Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 20 - Evidence, September 21, 2000
OTTAWA, Thursday, September 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-16, respecting Canadian citizenship, met this day at 10:51 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Honourable senators, we will continue our study of Bill C-16, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. This morning, we will hear witnesses from the Canadian Council for Refugees and from the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees. The floor is yours.
Ms Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees: The Canadian Council for Refugees is an umbrella organization with approximately 160 members across the country. We are concerned for the rights of refugees in Canada and around the world and for the settlement of refugees and immigrants in Canada.
We did have a chance to comment on the precursor bill to Bill C-16 before the House of Commons, and we appreciate that, from our perspective, there have been a number of improvements. However, we continue to have some significant concerns with Bill C-16 in its current form, so we are very glad to have the opportunity to talk to you this morning.
In our presentation, we want to focus on three areas of concern: the first being statelessness; the second, annulment; and the third, the denial of citizenship on the basis of public interest. I will say a few words about statelessness, and my colleague Nick Summers will speak about the other two.
Statelessness is an issue of growing concern to our members, who are finding more and more that their clients or people with whom they are working are stateless and are left in difficult situations in Canada -- a kind of limbo with no solution. This has led us to become more and more interested in statelessness and in what we can do to solve that problem. We therefore want to take a look at the citizenship bill from that perspective.
Our concern is not simply to address issues within Canada, but to look at the broader context of the situation internationally. We believe it is appropriate for Canada to be playing a leadership role, and we therefore need to look at our citizenship bill from the perspective of an international model to try to reduce statelessness. We have some concerns about the bill in that regard, particularly in relation to how it could make Canadian citizens, or children of Canadian citizens, stateless -- something that should be of concern to Canadians and certainly to those who want to reduce statelessness.
The particular issue deals with citizenship that is acquired by Canadians born abroad. The goal of the bill is to reduce the number of generations through which Canadian citizenship can be passed down to people who are born abroad.
In the brief that we have circulated, we recommend that Canada work towards signing the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons, a second convention on statelessness to which we are not currently a signatory. We suggest that a clause be added to the bill stating that the act is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principle of reducing statelessness. We also have a series of recommendations on clauses 14 and 11 to try to close off some of the holes in the bill that could lead to situations of statelessness.
Mr. Nick Summers, Member of the National Council, Canadian Council for Refugees: I will address the issues relating to clauses 18 and 22 of the bill, but first I will touch on clauses 16 and 17. My colleague, Mr. Wichert, will be addressing those, and we are in agreement with his position.
When one looks at clause 18, one wonders why there is a distinction in the relief available to someone who is subject to clause 16. There are serious problems with due process in clause 16, but we submit that there are even bigger problems with clause 18.
There is the issue of the minister being both the prosecutor and the judge, in that it is the minister who brings forward the report and then also enforces. The only avenue open to people who have a report made against them under clause 18 is to file a response to the minister. There is no right, as in clause 16, to go to Federal Court to ask that the issue be considered. The only right of appeal is to apply for judicial review to the Federal Court.
Since the standard is so low, that of being satisfied that the enumerated offences have occurred, there are enough lawyers around the table to be well aware that the chances of successfully applying for judicial review of whether or not a minister is properly satisfied on an issue are almost nil.
It is also interesting, from the point of view of due process, that someone subject to clause 18, and still a citizen of Canada at this point, has fewer rights to due process than a permanent resident who is also being subjected to a possible withdrawal of his or her status.
Under the new Immigration Act that is moving through the House, a permanent resident who is subjected to a process to remove his status has the right to an appeal before the Immigration and Refugee Board, the IRB, and a chance to present his or her case and receive a reasoned decision. One does not have that in clause 18.
The Deputy Chairman: I did not hear that.
Mr. Summers: I am saying this does not exist in clause 18. They are citizens, and they should have the same rights as a permanent resident, or better.
In clause 22 regarding prohibition, we have serious concerns about the fact that a person can be prohibited from obtaining citizenship on such a vague concept as "national interest." Nowhere in the bill is that defined, and therefore it leaves the process open to extraneous considerations which should have nothing to do with whether someone would make a good citizen or not.
To give a very broad example, if some people who are refugees from what we consider a totalitarian regime work their way through the process, become permanent residents and apply for citizenship, the government can refuse them because it does not want to endanger the trading relationship with that country, or for whatever other reason. We have no idea how one defines "national interest."
We have the same concerns about due process. There is no appeal from that decision.
Senator Grafstein: You mean "public interest," do you not? There is a difference.
Mr. Summers: I am sorry, I was using the wrong word.
The Deputy Chairman: It is not the same thing at all.
Mr. Summers: You are quite correct that "public interest" and "national interest" are different, but it is not defined here, so again we have the same problem. What does it mean in the context of this bill? While the two things are different, without any definition, how do we know what the difference is?
Mr. Tim Wichert, Board Member, Inter-Church Committee for Refugees: I am representing the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees, of which I am a board member. The Inter-Church Committee for Refugees is a coalition of 10 different church bodies. Personally, I represent the Mennonite Church on that committee.
I hope you have received the brief dated June 19, 2000. If not, I will make sure you get copies.
That document was prepared in June for the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology because there was a possibility we might appear at that time.
I wish to focus on two issues. The first is the process for revoking citizenship and the limited review safeguards, as Mr. Summers was discussing. The second area involves the foreign affairs implications of this particular bill, which touch on the issue of statelessness.
As a background, we would suggest honourable senators have at hand the very detailed report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which has just been passed out to you. If you are not familiar with this document, I would urge you to read it and familiarize yourselves with it.
This report arose out of a visit to Canada of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in October 1997. Their representatives met with an array of people, returned to their offices, did their research, and came out with this document in February this year. Unfortunately, that was right in the middle of the entire process on Bill C-16.
We were told that there was not time for the House of Commons committee to consider the report, but we would urge honourable senators to consider some of the points to which I will draw your attention.
In general, the report has important things to say, both in terms of the positive elements of Canadian law related to refugees and the human rights of the asylum-seekers, but also in terms of some concerns and, specifically, the limited review procedures of negative or harmful decisions for refugees.
The report also has some interesting comments about Canada's obligations outside its borders; namely, both our obligations to achieve international standards and our opportunity to be a good example to other states. I will touch on that in terms of the foreign affairs implications of this bill.
