Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I'm new here, and that's why I wanted to know.

[Rick Stewart]

--other than to say that I believe the issues were on the table.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Anyway, can you also tell us more about all the work you've done in order to inform people about the changes caused by Bill C-37? There still seems to be some kind of misunderstanding by some people. Can you elaborate on that, please?

[Andrew Griffith]

One of the things that I think I mentioned earlier is that one of the challenges with Bill C-37 was that we didn't really know exactly how many people were out there to reach. So we truly tried to look at what was the most effective way to reach people when we didn't know the audience. Given that we didn't have that much money, we looked at low-cost ways to do that.

The flag piece was probably using YouTube and the video to generate interest and awareness. We used that to drive interest to our website, where we had specific information in terms of the provisions. We also did a lot of targeted media outreach. It was not only outreach in terms of Canadian media, but also, in particular, with U.S. media, because we know there is a very large expatriate Canadian population there.

If I remember correctly, we got a really good article in the Wall Street Journal and we discovered the number of hits on our website and YouTube spiked tremendously after that one. Apparently for one period of time, it was the most popular downloaded article on the Wall Street Journal. My brother even saw it.

That was the main way to do it. The other thing we tried to do is very much look at the networks of expatriates abroad through our missions abroad. In addition to working closely with our embassy in Washington, we also worked very closely with other heads of mission. Our deputy minister wrote to other heads of mission to inform and allow them to have sessions with their expatriates to help make that.

I think we did a number of things overall. The other element I'd like to highlight is that we also developed a wizard or a self-help tool on our website that is designed to allow people to ask the standard questions and to give them a sense of whether they are citizens or not. We tried a number of these efforts to try to reach as many people as possible.

I think the hit statistics, both in terms of YouTube and our website, have demonstrated that we've been reasonably successful in reaching people. Can we do more? Of course we can do more, but I think overall we did a fairly major effort to reach as many people as possible.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

My clock's gone. Your time is up.

[Rick Stewart]

I would just note that we do have copies and CDs of the YouTube video. For those of you who have not seen it, we'll be happy to share them with you after this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much.

And I do ask this question on behalf of the chair, who has directed me to ask this question in the spirit of cooperation. Let me just say very quickly that I'm sure you've already clearly identified the two points that the committee is concerned with, but I do have to ask these questions. These questions were written by our very capable researchers, who do a fine job to provide us with information.

What communication plan has Citizenship and Immigration Canada implemented to inform people about the changes of Canadian citizenship? As a result of the implementation of Bill C-37, CIC can expect an increased demand for certain services--for example, the volume of applications for proof of Canadian citizenship could rise and more inquiries could be made to CIC offices. What measures has the department put in place to prepare for increased demand for citizenship-related services?

Finally, the situation of certain lost Canadians will not be resolved by Bill C-37. What other solutions are available to these groups?

As a result of Bill C-37, citizenship by descent is now limited to the first generation born abroad. How does this provision compare to citizenship laws of other countries?

I think you understand that this is a really important issue. At the human level, you're talking about something very fundamental in the sense that citizenship gives individuals a sense of belonging. In our lives, it's very important as human beings to belong to a group, to a family, to a community. The highest form of expression of belonging to a country is actually through citizenship. So that is of concern.

On a lighter note, but deep down I think it's important, you say here, “The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian”. My question is, do dreams qualify you as a Canadian citizen?

[Rick Stewart]

Okay, there are five questions.

On the last question, I'm not sure I have the evidence base to present to you today to answer that question. I apologize.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Will you get back to me on that?

[Rick Stewart]

I'm going to turn to my colleague to talk about the practice of other countries in terms of limits on citizenship by descent and the communication strategy. This is with respect to your question about the provisions to meet the increased demand for proof applications that might emerge from Bill C-37.

Given the significant uncertainty at the time, when we were drafting the bill and putting into place the operational plans, regarding the number of individuals who would actually come forward to avail themselves of the provisions of Bill C-37--the uncertainty about just how many are actually out there in the world who might meet the criteria of Bill C-37--the decision was taken that rather than seeking dedicated additional resources, we would closely monitor the take-up of the provisions of the act.

We are committed to managing a certain increase within existing resources, as we do on our day-to-day business in managing the pressures of the business. If we find that the demand for proofs that emerges out of Bill C-37 is placing an undue hardship on the department, then we will take the appropriate measures to seek the additional resources we need to be able to keep up with the demand. For now, we're managing within our existing resource base, to the best of our ability, and so far we have not seen a surge in demand related to Bill C-37. But it is early days.

With respect to your comment about the lost Canadians and the provisions we have if they're not eligible under the provisions of Bill C-37, unfortunately, I will go back to the special discretionary grant of citizenship in subsection 5(4) under the act. That is the means in which we will consider the merits of individuals' cases who do not have the opportunity to avail themselves of the normal legislative provisions.

