Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 35, on Wednesday, December 1, 2010. The orders of the day are, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the examination of Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad).

Before we begin, it's the chair's understanding that witnesses for this bill will be treated the same as those for Bill C-37, even though Bill C-37 hasn't gone through the House—hasn't even been debated yet—and that we might even continue on another day, namely December 8, on other witnesses.

The only caucus that has given the clerk names of witnesses is the government. So if members of the opposition have any names of witnesses on Bill C-467 or Bill C-37, they should give them to the clerk by the end of tomorrow.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

My question is simply one of procedure. Is it something we have to do now—to designate that the witnesses we hear on this bill will be applied to Bill C-37—or is it something that we do retroactively once we start studying Bill C-37?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have it in my head that there's unanimous agreement among the caucus leaders, the chairs, the secretary and the critics, that we won't hear these witnesses twice, that we'll hear them once, and that even though it may not even apply to Bill C-467, if they wander off into Bill C-37, that's okay.

That's the chair's understanding. I just want to confirm that it's everyone else's understanding.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I was under the impression that in starting our study of Bill C-467, we were to focus on the part covered by this bill. Obviously, a witness will talk about Bill C-467, but he could also cover other aspects later on.

Anyway, I don't think witnesses would like to appear twice before this committee. Maybe some of them are concerned only by this specific issue, and we should hear them first. Then, when Bill C-37 is referred to our committee for study, we will be able to focus on other aspects, which are numerous. It is not only the issue of second-generation children born abroad, it is more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's whatever the committee wants.

I have an awful time figuring this out. My understanding is that we just don't want to hear witnesses twice. That's my understanding of it.

You're right: today the concentration will be on Bill C-467.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I think the clarification is that we don't want to hear witnesses who will repeat themselves on issues they've already spoken to, that is, the part of Bill C-37 that is similar to Mr. Dosanjh's bill. I just wouldn't want to have a witness come on Mr. Dosanjh's section of Bill C-37 and then not be able to call them back for a different part of Bill C-37, once Bill C-37 comes around. I think that's the only concern.

I think the understanding we had was that we would try to stretch out our study of that section specifically of Bill C-37, as addressed by Mr. Dosanjh's bill, until Bill C-37 landed in front of us officially.

But I have to admit to a little bit of wariness about foraying too far astray from the issues addressed by Mr. Dosanjh's bill into Bill C-37 without either having the bill officially in front of us or having an initial briefing by the department on the whole of the bill to allow us our thinking. I probably am correct in assuming that the department won't come to talk to us about Bill C-37 until Bill C-37 is officially in front of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I understand your concern. For all we know, Bill C-37 may be months away. I hope not, but that's the possibility.

I think we're in agreement. I think we are.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

In any event, today we have as our guest the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh.

Is my pronunciation close?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

It's as close as you're going to get.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dosanjh is the member of Parliament for Vancouver South and is the sponsor of Bill C-467. We have invited him here today to tell us a little bit about his bill.

You have the floor, sir.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you. I will be rather brief.

My bill arose out of a letter from a Vancouverite who doesn't live in my riding. His name is Howard Cummer. He happened to be a Canadian trade commissioner in Singapore in 1979. He had a son while posted abroad as an employee of the Government of Canada, and his son, when he contacted me, lived in Tokyo and had married a Japanese citizen.

It would have been the case that, if the son had children, the children would not be able to pass along Canadian citizenship to their children if they themselves were living abroad at the time of their children's births. So if Mr. Cummer's grandchild, who happened to be living in Tokyo, let's say, when he or she married, then had a child, that child wouldn't be a Canadian citizen.

I felt that was rather unfair. If we as government send people to serve Canada abroad, then we should extend to those Canadians the same rights as if they had been living in Canada at the time of the birth of their children. My bill was very brief and attempted to deal with that issue.

If you're interested, I can read to you a very brief letter that Harold Cummer sent me. I don't know the man. I've never met him; he simply corresponded with me. I felt this was very important. He says:I am writing to you to seek your help in amending Bill C37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, which became law on April 17, 2009, to eliminate the unintended consequences of the Bill on the children of Canadians born abroad. I know that the Bill was unanimously passed by Parliament to eliminate the transfer of citizenship to the children of 'sojourning' Canadians--who have no long-term or historical ties to Canada and who consider a Canadian passport only to be one of convenience. But the Bill cuts far too wide a swath! Take my family situation as an example. I was working in Singapore in 1979 as a Canadian Trade Commissioner when my son was born. We had to agree in writing that we would not claim Singapore citizenship for him in order for my wife to have a hospital bed. He is now 30 years old, married to a Japanese citizen and starting an internet bank in Tokyo. If he and his wife have a child in Tokyo then under the present rules of C37 that child will not be eligible for Canadian citizenship. My family came to Toronto from Pennsylvania in 1797 in the second wave of United Empire Loyalists. Their presence is recorded in the place names of Cummer Avenue, Old Cummer Station and Cummer Park and my ancestors are buried in the family graveyard on Yonge Street now tended by the North York Historical Society. The family has fought for Canada in every war since the War of 1812 and was part of the Upper Canada Rebellion with William Lyon Mackenzie in 1837.But my family history is short compared to my wife's family--the Dawes claim to have been in Newfoundland since 1508 and can be confirmed as having been there by land titles since 1595.Between the two sides of the family there is over 600 years of Canadian history and yet my grandchildren will not be Canadian if born outside of Canada to my children who were born abroad while I was serving Canada. This is flat out wrong! The bill needs to be amended so that grandchildren of Canadian diplomats, Canadian Armed Forces personnel, the employees of Ministries of Finance, Agriculture, Justice, CSIS—all branches of government within interests abroad—will not be penalized for their citizenship--if their grandparents were working abroad for Canada. I am contacting you now to see what can be done to limit the unforeseen impact of this bill and to make the amendments necessary to preserve citizenship where and when it should be preserved.--Howard Cummer.

