Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 19th, 2007

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm not aware of anyone who had a passport, was trying to renew it, and was then denied it. There may be cases, but I'm not aware of them.

We're generally finding it's with regard to people who are getting passports for the first time. They've never had a passport and are trying to furnish proof of citizenship--for example, a birth certificate, and they don't have it. It's when we go looking that we discover that they never had citizenship or they lost it because they failed to retain it.

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

Do I have a little time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It can be a very short question. You're at seven minutes, but I'll allow a short question if you need to complete.

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

Thank you very much.

The papers this morning suggest the possibility that some members here in the House of Commons may not be Canadian citizens. Is that information that you can confirm or deny? That's quite disturbing. The rumour is that one Conservative member isn't a Canadian citizen. I'm trying to determine whether that information is true.

Are you aware of that matter?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Obviously we can't talk about individual cases, but to ease the minds of some members of the House, what I can say is that anyone who was born in Canada, unless they were born to a diplomat, is a Canadian citizen. Anyone who was born here is a Canadian citizen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madame Faille.

I will call upon Mr. Siksay to begin his seven-minute round.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here this morning, Minister, and congratulations on your appointment. I hope you enjoy the portfolio as much as some of the people do who sit at this table and who understand the importance of citizenship and immigration policy to Canada.

You certainly seem to appreciate that, given your opening statement about the meaning of Canadian citizenship. I think that's why the folks who run into these problems are really disturbed and anxious when they're told that somehow they have to prove they're Canadian citizens, when they've assumed all their lives that this was the case. To be told, “You haven't lost your citizenship, you've just lost proof”, is a bit hard to hear sometimes. To most people, that sounds like exactly the same thing. I can understand why people are very upset when they're confronted with that moment.

Minister, I appreciate you saying that you're open to reviewing the Citizenship Act and hearing new legislation, but we've heard that a number of times around this table. We certainly heard it from the last government, from the two ministers in the 38th Parliament who both encouraged us to work on citizenship issues and then never produced legislation.

I am concerned that your government has taken the money that was set aside out of the budget for developing a citizenship act, and that this money has been removed. Maybe you can comment on why that was done and why that development money is no longer there. It seems to me that if we are serious about fixing some of the issues with regard to the Citizenship Act, that money is very important to the process.

Minister, I wanted to ask something specifically with regard to some of the lost Canadians, and that's about the situation of children born to armed forces personnel who were serving overseas during the period from 1947 to 1977. This group has been in touch with me, and they are very concerned about the circumstances in which they find themselves.

They're being told they have to have a document known as the Registration of Birth Abroad, when many of them have a Department of National Defence-issued certificate of birth. They're finding that birth certificate is not acceptable proof of citizenship when they apply for passport applications.

I'm wondering if you can tell me what the exact problem has been with the DND-issued certificate of birth for these children who were born to Canadian armed forces personnel serving overseas during the Cold War period.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There have been a number of different issues there. One thing I can assure you of is that CIC and the Department of National Defence are working together on this issue. Again, we want to do the right thing for these people.

As you are probably aware, there was an extension of the period in which the parents could apply to register the children. Quite frankly, in the last six months, about twenty of these children have been contacted or have contacted us, and we are working with DND to resolve their issues.

You made reference to people not understanding the difference between being citizens and having the proof. It does sound confusing, and I do sympathize with them and with their frustration. I might compare it, though, to having a job and having your corporate ID card. Even if you misplace your pass, you're still an employee there; you just need the card to prove it to various people. So these individuals are still Canadian citizens; they just don't have the piece of paper that proves it.

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

But you didn't answer my question about what was unacceptable about the DND certificate of birth. Why has that been shown to be unacceptable as proof of Canadian citizenship? Most people seem to have that one. The Registration of Birth Abroad is a document that they get issued subsequent to that. Why isn't this DND certificate of birth acceptable as proof of citizenship?

[Richard Fadden]

I can understand the frustration. As I understand it, DND births had to be registered both with the department—what you're talking about, with a Registration of Birth Abroad—and they also had to be registered with the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship.

The rules of the time required that a particular form be used in a particular manner. DND had the habit of both systematically registering those births for their own DND purposes, and systematically registering them with the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship. Insofar as we can make out, there are relatively few cases where DND didn't do both, but it was a requirement of the rules of the time. It could not just be the DND form. There was a specific form required by what was then the Department of Secretary of State to register the births abroad.

As the minister said, it's one of the situations in which the rules of the time required that particular form to be filled out in a particular way. Again as the minister said, we've only found about twenty cases so far in which there have been difficulties, and I have no doubt we'll work through them.

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

So it was essentially because a bureaucrat didn't fill out the necessary forms. Is that the issue for these folks who are being told that the document they have is not acceptable proof of Canadian citizenship?

[Richard Fadden]

There is a possibility of bureaucratic error, but I would also suggest that it's the responsibility of a parent to make sure things are done properly as well.

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

And you say it applies to only twenty children.

[Richard Fadden]

In the last six months, there have been twenty of them.

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

Do you know how many people would fit into that category? Do we have any sense of how many children were born to Canadian armed forces personnel in that period?

[Richard Fadden]

It would be thousands, but...I don't know.

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

Okay.

