Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 11th, 2008

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Maybe we'll stop there, because you're going to be coming back to us on Wednesday, when we're probably dealing with clause-by-clause consideration.

The question I'll put to you right now is this. Under the current Citizenship Act, we really have a problem, haven't we? The citizenship of a second-generation person born abroad expires at age 28. But if that person, before their citizenship has expired at the age of 28, happens to have a child, then that child is now a citizen until the age of 28. Is that correct? That's the third generation. And if that child has a child before turning 28, that child is a Canadian citizen until the age of 28. So under the current act, the generations just go on forever.

I mention this because I never heard it from officials, and having been around the committee for 10 years, I think I should have heard from officials about a problem of that magnitude, which I have not.

My question to you is you probably—

[Mark Davidson]

May I reply to that, Mr. Telegdi?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes.

[Mark Davidson]

That provision, the present section 8, as we see it, has two main concerns. One is, as you say, that citizenship can be passed on to endless generations because of the provisions; however, that individual stops being a citizen on their 28th birthday unless they take certain action.

The difficulty with this is that it's not always possible for us to know they exist and for them to know what action they have to take. So the present provision of section 8 has two fairly significant problems, which is why the minister said, when she appeared before the committee on May 29 this past year, it was important for the provision to stop at the first generation: in order to stop the passing on of citizenship to endless generations.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I understand the problem that exists.

My next question to you is one I really haven't received a satisfactory answer to.

Taking that into consideration--and we don't know how to keep records of all these people going on and on--what I suggested was that any time a first-generation Canadian born abroad satisfies the requirements that we presently have for a second-generation Canadian born abroad, or different requirements, if you simply deem those people to be born in Canada, then it would solve the problem that presently exists. It would address the problem Mr. Karygiannis talks about, and it would also mean we'd need a lot fewer subsection 5(4) grants of citizenship.

The onus on showing that situation is on the individual and not the department. Whereas right now you don't know what you're dealing with, in the other case you would know what you're dealing with. I think it's a fairly simple fix.

Obviously you have considered that. I would like you to tell me why you didn't do that. What was the problem with doing that?

[Mark Davidson]

As the minister outlined in the spring, and as was in the bill tabled in December, there are a number of overarching principles. One of the overarching principles I'd like to highlight in answer to that question is the principle of simplicity and of not forcing individuals to apply to have their citizenship confirmed. Bill C-37 says that citizenship should be provided by force of law to individuals and that they don't have to actually apply, fill in a document, and meet a test--a test that may be disputed--in order to maintain their citizenship.

One of the other problems with the present provision, as I said, is that it does require an application process. It requires individuals to meet a number of requirements, a number of standards in the act and in the regulations. The result of that is complexity and difficulty for the individual in understanding what the test is that they have to satisfy.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I'm having trouble with that, because right now if you want to retain citizenship, and you are second generation abroad, you must do so before you're 28 years old. There are very clear rules as to what you have to do. You have to have been in the country for a year prior to your 28th birthday.

I don't see what the problem would be with saying, okay, we're going to change your requirement to three years, or whatever we want to do for landed immigrants. Once that is done, it's simple. It is not difficult. The difficulty comes if the onus is on the government to chase people around versus having people take the initiative to be entitled to consideration as first generation born abroad.

I would like to know if there is any way you can get us some numbers so we can know what the balance is. I know if we pass this bill, we're going to solve a big problem right now, but we're also going to be creating another problem, and it's going to be a trade-off. It's almost like cutting the baby in half. I can see the wisdom of passing the bill because it has to be passed, but I'm also very cognizant of the fact that we are now creating another problem. I want to know what those numbers are, because I'm hoping that once we get rid of this government, we'll get in a government that is actually going to fix it.

