Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Alex Neve]

I think it's a powerful reminder of what Canada is capable of. The numbers were remarkable at their peak: something in the range of 3,000 refugees per month were coming into Canada. In a span of about just 12 months, in 1979 and into 1980, about 50,000 Indochinese refugees arrived in Canada.

Canadians are proud of that chapter of our history. We've been commended internationally. There was reference to the Nansen Medal, which was awarded to Canada. We got the Nansen Medal for our remarkable international leadership in responding to that crisis.

Whether it needs to be exactly the same numbers, I'm not the expert who is able to say that. We know that much more is needed. We know, when we look back in history, that Canada is capable of generosity, efficiency, speed, of remarkable partnerships between government and civil society and church groups. Why can't that happen now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sorry to cut it off there, Ms. Chow, but I do need to get a couple of minutes in for Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Collacott, recently you suggested in the pages of the Globe and Mail that rather than accept displaced Iraqis, Canada should instead provide support for refugees in Iraq and its neighbourhood. Can you please elaborate a bit on that statement?

[Martin Collacott]

Yes.

My reason for that emphasis was that I think our dollars will be far better spent. They'll go much further. And I think we should make a substantial contribution to helping those in the area. If we bring some here—we've already committed to bringing in, I believe, 1,400—we will benefit relatively few and we'll spend a lot more on them. Currently what we're doing, in general, is spending, I estimate, 98% to 99% of what we spend on refugees on people in Canada. And it makes one feel good to see them firsthand, but I don't think it's using our money most sensibly in terms of helping refugees.

So, yes, we should make a substantial contribution. Maybe we bring in a few people, but our money should be spent where it does the most good, and that's helping people in Syria and in Jordan, and maybe some internally displaced people in Iraq.

Did I answer your question?

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Yes, that's fine.

My question is to Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees. Does the argument that the vast majority of Iraqis require temporary protection rather than permanent resettlement have merit? I'm curious as to the response from the witnesses from Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees about this contention. Can you please comment?

[Glynis Williams]

Thank you very much for that question.

It's very clear that there are numbers of refugees who will never be able to return. There are three durable solutions, and we've already heard what those three are. One is voluntary repatriation. That is an abandoned position for the moment. This is a tragedy that has been unfolding over five years now. By any terms, that is becoming a protracted refugee situation.

The second is local integration. But in countries that are not signatories to the convention, in which it is impossible to work, there is no ability for them to blend in, and the numbers are so high that it's not going to be a durable solution for everyone.

Then there's the final category. The UNHCR, yes, does recognize the Iraqis coming out as prima facie refugees. The refugees who are being referred for resettlement by the UN High Commission for Refugees are people who are in need, for whom those two durable solutions will not work now and will not work in the medium or even the long term. There are people for whom the trauma they have lived through, the vulnerabilities of who they are, the persecution they have already experienced—and these are all people who have experienced individualized persecution. Every refugee whom we referred, whom I interviewed, had already endured individual, targeted persecution, and that persecution was expected to be there in the future. It doesn't matter what country we are talking about, that's the category of people we refer for a resettlement.

Canada has a role to play. There are huge medical needs. I mentioned that. That is a place that we can respond to. Medical needs does not mean that person will always be a burden on this country. There are many medical-needs people who will move on to be completely successful. We need and can do so much more.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Very briefly. A very short one.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Of the two million displaced Iraqis, how many, in your opinion, will never be able to return safely to Iraq?

[Glynis Williams]

I'm not an expert. I can't say how many of the two million. All I know is that the numbers that we are talking about that are being referred now aren't anywhere near...[Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I see that people are lining up to ask questions and to get a word in, but we really have to move on.

I do want to thank you on behalf of our committee for sharing your knowledge with us today. Eventually we will write a report, and certainly your work will be taken into consideration.

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

I have a point of order.

We could extend the meeting for a few more minutes to get in some more questions. We're going to be going to 6:30 anyway, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't think we should do that, because we'll have to open it up for everyone and it could get out of hand. We need a full hour to get into four motions and another report.

Thank you for being here today. We look forward to writing our report.

Thank you.

Just to inform members, I'm going to have to switch around the agenda a little bit and go with motions first, because the console operator informs me that there's a problem with the microphones. He can only open two at a time; he has asked, therefore, that we suspend before going in camera so that the equipment can be reset.

