The Honourable Judy Bethel
Chairperson
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Madame Chairperson:

Appearing before this Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I cannot help wondering why it is considered more important to amend the Citizenship Act 1977 rather than lay down the fundamental law on the rights and duties of citizenship in a new constitution. 

The Canada Act 1982, based on the British North America Act of 1867, has become an anachronism in a world which is increasingly demanding modern definitions on which to base its fundamental law and the enabling legislation which governs the state apparatus dealing with citizenship. It would be a grave omission on my part if I did not underline that neither the Canada Act 1982 nor the make a differentiation between citizenship and nationality, an important development of the twentieth century. This serious and unacceptable shortcoming is not addressed by the proposals which are being made by the Right Honourable Sergio Marchi pertaining to the proposed new legislation to be presented this fall as the basis of a new citizenship law. In the absence of such a differentiation, the Citizenship Act 1977 and the proposals for the new legislation confound the problems of citizenship with those of nationality and irreparably damage the possibility of working out modern legislation consistent with the demands of the twentieth century, let alone the demands of the twenty-first century.

I would also not be doing my duty if I did not stress the present economic and political circumstances within Canada and internationally in which people are driven to move because of the extremely volatile economic situation in which old jobs are being lost at a much greater rate than new ones are being created during this period of jobless recovery. Internationally, the twentieth century has seen the most colossal movements of populations. Literally millions of people have been thrown into the international wilds seeking their economic well-being or defending themselves from political persecution. The circumstances which are objective and the needs of the people within them must be taken together, on the basis of the experience of the past and the requirements of the present and future. A really modern society demands respect for the democratic ideal according to which people must determine their fate themselves. Keeping this in mind, the proposed legislation for a new citizenship act must take into consideration not only the fundamental difference between citizenship and nationality but also the present needs for restructuring and deep-going reform nationally and internationally. It would seem that the present Act, while having eliminated some of the arbitrariness exhibited by past colonial considerations on who would make a "desirable Canadian," is still addressed to immigrants who seek citizenship. 

Arbitrary considerations continue to determine what makes a "desirable Canadian," instead of rights and duties applicable to all on the basis of their membership in the body politic, irrespective of whether they acquire citizenship by birth or through naturalization.

Having read the material presented by your Committee pertaining to the proposed new legislation and the ground rules set for this Standing Committee by the Right Honourable Sergio Marchi, I am quite surprised to see that some of the greatest worries of the Canadian people have not been taken into consideration. The most important of these is the demand to enshrine a modern conception of citizenship so as to delete all considerations of nationality, race, language and religion from it. Such considerations give rise to notions of first and second class citizens, hyphenated Canadians and so on. At the same time, while it is positive to see proposals which will eliminate certain areas of corruption such as the appointment of citizenship judges, it is not correct to maintain other aspects of privilege and corruption such as the ones which waive citizenship requirements on what is called "compassionate" grounds, a euphemism for practicing discrimination. Even though it is implied that this discretionary power is necessary to make it easier for some categories of people to acquire citizenship, I myself am an example of a person who was denied citizenship for twenty four years even though eligible according to the Canadian law in 1964. This is because the Citizenship Act contains the provision that the political police are the final arbiter of whether a person will receive citizenship or not. It is astonishing that nothing is being proposed to change this situation in which the police authority stands over and above the civil authority and is asked to determine the outcome of the process.

Furthermore, a proposal is being considered to develop "a Citizen's charter document which identifies key common principles of Canadian life." It is being suggested that such "a document might indicate our common respect for the rule of law, support for freedom and democracy, and recognition of the equality of individuals," a suggestion which directly contravenes even elementary notions of the freedom of conscience. From all the comments made by the Minister responsible for citizenship, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to avoid drawing the conclusion that a medieval spirit is inspiring these proposals. To say that "A country's citizenship act should be a proud and bold statement of its history and its hopes, its common principles and common values..." is an outmoded notion. On the contrary, a democratic body politic must enshrine a modern definition of citizenship. This requires enshrining the modern democratic definition according to which membership in the body politic is based solely on objective rights and duties, irrespective of any consideration based on national origin, race, language, religion, political affiliation, gender, wealth or ability. This applies to all, whether Canadian by birth or by virtue of acquired right. Under no circumstances must the freedom of conscience be impinged. As a communist, I do not share values with the Right Honourable Sergio Marchi and many others, as they do not with me. While we should share the same rights and duties, under no circumstances should the Liberal Party or any other impose its own interpretation of "common respect for the rule of law, support for freedom and democracy, and recognition of the equality of individuals" as the basis for citizenship. What is needed is to clearly enshrine in the fundamental law of the land the recognition that all citizens have the same rights and duties. The Citizenship Act should merely be enabling legislation which guarantees that this conception of citizenship is protected by the state. This is the rule of law. In the absence of the principle of citizenship enshrined in the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution, the honourable members are faced with the impossible task of working out enabling legislation which guarantees the enjoyment of such principles as well as their enforcement. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister of Canada does not want to touch the issue of establishing a modern constitution at this time. It would seem that the need for a preamble to the Citizenship Act comes from the fact that there is no mention made of citizenship in either the British Nationality Act of 1867 or the Canada Act 1982. The Canada Act 1982 even deprives citizens of the inviolable right of domicile, a retrogressive step taken on the basis of ideological and political motives.

