Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Michel Simard]

I'd be happy to oblige. Consider the figures for 2005-2006. I can speak with some degree of certainty, because obviously, we're talking about statistics and a very large number of applications.

We received a total of 274,697 applications during the 2005-2006 fiscal year. Overall, 231,903 applications were processed. As you can see, the numbers don't add up. We received a total of 274,697 applications and processed only 231,903.

During the 2005-2006 fiscal year, 222,171 applications for citizenship were approved.

A total of 2,576 applications were not approved because the applicants failed to meet the legal and regulatory requirements. In the case of these 2,576 individuals, written decisions were provided to them.

A total of 7,156 applications were withdrawn or abandoned for one reason or another at some point during the processing stage.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The applicants weren't ready.

[Michel Simard]

They had their reasons: either they weren't ready, or they realized that they did not meet the legal requirements. It was a little of both. This is somewhat of a grey area, but the exact figure in this case is 7,156.

Overall, 2,901 ceremonies were conducted. However, a word of caution is in order. Some of these ceremonies were presided over by persons other than citizenship judges.

A certain number of those ceremonies were not presided over by citizenship judges but by members of the Order of Canada, or people who had been specially appointed by the registrar. The registrar of citizenship has that power, but it is exceptional in an emergency case when a judge is really sick.

We had a case in the province of Quebec on July 1 last year where the Lieutenant Governor got sick and we had to appoint a clerk or an officer to be the chairperson of the ceremony to appoint. The registrar of citizenship has that power on a case-by-case basis.

On the hearings conducted,

a total of 12,994 were conducted.

We need a hearing when the judge realizes or feels that when he is reviewing a case, a paper review file, he needs more information or there is a doubt. He is not satisfied that the requirements are met despite the exam, despite the documents that he has on file, and 12,994 of them have been conducted. There were 10,418 hearings that resulted in the approval of an application, and 2,576 hearings that resulted in non-approval of an application.

Over and above that--because this is the official figure--we also have judges, and all of our judges are doing what I would call overtime. That overtime involves the kind of promotional activities that they themselves generate. There are not a lot of people who talk about these, and you will not find them in the department literature. These are initiatives that are performed by judges in their communities with community partners to preside over what we call reaffirmation ceremonies, citizenship ceremonies, and so on. This is basically promoting Canadian citizenship principles on a non-partisan basis to all kinds of audiences.

To give you the total of our activities for 2005-2006, there were 305 events that were attended by approximately 58,000 people, with an average attendance of 192. These are activities involving a social club, a Rotary Club, or a school. I myself, for example, visit schools in Gatineau. In grade five they have a course on citizenship as is the case across Canada. I make a point every single year to visit those kids to talk about citizenship, to bring them a passport, to talk about what a refugee is.

As a matter of fact, those classes are becoming a little bit more like the United Nations as we speak. They are the picture of the Canada we will have tomorrow. It's quite interesting to be in a position to talk about those principles, and to also complement the course they already have. There are other activities including organizing special citizenship ceremonies when a parent of a child in that school is getting his citizenship. We are bringing the community and also directing our energy towards Canadians, because it's easy to do that.

Actually, in Canada the people best informed about citizenship principles are those who are in the immigration process. We also take the responsibility for talking to Canadians about citizenship very seriously. That's part of our work here.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Can I ask just another question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do you provide any input to Citizenship and Immigration Canada officials in terms of advice , suggested policy changes or changes to the Citizenship Act, among other things? People come to our offices. Are there any shortcomings in the current Citizenship Act and are citizenship judges asked for some input in terms of making changes?

As you mentioned, they put in long hours on the job and are active in the community. They are not necessarily any different than MPs. Those who worked in the private sector or who became members have certainly come face to face with many cases. Citizenship is a right. It enables us to obtain a passport and to have an identity. There is also the whole issue of statelessness to contend with.

Would you care to respond briefly?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, go ahead, sure.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you.

[Michel Simard]

That's a very interesting question, Mr. Chairman. However, in view of my responsibilities and the authority vested in me by the minister, it is my duty to share with him anything of interest related to citizenship. As you can appreciate, this relationship is somewhat like the one between an attorney and his client and I cannot share with you any comments or information that I may be called upon to share with the Minister who, by law, is the person to whom I report. When it comes to making a decision, I stand alone and I am protected very well from all outside influence.

All pieces of legislation can be improved upon, but as an independent decision-maker, Mr. Chairman, I am not at liberty to point out to the committee either the strengths or the weaknesses of the act, for the sake of preserving my independence. If I wanted to do so, perhaps I should step down and appear before you as a former judge. Unfortunately, given my current duties, I cannot comment. My job and that of my colleagues is to interpret the current act. We speak through our decisions, Mr. Chairman and unfortunately, we cannot make general comments about the weaknesses, or strengths, of any one act in particular.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll have to stop it there and go to Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of you for being here today and congratulate you on your appointments. I also want to thank you for telling very Canadian stories today. I think you're right that all of us around this table can relate to the kinds of stories that all of you told this morning. I think that's evidence of why you're in the positions you're in, because you do tell very Canadian stories. I have a feeling we had sneak previews of your addresses to citizenship court ceremonies this morning.

I have a couple of questions.

Judge Simard, we have an over-representation of Mississauga here today. Was there a particular issue with Mississauga in terms of the need for citizenship court judges? I think three of the four people this morning happened to be from Mississauga.

[Michel Simard]

I think, Mr. Chair, will all due respect it is only coincidence plus the fact that a lot of those appointments happened in Mississauga. We had not only vacancies to fill, but also new positions. Mississauga is one of the fastest-growing offices in the country. I can talk also about Scarborough.