As we point out in our brief, Article XIX of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man -- I am sure today it would no longer be called that -- says that every person has the right to a nationality to which he is entitled by law.
I want to reflect on that right. I am referring to page 1, under section 1, legal and constitutional obligations. The right to a nationality is a fundamental human right.
My wife and I had the opportunity to live overseas, and I must admit that I was grateful to have a good passport. I was grateful to have had Canadian citizenship and have carried a Canadian passport when we travelled. At the same time, we met many unfortunate people who had no passport or nationality, who had to flee, but who had nowhere of which they could say, "This is my place, this is my home, this is my new home. These people want me, and I am safe and secure here." I mention that, because when someone obtains that nationality in a new place, we must be extremely careful about the process for taking that right away. We must safeguard that right as jealously as possible.
That is why we are concerned with the provisions for removing and revoking citizenship found in clauses 16, 17 and 18. We believe those provisions are simply not good enough.
I draw your attention to section 95 of the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Here the commission states in the last sentence:
...The right of access to judicial protection to ensure respect for a legal right requires available and effective recourse for the violation of a right protected under the Declaration or the Constitution of the country concerned.
Then if we go down to section 98 on that same page:
The effect of this right is to require the provision of a domestic remedy which enables the relevant judicial authority to deal with the substance of the complaint and grant appropriate relief where required.
This observation questions the adequacy of judicial review and a "reference" type of approach because they do not require the court to deal with the substance of the complaint, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights suggests.
Section 99 reads as follows:
While applicants do not necessarily have an unlimited right of access to judicial remedies, controls on that right may not be unreasonable or such as to deprive the right of its essence.
We urge you to consider these tests or thresholds when looking at the Bill C-16 provisions. We are concerned about WTO power within the minister's office to influence a decision. We are concerned about the judicial review at the Federal Court. The commission also has some pertinent comments on the Federal Court and its effectiveness in sections 100 to 103 of the report. We are concerned about the finality of the federal court decision, with no rights of appeal. That is simply unacceptable.
One other point to highlight is that clause 12 of Bill C-16 intends that naturalized citizens and citizens by birth be equal. Yet these kinds of revocation procedures give naturalized citizens second-class safeguards. The implication is that citizens by birth have greater rights, and yet clause 12 suggests they should be treated equally.
The foreign affairs implications of Bill C-16 are articulated well in our brief and I do not intend to go over those in great detail, other than to say we want to set an example for other states. We want to set a good example. We cannot leave the impression that in Canada, cabinet can remove nationality on a discretionary basis, even with restrictive legal safeguards.
We have also pointed out that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has indicated that they provide advisory services.
Perhaps you could consider asking for their advice on the legality of these particular provisions on review and on this second point of the implications within our region and the possible statelessness implications.
Let me just conclude on a personal note. Within our church constituencies, we are hearing increasing concern about some of these provisions, especially those related to revocation and removal of citizenship. As you can well imagine, many of our constituents are people who emigrated within the last 50 years. Many of our churches are related to ethnic communities who have emigrated in the last 5, 10 or 20 years. Of course, they are naturalized citizens. These issues concern us because, as naturalized citizens, the implications of these kinds of provisions are that their citizenship could be removed and we do not believe there are sufficient safeguards against that.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. We will now move to questions.
Senator Maheu: My first question is addressed to Mr. Summers. When you talk about requesting that the Federal Court be allowed to be the final judge of whether a person should face a revocation of citizenship or not, is it not a fact that the Federal Court would not be in a position to judge anything other than the rule of law? It could not consider humanitarian reasons. The minister spoke of this last night. When you take a case before the courts, they must respond as the law dictates. If you take something before the cabinet, then humanitarian reasons can be brought up and the department reports can be brought in. I think there is quite a difference between a judge sitting on a bench and 24 people sitting around a table, many of whom have constituents from certain communities. I do not think the personal prejudice of any person would come into play. If you are dealing with one judge, he or she does not have the right to deviate from the rule of law.
Mr. Summers: I do not believe our position was that a judge of the Federal Court was the best person to deal with this. The allusion I made to Bill C-31 is that in most cases, a permanent resident who is facing loss of status has the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division of the IRB, and in fact the Immigration Appeal Division has the right to consider humanitarian grounds in most cases. That would be a preferable solution. I agree that a humanitarian perspective has to be brought to bear.
Having said that, the point I was trying to make about clause 16, which is where a person has the right to appeal to the Federal Court, was really in comparison to clause 18, which does not even contain that much of a right. Clause 18 deals with the annulment of citizenship, where the minister herself -- not the cabinet -- makes the decision.
Senator Maheu: I disagree on that point.
Mr. Summers: According to clause 18, if the minister is satisfied according to the provisions of the clause, the minister may, by order, declare that citizenship is void.
Senator Maheu: Let me bring up a point from last evening. If you had a case where an individual, for whatever reason -- I think the reasons are unimportant -- lied on his immigration application, the department went forward and made its case, and it went all the way beyond the minister to cabinet, do you not feel that that is a better resource than a judge? No matter what you present to a judge, he or she will have to make a decision based on the lying on the application.
Mr. Summers: True, but what we are looking for is a process, whether it be before a judge or another tribunal or someone in power, to hear a case of some sort. The problem with its going to cabinet is that the person subject to the process can only submit a written response to the minister's notification that a report will be made about him or her.
Senator Maheu: He or she can see the report.
Mr. Summers: Actually, the bill merely says that the minister has to notify him or her that a report is being made. The bill is less clear on whether the person gets to see the report, or all of the report, because there may be issues of security; we do not know.
The point is that here is a person subjected to a very serious process, dealing with the loss of one of the most important rights we have, the right of citizenship, and that person is not getting a hearing. There is no one to whom he or she can say, "Wait a minute, the minister has it wrong," or, "Yes, but there are reasons why I had to do this."
Senator Maheu: The minister also brought up, in her example, hate-mongers found out almost five years after citizenship was granted. Do you not feel that that type of person is not one that we would be proud to call a Canadian? I could name a couple -- I will not -- about whom I have personally had to see what I could do to stop them from interfering in Canadian meetings, and not necessarily about citizenship -- as a matter of fact, not citizenship. There were a couple I would have loved to have seen revoked because they did not make me proud to be a Canadian with the example they were setting for us.
Mr. Summers: I do not think anyone here is saying that there are no people who should not be Canadian citizens, who should not be granted citizenship, and if they are granted it, that it should not be removed. We are saying that the process proposed in this bill is not fair.