Pride is an important virtue but wisdom suggests that empty pride can be extremely dangerous. If taken to the extreme of self-delusion it can be fatal to an individual or a group of individuals. At the present time, it  is not just the Prime Minister of Canada who wants Canadians to be proud of Canada; it is the trend in each and every country of the world. Why is this the case? Pride does not fulfil human needs. On the contrary, people are proud of what they have achieved in the past and of their efforts to make even greater advances in the future. In this sense, Canadians will, indeed have a lot to be proud of if they succeed in establishing a definition of citizenship in which individual and collective rights are harmonized with the general interests of society and a path is opened for its progress. Adolf Hitler wanted Germans to be proud of their country and it was not for nothing that he demanded the German people not ask what the Fuehrer could do for them but only what they could do for the Fuehrer. It was the same spirit which inspired John F. Kennedy when he spoke in 1961 as well as Bill Clinton at the time of his inauguration. Such a notion is an old, medieval notion, one which creates aggressive and unjust wars and deprives people of their rights, human, civil and democratic. It imposes perpetual oppression and inflicts tragedies on them.

In my opinion, there is no place for a preamble to the Citizenship Act. A statement of principles belongs to the constitution which is itself, or should be, a concentrated statement of what the state stands for, the fundamental principles it upholds and the basis on which it is constituted. In my opinion, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will do well if it could recommend to the Prime Minister that he should work out legislation for laying down the fundamental law on the rights and duties of citizens, the building block of a modern constitution. While the British North America Act 1867 concerned itself with the distribution of power between the provinces and the federal government, the rights and duties of each one could say, it contained nothing as concerns citizenship. All subjects at that time came under the laws of the British Parliament. The Canada Act 1982 did nothing to address this serious failing. The preamble contained in the Charlottetown Accord also did not address this issue but merely sought to further mix up notions of citizenship and nationality by enshrining a hierarchy of rights based on whether a person belongs to "two founding nations," is of aboriginal origin, a visible minority, or speaks a minority language. A modern constitution should begin with the fundamental law on rights and duties of citizens. I am quite sure that Canadians will be proud of all those who contribute to enacting a modern constitution on the basis of modern definitions, in preparation for entering the twenty-first century. Such a constitution will go a long way towards uniting the people and eliminating divisions based on national origin, race, religion, political belief, language, wealth, gender, life style and ability.

There is also a need to examine closely the actions of those involved in providing security clearance for those who applied to become citizens and were deprived of it either permanently or for a period of time. In my case, I was deprived of citizenship for 24 years from 1964 to 1988. These were the most productive years of my life during which time I was literally condemned to live in an atmosphere of the complete negation of ordinary human rights. It is an opportune time to get rid of those provisions which allow inhuman suffering to such an extent that even elementary norms of family life are disrupted through illegal and criminal conduct on the part of the political police. All of this has in fact  been documented by the MacDonald Commission on RCMP Wrong-Doing. The entire citizenship apparatus, which for decades has been subjected to the pressure of the political police, should be freed from such an infamy which only fascist and militarist regimes justify.

Having lived in Canada for nearly thirty five years as a university professor, researcher and political activist, I have direct experience of political persecution and the violation of human rights. As a communist, I have not only suffered directly but am also well acquainted with many others who have been subjected to the same. As a person who hails from India I also know what it means to face the hierarchy of rights as they exist at this time. I therefore propose that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration should recommend that:

1. The fundamental law on rights and duties of all citizens be laid down so that a new citizenship act can be drafted on that basis;

2. In the case that the above is not done, the Standing Committee should recommend that:

a. Ideological and political considerations must not be a basis for granting or depriving citizenship to anyone;

b. All those who, as a result of previous citizenship provisions, suffered at the hands of the political police should be compensated;

c. There should be no oath of any kind as it smacks of medievalism. Meeting the objective requirements of citizenship is enough commitment to the rights and duties which are common to all.

d. The process of conferring citizenship by acquired right other than birth should not be subject to any conditions which do not also apply to those who have acquired citizenship by virtue of birth. The process of conferring citizenship should begin immediately after a person takes up residence in Canada and present requirements based on residency, knowledge of an official language or the politics, history and geography of Canada, etc. should be discarded. 

e. The Citizenship Act should be written in such a manner that there are no possibilities of positive or negative discrimination or elite accommodation. No government official should have any prerogative to interfere on any grounds. On the contrary, there should be a provision for the election of citizenship committees by the people themselves whose duty it should be to welcome new citizens to the country.

f. All citizens should enjoy the inviolable right to domicile. Under no circumstances should they be forced to live in exile or deprived of citizenship. All extradition treaties must be reviewed to make sure they do not deprive a citizen of his or her rights, especially on the basis of political considerations which may underlie those treaties. All such treaties should be put to a referendum. 

Given the present circumstances when people in Canada and on the world scale are demanding democratic renewal, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration can play an important role if it looks at these problems objectively and within the context of opening the path for progress in Canada and internationally. These opinions, even though brief, are made as a contribution in this direction. I am available to elaborate these issues and assist the work of the Standing Committee in this way should the occasion arise.