I will give you a clear picture of where the action is as far as citizenship cases are concerned. In Immigration and Citizenship we call it MTV--Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver. The Toronto region receives 100,000 new immigrants every single year. Of course, when they become permanent residents, after a while they want to become citizens. Accordingly, the Scarborough office, the Toronto central office, and the Mississauga office are among the busiest offices in Canada. Montreal is not giving up its place either. My friend George is kept busy, as well, with his colleagues. Vancouver is also a critical place.

Just to give you an idea, over the course of the fiscal year 2005-2006 we were working out of the equivalent of 15 FTEs, which is, in your jargon, full-time equivalents. You probably know that notion better than I. We are now 29, and we are aiming for 37. It's just to basically to show that there's a demand.

The key is that you need the judge. The judge is essential in the process. I've heard a lot of comments from the minutes of your committee about the fact that we are playing mainly an honorific role. Well, I have news for you people. Eighty-five percent of the day-to-day work of a judge is to basically study cases and do administrative decision-making. The nice picture of the judge with the robe is about 15% to 20%, at best, of our time.

We are essential in the process because we have to approve. If you look at the Citizenship Act, you'll see there is one single entity that approves each file--the judge. We are not granting citizenship; the minister is granting. But we do have to approve before the minister grants. Without approval, they're not able to make it.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Judge Simard.

When you pull up the process about becoming a citizenship judge, it talks about starting with filling out the citizenship judge candidate information form. I wanted to ask, did all of the candidates here start with this form from the citizenship and immigration website?

[Michel Simard]

Mr. Chair, the application form is basically part of a citizenship screening process that is now the work in progress. The story of that process basically came from a long time ago, and it has been based on a continuum. To tell you the truth, I had basically inherited the responsibility of managing a screening process or thinking of a screening process in 2004, when a so-called entity called MAC, the ministerial advisory council, was abolished.

If you remember, my colleague Jean-Guy Fleury of the IRB basically started his own process in 2004, and as a result, that body that had been mandated by the past government to overview and make recommendations to the minister was abolished. Their duties were ended and the IRB got its own process. I was then left alone, and I basically had to propose something. Since 2004 I have been in the position of proposing a screening process.

I did start a few things. For example, we did take the responsibility of reviewing the core competency of the citizenship judge position for one single reason. Remember that there was talk of modifying the Citizenship Act. Bill C-18 was basically transforming our role as an official master of ceremonies without decision-making powers, and then there was a definition of the position that was rendered obsolete by the fact that Bill C-18 didn't materialize. As a result, I had also to build up a screening process in order to offer it to the various governments I had to work with, and this process is still not completed.

We have applications, we are screening, we have exams, we have an interview, those types of things, but basically right now I have to get from the current government an imprimatur for that process. I'm working closely with Mr. Harrison on the new device, trying to rationalize things—

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So how do names of potential appointees come before you? I gather not everybody does this application form, then. Is that what you're saying? How do other names come before you for potential appointees?

[Michel Simard]

Right now, we are basically in a kind of vacuum, and I have to be very honest with you on that. I am, at the administrative level, administering a process that basically allows any candidate who is interested to fill in an application. I am basically in a position to have candidates on the list. I am also in a position to basically administer an exam to those who apply.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Are people nominated? Can people nominate someone from outside? Does an individual have to take the initiative to apply?

[Michel Simard]

We have to understand the limitation of the process we're in right now. Whatever the kind of process that might be approved, the process will be to make a recommendation on prequalified candidates, but that is not the power to appoint. That is basically going to be left. The one who has the power to appoint is the Governor in Council.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Well, I'm afraid I have to interrupt again, as much as I hate to. You're on seven and a half minutes, so we'll have to go to Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Judge Simard, for sharing your thoughts and views on the roles and responsibilities of citizenship judges.

There's no doubt that part of your job is to ensure that there is that measure of collegiality among them, and that they're personable and they're able to meet the requirements. Certainly from what I see this morning, you have some excellent candidates for that, and I wish them well and congratulate them, as well, on being appointed. I know at least one was reappointed. I was happy to hear in the general evidence you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer for this position.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I am a lawyer myself, but I can say that it's good to see that the qualifying part there is of course the ability to understand, to interrelate with newcomers, to understand the role the judge plays, and to be involved with the community, to a large extent.

I'm also pleased to hear, Judge Simard, that you have a program of education that's ongoing, that takes good candidates and makes them better, normally in the area of language.

It's great to see Ms. Bozzi having several languages and being involved in language training and getting a firsthand experience on the ground. It's good to see that brought to the judges' level, as well.

You have programs in place, and I commend you for that. I think that taking them through some of the administrative issues and so on to be sure that you get consistency is to be commended.

I have some specific questions, of course. You indicated that some of the functions that are not so much ceremonial are the issues related to dealing with the granting of citizenship retentions, renunciations, and the resumption of citizenship. Do all judges deal with all four areas, or are some of the areas reserved for the superior judge, like you?

[Michel Simard]

Right now, for administrative purposes I have been dealing with most of the retention cases and the renunciations, because they are often directed from foreign countries to the CIC office. They are channelled to the office of the senior judge in Ottawa.

There are circumstances under which we conduct hearings on retention and registration of citizenship, when we have to deal with the examination of that one-year residency in Canada or the substantial connection with Canada that is required. For people currently living in Canada, whether in southern Ontario or in Alberta, we transfer those files for a residency hearing to the local judge.

Again, even on retention people could apply, fulfill their residency, and go back to perhaps Belize. While they are in Belize and it's time to deal with the case, we work with our consulate or embassy via teleconference, and I do perform these types of hearings myself.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

On those other ones, of course, you've got some educative processes to upgrade judges that are reappointed and educate those that are just appointed.

[Michel Simard]

Sure.