'm sorry about that. Accept my apology.
Who is going first? Okay, ladies first, so whichever lady wishes to proceed first, please feel free.
12:12 p.m.
Marion Vermeersch Lost Canadians (Child of war bride), As an Individual
Thank you for inviting me to participate in this. I just hope I can do something to help make some change so that this doesn't happen again.
My name is Marion Vermeersch. I'm from Simcoe, Norfolk County, Ontario, and I'm a child of a war bride. My dad was a dairy farm labourer residing in Norfolk County when war broke out in 1939. With the first group of volunteers...as I said to Don, I think they just dropped their pitchforks and signed up. He went overseas as a sergeant with the Canadian artillery, where he met my mom. My brother and I were both born in Sussex. Dad was injured on D-Day but went on through to the liberation and fall and earned the France and Germany Star. He was not able to marry mom until March of 1945. That was standard for a lot of people; they just didn't get permission. Then he was discharged back to Canada, with war injuries, to Sunnybrook Hospital.
The Canadian government made arrangements for my mother, my brother, and I to come to Halifax on the Queen Mary in May of 1946. I have information provided to her by the Department of National Defence that states we would automatically be made Canadian citizens. We went and lived--and I have lived my entire life--in Norfolk County. I grew up on a small farm. My dad farmed and worked in a bank. My mother contributed the next 55 years working on the farm and on women's institutional work, and she worked in all the elections in the polling booths. My parents believed it was a duty to vote and to participate in your community. My brother joined the Canadian navy at 16 and retired as a chief petty officer. I've worked since the age of 16, and I'm still employed today in child welfare in Norfolk. We have SIN cards, we voted, we paid all our taxes, we did jury duty, and my brother even served the country.
In 2003, my brother, now retired, was planning a trip that required a passport. He went to his passport office in CIC in Calgary, and he was shocked to be told he's not a Canadian and must apply for permanent resident status. I made several visits after that to the CIC office here in Hamilton and got the same answers. When I told them my history of life in Canada, I was told it didn't matter, and furthermore it was illegal for me to vote; they didn't understand how I could have been voting and my name should be taken off the voters' list.
I called my member of Parliament, and her office didn't even know what a war bride was. They said I would have to go through the entire immigration application. I was told I should not expect any special treatment because we have to have security in the immigration process. They offered me some forms to start the application, but I didn't take them because I believed I was already a citizen.
I began to hear of more people with the same problem, so in April of 2005 I contacted my son's member of Parliament, Mr. St. Amand, in Brantford. He was knowledgeable and understanding. He told me right away about this committee and that the committee was working on the problem and a resolution would be forthcoming.
In the meantime, Peter, my brother, and I had to apply for permanent resident cards in November 2005. After 61 years out of Britain, we've had to get British passports. I must tell you, when I called the British embassy, I said, “Is there any chance I would still be a British citizen?” They said, “Of course, you never lose that. Not a problem. We'll send you a form. Send it back in and you'll have your passport in two weeks.”
When I learned that the government was going to appeal Joe Taylor's case, I again went back to the MP's office in my area to question why. Her assistant called Mr. Solberg's office and told me, “Of course, we have to appeal. The cost to make you people all citizens would be phenomenal and the government is not prepared to do that.” I said, “What costs? We already are citizens. I've been here all my life.”
I'm appalled that this country can just take people's citizenship and not tell them, or can use obscure pieces of the law that no one even knew were there to deny people their citizenship. I can't understand it.
When my son saw me off at the train in Brantford yesterday morning, he said to me, “Mom, you've got to go and speak out, because this sounds like a fascist state; those are the types of things Grandad and all the Canadian Forces fought against, and it can't be allowed to continue.”
So I hope some changes are made.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You're speaking out very well, I must say. That was very interesting. Thank you so much.
Ms. Francis, do you have a comment or some opening remarks?
12:15 p.m.
Dr. June Francis MOSAIC
I want to, of course, thank the committee for this opportunity.
Today I thought I was going to be speaking only as a board member of MOSAIC. MOSAIC is a non-profit organization in British Columbia that's dedicated to providing settlement and integration assistance to newcomers of Canada. But before I go into the MOSAIC presentation, I must say to you that I am actually quite choked, because I had always assumed that all my children were Canadian citizens. I am a very informed citizen. I keep informed. I have read the Citizenship Act. I read section 8. But it was so preposterous to me to think my daughter was not a Canadian that it did not even occur to me, even coming here today. I sat there, and suddenly the penny dropped. My daughter was born outside of Canada in 1981.