Senator Maheu: You prefer to see it before the courts rather than before the political entity responsible for responding to public outcry if its decision is wrong?
Mr. Summers: I would prefer to see it before a body of some sort which has the power to hear both sides equally and make a decision based on the facts. Unfortunately, the cabinet is a very busy place. It is the nature of the beast that, if the minister comes to the cabinet and says, "I am satisfied that this person just fits within the definition that we have set out in the bill," the cabinet is more than likely going to go along with the minister because there is no one there to say otherwise.
The Deputy Chairman: I will take the opportunity here to say that we will come back to the question of public interest, because when you speak about becoming a Canadian citizen, that is one thing, but public interest is not involved in the stripping of citizenship. We all agree on this.
Mr. Summers: Yes.
Senator Joyal: I will begin with a simple question. Subclause 17(3) of the bill, at the top of page 8, states:
A decision of the Federal Court -- Trial Division made under subsection (1) is final and, despite any other Act of Parliament, is not subject to appeal.
Have you checked whether such an extraordinary provision -- that of denying appeal in the legal process <#0107> has been entrenched in any other act of Parliament?
Mr. Summers: I have not. The only one that comes to mind is where, if a failed refugee claimant has sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court, the refusal to grant leave is not appealable further.
I am not aware of any other circumstance where a citizen has been denied the right to at least seek an appeal to a higher court, where one exists.
Senator Joyal: Exactly. In my reading of it, one does not even have the right to seek an appeal, to request an appeal. One can be denied the right to appeal, but at least one has the right to request to appeal.
Here, one is even denied the right to request an appeal, if I read subclause 17(3) correctly.
My question is, again, you do not know of any similar provision in our Canadian statute law that would formally deny the right to appeal?
Mr. Summers: I am not aware of any other.
Senator Joyal: Would that be against the Charter?
Mr. Summers: Quite possibly. This comes up in other clauses of the bill as well, on the issue of whether or not this is equal treatment before the law for all citizens. That is one issue, certainly, but I agree with you. I am not sure what more I can say.
Mr. Witchert: Referring back to the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, section 101 deals with other areas of Canadian law where in fact the review mechanisms are much broader. Administrative law gets fairly technical at times, and as they say, may legitimately be subject to certain restrictions, but when the interests at stake in the refugee context, for example, may involve the security and life of the person concerned, it becomes much more serious.
It goes on to say that the commission understands that under other federal statutes, administrative mechanisms may provide for various levels of review, as well as judicial review, including on the merits, as of right.
They make reference specifically to the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Public Service Employment Act, and the Canada Labour Code.
Those are other specific provisions where the rights are much broader. It is the converse to your question. It is answering you in a different way. We have done much better in other legislation, so why do we have to be so restrictive in this one?
The Deputy Chairman: There is another point. Perhaps we can come back to that.
In our system, there is a right of access to the courts. It is in the Constitution. Whether it is expressed in a statute or not is secondary. The right of access to the courts is part of the rule of law in Canada. There is no doubt that there is such a right to access. The difficulty arises over whether the same principle applies to the right to appeal. That is your question.
Senator Joyal: That is my question, and it is fundamental if we are to deny a citizen the right to request an appeal. This provision deals with that. To me, it is very serious. You have to have very serious grounds for denying something which is linked to the judicial process, to due process. The court may say to you, "You do not have the right to appeal," and turn you down, but at least you can request the court to be heard. That is the first point.
Senator Nolin: What was the answer with respect to the Charter? It does or it does not?
Mr. Summers: I am not an expert in constitutional law. I am a refugee and immigration lawyer. I tend to agree. I think there are constitutional problems.
Senator Nolin: That is the heart of the problem.
Mr. Summers: To be honest, I cannot speak at length on that.
The Deputy Chairman: Even if it is not in the Charter, the fact is that it is the fundamental law of the land.
Senator Joyal: I do not want to argue too much about this. We will have other witnesses from Justice. I am quite sure you will follow their testimony so that we can continue our exchange on this.
My second point is on the American declaration of rights, Article XIX, which reads that every person has the right to the nationality to which he is entitled by law.
We had a discussion on this yesterday with the minister. I do not know if you have been informed of that. I am puzzled by the way the bill is now written, as it does not recognize the right to a nationality.
I am of the opinion that a person who is born in Canada has the right to nationality. I asked the minister if a person born in Canada could be deprived of that nationality. She said, "No, except, of course, in the rare circumstance when a person is born to a diplomat." We know about that. It is well codified in international law generally.
I feel the bill fails to define, at least in the preamble, what we mean by "nationality." The bill is totally silent on this matter. I was expecting, when I read the first section, or the preamble of the bill, a reference to nationality. To me, nationality is essential to citizenship. They are intertwined notions and concepts.
The inter-American declaration from which you read is binding on whom? Is it just a document that expresses a general view, or is it signed or recognized by states? Which international instruments have recognized the right to nationality? I think the international human rights declaration has recognized it, but I would prefer to get the answer from you.
Mr. Witchert: You will see this at the beginning of the report from the inter-American commission. It arises out of the Organization of American States, of which Canada has been a member since 1990.
The Deputy Chairman: On that issue, there is clause 4:
A person acquires citizenship at birth if, after the coming into force of this section,
(a) the person is born in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: That article might be closest to what Senator Joyal is looking for.
[English]
No, it is not as clear.
Senator Joyal: My next question is whether there are any instances where the United Nations has recognized the right to nationality in the way of "apatride" or alien citizens. If you say everyone has the right to nationality, there should be an international instrument somewhere that indicates that. Why are we not referring to that in this bill?
Senator Nolin: This is probably not the right witness of whom to ask that question.
Senator Joyal: Can we not expect that the bill should refer to that, be part of that process, and that citizenship is the emanation of that process?
Ms Dench: If I may, statelessness is, in a sense, the obverse of your point.
We are suggesting that we make reference to our international obligations toward reducing statelessness, and that we include a clause to say that the act is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principle of reducing statelessness.
Senator Grafstein: We have not signed that convention.
Ms Dench: We have signed the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. We have not signed the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons.
Senator Joyal: Can we have a copy of the conventions that we signed?
Senator Grafstein: There are two different conventions.
Senator Pearson: One is an international convention and one is an OAS convention. We did not sign the OAS convention on human rights.
