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.
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Absolutely. That's what we have asked for. That's what was promised to us, and that's what I expect.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
When you spoke about gender-based discrimination, you said that these 71 people had been discriminated against because of the legislation of the day. Earlier legislation was discriminatory because it made a distinction between men and women, between children born out of wedlock and those born in wedlock. You also mentioned religion and other grounds. You were not talking about discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Bill C-37.
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
Yes.
Absolutely. This is totally in that 71 category. The discrimination continues.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
You are saying that in the past, the law granted citizenship to children, depending on the gender of the Canadian parent.
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
That is correct. There were several court cases. Augier and Benner specifically dealt with the gender issue, and the government five years ago decided to throw those cases out--not throw them out, which you can't, but ignore them. So we have now been, for the last five years, operating as though those court cases were never decided.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Let us set aside these 71 cases and move on to the issue of second-generation citizens.
Our witness who gave testimony over the telephone talked about people's connection to the country. Naturally, this question is of the utmost importance when we are discussing citizenship. In your opinion, if we do not draw the line at the level of second-generation citizens, where do we draw it? What would you suggest to the committee?
I am sure you would not say that Canadian citizenship should be passed down from one century to the next to people who do not even live in Canada anymore. We are going to have to draw the line somewhere.
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
It's an excellent question, and it goes beyond my expertise. I am not the person to ask. You need to bring in Donald Galloway and Don De Voretz, two people who are experts in that field.
9:40 a.m.
Naeem (Nick) Noorani
Am I allowed to make a comment?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
I can help guide you. I know where all these little caveats are. They would be the ones to ask. There are some second-generation issues I can address, but to answer that question, no. I'm the expert on citizenship.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
June 11th, 2009 / 9:40 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I have here speaking notes from Mark Davidson, director of legislation and program policy, citizenship division, regarding a study on Bill C-37. That was given to us on February 11, 2008, and it said, “the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will still have the authority, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to grant citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act in special cases”.
These special cases are the 71. That would then deal with all the problems, putting aside second generation. Let me ask Jacqueline Scott and Marcel Gélinas: in both of your situations, upon granting through this subsection 5(4), would you be proud Canadians? Even though in your hearts you're Canadians, now, on paper, you will be proud Canadians. Am I correct in that?
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Okay.
At the time when this was approved, the minister was Diane Finley; now it's Jason Kenney. I'm wondering if there is any movement or any promise to say, “Hey, you know, you're Canadian. You were born in Canada and your kids are Canadian. You've been paying taxes. Generations and generations will be here.” There's nothing that you can say that's “convenient” about your being a Canadian. You are a Canadian in your blood and in your DNA.
So tell me, what's going on, Jacqueline?
9:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I am not legally Canadian. I have been denied twice. My last one was under subsection 5(4), and I'm being told--
9:45 a.m.
As an Individual
It was March. My letter was dated February, and I received it in March.
9:45 a.m.
Lost Canadian Organization
The “why” is because she was born out of wedlock. That is the reason for her denial.
9:45 a.m.
As an Individual
I'm being discriminated against because of the circumstances of my birth. Both letters I received stated that as the reason for the denial. It's discriminatory.
9:45 a.m.
As an Individual
If I had been born two years later, I would be covered by Bill C-37, but I was born in 1945.