According to section 8, she needs to do something. I did not know this until this minute, and I'll tell you why I didn't know it. Because it was preposterous, in my mind. She has a citizenship card. She's adopted. She was born outside of Canada, adopted by us. I'm not even sure where she falls, but I have a suspicion that she is considered to be born outside of Canada to Canadian parents and therefore.... I'm wrong? I hope I'm wrong. But it tells you something, when I am this confused--and I think I'm informed as a Canadian--that this is happening.
Let me focus, though, on what MOSAIC would like me to say.
MOSAIC, first of all, would like to say that we obviously call on the minister to act on the words that we assumed were consensus--that in fact these cases of the lost Canadians would be remedied immediately and expeditiously. We're very clear at MOSAIC, because we deal often with people for whom this cost is real. The human cost is enormous. The psychological cost of losing your citizenship is a serious cost. It is not academic in any way, as you can see from the people present here. And so we submit; but we further would like to say that this issue before us today is indicative and illustrative of a broader issue, and that issue is that we think the Citizenship Act should not draw distinctions between Canadians.
We believe citizens of Canada should be considered an indivisible class. There should be no two-tiered citizenship in this country. That's the point we would like to make.
We know that section 8...and as I said, I was going to speak to section 8, not realizing its implications for me. We believe the obligations may appear to be appropriate on the surface, but when you think of it, we have citizens who believe they're citizens--by the way, these are people who have often been issued cards and documents whereby they act and talk and believe they're citizens--but there's a positive obligation only on this group of people to actually do something by the age of 28. As you can see, for example, in Britain there is no such obligation, and we wonder why. We don't believe the need to do something by the age of 28 is appropriate, because we're sure there are a lot of people in this group who have no idea--and no matter what's done in terms of promotion, it seems so preposterous that they will continue to have no idea--that they have lost their citizenship.
The other point we would like to make is that we believe the only basis for involuntary loss of citizenship should be cases where citizenship has been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation--but not just any fraud. We believe that it has to be a fact that could substantially and materially affect the consideration to grant citizenship.
We know of cases where fraud, in the process of.... Refugees often will make submissions to protect themselves from danger. In those cases, the fraud in and of itself does not necessarily disqualify people from being citizens of this country.
The second point here is that the loss of citizenship, being such an extremely serious consequence, should never be permitted in an involuntary way without due process, and that due process should be laid out. As you consider changes to the Citizenship Act, be mindful of the due process. People should not lose their citizenship and not know they've lost their citizenship. Also, in the process of having to take away people's citizenship in, again, the very few and the very extreme cases of fraud that are substantive, there should be a right to counsel. There should be a process, on the record, before a fair and impartial decision-maker such as a federal judge of Canada.
We believe the evidentiary burden to prove these facts should be on the crown. We believe people should have a right to some kind of appeal or judicial review. I do not think this should be an administrative thing.
The final point we want to make is that MOSAIC believes there should be a positive statement in the act itself that submits to the permanence of Canadian citizenship and the removal of different classes of citizenship. We believe that nowhere in the Citizenship Act is there a statement that Canadian citizenship is permanent and irrevocable except if renounced by the citizen--or in cases, of course, of substantial fraud.
It is imperative that the Citizenship Act affirm for all Canadians the right to permanence of citizenship, and that it treat citizens as a single class, without unnecessary distinctions and having different responsibilities. I believe a statement of permanence and equality--I keep using those two words, “permanence” and “equality”--will provide Canadians, however they came to be citizens, a solid foundation to fulfill their potential and their obligations to this great nation.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Erl Kish Dominion Vice-President, Royal Canadian Legion
Thank you very much, Comrade Chairman.
Well, I'm very glad we let the ladies go first, because they've done the groundwork. Thank you very much.
On behalf of the dominion president, Jack Frost, I would like to thank you very much for inviting the Royal Canadian Legion to appear before you today. The issue of lost citizenship for dependants of Canadian Forces members born outside of Canada and for children of war brides is of great concern to the Legion.