Senator Joyal: Perhaps we could have a copy of the convention that we signed, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: I will take care of that. Perhaps we should proceed now.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Joyal touched on the judicial remedies issues and the right of access to the courts. The minister yesterday -- I hope I am understanding her correctly -- seemed to say that the court process, in the minds of some people, took too long and was excessive. In other cases, some people thought it was not sufficient, that it was limiting the Federal Court in what it could do. I think that has been alluded to here. The minister seems to have based her case with respect to the process in the bill on the fact that somehow the minister and cabinet provide more flexibility and more humanitarian options permitting citizens not to be stripped of their citizenship.
Traditionally, we have used the judicial process, whether in criminal law or in issues of immigration and citizenship. We have had a due process model of some sort, and then we have used humanitarian issues as a sort of backdrop or "backfill," if you will, at the cabinet level. After the court said, "You were legitimately tried, found to be wanting, and should have your citizenship stripped," then there was another mechanism for appealing to cabinet on humanitarian or other grounds.
It seemed that we got the best of the judicial system and the best of the executive discretion.
The minister seems to have changed the situation with this bill, so that executive involvement is preferable. Would you comment on that from your perspectives?
Mr. Summers: I do appreciate that the humanitarian aspect must be brought to bear here, and you are quite right that the courts cannot always do that.
The problem we have here is that the process is very closed. You have the minister bringing forward a report saying that someone deserves to have his or her citizenship revoked or annulled, and then the same minister, in the case of the annulment, making the decision on whether or not the person has brought forward a case to refute that report. In other words, the minister is both the prosecutor and judge of this person's case, which is contrary to all our concepts of justice in this country. You have the right to be dealt with by someone who is impartial and who will listen to both sides equally.
In the case of revocation, as I said before, yes, it goes beyond the minister to the cabinet, but if a minister, who is a member of that cabinet, brings a case and says, "I have made a decision that this person should have their citizenship revoked, and here by the way is a piece of paper that person has submitted saying why I am wrong," with whom will the cabinet side? We still do not have an impartial process. We are saying we need a fair process, whether it be a political or a legal one. Frankly, our preference is always to go to some sort of panel of experts, where all the issues can be dealt with -- the facts, the law, and the humanitarian considerations.
Ms Dench: I would like to add something in response to your comments about "tendency." Our organization sees this happening not just in the citizenship area but more broadly. We see the Department of Citizenship and Immigration tending to move towards move administrative procedures, less judicial procedures, on the basis that they will be more expeditious. The experience of our members in the field is that this opens the door to arbitrary, inconsistent, and unfair decisions.
Mr. Witchert: I would echo those comments exactly. In some ways, it has become quite atrocious. I remember studying years ago in political science about how the Canadian system worked versus the American system, and how we could trust our government officials here to make the right decisions. However, in the field of immigration and refugee law, we have gotten to the point where we cannot trust them, whether it is because they are dealing with too many cases, as a result of a lack of training or understanding, or they approach it from what we think is a backward view, which is how many people can we keep out rather than how many can we let in. There is a total lack of transparency. It is not only a question of impartiality, but of transparency. Moving more toward this kind of decision-making process brings the whole system down.
Senator Andreychuk: This added section on public interest is very troubling to me, and I note that you have raised it.
In my reading of the bill, anyone who is a threat to Canada in any way -- criminally, through hate literature, et cetera -- is covered elsewhere, so I was puzzled as to what "public interest" is if it is not one of the categories in clause 28, for example. When I asked the minister about this, her only example was hate-mongers. When we pointed out that that is a criminal offence, a prohibited act, and would have been covered elsewhere, she said it covered any case where a person could bring dishonour to Canada.
Could you tell me what cases you have run across in your day-to-day work that were not covered under the old sections -- cases where CSIS may have been monitoring, the "limbo" cases as they are called, treason, threat, Criminal Code cases, all that? What kinds of cases do you come across in your day-to-day work that would be covered under this public interest rubric that are not already covered elsewhere?
Mr. Summers: All I can think of is that the minister is trying to capture here cases where there is insufficient proof for a criminal conviction, or cases of people of a certain prominence. To take an extreme example, perhaps it would cover a dictator who may not ever have been charged or convicted of anything in his own country, or who may have been granted a pardon on leaving office just to get rid of him. We may not want him. Certainly the government should have the ability to say, "No, we will not accept this person." However, surely we can define that. Surely we can do better than simply saying "public interest," because that catches far too many people. As my friend said, it is not transparent. How do we know what goes into the process of making that decision?
Senator Andreychuk: Would you see that, then, as a defined section in which to trap those kinds of cases with the others with the same sort of rights of review and appeal?
Mr. Summers: Certainly they should have rights. Anyone who is in Canada has the right under the Constitution to a fair hearing. They are not citizens -- they do not have any status supposedly at this point -- so perhaps they do not have as many rights, but they are entitled to fairness.
Senator Andreychuk: Are we not talking about people who already have citizenship?
Mr. Summers: No. Clause 22 covers people applying for citizenship. That is the only place where "public interest" is brought in.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes, you are right.
Senator Pearson: I have two quite separate questions, the first of which follows up on Senator Andreychuk's. I am struck by a growing mood of anger, not only in this country but elsewhere, with respect to cases of impunity. The Pinochet example is one case.
These are cases where people have been pardoned or granted immunity. We are saying that we do not care that Pinochet was granted amnesty, we still do not want him. Luckily, they do not want them either.
I have just come from a conference on war-affected children. There is a tremendous pressure now to talk about impunity. Impunity means that you will not be held responsible for whatever you do.
I believe this bill is seeking to ensure that we are able at some time to capture some of these individuals who may never have been charged with anything. This is a difficult issue and I am interested in your reflections on that.
There is no question that there are those who have severely abuse the rights of children or who have recruited them into armed forces, because that is still legal if the optional protocol has not been signed. What do we do about that kind of case?
Ms Dench: The Canadian Council for Refugees is very interested in the issue of impunity and has been pushing the Government of Canada for a number of years to do more to address it.
The current policy of the government is to work towards deportation of people who have been guilty of crimes against humanity or war crimes. That is not good enough. People need to be brought to justice. Simply sending them out of Canada to a place where they may not be brought to justice is not living up to our obligations to fight against crimes against humanity.
