Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Chair, if I have one minute left, I'll pass it on to Mr. Uppal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You will pass it on to Ms. Chow.

You're very late, Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

My apologies to all. There were votes.

And don't take the bus: it took 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have seven minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

Would you support an amendment that would include people who work for Canadian companies that are doing very good work overseas? For example, I've met a few people in China who represent a company that sells wood from British Columbia to the Chinese to build housing after the earthquake in China. They do very good work, but for quite a few of the CEOs and people working there, especially the females, if they are already second generation, not born in Canada, and have a kid, their kid would not be a Canadian citizen.

It's causing them a lot of grief. I can understand soldiers and crown employees, but why not people who do good work overseas?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Well, I'm really not interested in barring the kind of people you're talking about from ever getting direct citizenship. I just have not considered all the various implications into the future if you open up these provisions to private business. For individuals who go and live outside, it does benefit the country. There's no question about it. If you're teaching outside, you're a professor, and you come back, or if you're working outside, if you run a company in some other country—all of this has benefits for Canada.

I simply considered a limited area for myself, because it was easier to deal with, and there weren't many philosophical questions about how far to extend the right of citizenship. If you do what you're suggesting, I think you need a larger debate. I may be behind the times, but I don't know whether Canadians are ready to open up these provisions to the possibilities you're talking about.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

But fundamentally, would you personally agree to such an amendment, especially if we say to these folks that you have to be in Canada for x number of years prior to the birth of your children? This would establish that their intention is to be Canadian; however, because of their work or for whatever reason, they can't be in Canada.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Let me make another argument with you on that. I've heard from some activists who are willing to resolve this issue somewhat differently from the way you're proposing.

You're proposing that we give the same rights to children born to private business individuals as we might to the children of servants of the crown. You don't need to have that kind of parallel treatment if you follow an argument advanced by some activists. They say that if you have children born abroad to Canadians, first generation born abroad, and if those children during the first 25 or 30 years of their lives come and live in Canada for three to five years, then they should be treated the same as children born and raised in Canada. They should be able to pass on their citizenship. I think that might be a better arrangement, because it shows some connection with the country.

The argument is that if we allow immigrants who weren't born or raised here to come into the country, and after three years of residence grant them Canadian citizenship, then we should do the same with the children born abroad to private individuals. We should be able to treat them as if they were born in Canada. I think that might be a better solution.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That sounds like a good suggestion.

With respect to adopted kids, if I go to China and adopt a child there, and that child comes over as a Canadian citizen, then that child's grandkids, if they're born outside Canada, would not be Canadian. But if I adopt that kid and the kid comes to Canada as a landed immigrant, then that kid would be okay for a second generation. There's no second-generation cut-off. So in my book, an adopted kid should be treated the same way as a Canadian-born kid, because the parents treat them the same way.

This is an area that is not covered by your bill. If we were to go into it, would you object?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

My sense is that if you're an adopted child, and if you are adopted into Canada, and you've lived in Canada more than three years, which normally most adopted children do—

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

They would, yes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

—why would you treat them any differently from children born and raised in Canada?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Yes.

So if we make some of those changes in your bill, and if the legislative clerk says they're in order, in respect of the philosophy behind them, you're not opposed to it?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I think you need to find consensus. I may not be opposed, but for it to pass, the government needs to be onside. So you need to persuade the government benches more than you do me. I'm slightly open. But I haven't looked at all the ins and outs. These are complex areas. Sometimes when you make up an amendment, there is a domino effect on other issues. I think that these need to be considered carefully. Once you've considered them, if there's consensus, I think you should proceed.

On something like citizenship, I don't think there should be partisan bickering. Ultimately, citizenship is an issue where we need to take everyone along with us—not at all costs, but if we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Is the committee interested in going another round?

Mr. Wresnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to pick up on it there, Mr. Dosanjh. You were talking about citizenship and citizenship rights as some of the foundational principles on how we define ourselves.

There is something about the way this particular private member's bill is written; although there seems to be consensus, there's a little unease about the restrictive sense that it will provide those sorts of citizenship rights only to a certain class of people: government employees. Are you aware of any other case in Canadian law where there would be special citizenship rights or privileges based on employment?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I have not thoroughly researched the area, but I have to say this. I think that if you, as the country or the province, send people abroad to serve, you then have a distinctly superior obligation to those people than you might have to individuals who go on abroad on private business. I don't demean those individuals, but I think there is a distinctly superior obligation that the country must feel.

That was the sentiment that I felt when I agreed with Mr. Cummer to present his bill. I didn't even know when it was my turn, so it just happened—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think that's exactly where some of us have perhaps a bit of a problem. We obviously appreciate Canadians who serve abroad; it's this question of who the employer happens to be. It's by choice that people go. Even if they're working for Foreign Affairs or in Defence, they've made a choice. They know their job may entail that they serve abroad at some point in time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I disagree with your assumptions. Let's say there are 100 employees in a particular department. Well, someone has to go. You will have no choice: someone has to go. We send them abroad. Maybe I'm slightly old-fashioned, but if we send them abroad, as Canadians we then owe them a superior obligation.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I don't have a problem with that particular sense. What I'm getting at is that there is a free choice to serve your government in various capacities, and some of those positions, whether they're in Foreign Affairs or the military, may well include serving abroad. It is serving the country, but it is also fundamentally a choice that individuals make.

On this distinction of whether it's in Foreign Affairs or working for an NGO or perhaps for a respected Canadian corporate entity, I'm not sure that within Canada we would allow for special abilities to fast-track or to somehow have different sets of rules based on employment by a crown corporation or by the private sector within Canada, so outside of Canada.... That's why I liked the second suggestion you were talking about, which is this idea of a residency requirement, as opposed to a requirement based on employment with the federal government.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Well, the genesis of my view is not in the type of employment, but that we, as a country, need them abroad. I think there's a distinction. It's not just the employment contract. It's not whether you work for the government or not. Anybody that is going away on behalf of the government has to work for the government. But that is simply coincidental; the fact is that we are sending them abroad. Then, on the other hand, there is a choice people make, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't really....

I think the other argument I'm making is that you don't have to compare the two and see them as equals. They aren't. You have a way of bringing private individuals into equality to whom the children are born abroad. Within the first 25 or 30 years of the child's life, if the child comes here to live for three years, the child would have the same rights as if the child were born in Canada. By the argument I've accepted from the advocates, where I came to Canada and after a certain number of years I now have full rights as a Canadian, a child born to private individuals abroad should be able to do the same.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Personally, I actually like that particular suggestion. Once again, the question is, why shouldn't it apply in the same way to employees of the crown? Employees of the crown typically serve abroad for a period of time and they come back; sometimes they'll be over there for a while, and then we're talking about their children who are abroad for a period of time.

I have difficulty with citizenship being decided based on a type of employment as opposed to the principles, and you're establishing principles that would pass it down generationally but in different contexts. I like the residency part, and perhaps that provides the parameters, but I'm not comfortable with the parameters that a certain type of employment guarantees you these additional privileges.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

If there's consensus in Parliament that you want to proceed with that, I wouldn't have an objection. I still feel, in my old-fashioned way, that we owe a distinctly superior obligation to those whom we send abroad to serve us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's fun being cross-examined, isn't it?