That, I believe, made the case for my very brief amendment. I might tell you that I had a conversation with the minister, and then I met with the parliamentary secretary and the officials. They believe it had some adverse unintended consequences and they would actually make some amendments to the bill when it goes to clause-by-clause. I have consented to that process. I have looked at the amendments; they're fine with me.

That, essentially, is my role in this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We thank you for your presentation. This committee is very good at what it does, and we'll try to solve anything on your recommendation.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has some questions of you.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh, for appearing before our committee.

There was a similar bill by the Honourable Mauril Bélanger, Bill C-443. The substantive difference between your bill and his bill seems to be that the same privileges of citizenship would be given to people employed by international organizations such as the United Nations.

We have many Canadians who in fact are working abroad and who are seconded to other organizations, whether it's the RCMP working in other countries.... In fact, we have people working at Interpol. Why would we exclude those individuals who are seconded to other countries, allies' organizations, or government departments and international organizations? Why would we not perhaps think of amending and allowing for those types of individuals to be included?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I actually would have no objection to that, because in essence the people you're talking about are crown servants. They are seconded to fulfill the obligations of the crown, essentially, to other organizations. As a matter of principle, I can see no problem, as long as you're seconded and are still in the permanent employ of the government of the province or of Canada.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Then let's take it to the next step. I believe it was Ms. Chow who presented with the intent that this same sort of privilege of citizenship would be provided to anyone working abroad for a Canadian corporation, for instance. How do you feel about extending those privileges to those types of family situations? Do you think we should be differentiating between a government employee and someone employed by Canadian businesses?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I don't feel the same about employees of private companies or people in private business abroad as I do with respect to crown servants, because I think there is an inherent difference. We send crown servants to serve Canada or the provinces; we should not let their rights or the rights of their children be diminished, because we send them and they serve us.

I think there is a slight distinction. I'm not persuaded that there is even consensus on whether we should be extending the same rights to private people who are in private business, whether it's multinational corporations or Canadian private employers. I've left the scope of my bill narrow because I felt that there would be consensus and it might pass. I think the argument you raise is slightly more contentious.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Then I have perhaps a final question. The issue of not having exit controls in Canada complicates matters in certain circumstances, because we have no easy access to records of residency. Have you had discussions with departmental officials around that particular aspect?

Of course, government employees or secondments would be much easier to verify, but should the committee also take a look at other potentialities that might become an issue? Was that one of the reasons that you preferred the narrow approach, as opposed to a wider approach?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

No, that actually didn't enter into consideration when I was looking at my narrow bill. That's a much larger question--whether or not you have exit control--and it would mean actually more bureaucracy at the airports and at exit points south from the country.

Currently, as you know, the governments use different methods of determining whether or not you are domiciled here or living here: whether you had a bank account, whether there was correspondence coming to you, what your mailing address was. All of these things are taken into account. Exit records will make it easier to determine those issues, but I think that's a much larger question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Trudeau will take the rest of the time.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Between the idea of being seconded in your government job to work for the UN or something else, and actually working for a private business.... There is the situation of the many Canadians who choose to simply go and work for the Red Cross, for the UN, for different...not private companies, but international NGOs and corporations like that.

Did you give any thought to thinking about including them, or was it more a concern around keeping it as narrow as possible so that it can pass, or was there more of a concern that this might not be in the best interests?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

If I had my way, I would include those people who go to work for non-profit international organizations of the nature of Red Cross and the like, because they are, in a sense, civil servants. They work for the common good. But I think it would be a much larger debate, and it would mean having to contend with differing views, and it might never pass. I had a very narrow objective in my mind at that time.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

One of the reflections I've had is that a child born abroad to a Canadian diplomat, for example, having had experience outside the country is, as we've seen from your example and from many other examples, more likely to be much more international in their outlook and possibly to find a spouse or partner who is of non-Canadian origin, and to therefore have kids who may be outside.... So I understand the fact that we're extending it one generation, as if the parent who had children while abroad while serving the government is treated the same as if they were in.

However, that second generation cut-off will apply a generation later to the descendants if they continue to live outside the country, which seems extremely reasonable.