With respect to the current bill on citizenship, we do not think that the best way to deal with these kinds of issues is through including lengthy discretionary classes through which people can be excluded from citizenship in Canada. The way to do that is, they have committed crimes and they should be brought to justice for those crimes and face criminal convictions.
We are among those who are most keen to see that such people do not live in peace and tranquillity in Canada, and yet we are very much opposed to discretionary clauses because that does not give due process or ensure justice. That is our final aim.
Mr. Wichert: We must be able to put our money where our mouth is. To revoke citizenship in some of those cases implies that we are dumping it on another country and another territory. Then we turn around and complain about the impunity that may be granted.
There are two approaches. Minister Axworthy has been promoting the International Criminal Court for the last couple of years. That is one. The other is to bring people to justice within our own territory and provide a model for putting people on trial and through a process that we think is fair and just in Canada.
Clause 28 at (f) and (g) refers to subsection 7(3.71) of the Criminal Code, which concerns war crimes and crimes against humanity. We still need to give more consideration to bringing those kinds of people to trial here in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Yesterday, the minister told us that there was no major difference between the former legislation and this bill. Obviously, clause 21, which deals with public interest, is an exception to that. However, aside from the issues of public interest and Cabinet's discretionary power, how would you respond to the minister's statement that there is no major difference between the former legislation and this bill?
Ms Dench: We consider that there are major changes, major amendments that we should be concerned about. We are discussing them right now. Those changes will have a definite impact in that some people who might have been granted citizenship will not get it. And as a result of other amendments, some people who do have citizenship will have it taken from them.
Senator Nolin: Mr. Summers, do you have any comments?
[English]
Mr. Summers: There are some changes. Under the act, people have more access to a review of the decision. I cannot quote sections. I only have the bill in front of me.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Let's come back to the Pinochet case. If Mr. Pinochet had done in Canada what he did instead in Chile, he would have been charged under the Criminal Code of this country. The bill before us already contain provisions that could be used to ensure that Mr. Pinochet be denied his right to citizenship.
I would like to draw your attention to clause 28(c). Would it apply in a case like that? You are in a better position than I am to understand the technicalities involved; all cases concern foreigners who want to enter Canada or become Canadian citizens.
The name Pinochet has been raised. Obviously, someone who commits an act that would be a crime in Canada would dishonour Canada if we were to grant him citizenship. The bill does provide for ways to prevent such people from obtaining Canadian citizenship.
[English]
Ms Dench: I will point out that, in addition to what you mentioned, one must not forget the Immigration Act. If someone has come from another country, they have emigrated to Canada and they are permanent residents under the Immigration Act, which has a number of inadmissible classes. Someone like Pinochet would fall clearly under the inadmissible classes of the Immigration Act. If they managed to somehow achieve permanent residence while waiting the three years for citizenship, Immigration has every opportunity to move to find them inadmissible and have their permanent resident status removed.
Senator Nolin: The purpose of our questions is to try to determine why the government wants this authority. That is our problem. We have a Charter. I know it is tough, but we have to live with the Charter.
Mr. Summers, I am trying not to ask you a legal question; however, because of your experience you know that people can lie. That is covered. Cabinet can deal with that and courts are not always the proper fora to deal with such matters.
On the other hand, we may have to deal with someone who has not lied, who has complied with all the conditions and who can be granted citizenship, except that we do not want that person because he or she is expressing publicly some undesirable views.
I am referring to your earlier answer. You said you are not here to say that all people should become citizens of Canada. You said that. I want you to keep in your mind the name of such a person. I do not want to hear the name, but I want you to think of a person who, in your opinion, is not welcome, perhaps because he or she has said something which hurts your values, your principles, your beliefs. Before you answer, I just want to remind you that, even if you are not a citizen of this country, you have the right here to say whatever you want.
My question to you is this: Do you still hold to your opinion?
Mr. Summers: I still have the opinion, yes.
Senator Nolin: So there are some individuals whom you do not want as citizens of this country?
Mr. Summers: Of course. Whether we think of a particular person or simply hypothetically, there will be some people who do not deserve to be given Canadian citizenship. I would submit that that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the process by which we deny them is fair.
You mentioned paragraph 28(c) as perhaps encompassing the example that had been given of Pinochet. That may or may not be true. The gentleman in question was charged in Spain and not in his home country, so there is some question of whether he was ever charged.
The Canadian Council for Refugees is concerned because many states unfortunately use their criminal process as a tool of persecution. Many people who come to these shores have been charged with offences of which they are not guilty. The charges were a way of suppressing those people.
This issue is not black and white. There are some serious grey areas here. Unless you have a process where someone with expertise can understand and address those grey areas, it is not a fair one.
Senator Nolin: So the process, the fair hearing, is your argument?
Mr. Summers: Yes.
Senator Pearson: I have a supplemental which may help the discussion.
In a recent meeting with Interpol, we were talking about pedophiles. Interpol knows who and where these people are. Their movements are being tracked, even across borders, but Interpol has a terrible time actually laying charges. Perhaps these people may be caught in this clause.
I know all about due process, but I can understand that the government is trying to protect us from a certain type of person.
Senator Andreychuk: You are talking about the immigration process, not the citizenship process.
Senator Pearson: No, I refer to people who are in Canada as landed immigrants. They are able to answer honestly because they have never been charged, but Interpol knows about them and lets us know.
Mr. Summers: I would point you to paragraph 28(f), which deals with people who are under investigation by the police. That is one category of people who can be prohibited from receiving citizenship. Again, that is already captured and defined. If it is defined here, it is not part of the "public interest" found in clause 22.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that clause not restricted to suspected war criminals? Apparently that is so.
Senator Joyal: On that very point, we must recognize that this applies to an investigation under the Criminal Code of Canada, which means that it is a serious offence. It is not just because a person has not paid a parking ticket and so is being sought by the police. It refers to a crime that is defined in the Criminal Code. Pedophilia is prohibited, sanctioned, in the Criminal Code. Then we understand that there is a real motive. This restriction is circumscribed within some limit and is not just an open-ended kind of thing.
"Public interest" is a very loose catch phrase. On the basis of public interest 20 years ago, you would have denied citizenship to people recognized as living in a same-sex situation. We cannot prohibit it now because the Supreme Court ruled last year on this. What is prohibited today may be accepted down the road. We can put everything which is now not protected into that category.
We like to claim that we live in a liberal democracy, but where is the liberal democracy in that definition of "public interest"? I think there is a puzzling definition here.