I wanted to ask another question, Minister, about another citizenship issue that we dealt with here at this committee, Bill C-14, on extending citizenship immediately to children adopted by Canadians abroad.

The committee has done its work on that and sent it back to the House, but it hasn't come back to the House for further debate. I'm wondering if there's some problem with the legislation. What's the delay in actually moving on something that everybody at this table thinks is very important legislation?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

It is important legislation. That's why we introduced it. If it's passed, it will make things fairer by treating children who are adopted fairly when compared to children who are born here.

We are reviewing the bill as it was amended. I do not set the agenda and the timetable for the House. The House leader does that. In terms of timing, I'm afraid we'd both have to take that up with him.

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

It's curious that it's something that has been a priority for a long time. The committee made recommendations about it in the last Parliament. There was an attempt by the previous government to introduce the same legislation. Unfortunately, it didn't move either.

I'm really anxious for that legislation, because I know how important it is to so many parents. It would make so many people's lives easier if that were extended, so I think anything you can do to move that back on the agenda would be appreciated by many Canadians.

If there are some problems with the legislation, I think everyone at this table would be enthusiastic about trying to resolve those problems. We've made that offer individually on a number of occasions, in order to see that done if there is some problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your remarks and comments, Minister. I'll have some specific questions in the second round, but I'd like to just have an overview, in a general sort of way, perhaps commenting somewhat on the remarks made by Mr. Telegdi.

There's no question that former Prime Minister Paul Martin's father may have introduced the act, but the problems we are experiencing today relate to the 1947-77 act. There have since been six different Liberal ministers, and the problems didn't arise overnight. It certainly has been there for a long time and no action has been taken to remedy those problems.

I was heartened to hear that you were open to looking at this problem in two ways. On a short-term basis, as you've outlined, you've take steps on a very immediate basis to address some of the anomalies that were created by the legislation that existed for a long time but which have perhaps come to light just now. You're also looking at some ways and means to address the problems on a more permanent basis.

As we look back to what we've done so far in the year, before we go forward, this government certainly has indicated a commitment to newcomers. Our budget has reduced by 50% the right of permanent residence fee, which was $975 but is now reduced to $490. That's a significant factor for newcomers who need to establish themselves and need the funds on a more immediate basis.

Of course, an issue that you've been quite instrumentally involved in is foreign credentials recognition and—

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we're here to talk about citizenship. Maybe the parliamentary secretary will tell us what that has to do with citizenship. I know we've moved from playing hardball to softball, or perhaps T-ball, by having the parliamentary secretary ask questions, but the questions still have to be relevant to the matter at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

What members can talk about before an immigration committee is rather broad-ranging, especially when the minister is here to address all topics pertaining to this particular issue. I'll just ask Mr. Komarnicki to keep his remarks a little bit confined to the topic.

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

As I mentioned, I would get more specific, but I want to remind this member that this particular government has taken steps to address issues that have concerned newcomers, and indeed, after about nine or ten years of funding freezes, has committed $307 million to help integrate newcomers and citizens into our country, including opening up temporary foreign worker units in both Calgary and Vancouver. So there is a significant interest in this issue.

Specifically, because of the western hemisphere travel initiative, some anomalies have been brought to the attention of this government that have been there for a long time and need some remedy.

To the minister, in addition to some of the issues I've raised that we've already dealt with in the one year, what do you perceive as your direction for the next year on various issues, including specifically many of the anomalies that have been brought to your attention? And how might the committee be helpful in addressing these particular issues?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you very much for the question.

There are a lot of things, and I mentioned in my speech a few approaches that we are taking to address the situation. Obviously, there are short-, medium-, and long-term considerations here.

As you well pointed out, these situations didn't spring up overnight. They date back to a law that was enacted in 1977 and to one in 1947. The timing was such that many of the cases involved, for example, people who could lose their citizenship if they didn't apply to retain it, or those Canadians who are the second generation born out of the country—in other words, both they and their parents were born out of the country—and those people were just coming of age in 2005, so we're starting to hear about their situation.

Now, particularly with the U.S. western hemisphere travel initiative, where the passport is required, more people are applying for them. We're getting 21,000 applications a day for passports.

So people who always thought they had Canadian citizenship are now finding that they don't; or they're finding that they need proof of it and don't have it. Those constitute the vast majority of the cases with which we're dealing. It is people who have lost the piece of paper or who never had the piece of paper that shows they are Canadian citizens.

That's why we've set up the hotline. That's why we have the dedicated task force members. It's to deal with those specific cases. We want to make sure the needs of those people are met right now. We want to relieve the uncertainty that goes with these cases. That's in the short term, because we believe these people shouldn't have to wait for legislative change or even regulatory change. As you're well aware, that can take a considerable length of time. They need action now. That's what we're trying to provide.

That being said, there is a long-term issue here, with roughly four different circumstances under which people could be operating. We need to make sure there is some consistency, that there's some transparency.

That's why I'm appealing to the committee for your input into how we fix this for the longer term, so that we don't have situations like this coming in the future, while we still protect the currency of a Canadian citizenship.

Especially post-9/11, we simply can't afford to let everyone in. We have to maintain the integrity of the system. We have to continue with the security checks, because the number one thing is to protect the safety and security of those people who are already living in this country.

We need to have a balance. How do we grant citizenship to those people who deserve it, and how do we protect those of us who are already here?