Evidence of meeting #22 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Naeem (Nick) Noorani
No.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
All right, sir, I thank you very much.
My question goes to anyone of the panel who wants to answer it. Mrs. Mendes and I both have children who were born outside Canada to Canadian citizens. If our children today were to work in any of the Middle Eastern countries, Japan, or Switzerland, and these children were to get married and have children with somebody from another country, do you think that my daughter or Mrs. Mendes' daughter could get citizenship?
9:30 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
We're strictly addressing the second-generation born-abroad issue?
9:30 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
No, they couldn't, unless they worked for the Government of Canada. Under this new law, if they're second-generation born-abroad, no, your grandchildren would not be Canadian.
9:30 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Not necessarily. They could be, though, depending on the country. But this issue of statelessness is a really big deal. What went into the bureaucracy came out differently when they made it into law. There's a real problem with that. Canada, in my opinion, will be in violation of a lot of international covenants on statelessness.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I'd like to share my time with Ms. Mendes.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Good morning.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Noorani, from B.C.
I'm trying to separate those affected by this law into two categories: those, like Ms. Scott and Mr. Gélinas, who have been born abroad, or born in Canada to parents born abroad, and have lost their citizenship; and those second-generation people who we're trying to cover now.
I was once an assistant to an MP and I had to deal with lost Canadians—women who unknowingly lost their citizenship because of marriage to non-Canadians before 1947. At the same time, they never gained any other citizenship. I remember a lady who married a Polish citizen, never knowing she had lost her Canadian citizenship, and never gaining Polish citizenship. She was stateless for 52 years of her marriage. She found out only when she went to request her fifth passport—only then was she told she wasn't a Canadian.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
We actually managed to tell them for her, but how does that apply nowadays?
9:30 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
They still have people who are stateless. The first second-generation born-abroad stateless person that we know of is coming up in Austria. Austria does not confer citizenship. I was behind the scenes in the implementation of this bill. We did not want the second-generation born-abroad issue attached to this bill, but it got attached, and it was take it or leave it. Now that it's there, the provision.... And the gentleman you'd want to call in, too, is a gentleman by the name of Mark Davidson. He's now a DG of another department, but Mark was in on this.
The issue was that if a child was born in a country that didn't confer citizenship, let's say, Greece, Japan, and so forth, Canada, or one of the countries, immediately would come in and give that child citizenship based on the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. What came out was quite different. It's now saying that you bring your child back to Canada--and it becomes quite an issue to bring a stateless child across borders--the child will live in Canada for three years, and then the child can have citizenship.
Although, wait a minute, that's making the child an immigrant Canadian: this is completely contrary to the United Nations convention. It's totally wrong. Basically, if somebody, as in this case, is stateless, you can make them a citizen in three weeks. The Prime Minister proved that with the last remaining World War I veteran. End of story: it should be done right now.
There are major problems. Let's say, for instance, that we have a mother whose father happens to be elderly and living in the United States. The father is dying. This mother has a stateless child in Canada and can't leave the child to go take care of the father, because the child can't cross borders.
These are major problems and there are easy, easy, fixes. There are ways that were introduced into this bill to take care of this problem.
I have one last thing. One of the big things that was promised was that the Senate said, “If we agree to Bill C-37, you will give us a new citizenship act and start working on it”. It was promised and it has not come through.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. Chapman.
Monsieur St-Cyr, you have up to seven minutes.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for coming before the committee today.
As you said, Ms. Mendes, we have two problems here, side by side, in relation to citizenship.
9:35 a.m.
A voice
The translation isn't working.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Basically, I was repeating what Ms. Mendes said. We must make a distinction between two things.
First of all, we have the issue of Canadians who lost their citizenship and who did not regain it after Bill C-37 was passed. Then we have the issue of second-generation Canadians who in your opinion were treated unfairly after this bill is passed.
I am the Bloc Québécois's spokesperson on citizenship and immigration. I joined this committee while it was considering Bill C-37. I am very familiar with the bill, although I do not know its entire history.
Our committee prepared a report that was adopted unanimously and that recommended exactly the same measures as those found in Bill C-37. Nearly all the witnesses who appeared before us said that the legislation had to be passed, that it was urgent. The bill was passed unanimously by all parties.
In your opinion, how was a bill that overlooked so many people able to get through all the stages without any resistance?
June 11th, 2009 / 9:35 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Actually, the bill was a wonderful bill. We're not talking about the second generation born abroad. We're talking about the lost Canadian bill. That brought in hundreds of thousands of people. That was a wonderful bill.
We always had some people who didn't quite fit under Bill C-37. We were at 73 people. Two have died since then without citizenship, so we're down to 71. We were promised that these cases would be fixed and be done. So those cases were there when we testified beforehand. They're still on the books, despite the promises that they would be taken care of. So there aren't really now many people left. This could be cleared up very quickly.
Regarding the second generation born abroad, it was take it or leave it. We took it with the promise, again with the Senate, that a new Citizenship Act would be forthcoming, because the 1977 Citizenship Act has become a barnacled creature. It's growing new barnacles of new amendments all the time. It has seen its better day. It's time for a new Citizenship Act.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I want to make sure I've understood. If we set aside the issue of second-generation Canadians for a moment, this committee is discussing the 71 Canadians who have lost their citizenship. We are conducting a study because these 71 cases have still not been settled.
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Yes, there are 71 people. Subsection 5(4) grants pretty much that this goes away. There is one more problem. You now have created under Bill C-37 Canadian citizens with fewer rights than other Canadian citizens.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I want to set that aside for the time being so that we can settle this matter. In the final analysis, without making any more changes to the legislation, the minister could certainly use subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act to settle the status of these 71 cases, and we could move on to something else. Additional changes to the legislation are not necessary to settle the 71 cases. The minister could use his authority and grant citizenship to these people directly.