Mr. Summers: To add to that, 50 years ago public interest could be cited depending on the colour of your skin.
The Deputy Chairman: We have two issues here, the court process and cabinet's findings on public interest. I did not hear yet whether you are for or against this duality of avenues, if I may use that expression. Do I understand that you accept that structure? The two processes are not doing the same thing at all. I am satisfied if we may have access to the courts at all times, because this is where we find rule of law and the principle of access to justice.
I am not against a second avenue, like public interest, but my problem is, where is it defined? If it is not defined in the statute, the court will define it.
Senator Joyal: That is provided you have access to the court.
The Deputy Chairman: That is a preliminary, of course.
Senator Andreychuk: That is a big preliminary.
Senator Grafstein: Thank you, witnesses. You have opened up our minds in a way that is quite interesting. You have also given us a terrific challenge, and I address this through the staff.
I looked through some of this material as we spoke this morning. Unfortunately we did not get a chance to read it in advance, or we might have been more pertinent and focused. I noticed that a lot of this material should perhaps more properly come under the Immigration Act. It might be useful for you to think back through your paper and see whether all of your comments have application to citizenship, as opposed to immigration. We are dealing here with the Citizenship Act, with higher levels of responsibility.
I am not suggesting that your points could not be addressed to both processes, but it struck me that there is a bit of to-ing and fro-ing in here. Now I am not asking you to comment on that, but I will ask our staff to look at these briefs and decide what categories deal properly with immigration issues as opposed to citizenship.
Mr. Summers: The fact is that the two are tightly intertwined. Perhaps the fault is the government's for putting things in the bill which impact on immigration.
At the Canadian Council for Refugees, we deal with people who come to the country seeking protection. We want to ensure that they get that protection and that they continue to have it.
Senator Grafstein: It would be helpful to separate the two. There are different screens. One screen allows the person to enter the country, and the other allows the highest award that can be given, which is citizenship. Many people are entitled to be here who may not be entitled to citizenship for many different reasons.
You may disagree with that notion. You may agree with it. Everyone is entitled to apply to be a citizen. The question is, who should have it and who should not?
For the moment, you may want to think back through this and try to separate some of the issues for us; that will be useful. Or you can say that everything you have said applies to the Citizenship Act. I understand the relationship between the two.
Ms Dench: The brief of the Canadian Council for Refugees is talking exclusively about the Citizenship Act. I am sorry that you did not have a chance to read it. We did send it on Tuesday. We are talking about the citizenship bill.
Senator Grafstein: I have read it. I just looked at your paper and it referred to "national interest" as opposed to "public interest." That is Mr. Summers' paper.
Mr. Summers: Ms Dench and I are on the same council. I used the same comment in my opening remarks.
Senator Grafstein: It gives us pause for thought. I will read it more carefully and come to my own conclusions. Obviously the staff might give us some advice about that as well.
Mr. Witchert: The fact of the matter is that clause 16 draws the two together very closely. It talks in subclause (3) about how one became a permanent resident to begin with.
Senator Grafstein: There is a merger there.
Mr. Witchert: This gives the immigration authorities a second kick at the cat. They are saying, "This person maybe should have been caught at the first instance but we missed them, so we want a second chance," or, "We did not like the decision there, so we want a second chance at getting at them now."
Senator Grafstein: There are three other areas. I will try to review them briefly. You have given us a lot to think about here. I thank you very much for this brief.
You have affirmed this interesting notion that if in fact someone arrives on our shores with impunity, there should be a public policy that we immediately prosecute those people, or alternatively, we should defer to another jurisdiction that has the responsibility for that, or again alternatively, we should get advisory opinions from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. There is a whole raft of options that would be useful for the committee to explore from a public policy standpoint. I thank you for bringing that to our attention. There are many things that we have to decide from a public policy standpoint.
Let me turn to the minister's position and get your reaction. Turn with me to clause 44. Senator Maheu may be interested in this as well. She spoke eloquently about the minister's position. At the heart of the minister's argument is the idea that citizenship is a privilege to be granted, in effect, by the government, and therefore it should be a minister's responsibility to withdraw that privilege. That is the public policy, and a lot follows from that.
The Deputy Chairman: You are summarizing what the minister said for the witnesses.
Senator Grafstein: Yes, that is my take on what the minister said. The heart of her argument is that the minister is accountable to the public, whereas the court does not have the same level of public accountability.
Tell me what she means by subclause 44(1). Give me your reaction to that.
Mr. Summers: She is doing what every minister does; she is arranging for officials to handle the actual work.
Senator Grafstein: Is it not worse than that? I am not critical of the minister. This is a systemic analysis. It goes to the question of accountability and responsible government. The minister takes a responsibility under the act and argues that she is accountable to the House of Commons, and quite properly so. Then you look at the process and the quantum -- you have all alluded to the fact that there are a lot of cases here -- and the question is, who deals with these cases?
We were told last night that somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 cases would be applicable to one clause alone. We have no analysis from anyone yet about how many people we are talking about here under any process. We know that our courts are clogged. We know that. We have been told that one-third of all the cases in the federal courts are dealing with native claims. That is a huge number. We have heard from Mr. Wichert that the refugee board is clogged. People cannot get their decisions. This is a question of quantum of time, of energy, and of allocation of resources.
To my mind, we must understand the processes involved before we pass this law, whether they be ministerial or legal, and what we are putting into the system here. Can it be done under due process? What is due process -- the right to have your decision taken on a timely basis?
I looked at this. I say first it is not the minister but some nameless bureaucrat authorized by the minister via an invisible letter who makes a determination, based on whatever principles that person sees fit, based on the rubric of "public interest." Then the minister rubber stamps it because she is sitting there and has dozens of these to do. We know how busy a minister is.
This a systemic issue on which you can give us some assistance. I want some reaction to what I said. Can you give us any statistical data to support the process here? What are we talking about here, either under the existing code or the other code? I take it they are huge numbers. The only thing I have heard in Toronto from refugee boards is that they are clogged with cases. What are we talking about statistically? What is the minister taking on? If we decided to give due process to the court, what would the courts be taking on? Can they take it on without setting up perhaps a separate board yet again to deal with this? One of your notions is to have yet another open board to deal with this.
Ms Dench: On your general point about accountability, from our point of view, we would look to the government to live up to accountability by setting up processes that are fair, rather than looking for individual accountability from the minister for each decision made, because obviously there are decisions being made by her delegates in large numbers. You cannot expect her personally to be responsible for each decision.
