Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

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

Is there more time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, I have to cut it off right there.

We're getting into a five-minute round now. It's my intention to try to get everyone in who wishes to speak, because we have approximately 30 minutes and we have six people who we need to get on for five minutes apiece. So by going back and forth we will get everyone in, the new people on the speaking list.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, do I understand that you will be putting everybody in and the people who have spoken might want to give up their turn for the people who do want to question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That will be up to individual members. When I come to them, if they wish to give their time to somebody else on the committee, then so be it.

We'll begin our first five-minute round with Mr. Alghabra. I can go to Mr. Devolin afterwards as a new questioner, or, if he wishes to give it up, to another individual on the committee.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much for coming here today.

The stories we are hearing today are extremely moving and powerful. It's really incumbent on us, as parliamentarians, to accept our responsibility in recognizing first that the problem exists. Many parliamentarians have, but that's not enough on its own. We need to act as well to fix the problems.

Those were unintended consequences of the legislation at the time, but having said that, we need to fix them. In order to do this there has to be a fundamental change, a long-term process, a legislative change, but in the meantime many of you and many who are not here today are caught in limbo and we need to have a short-term solution. I believe the short-term solution should not be on an ad hoc basis and should not be left up to politicians or ministers or whoever is in power or any other politicians. We need to set up a process that clearly articulates what the parameters are and corrects the individual problems or lost citizenship.

I also want to call on bureaucrats who are listening and watching or reading this transcript to pay an extreme level of attention and sensitivity to this issue and to treat it with delicacy and care.

It's very hard to say anything except that this has to be fixed. It must be fixed.

I'm just curious to know—and in my opinion it's irrelevant how many people are affected—if any of you have indication of how many people are involved.

[Christine Eden]

I apologize, since I didn't realize that I should have gotten to you sooner.

We've had people working on all of the areas where Canadians worked from 1947 to 1977. In my estimates, there are well over a million. My figure for the Canadian military base is 110,000; that's for only ten bases. I haven't gone into the army, because I don't know where all the army bases are. I'm sticking with the few army bases I'm familiar with.

For 30 years, Canada was a major part of the rebuilding of post-war Europe. We sent a lot of people over there. Just look at the embassies and the numbers of people working in them who had families with them. Everywhere there was a war-torn country, Canada played a major role. There were also missionaries and workers. All of these people are not being affected right now, but they will when they go to get passports, and they definitely will be when they start to get close to retirement age.

Keep in mind that the birth control pill came in 1964—I remember getting it right after my daughter was born. Prior to that the numbers were high; from 1964 to 1977, the numbers were low and getting lower.

The high numbers are going to be hitting you soon with the Canada Pension Plan. A lot of these people never had passports. My husband never had a passport until he married me, because his idea of a vacation was Hawaii, Las Vegas, or Palm Springs. Then he married me, and we go to Mexico. He's 72, and obtained his first passport five years ago.

These new cross-border regulations are going to require all of us to get passports. That's when it's going to hit you, so you need to fix it. I honestly believe that's a part of the reason for putting us up for a one-year legislative review. Why would you put a Canadian up for legislative review? It doesn't make any sense. I honestly think it's a stalling tactic.

I'm very proud to be Canadian. This was not a situation where they suddenly decided to change the act. This is a systemic error, some screw-up way back when, which you people have inherited.

From our point of view, I can honestly say that the government has really stepped up to the podium to look at it. They're looking at a nightmare and going to have to address it, hopefully before these people come up for the Canada Pension Plan.

Just look at me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Eden.

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Mr. Devolin, you have five minutes.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank all of you for being here today and sharing your compelling stories with us. Just when I start to think I'm getting a handle on this issue, another curve ball comes past me suggesting that there's some other situation that could result in someone thinking they were Canadian and at some point having someone tell them that they're not.

We've talked about short-term and long-term and different solutions, trying to come up with something that works. What I'm hearing is that there are actually three levels: immediate term, meaning today, tomorrow, even yesterday—Even amendments to legislation take time; it doesn't happen immediately. I think immediately the minister has made a commitment to deal with people on a case-by-case basis, as they come forward. That commitment was made in January, and maybe it should have been made five or ten years ago, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

The medium term, I guess, would possibly be making amendments to the existing legislation. That is something that could happen. I don't know who said “Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” When people push, saying “Give me a brand-new act or give me nothing”, let them be careful what they wish for, because up until now it has been nothing, rather than a new act. And in the longer term there needs to be a new act.

