Evidence of meeting #38 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was born.
A recording is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
As you mentioned, I went to our member of Parliament. My problem was that it was July 31 when I got the second letter. They'd passed it from case management to the Ottawa branch. As they worked on it, it was only the end of August when I got the notification of the third letter: no.
Then I tried somebody else, which I thought might work a little better. That didn't get anywhere because there was an appeal of a court case of a Mr. Joe Taylor, who I had never heard of, and we were dead in the water.
I'm saying that this is not the time to have somebody slip through the cracks. I think you had some committee reviewing these now, or something like that—not just letters from bureaucrats; no, it should be something in a committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have to cut it off right there, because I have ten minutes remaining, and of course we have Mr. Siksay, in the interests of time—
NDP
Conservative
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you for coming. I'm touched by what you have to say.
Barbara, you were talking about bureaucrats. Let me give you an example of what happened in a situation, and why we're here today.
I received a letter, as most of us did, that said some people born after 1977 outside Canada, unless they certify, ratify, or reaffirm their citizenship, are not citizens.
My daughter was born in 1982 in my home country. Both parents, my wife and I, are Canadian citizens. The Greeks decided, “Well, since you're born to Canadian citizens, you're a Canadian citizen.” So she has a birth certificate that says born in Greece, Canadian citizen.
I called the minister's office. We're not talking about low-level bureaucrats; we're talking the minister's office. It took them three days to finally come back and say, “Well, oh no, she's a Canadian. There's no problem.” This is the minister's office.
Last week the minister said 450 people. Today you're telling us thousands. Is this a Canadian emergency? Do Canadians need to know that this is happening to them, and if so, is this the grounds for this House to hold an emergency debate?
Lost Canadian Organization
Is Canadian citizenship worth defending? I think you should ask all the military people who defended it. We hold them in high esteem. This is a battle that's on Canadian soil. Yes.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
So how offended would you be if the Speaker of the House today said that this is not something we should have an emergency debate on?
As an Individual
You should take immigration out of citizenship. Everything I've heard—I don't mean to be disrespectful here, it's just the way it comes out when I'm sitting at home listening to things—says Citizenship and Immigration, but when there's discussion and debate in the House or it's on CPAC and they mix in the immigration process—
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Here's a very simple question: Do you think the House should hold an emergency debate on this particular issue?
Liberal
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Should the Speaker rule to have this emergency debate today?
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Thank you, all.
Stick around until three o'clock. I just put a letter to the Speaker asking for an emergency debate. We'll see what has been ruled.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wilson, please. Mr. Wilson will be the last questioner, after which, after a couple of items, we will go in camera again.
Liberal
Blair Wilson Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all so very much for coming and telling us your story today.
I'm relatively new to the political scene in Ottawa, having been elected in 2006. I know a number of you have been to this committee before, and a number of my colleagues who sit on this committee have heard exactly the same testimony you gave today on a number of other occasions, which makes it so much more incredible that nothing significant has been done on this file for years.
In committee we try to act on a non-partisan basis and work together for the citizens of this country, and to look back at the history of what's been going on on this issue is just amazing. Everybody has to bear responsibility for their actions in the past, but we're sitting here now, and I'm sitting here as a member of Parliament saying okay, what are we going to do now? In the last 13 months nothing has been done on this issue at all.
As my honourable colleague Andrew Telegdi has said, we've gone through two ministers of immigration. The first one was unable to deal with this issue at all, and the second minister is now paying it some lip service. But I believe it's disrespectful of the issue when we hear there are only 470 people involved and we're hearing testimony today that upwards of a million people could be affected.
Listening to my other colleague, Mr. Karygiannis, this is an emergency that has to be dealt with right now if it's affecting this many Canadians. And as we heard today, Mr. Chair, as more and more people hit retirement age, there are going to be more people and this same issue is going to come to light.
So we have to deal with it, and based on the analysis and the testimony I've heard today, the answer is a legislative one. The rules and the laws have to be changed, and we're parliamentarians who can effect those changes. I think it's irresponsible for the minister to say she'll look after it on a one-off basis. You can't look after it on a one-off basis when hundreds of thousands of people are affected: first, it's really inefficient, and second, it's going to cost Canadian taxpayers a fortune to try to deal with this on a one-off basis.
I think this committee has to take a serious look at the legislation before us, and if we can put forward efficient amendments to the Citizenship Act to change the rules that are causing all these problems, I think that's probably the most expeditious way to deal with things immediately, and then to review the entire Citizenship Act concurrently with bringing in some new legislation that, as Mr. Chapman said, is compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm wondering if this two-pronged approach is something the people here would be in favour of.
As an Individual
What I think needs to happen is the politicians need to get a grip on CIC, because CIC is out of control. It does what it wants to do. It has been doing that for years, and it doesn't comply with the law. There are things wrong with the law, but the things that CIC do wrong are far worse.
Lost Canadian Organization
One of the things I wanted to touch on with Barbara is that she said her pension is not necessarily protected, that there are questions on your pension.
It's very simple. When you go through the citizenship ceremonies that very few Canadians have ever done, rule number 5 is that Canadians not tolerate injustices. This is an injustice. And we go back to Martin Luther King, who said two things: a right delayed is a right denied; then he said that at times you do things not because of politics or because of money, you do them because they're right.
You said a two-pronged approach, yes, it has to be done that way. Why? Because if we go back and debate a new citizenship act forever, it's going to—We have to correct this now.
I applaud the minister for doing her best now. At least it's a start; it's better than ignoring the problem. But we have to get a legislative solution here and we have to do a new citizenship act and everybody will agree to that.
Director, Ottawa Office, Mennonite Central Committee Canada
I would generally agree with the idea of trying to do a few things immediately and address other things further on.
Conservative
Chairperson, Air Force, Canadian Military Adult Children Citizenship Status, As an Individual
I've heard from many people who've often wondered why we have Citizenship and Immigration as one department instead of having two, because it seems to be overwhelming for them. You're asking them to deal with two jobs.