We do not have numbers at our fingertips. You will probably be able to get those from the department. Our sense is that the revocation of citizenship is not an amazingly frequent event. I do not know that this would be an enormous part of the Federal Court proceedings.
Mr. Summers: Again, from my experience, and I have been practising immigration law for 10 years, these cases do not come along all that often.
I would just respond to your point about setting up a new board. We did not say that. We said there should be a panel of experts. In fact there are already a number of boards in existence that, if the workload is not large, could easily handle these cases. The Immigration and Refugee Board comes to mind off the top of my head.
Senator Joyal: I was the Secretary of State responsible for citizenship for two and one-half years. The number of cases, according to my memory, was maybe four or five a year. We are not dealing with thousands of cases.
Senator Grafstein: It is important to get that on the record, because the minister can properly say it clogs and so on or not. We have not had those facts on the table yet.
Let me turn to a topic already addressed by Senator Andreychuk. "Public interest" does have very definitive parameters. If we look at cases in the United States on the definition of "public interest" as it applies to a whole raft of things, there are many judicial definitions. It is much narrower than "national interest," which can go into different fields.
Since you raised the issue, you might come forward with some suggestion as to how you might define, under judicial cases, the nature of public interest, so that we can have some sort of comfort that we have an umbrella definition or criterion. That would be very useful for us.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like to have that, speaking personally, but the Department of Justice will also be appearing before us.
We need both sides, justice and the refugees.
Senator Grafstein: I am very interested in knowing what "public interest" means to these witnesses, because I think there will be different versions. We have good help. There are many cases on this question in the United States applying to different issues. There are fewer in Canada.
If you could help us on that, it would be very useful.
Ms Dench: I am not sure we can help you, because in our discussions on this issue within our organization, we have been mostly concerned about the introduction of the concept of public interest into the bill at all. It was not our suggestion. We have told the government that we are not happy that this catch-all phrase is there, and particularly not happy that it is not defined.
Our response would be that, if the government believes this is an important and necessary loophole, or extra category for refusing people, at the very least it should be defined.
Senator Grafstein: Maybe we can handle it in a different way. If we hear from the department, we can give you an opportunity to respond to us in writing. At the end of the day, it is very important for us to clarify what this bill is all about.
If this is a government interest, let us see what the government means by "public interest." The definition is not as vague as one might think, but the application is very difficult. Therefore, it is very important for us to have a more precise understanding of it. As Senator Andreychuk has suggested, maybe we will conclude that there should be a definition of what public interest includes, to give some transparent guidance.
I am struck by the notion contained in clauses 16 and 14; that is, that people can believe that they are citizens because they are second or third generation, and then learn that they have been deprived of their citizenship without due process or notice.
I asked the minister about that. I gave her the example of children and grandchildren of Canadian citizens who are working overseas as missionaries and consider themselves to be Canadians. There are still some second- and third-generation missionaries working abroad.
What is your view on that? The answer that we got yesterday from the department official was that they should make the consul general aware of their situation. There is provision for appeal to the minister for resurrection of citizenship on compassionate grounds, which is not the way citizenship is normally received. If you have it, you have it.
Can you give us any assistance on how to deal with this conundrum?
Ms Dench: I endorse your concerns, particularly in relation to information. Many times people will be eligible for citizenship but will not know about it. In addition to your example, it occurs to me that there are many Canadians who spend part of their lives abroad and may have children who were born abroad, but may immediately then return to Canada. Some people may have lived virtually all of their lives here, but because their parents happened to be studying or working abroad, they were born abroad. Their only attachment may be to Canada.
It would seem that people could lose their citizenship without even knowing about it. People might live here in Canada and never bother to apply because they did not realize that their citizenship was in jeopardy. Who would ever tell them that they no longer had citizenship? They might, at age 50, apply for a passport, only to be told that they have not been a citizen for the last 22 years.
Senator Grafstein: I came across the case of a woman who was married in Canada, lived here for 65 years, and applied for a passport for the first time. Because she had not applied for citizenship, she was denied and it took her the better part of three years to get her citizenship and a passport.
There is a bureaucratic issue here as well.
The Deputy Chairman: Before leaving, Senator Nolin said that we will obviously have to delve more into the legal question. The more I hear, the more strongly I believe that the legal point should be studied much more deeply. For example, "public interest" is absolutely fundamental, as is access to the Court of Appeal. We need to know more about that aspect from both sides.
We will probably discuss the question of a legal study at the next steering committee meeting.
Senator Pearson: I am interested in the issue of stateless children. I am also concerned about unaccompanied minors, asylum-seekers, and various related issues. I am not sure that some of the kids who have arrived as unaccompanied minors are getting due process.
Do you agree with that?
Ms Dench: We have been very concerned about the treatment of unaccompanied minors, particularly groups in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. In Ontario and Quebec, these minors have been detained for very long periods. There is a gap in jurisdiction. It seems that no level of government is taking on the responsibility for looking after the best interests of those children. In fact, at a recent meeting we agreed that we would set up a task group to develop policies or recommendations on unaccompanied minors.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chairman: Are you saying that the detention period is longer in Quebec?
Ms Dench: In Quebec, a group of minors was detained for approximately six months. I don't know whether the situation has changed recently, but another group was also detained for at least six months in Ontario.
[English]
Mr. Wichert: That is one issue related to children and unaccompanied minors, but there is another. It arises out of subclause 16(3) and is one of our biggest concerns. It is the notion of false representation or fraud, which goes undefined. The immigration authorities are telling us that they will know it when they see it.
These kids are a perfect example. Who helps them to fill out their papers when they come here? It is not just a language issue. There is also the complexity of questions on the forms related to the number of family members, the kinds of activities they may have been involved in, and the political or social organizations to which they may have belonged. A certain answer on that form could bring them within the parameters of this provision years later and lead to the revocation of their citizenship. We are concerned about that.
Senator Maheu: Could you elaborate on the six-month detention of young people in Quebec? You may address your reply to the Chair in writing, if you wish, and he will forward me a copy.
I have one last question on false representation and revocation of citizenship. I should like Mr. Summers to give us an opinion. Jules Deschênes identified 12 or 13 war criminals in his work, and then there was another study done by someone else. It pointed out that there were 200 to 250 additional war criminals who, for all practical purposes, and as far as we know, are now Canadian citizens. Their names are in a sealed envelope. I am not sure whether it has been opened or will be opened.