There's almost a symmetry to the dates, too: 1947 to 1977 to 2007—kind of a 30-year cycle.

Ms. Eden, you made a couple of comments that I found very interesting, because my constituency office deals with people coming in with all kinds of problems, in the simple suggestion that no one should be informed verbally by some non-expert, quite frankly, of something as profound as not being a Canadian citizen. I would think if you went to the hospital and they did a DNA test and had some question about whether your parents are actually who you always thought they were, the nurse probably wouldn't blurt that out to you as you were sitting in the waiting room. There would be a process.

I think that's something that clearly ought to be addressed immediately—

[Christine Eden]

Absolutely.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

—ensuring that when these issues are flagged, they need to be dealt with very carefully and no one needs to jump to that rather dramatic conclusion.

[Christine Eden]

Especially the military.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Well, yes, in particular, but anybody, really, who believes they're a citizen.

I also have a question, though, in the immediate term. I'll ask this to several of you. I think in the short term we need to let more Canadians know that there is a potential issue here and create an environment where people are comfortable to come forward and say, “I think I may be in this situation. Can we open a file and resolve this one way or the other?” One of the things the minister said in committee last week was to give an assurance that people in that situation would not have benefits denied or withheld during that period.

I'd like to ask two or three of you—Mr. Janzen, Mr. Chapman, others—from a process point of view whether you think that is a good idea, that the government should proactively have some sort of communication strategy to encourage people to come forward, so that they can be dealt with at this time.

Mr. Janzen.

[Bill Janzen]

On the loss retention provision, the government has now become somewhat more proactive, but there are still thousands of people who have certificates and who don't know, and so on.

I would like to make a little comment on your observation that the minister is acting to deal with cases that come forward now. We are grateful for that. The government has taken several positive steps that we have been proposing for a number of years, but the framework within which certain cases are being resolved now is a fairly small window. People have to have been in Canada for maybe half of their lives, or something close to that, before the government will consider them under the subsection 5(4) provision.

That, as my colleague Mary said, is a real dilemma. Somebody comes into her office in Aylmer, Ontario, and says: “I'm 29 years old; I've been here for five years, and somebody tells me I should have gone through the retention process.”

If Mary says “You should have. Technically, you're no longer a citizen, but your certificate looks as if it is valid...”—but this man has not been here half his life, or anything close to it—Mary is in this awkward situation: should she really advise this man to just keep quiet for the next 15 years until he's been here half his life and will then be considered under the subsection 5(4) provision? It's a very awkward dilemma, you know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Janzen.

Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened closely to your testimony. Maybe I'm somewhat naive, but after listening to all of you, I find it incredible that no consideration was given to the human beings caught up in the drama.

As I see it, seemingly outdated laws are being applied. For instance, mention was made of persons who were not married or whose marriage was not recognized, or of children born during wartime. I listened closely and I'm astonished that laws take precedence over human beings.

Had I been working for Citizenship and Immigration and someone had come to me to tell me their story, it seems to me that I would have proposed a course of action long ago to resolve these situation. It must be costing the state and you a pretty penny. It's an abhorrent, ridiculous state of affairs.

I read your story, Mr. Taylor. The government even appealed the ruling in your case. Regardless of the reasons involved, I find your story incredible. Perhaps it's a case of occupational bias. I'm a priest by calling and an expert in the Bible. The Pharisees were sticklers for rules and laws. Sometimes, I get the impression that certain government or department officials or certain individuals working for a department are nothing more than Pharisees, that is they look at the law and see it as an absolute dictate. They don't take into account individuals or their circumstances. It's a complete and total aberration.

My question is for all of you.

You are a stateless person, Ms. Porteous. If the decision goes against you, where will you be sent? To the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean? Where are stateless persons sent? What happens to you?

[Barbara Porteous]

I think I'm probably lucky that I don't have any citizenship anywhere else, or they would have probably shipped me there, because I've heard they've done that. And I find that degrading.

I'd only comment on these age things. Do we have a shelf life, a “best before”? I mean, I know I was better before 24—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Barbara Porteous]

—but, my God, at 70, do you have to throw me out? Come on, guys. Being born a Canadian, if you live out of the country and never come back, who have you hurt? But if you live here, you are a Canadian, and you're contributing, and you're giving to it—On my back, my people: every one of you got here because I did the phones, I stuffed the envelopes, I called people to get them to come and represent the people. And you'd better not knock on my door this year.