But of course the motions are public, so we will go with the motions first and keep it public the way it is right now, and then we will go in camera to consider our report.

I think all of you have the four motions before you.

The first motion I'm dealing with here is one that's coming from Mr. Karygiannis:

Further to its Second Report to the House on the loss of Canadian citizenship presented in the House on December 6, 2007, the Committee recommends that the government extend Canadian citizenship to all children born abroad of Canadian parents who were themselves born abroad of Canadian parents, provided that, when these children reach the age of twenty-four years, they confirm their intent to maintain Canadian citizenship and renew that confirmation every five years thereafter; and

That the Chair present the report in the House no later than December 12, 2007.

I'll go to Mr. Karygiannis to speak to his motion.

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

Mr. Chair, this is very simple. During our deliberations of lost Canadians, this topic came up time and time again. I was surprised that it was not reflected in the report that went to the House, so I'm putting this forward. This is regarding children of children of Canadians, individuals like Joe Taylor's children, Don Chapman's children, my child who was born abroad. Should she have another child who is born abroad, the parental rights and the birth rights of my grandchild certainly will be affected.

So I'm bringing this in order to make sure that the spirit of the lost Canadians that we've talked about is reflected. Because there's some concern that some people might use Canada as a means of getting a passport, I'm saying that the confirmation should be done every five years and thereafter. If people know they have to confirm every five years, then they will be in Canada in order to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Mr. Chair, I think there's a real danger in trying to do a Citizenship Act on the fly. As a matter of fact, we have the result of a Citizenship Act that has two acts and some 20-odd amendments to it, and it's almost like a barnacle being placed upon a barnacle being placed upon a barnacle. It gets so confusing that it takes a constitutional lawyer to figure it out.

Ultimately, I think what we have to do is have a Citizenship Act starting from scratch to eliminate all the complexities and difficulties. Citizenship should be relatively simple.

In terms of Mr. Karygiannis' motion, I think we can talk about that when we're dealing with the legislation. He mentioned Joe Taylor's children. Mr. Taylor is not covered by the bill that's before us on lost Canadians. That's why Mr. Taylor got a subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act.... He's not covered, because he's pre-January 1, 1947. The other people who aren't covered are the Mennonites and their Mennonite marriages that, again, go before January 1, 1947.

I think there is a fix, and the fix would be very simple if we allowed first-generation Canadians born abroad a chance to get the same status as a Canadian born here. The way you have that happen—and I refer to Mr. Karygiannis' daughter. She has spent time in Canada, I imagine a substantial time in Canada, and that would qualify her to be considered as such.

The reason I say that is—

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's not a point of order.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Mr. Karygiannis, maybe you could bear with me and let me get my point across.

The point is, Mr. Karygiannis and I are naturalized Canadians. We were born abroad, but since we became naturalized Canadians, we have the right to have children out of the country, even though we were born out of the country. This would put a person who was born abroad in that category, in the same kind of situation as if they spent substantial time in Canada, and that would even the playing field.

What we have right now—and this is very difficult for those people who read the letter from the Mennonite Central Committee of Canada—is a Citizenship Act that passes on citizenship indefinitely. The way it does that is that the second generation can maintain citizenship until the age of 28. While they have that status, if they have a child, the second generation expires after the age of 28, but the child goes on, and then they have a child, and then this thing goes on indefinitely. I don't think that's something we want to see happen. I would like you to take a look at what I was suggesting, and I hope to deal with this in light of the rest of the legislation when it comes up.

I hope Mr. Karygiannis will withdraw this, because to me that's not a fix.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you want to withdraw it right now, Mr. Karygiannis?

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

Mr. Chair, since we're going to be discussing this in the spirit to come up.... We all agree that this is a flawed situation. However, let me, for the record--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It is an unusual situation.

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

It is a very unusual situation. As a matter of fact, it's a very unusual situation that the analysts did not—and I realize there was an analyst shift over the summer—put in the spirit of our conversation of last year. The report came to us on Thursday morning for a vote on Thursday afternoon, and it was pretty well bamboozled when that situation came about.

I will withdraw it--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You will withdraw that until...?

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

--and we will discuss it when the appropriate time comes.