These people may have been here for 40 to 45 years. I believe that they should have their citizenship revoked, or at least face that possibility.
Mr. Summers: The issue is that that is a possibility. We do not know necessarily what is the evidence against each of them. We do not even know who they are. Their names are in a sealed envelope.
Senator Maheu: Are you referring to the other 13 who were identified as war criminals?
Mr. Summers: Perhaps we should not have given them citizenship because they lied to us and misrepresented the facts. The fact is that they are now Canadian citizens, and we have to treat all Canadian citizens with fairness and justice. We may, at the end of the day, revoke these people's citizenship. However, if we start making exceptions to the rule of law, then where will we be? Does it stop with those 13, or does it go further? We are saying there has to be a fair process for all.
Senator Joyal: I should like to address my question to the witness who referred to the American declaration of rights and the issue of nationality. In a federation, the issue of nationality and citizenship can be puzzling. For instance, in Switzerland, one is a Swiss citizen but also a resident of a canton. As such, one has a kind of particular status enjoying a certain number of rights. In Canada, we do not make any distinction between nationality and citizenship. In your assessment of the rights that issue from nationality, do you not think that we should recognize that any person having Canadian nationality has citizenship?
Mr. Wichert: I am not sure I would make that distinction. I would assume that the right to nationality gives one access to citizenship. Thus they become one and the same.
I will not go into the other question of whether we should allow the provinces to grant citizenship, as is the case with the cantons in Switzerland.
I am not sure that answers the question, but I see the two, citizenship and nationality, as intertwined, if not one and the same.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to get some precision here. I think we have to understand what we are dealing with. If the distinction does not exist in Canada, it has to be referred to in the way we address citizenship. It has to be included in the definition.
[Translation]
If one prevails over the other, we must recognize what the concept implies and what its consequences will be.
[English]
That discussion has never taken place in Canada because it is a domain where we feel that we are in what I would call an "untold zone" of what the country is all about. It is difficult for us to seize the real implication of what we are doing in this bill and what this bill implies and what it does not say. How far should the bill reflect those notions? After all, citizenship is the expression of the sovereignty of a nation. When you have a passport, it means that when you travel outside your country, you bear the nationality on that passport. When you are in the country, and stay in the country, you do not question it. However, that right is activated on that dimension when you present yourself in another country. That is why we always say: "Tout le monde a droit à une patrie." That is what you are fighting for as a human being. Everyone needs a home somewhere. Everyone has to land somewhere. I think it is very important, in that discussion of the implications of those who gain citizenship by birth and those who gain it by granting, to remember that we are making distinctions in terms of administrative organization. However, we are not defining essentially what it means, what it is. That is why I feel a little "sur mon appétit" on this bill, because I feel there is an element that does not show a coherent approach to it. My question is: How can you help us to define that?
Mr. Wichert: As you yourself mentioned earlier, perhaps we need some kind of preamble or recognition that the right to nationality is an overarching right that does not just emanate from laws here in Canada, but from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or from the American declaration on rights and duties. There are other concepts that articulate the right to nationality. It may well be that that is what we should be articulating here to underscore the whole discussion in the rest of the bill.
Senator Finestone: Do you have a definition of the difference between nationality and citizenship?
Mr. Wichert: Do I have one? Not at my fingertips.
The Deputy Chairman: In some countries, they talk about nationality. In other countries, it is citizenship. My impression is that it is worth studying this point. If the two terms are the same, then we have to know that, and why. In French-speaking countries, they never use "citizenship" as far as I know. They used it at the time of the French Revolution -- "citoyen," et cetera -- but today they talk about "nationality." In countries such as Canada, the United States and Britain, they use the word "citizenship."
Senator Pearson: In the former Soviet Union, one was considered a citizen of the U.S.S.R., but also as having the nationality of Armenian, et cetera.
The Deputy Chairman: That is not the case in our country. I should like to hear an expert on this matter.
Senator Grafstein: We have had this debate about the oath of citizenship. I always had the very clear view that citizenship was the ultimate grace that a nation could bestow on people who reside within its borders. Therefore, it should be protected.
Have you got a definition of citizenship in Canada? You have given evidence that if it is taken away, it must be done fairly. It is also your evidence that we should try to give it to those who do not have it. I do not quarrel with that. That is our policy. The question is, what is it that we are trying to preserve here? This is Senator Joyal's issue. What is it that is so important that you believe people should not be deprived of it? Define for us, if you can, the nature of citizenship.
It is a fair question. It is fair because each one of you has worked in this field, from refugees to immigrants to citizenship, and it would be very interesting for us to have your take on what are the rights and duties of a citizen. Perhaps you can give a quick answer.
Ms Dench: From the refugee point of view, the state is supposed to protect the human rights of its citizens. Refugees are people who have been persecuted in their home country and have not had that protection as citizens.
Refugees who come to Canada often have mixed feelings about citizenship. Many refugees are very keen to become citizens as soon as possible because it will give them a sense of permanent protection in Canada. That is extremely important to them because of their life experiences.
At the same time, many refugees are reluctant to become citizens because citizenship has not been a matter of choice. They have been forced out of their home country, to which they are deeply attached, and have come to Canada because of persecution. They have been forced to flee. Therefore, taking Canadian citizenship has a sense of finality, a final rupture with their past, and in a sense, a feeling that all has been lost and that they are forced to start a new life, which is not something they chose to do.
Senator Grafstein: Going back to my central point, we are here, with all due respect, dealing with citizenship. If you have any thoughts about citizenship, they would be very useful.
Define for us, under international law, the rights and duties of a citizen.
Senator Andreychuk: That is unfair.
Senator Grafstein: It is not unfair. This bill is trying to do precisely that. It takes something away by legal or discretionary means. I want to know what we are taking away.
Senator Finestone: You have dual citizenship rights. Why do you say we are taking it away?
Senator Grafstein: I am not talking about duality. I am talking about citizenship. It is a separate question.
The Deputy Chairman: We have to remember that refugees have certain rights. The Charter of Rights does not apply only to Canadian citizens. There are many cases where fundamental rights are extended to those who are not Canadian citizens. We have to say that.
I wish to thank you very much for your appearance before us. It has been very useful, in my opinion.
The committee adjourned.