Evidence of meeting #44 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.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
If I may continue, Mr. Chair, unfortunately Mr. Komarnicki certainly did not put forth in the answer whether the department was willing to do it or not.
However, I would like to read from the letter a couple of excerpts. The letter says:
I replied that we had advertised but that I did not know exactly when or where because it took place a couple of years ago.
The deputy minister continues:
I wish to inform you that this particular answer was not correct.
On a personal note that the deputy minister wrote to me, I'd like to take exception to it and I'd like to read it for the rest of the committee members to hear. It says,
Mr. Karygiannis: I attach a copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Doyle (as Chair of the Standing Committee) letting him know that I had inadvertently misinformed the Committee during my appearance with Minister Finley. As the question at issue came from you, I wanted to register my apology directly. Whether or not I agree with the rationale behind the question asked by a Parliamentarian I feel very strongly you are entitled to the facts. I regret any inconvenience my answer may have caused.
I'd like to table this as part of it.
Mr. Chair and members of this committee, I think Canadians need to know what the deputy minister knew and what he did not know, what the minister knew and what she did not know. I think this information that came to this committee needs to be addressed. Officials who come to this committee must be ready to answer questions. Officials who came to this committee had a clear indication that we were going to ask those questions, as I had written to the minister a couple of days before and asked if they would take any aggressive advertising on this. They knew this question was coming, and to come to this committee and misinform it on the day it opened is certainly uncalled for. No due diligence was done, and the responsibility lies with the department to come and get the facts straight for us.
I'm urging the committee members to support the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay.
Is there any further debate on the motion?
We have Mr. Siksay, Mr. Komarnicki, and Mr. Telegdi.
Go ahead, Mr. Siksay, please.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that I will be supporting the motion. I do believe it will be helpful to have the minister and the deputy minister come back and appear on the issue of lost Canadians.
I also want to say, though, that I do accept Mr. Fadden's apology for not providing appropriate information to the committee at the time he was asked the particular question. I'm not as interested in pursuing that particular issue; a mistake was made, regret has been expressed for it, and I appreciate that the deputy minister has taken the initiative to do that, but I do think the motion is supportable, because I think it will be helpful, after we've heard the witnesses we've been hearing the last few weeks on the citizenship issues, to have a further go-round with the department.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Obviously we'll oppose the motion in respect of the error that was made; whether this committee wishes to have the minister respond following the evidence is another question.
It was clear that the minister deferred the question to the deputy minister, and in his letter he's quite clear. He said:
During the February 19, 2007, meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, we were asked about the extent to which the Department had made use of newspaper advertising to inform potentially affected Canadians of the retention rule. I replied that we had advertised but did not know exactly when or where because it took place a couple of years ago.
I wish to inform you that this particular answer was not correct. While the Department did conduct an awareness campaign via posters and various types of notices in our offices in Canada abroad, as well as some outreach with communities and stakeholders such as the Mennonites, it did not run commercial advertisements. More generally on the same subject, I would confirm that since 1980, all people born abroad who were subject to the retention rules received a letter to that effect when they were registered by their parents. On January 1, 2007, in keeping with the 2005 Citizenship and Immigration Standing Committee recommendation, Citizenship and Immigration Canada added an expiry date on the citizenship certificates of individuals affected by the retention rules, as further notification.
It clearly sets out all of what happened. It is a narrow point. I don't think for that reason we should call people back in. It's not necessary; the point's made.
I would say this motion should be opposed. If you want to come up with another motion or request for the minister to attend, that's another issue. It's separate from this one.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
I will be supporting the motion. I think it's important for us to hear from the officials now that they have had a chance to look at the testimony. Clearly the numbers the minister stated were really low-ball. I guess the question could be asked whether the minister misinformed the committee or was misinformed herself. I tend to think that the minister herself was misinformed.
I have seen this bureaucracy operate over the years, and I think it's very important for them to be here to tell us how quickly and how we're going to end the terrible hardships that members of this committee have heard about from personal accounts, and understand there are many more people in those types of situations. This really has to be a priority, and I think it's important to have the officials here to respond and admit to us that the numbers they gave us were false.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
In fact, I'm going to take the same line as Andrew as regards this notice of motion. We are going to support it as well for similar reasons. The question asked was clear, that is whether an advertising campaign had been conducted. The answer was yes. So if we hadn't requested a more detailed report—I'm speculating here—perhaps we wouldn't have received this reply from the department. Perhaps we wouldn't have received these excuses. After hearing from witnesses who had to defend themselves with respect to the Citizenship Act, I believe we owe them an answer, and this would be an opportunity for the department to come and address this question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you.
We'll have a final comment from Mr. Karygiannis and call for the vote on the motion.
Mr. Karygiannis.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I'd like to refer to paragraph three of the letter and advise Mr. Kormarnicki that it says:
I would confirm that since 1980, all people born abroad...received a letter to that effect when they were registered by their parents.
So either the minister or the deputy minister is telling me a lie, or he doesn't know what he's saying. My daughter was born abroad in 1982 and I received absolutely no letter.
Not only do we have the deputy minister's signature, we had the deputy minister and the minister here, and they turned around and asked officials.... At that point I asked if he would invite the person to whom he was speaking to the table. So that was clearly a misleading of this committee.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Could we have a recorded vote please, Mr. Chair?
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
We have two more motions, but the presenter is not present. If anyone wishes to present these motions it will have to be done by unanimous consent.
Does anyone wish to present the motions, and is there unanimous consent to do that?
There is no unanimous consent, so there's no point in asking the other question.
There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned.