Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 19th, 2007

[Marlene Jennings]

It did not. In fact, when we were having Sunday lunch at my mother-in-law's, we would actually joke. When we began discussing Italian politics, soccer, or whatever, and my husband got involved in it, we would say, “You don't have a right to speak because you're not an Italian citizen.”

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

He, who was an Italian citizen, lost it; but you, who acquired it, did not lose it.

[Marlene Jennings]

Exactly.

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

That's strange.

Mr. Chapman, you said you had a solution, and I'm sure you have it written somewhere. Can you read it on the record for us, please?

[Don Chapman]

Yes. Speaking of being on the record, there is something I would like to ask this committee to do. Citizenship and Immigration, I heard from Diane Finley's office, where they made the statement--

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

Mr. Chapman, I'd like you to please read it on the record.

[Don Chapman]

Okay. It would be adding four sections to the current Citizenship Act.

Section 3.1.1: Any individual who has been deemed to have ceased to be a Canadian citizen by any other reason other than by revocation of citizenship or by formal application to the Canadian government to renounce their Canadian citizenship, or by failing to retain under section 8 of the citizenship act, is deemed to be a Canadian citizen retroactive to their date of birth, or to the date of their naturalization as the case may be. Section 3.1.2: Any individual who by virtue of their birth out of wedlock and / or who by virtue of the expiration of the transitional clause under section 3.1.E were denied their claim to Canadian citizenship is deemed to be a Canadian citizen retroactive to their date of birth. Section 3.1.3: For individuals considered as Canadian citizens as a result of subsection 3.1.1 or 3.1.2, their children – including adopted children – shall be considered Canadian citizens under section 3 of the citizenship act. Section 3.1.4: Any individual who ceased to be a Canadian citizen as a result of section 8 and who can establish that they were residing in Canada at the time of such loss or who had a substantial connection to Canada is deemed to have not ceased to be a Canadian citizen.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of this committee that we unanimously pass this motion and ask the minster to move quickly. I'm sure Mr. Komarnicki and other members of this committee would want to take a couple of minutes to reflect on this. If not, I seek unanimous consent that we--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can't present a motion in a point of order. Nothing has been presented to the committee as a notice of motion, so I think I'd have to rule that out of order.

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

I'd like to challenge the chair on this issue. I think I can ask for unanimous consent, and you're denying it--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, no, you can't ask for unanimous consent; you can't propose a motion in a point of order. That's clear in the rules of order.

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

Fine. Then let me rephrase this.

Mr. Chair, I would like to seek unanimous consent that what Mr. Chapman brought forward can be a motion to go forward to the minister for her to adopt, so that we can put an end to the ordeal these people are facing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Any discussion?

It's highly unusual to do this at this point in the proceedings.

Does he have unanimous consent, first of all?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Unanimous consent is not there. Let's proceed with the line of questioning.

You have one minute and ten seconds....

Yes.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

On a point of order, I didn't think Mr. Chapman was finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

He isn't.

[Don Chapman]

In fairness, I think the committee needs to discuss this. Take a word like “deemed”. Maybe somebody doesn't want their citizenship. You don't want to deem it to somebody who doesn't want it. And in fairness, some refining could probably take place in this amendment before granting it. The wording has to be right.

There's one thing I do want to mention with regard to Ms. Finley appearing here a couple of weeks ago. They testified on the lost provisions of ages 24 and 28, that they had advertised and really done a lot to inform people. As it turns out, I think they sent a letter to the committee saying, no, I guess this did not take place.

When judges make decisions they go back into the committee Hansard and read the record of what the committee was talking about, so it would be nice if somebody from that department came back here and corrected it on the record that they in fact did not do due diligence to notify people of the lost provisions.

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

Perhaps I can take my last 15 seconds, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chapman, I even got a personal letter from the deputy minister on how apologetic he was about misleading this committee as to what he had done and what he hadn't done.

It's very unfortunate that members of this committee did not give unanimous consent to your wording, very unfortunate, but I'm sure we'll have another chance to proceed on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'm going to be sharing my time with Mr. Gravel.

First and foremost, I agree with what Mr. Chapman said. I think the people from the department should come back before the committee. When I asked what efforts had been made to tell people about how to keep their citizenship and how they might lose it, we were told that information had been published in the newspapers and that the information was available. But that's not the case; I received a letter confirming that. It's a shame.

There's one thing I'd like to know, Ms. Jennings. When you found out you might have lost your citizenship, did that concern you as a citizen? When you got married, were you concerned about the potential loss of your citizenship? Did it ever occur to you that you might lose your citizenship?

The people now coming to our offices tell us they had no awareness of the act and its consequences. As a citizen, how did you feel then? Was any information available? Was information on citizenship...?

[Marlene Jennings]

I was raised to be very proud to be a Canadian citizen. Because my father was a U.S. citizen, I was entitled to live in the United States. I could even have confirmed my U.S. citizenship, but I didn't do that, because among other things the U.S. Citizenship Act did not allow for dual citizenship. People who wanted to get U.S. citizenship had to renounce their original citizenship.

In my mind, I just couldn't believe that marrying a foreign national could call into question my own citizenship. My mother was born in Canada and married a U.S. citizen. Between 1920 and 1960, several people in Montreal's English-speaking black community were born of parents with U.S. citizenship. These people were born in Canada and have always lived in Canada.

Initially, the officials were saying that since I was born in Canada and had always lived here, I had Canadian citizenship. Then, as if a light bulb went on, they asked me whether I had obtained the citizenship of another country since my birth. I explained my situation to them, and they told me it was okay. Then, they told me they had some doubts and they would have to check with the experts. Each time, I was told everything was in order. Then, I was asked whether I had ever obtained a passport from another country.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You only recently began wondering about your citizenship.

[Marlene Jennings]

Yes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

When all of this happened...