[Mark Davidson]

To go back to your previous points about section 8, if I understood correctly, you're suggesting that section 8 could simply be replicated in Bill C-37. We know a number of witnesses have appeared before the committee over the past year who have highlighted all of the problems that exist with section 8. What the bill is trying to do is resolve that by eliminating those requirements, by stopping people having to jump through those particular hoops and stopping the government from trying to find them, by making it simpler so that we don't have to try to search for people we don't know about.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

If it's done by application, then you don't have to search.

[Mark Davidson]

That is exactly how section 8 works. Section 8 works by application. Individuals must come forward. They must identify to us that they exist and that they meet the requirements. Section 8 is, to be honest, part of the problem--not that I'm not always honest.

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

Get rid of section 8.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to extend my thanks to you who drafted this bill which, according to the government, is consistent with the Committee's unanimous recommendations. I would like to review with you the 13 recommendations the report contains. Since this is a seven-minute round, that means I can devote 30 seconds to each recommendation.

The first recommendation is that the Citizenship Act be amended. That is the bill we are currently reviewing.

The second recommendation deals with the following fundamental principles, proposing that they be included in the Act: citizenship should be a permanent status; the rules should be clear and easy to apply; the government should not be able to revoke the certificate except in cases of fraud; these principles should apply to all people, whatever the date; and, background checks are not appropriate for those for whom citizenship is a birthright.

Are all those principles reflected in the bill currently under review?

[Mark Davidson]

Bill C-37 is as outlined by the minister in May, and certainly it is following almost all the recommendations of the committee's report. The committee report does include a number of recommendations that don't deal specifically with the legislation, so I can't say that it is satisfying every one of the committee's recommendations. Some of those--

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

The second recommendation lays out the following fundamental principles: citizenship should be a permanent status; the rules should be clear and easy to apply; the government should not be able to revoke a certificate on the ground that it was issued in error, except in cases of false representation; these principles should apply to all people, whatever the date that they acquired citizenship; and, background checks are not appropriate for those for whom citizenship is a birthright.

Are all of those principles reflected in the bill currently under review?

[Mark Davidson]

Absolutely.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

Recommendation 3 stipulates that: “Anyone who lost citizenship is once again a citizen, retroactive to the date that citizenship was lost”.

Is that reflected in the bill currently under review?

[Mark Davidson]

Bill C-37 gives individuals back their citizenship if they were considered citizens of Canada and lost it for any reason other than revocation for fraud, renunciation as an adult, or failure to retain it in the second or subsequent generation...in the 1977 act.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay.

Recommendation 4 states that amendments to the Act provide that the following people are Canadian citizens: anyone who was born in Canada, anyone who was born abroad to a Canadian mother or a Canadian father, if they are the first generation born abroad, and anyone who was naturalized to Canada.

Is the bill consistent with those principles?

[Mark Davidson]

The bill is generally in keeping with those principles.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

You say “generally”. Are there differences?

[Mark Davidson]

The recommendation does not make it clear, so let me be clear.

The bill deals with individuals who became citizens, or who would have become citizens, on January 1, 1947, and subsequent to that. That date is significant in the history of Canadian citizenship because that was when the first Citizenship Act came into effect. Individuals who became citizens on that date and then lost their citizenship, or individuals born outside of Canada after that date, whether to a mother or a Canadian father, will either get citizenship for the first time or have their citizenship resumed.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I see.

Recommendation 5 is that a bill be introduced before February 15. We are currently reviewing it.

Following that are a number of recommendations that do not deal with the bill, but rather with departmental activities. Recommendation 6 states that “the Minister consider using the discretionary power”, particularly in relation to persons who are stateless.

Has the Department implemented that recommendation?

[Mark Davidson]

The minister and the Governor in Council continue to use the only discretionary power that exists in the act. That's subsection 5(4), the special grant of citizenship. And that's used both for stateless persons and for persons who are not stateless.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Recommendations 7, 8 and 9 relate to information to be provided to members of the public who may have been a victim of these considerations, for the purposes of both correcting and preventing errors.

Has that been done by the Department?