This is a democracy. This is not what I and all of these people are going to call compassionate, humanitarian Canada. You will be a laughingstock in the world if you don't fix this very damn quick.

Pardon me, but I'm old enough to say that.

Thank you.

[Don Chapman]

You in your province of Quebec have a particular problem, because so many of the births were registered as a baptismal rather than as a birth certificate. Your province has a particular problem with that. We have one priest who is 72 years old; now the priest has a problem. What are we going to do? Kick the priest out?

I have to thank your people of Quebec, because of all provinces they have understood identity more than any other. They have taken our cause as a province and said we respect human rights; we respect the identity.

Am I right, Magali, that we've had tremendous warmth from the people of Quebec?

As far as where we would deport these people to, I've thought of that very question, because I've almost got my daughter, who is very passionate with me—We've wondered at times about rowing a boat across the border and claiming refugee status—and if you did, by the way, Barbara and Sheila, you would have more benefits; you would make more money than your pension and everything else and you would have the right to work. In fact, I've often thought of that, and then they'd say, well, no, we deny your refugee claim, and I'd say, well, just send me back to Vancouver, please; that's where I'm from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

We'll go now to Mr. Jaffer.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to everyone who's here. I've got two quick questions. I'd like to hear from as many of you as I can, and I know in five minutes it might be tough.

In all your cases, it seems you've had resistance from CIC at different levels. I don't quite understand why. I just want to hear what your feeling is. Is it an attitudinal thing? I don't see the benefit for CIC to actually leave you guys stateless like that. That doesn't make any sense, so please shed any light you can on your personal feeling about it.

Second, I'm curious to know whether you've ever had any political help or political intervention in your individual cases, from MPs in particular. In Edmonton I personally have never dealt with a case like this. Many of you, I hear, are from B.C., and obviously you're smarter than I. It's colder in Edmonton. That's probably why you're in B.C.

Nonetheless, I'm sure I'm going to hear from somebody soon as more people are coming forward, but if you've had any political help, I just want to know whether it's made any difference, or if the MPs generally are not wanting to touch your case.

[Don Chapman]

In particular, it was your party that helped us.

You were the driving force behind Bill S-2 and getting it through. Senator Noël Kinsella came to me one time, and I said, “Yes, but Bill S-2 is only a very small solution.” He said, “You will have so much hangup with the bureaucracy of getting Bill S-2 that we're going to take it one step at a time”.

Well, you know what? Those solutions don't work. The band-aid solutions don't work. It's been in place for individual cases for 60 years. That hasn't worked. We're still in these problems. It's time for a legislative fix, and the Canadian people deserve to know that their citizenship is based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's that simple.

Thank you.

[Christine Eden]

MP Russ Hiebert just stepped right up to the podium and got the two ministries together working on us, and we were very grateful.

I am regularly now getting e-mails from MPs asking me to bring them up to snuff on what they're doing, but I have to be honest--I have them on my database and I fire them out there all the time, but our biggest problem is lack of knowledge. When these people go to CIC and make applications, the people they are dealing with do not know. That's why I have them all print out the updates from CIC: it's so that when they meet somebody like that, they hand it to them, and then they go get a supervisor.

I can tell you right now that the last person who went up there two weeks ago was there for three and a half hours trying to get her passport. I walked several people through; it took them ten minutes. In three and a half hours they could have cleared sixteen passport applications. That's how much our problem is costing you in dollars and cents.

The lack of knowledge with CIC is the biggest hurdle we are dealing with, and it's costing you dollars.

[Don Chapman]

I would add that I get complaints from members of Parliament all the time. A lot of times they say that 70% of their staff's time is spent on immigration and citizenship problems. Come on, let's fix this thing so you guys can get on with doing really important stuff.

[Bill Janzen]

You asked whether there's an attitudinal problem. It may sound contradictory, since I've expressed concerns about policies and regulations, but at a personal level we have had a remarkably good relationship with officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada for a long time. At a personal level, they have gone as far as the regulations and policies have allowed them. They've been very human.

Yes, we are critical about some things, but there is a truly remarkably fine relationship that we are very grateful for. In our longer brief, I tried to acknowledge that.