Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 37, on Wednesday, December 8, 2010, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad).

We are continuing with the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, who is the sponsor of this bill.

Good afternoon, sir.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Good afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We were interrupted by bells last time, so there are a few more questions.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to touch on a discussion that we had started previously.

When we saw each other last, we discussed whether the place of birth was still, to this day, the most relevant criteria in determining an individual's attachment to Canada. You said that, in your opinion, it was still an important requirement. I was a bit shocked because it seemed to me that, in this day and age of mobility, when people are constantly travelling all over the world, a person could easily be born in Canada but never set foot in the country again, or a person could be born abroad but spend most of their life in Canada and then give birth to a child abroad.

It was your position that, in today's world, in 2010, as we prepare to enter 2011, the place of birth should remain the most relevant factor in determining an individual's attachment to Canada.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I don't think I argued that this should be a primary factor. I think I argued that it is an important factor and being born and raised in a particular place has much meaning in everyone's lives.

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

But you did say “born and raised”, which implies a certain residence requirement. If a person is born here and does not set foot in Canada again for years, ultimately that person is not very attached to the country.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Of course.

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

In your bill, you did not address our overall approach to the citizenship requirement in today's world. You deliberately chose to focus exclusively on a very specific circumstance, which you believe poses a problem.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Absolutely. I didn't get into the deeply philosophical issues.

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

What I am getting at here, Mr. Dosanjh, is if Parliament were to give more weight to the parents' duration of residence than to the person's place of birth, the problem you identified would no longer be an issue. If we were to say to a Canadian parent who had lived in Canada for 10 years that they could automatically pass on their citizenship to their child by descent, the issues of where they were born, where they gave birth, whether they were serving in the armed forces or working for a government department—all of those issues—would instantly be settled. A Canadian citizen, who had spent, let's say, 10 years in Canada would be able to pass on their citizenship to their child by descent. That would solve the problem, would it not?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

You're actually talking about a different problem. I addressed a different problem. I addressed the problem of Canada sending people abroad to serve it and then depriving their children born abroad of the same rights that Canadian children born here have.

What you're talking about is a larger philosophical discussion: whether or not being born in a particular place should play much of a role in how you define citizenship. I think that as you move into the 21st century, as people are more mobile, standards may change, views may change, and people may change. I grant you that. But I don't think you're going to resolve that issue today.

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

No, I understand perfectly. I am simply saying that the problem would not exist if the criterion were changed, because, as I see it, the place of birth would no longer matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for coming today. I'm sorry for the fact that you have had to be here a couple of times.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I like you guys. Don't worry.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's good to hear.

I certainly want to thank you for bringing the bill forward and for your efforts and obviously the government's efforts on Bill C-37, an attempt to address the gap in the current citizenship law to protect children of Canadian soldiers and of other crown servants. I know we've discussed this, but can you talk to the committee about the extent to which you've been working with the government on the bill?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Well, I had a very brief conversation with the minister, and I was briefed by you and some officials from the department. I was given to understand that the analysts believed that my bill had some unintended adverse consequences.

Therefore, I said that if the legal analysts believe that amendments are required, I am happy to have those amendments made. Does that describe the relationship?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks, Ujjal.

The question that I was really leading to was on the fact that obviously we want to ensure the objective that children of Canadian soldiers and other crown servants are able to pass citizenship on. I think that from the meetings we've had and the work done by the ministry in working with you on it, we've established that while there will be some amendments to the bill, it in fact will meet the intent that you want it to.

Obviously, Bill C-37 is going to be coming to the committee. We know that it's on its way through the House, amongst a number of other bills. Obviously it addresses the same issues that you've highlighted. I want to ask you outright: are you comfortable working under the guise of Bill C-37 as well? Because obviously in its attempt to address these issues, it's very similar to what you're proposing.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Well, I'd be less than candid with you if I said to you that I've read every clause in Bill C-37 that impacts my bill, or that I've looked as a lawyer would at the amendments you've proposed. I simply have faith in the civil servants when they come and tell you that a particular amendment has certain consequences.

If the legal analysts are correct, I'm happy with either Bill C-467 passing or Bill C-37 passing. I have no preference. I really have no possession of this particular issue.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Nina Grewal will take the remaining part of my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mrs. Grewal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dosanjh, for coming in today.

I have a very short question. How have Canadian soldiers and crown servants reacted to your bill?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm sorry. Who?

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

Canadian soldiers and crown servants: how have they reacted to your bill?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I have actually not heard from many people who are directly impacted by this bill, because they're probably all satisfied. You don't really hear from people who are satisfied.

I've heard from other people, like Mr. Chapman and others. I've heard from activists who feel that there are other gaps in legislation. I think they're better placed to tell you what those gaps are.

But I'm assuming that it's like politics: if you're satisfied with someone, you don't really call.