[Andrew Griffith]

Turning to communications, I think, in response to an earlier question, I have covered the main elements of our communication strategy and plan. I think we've actually had a fair number of initiatives in that area to try to reach as many people as possible, and we keep on looking at other ways to reach people.

In terms of the practice of other countries and in terms of the first generation limit, the United Kingdom and New Zealand use that approach in determining how citizenship can be passed on from generation to generation. Other countries, like the United States and Australia, use more of a residency-based approach. I think most countries find some ways to actually determine what the appropriate way is to pass on citizenship from generation to generation while ensuring an appropriate connection to the country. At a very high level, those are the two major approaches that exist out there.

[Rick Stewart]

I have just perhaps one additional piece of detail, to answer the question about our communications strategy. For example, Andrew spoke previously about reaching out to major U.S. media outlets. Examples of the outlets that we did put advertising in or that took advertising for us to raise awareness include the Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, The Buffalo News, The Washington Post, ABC News, Fox News, The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN. We've put information on the DFAIT home page for around the world. In Washington the embassy partnered with an organization called Connect 2 Canada, which is a virtual network of—according to my statistics—almost 44,000 people who share a link to Canada, as another way of trying to spread the word through the expat community in addition to our own web-based efforts.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Within the system, we have basically, in effect, that children adopted abroad by Canadian parents have been cut off from citizenship by descent. To really narrow it down, that's what we're talking about. In the system—and you know what I mean by that—where are you at right now in reference to Bill C-37? Is there a spirit in which you want to go and make some further amendments? Are you happy with this as it is now? Where are you at?

[Rick Stewart]

With all due respect, I think you're asking a question of future policy direction and policy intent, and hopefully you can appreciate that we're not in a position today to be judging policy appropriateness, policy intent, policy changes for the future. I think that's more appropriately a question for elected representatives to debate. Our responsibility is, given the legislative and the decisions that have been taken, to fully and loyally implement those changes and then process applications under the provisions of the act as it exists today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

You're well over, Mr. Bevilacqua, and I won't let you go over because you asked my questions.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you.

I would like to come back to the issue of adoption. I will not go into the reasons again, but I do have one last question. When parents decide to adopt a child abroad, and, of course, the child comes back to Canada to live with the parents, there are two ways for the child to get his or her citizenship: naturalization or direct grant. That is a difficult choice. Naturalization is a longer, more complicated process, but it gives the child more rights. The procedure for a direct grant of citizenship is simpler, but the adopted children will not be able to pass on their citizenship to their children if they are born abroad.

Why does the system give parents such a difficult choice? What would Canada lose if parents could use the faster procedure and still give their children the same rights?

[Andrew Griffith]

There are some options. I think that to some extent this reflects the fact that individuals' needs should be compared. A choice must be made between permanent residency and citizenship by direct grant. This is one of the things parents have to think about. They have to think about what is best in the short and long term.

The procedure for obtaining permanent residency is complicated. However, children do not have to wait three years before they receive permanent residency. So parents have to think about it before they decide which option to choose.

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

When this policy was drawn up, did departmental officials fear that their could be some problems if this distinction were not made, and if all parents opted for citizenship by direct grant?

[Rick Stewart]

Which bill are you referring to? The one on adoption or Bill C-37?

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

Generally speaking, when we think about this issue, the answer is obvious. I am talking about Bill C-37, as it was called when it was passed. A decision was made to include only those individuals who were naturalized. Those who obtained their citizenship by direct grant were not included.

Why was this not done? Was the idea to force people to make this choice just for the sake of doing so, or was the idea that everyone would choose citizenship by direct grant, that everyone who adopted children would choose that option, rather than naturalization?

[Rick Stewart]

We do not want to force families to make a choice. In Bill C-14, the changes made to adoption rules sought to establish equivalency between individuals adopted abroad and those born abroad. In the past, individuals in these two groups were treated differently. In Bill C-37, the description of the options available to people wishing to adopt is relevant. However, individuals wishing to have their biological children born abroad face the same choice.

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

The situation is not the same. It is not always possible to control when a child will be born, but it is possible to choose which bureaucratic procedure to use for getting one's citizenship.

I would like to ask you one final, more general question. We have heard a great deal about attachment criteria. At the moment, the attachment to one's country is defined by the place of birth. These days, people travel a great deal, and the situation is not the same as it was in the 19^th century, when the concept of citizenship was developed. People may be born abroad, live their whole lives in Canada and give birth abroad, but their child will not be a Canadian citizen. Conversely, someone may come and spend a week in Canada as a tourist, give birth to a child here, return to their country, and that child will be a Canadian citizen.

Is the place of birth still the only relevant criterion in 2009? Should we not be thinking about adopting a more modern, realistic one?

[Rick Stewart]

That was one of the fundamental issues in discussions about restricting citizenship to the first generation. The decision was made, and it is up to us to enforce the law that was passed.