台中學研究中心

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I'm a director of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians. The NCCC, by the way, is an organization that has raised concerns of the injustice of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese exclusion act for over a decade and a half. I was also the chair of the Vancouver Economic Development Commission, and by profession I'm a real estate entrepreneur. I was the vice-chair of SUCCESS, and I'm sure members of the committee who are from B.C. and also beyond will recognize that organization. It's the largest non-government, non-profit organization on immigrant services, providing over 860,000 kinds of services in 2005-06 alone, with 350 professionals and over 9,000 volunteers. I have testified before this committee when the membership had a different composition, although some members are the same.

Most recently, the Canadian government apologized for the Chinese head tax, which began in 1885, and which jumped ten times in 1903. Indeed, the Canadian government has apologized for the Chinese exclusion act, and the Canadian government has begun redress. The Chinese exclusion act was abolished in 1947. Yet the apology came only in 2006—as a matter of fact, on June 22, by the Prime Minister—and redress is just now under way. That's why I'm here today.

Canadians want to see justice done when required, and not see its government deny justice and social justice for over 50 years. Canada as a country is judged by how it treats its citizens. If time permits in the second part of this session, I would also like to share with you how this matter is going to affect immigrants, our attractiveness, our immigration policy, and how it would impact on our economy as well.

Now before us, we have the denial or seemingly forever delay of recognizing citizenship to those who are Canadians in cases of the so-called “lost Canadians”. The lost Canadians deserve all Canadians' support, because there's no denying they're Canadians. It is shameful that Canada is dragging its feet to right this wrong.

We all know who Romeo Dallaire is and what he has done for this country. Romeo Dallaire was born to a mother who was a WWII war bride. As a captain in the Canadian army, he discovered he wasn't a citizen. At an October 4, 2006 news conference, Senator Romeo Dallaire described the actions of CIC, the Canadian immigration and citizenship department, as being “absolutely inhumane”. He went on to say, “It's absolutely nonsensical and that is why—you know—there is a term called bureaucratic terrorist.” I further quote Dallaire that a bureaucrat's duty “—is to make sure that the government is compliant with the laws in order to help citizens—not the other way around”.

This compliance with the laws must also mean compliance with the charter, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Compliance would mean giving equal rights to all Canadians, and this would include the matter of citizenship revocation. I specifically refer to sections 7 and 9, which I feel have been violated.

The time is now. The Citizenship Act needs fixing.

I have two further concerns, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Siksay said a week ago, when the Minister of Immigration was here before the committee, that the moneys set aside for developing a citizenship act have been taken away in this budget, removed. That is a contradiction to what the minister and the Prime Minister say they want to do. Canadians want to know how serious the government is on the issue of citizenship and the protection of the identity of Canadians. If there isn't a problem, there won't be the so-called lost Canadians.

In the spring of 2005 the same standing committee tabled its report with unanimous support of its committee members. The issues being discussed here have been addressed in that report. Canadians want to know this. Why are we doing this again with taxpayers' resources? Why can't this committee discuss why the report should not be adopted and Parliament move forward with its previous unanimous committee members' recommendations? Some of the committee members then are also the same committee members now. There are serious ramifications for the way our government acts and why it takes so long to move forward on such matters.

Thank you.