At our 2006 national convention held in Calgary, we adopted a resolution that sought to recognize the original granting of Canadian citizenship to the offspring of Canadian Forces personnel born abroad. Just recently, our dominion executive council sanctioned our advocacy in support of the war brides' campaign to ensure that children born outside of the country to war brides who subsequently immigrated to Canada with their veteran husbands no longer have to pay to establish their claims to citizenship.
When is a birth certificate not a birth certificate? In simple terms, CF dependants born overseas have had to face aggravating roadblocks in trying to establish claim to their citizenship. In 1947, the Citizenship Act required that babies born outside Canada to CF members be registered within two years. Once registered, they were issued a registration of birth abroad, RBA.
Since 1977, the only proof of Canadian citizenship is a citizenship certificate, which in effect has replaced the RBA. Until 1979, the CF also issued a certificate of birth, a DND 419, to CF dependants born outside Canada. However, this birth certificate is no longer recognized as a citizenship status document.
The CF are now recommending that those who were issued an RBA should request a citizenship certificate at a cost of $75, even though they still may have in their possession a valid RBA. As for their birth certificate, the CF are now stating that this birth certificate was issued as a convenient record of birth to alleviate the requirement to carry the less durable document--a very interesting explanation. Further, CF dependants are advised that an RBA may or may not be accepted as proof of citizenship, depending on whether or not it is in good condition and provided that these agencies have no concern that you are not a Canadian citizen--whatever that means.
My two sons, born in Germany in 1958 and 1959, were issued RBAs. This should have been sufficient to establish their bona fide Canadian credentials; however, they were forced to pay for citizenship papers. No money should be charged to prove that they are Canadians because a document is deemed not good enough, which begs the question, as I said, when is a birth certificate not a birth certificate?
These Canadians are the offspring of veterans who put their lives at risk while serving overseas to protect Canadian liberties. It is an affront to those proud Canadians that bureaucrats should now suggest that a birth certificate is not a birth certificate, that they should be subjected to a $75 citizenship tax, and that official documents they submit on application should be destroyed. We're not talking about lost documents; we are talking about a reinterpretation of what is valid and what is not valid years after the event.
We can see the same example of bureaucratic trivialization of the status of Canadian citizenship in the issue of war brides' children. The ministry, on February 19, 2007, spoke briefly about the Taylor court decision by Justice Martineau being appealed by the federal government. Even though very circumspect in her statement in view of the ongoing appeal by the Government of Canada of this Federal Court decision, the minister did allude to the basis of the appeal, in that the decision by Justice Martineau “reinterprets citizenship, and extends it prior to Canada having its own Citizenship Act in 1947”.
We would suggest that there is a continuum in the concept of Canadian citizenship that extends beyond the 1947 act, which is exactly the basis of Justice Martineau's decision. Justice Martineau states that “it is an understatement to attempt to trivialize...the status of being a 'Canadian citizen'”. Prior to 1947, Parliament had already decided in 1921 to “adopt a status of its own pertaining to the national status of those persons who were already Canadian citizens within the meaning of the 1910 Immigration Act, including their brides and children” .
It is nothing short of revisionism to suggest that the order in council concerning entry into Canada of dependants of members of Canadian armed forces in 1945-48 has no standing. Under that order in council, which was passed in 1945 and remained in force until May 1947, dependants of Canadian armed forces members who were Canadian citizens or who had a Canadian domicile were automatically granted the same status upon landing in Canada. Thus the status of Canadian did not arise entirely out of the 1947 legislation. This is the basis of Justice Martineau’s ruling.
The issue of informing or not informing these Canadians that they needed to apply for naturalization should not be dangled as an overriding concern, because it could be deemed to apply to taxation laws. We are dealing with an infringement of due process that must be corrected.
Justice Martineau did not argue that individuals had to be notified individually. He spoke of “contemporary public announcement”. He did not suggest that the normal legislative and parliamentary process is insufficient. On the contrary, he argued that there is a continuity in statutes that extends before 1947. New legislation should have recognized that continuity by grandfathering rights.
As Justice Martineau said, “It is hard to believe today that citizenship rights would be denied to sons and daughters of Second World War veterans who offered their lives for Canada simply because their parents were not married at time of birth”; procedural fairness demands otherwise.
To continue to deny Canadian citizenship to these proud Canadians is nothing short of bureaucratic terrorism.
I thank you.