Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 26th, 2007

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.

On the agenda

Loss of Canadian Citizenship for the years 1947, 1977 and 2007

Committee Business

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Don Chapman Lost Canadians Organization

Wendy Adams As an Individual

Charles Bosdet As an Individual

Melynda Jarratt Historian, Canadian War Brides

William Smith As an Individual

Christopher Veeman As an Individual

Barry Edmonston Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Donald Galloway Professor of Law, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Jason Gratl President, B.C. Civil Liberties Association

Christina Godlewska Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association

12:30 p.m.

Articled Student, B.C. Civil Liberties Association

Christina Godlewska

From what I understand from the testimony, there are many points of first contact, and the ministry has committed the special task force to help deal with some interim problems. The way in which the members of that task force need to see what they're doing is this.

We have people who have a fundamental right that is being threatened. How are we going to collect enough information to make the case in their particular circumstance, so that they can have this right recognized? This means accepting as evidence things that are commonsensical pieces of evidence, such as someone saying they have been living here for 49 years, that they've been an electoral officer in Osoyoos, B.C., for 60 years. Help them put this together.

The current process seems to be that a low-level administrator tells them they aren't a citizen, they have a devastating experience, and their life starts falling apart. They are the ones left looking for the sorts of records that previous witnesses have been talking about. They're left with trying to do things no regular Canadian knows how to do. This needs to be fundamentally shifted.

You're talking about an administrator making a decision that's going to greatly impact somebody's life. You therefore start from the principles of fundamental justice. You start off giving them notice, a hearing, and representation. Give them all of these things we afford to people charged with criminal offences or to people faced with evictions. In these other contexts, we recognize that when people's rights are threatened, they get something called due process. That's what we're calling for here.

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Are there other models similar to what you're talking about, ones that work in other areas of law or administration and you can point to off the top of your head?

12:35 p.m.

President, B.C. Civil Liberties Association

Jason Gratl

Certainly in the human rights context, there are commissions that will assist people in gathering evidence and determining whether or not there's a prima facie case. Certainly when it comes to those types of violations that on the face of it would seem less severe or less extreme than the retraction and withdrawal of citizenship, the government is prepared to put agencies in place that will assist citizens or permanent residents in building a case.

When it comes to this issue, it seems as though, in the ordinary case, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is engaged in a process whereby they entertain applications for refugee status and citizenship status. The obligation is on the citizen to qualify, and the applicant brings forward the materials. What we're suggesting is that there's a fundamental conceptual distinction between the ordinary applicant for status and a person whose citizenship has been lost or taken away.

Folks who were citizens or ought to have been considered citizens in the first place, once they can make out a prima facie claim that they fall into one of these obvious lost Canadian categories, ought to be accorded higher-level procedural protections than are accorded to the ordinary status applicants. There ought to be policies in place that will guide the discretion of the minister so that the delegates of the minister have an understanding of their obligations that are different from the ordinary way in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration proceeds. There's a fundamental conceptual shift, and there ought to be a principal dividing line and some policies in place to assist the ministry delegates in making those decisions.

12:35 p.m.

Professor of Law, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Donald Galloway

Could I just add to that?

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Okay, you have 30 seconds.

12:35 p.m.

Professor of Law, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Donald Galloway

I think the apt analogy is with permanent residents who lose their status. They appear before the immigration division of the IRB. Then, in most circumstances, they have a right to appeal to another division in the IRB, and we are dealing at that level with quasi-judicial decision-makers. Citizens, who have a more basic status, have none of that.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Mr. Galloway.

Mr. Komarnicki.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Thank you.

I will direct most of my questions to Mr. Edmonston.

I should say that unfortunately this issue has in a lot of ways become politicized. Mr. Telegdi has indicated that the Citizenship Act had been introduced, but it hadn't been since 2002. There was opportunity to get it done and they failed to get it done. And there's no question we'll do some small steps, like dealing with the issues we have before us with the various categories of the lost Canadians, to see if we can tackle the small problem before we address a larger one. The minister has invited us to come forward from this committee with some unanimity as to the amendments that would specifically address these issues, so that we can actually deal with them and deal with many of the concerns.

With respect to the numbers, there have been some wild fluctuations and, as Mr. Edmonston mentioned, some really high numbers, but obviously you've tried to at least identify who might be involved in these categories. If I were trying to get an educated guess, or perhaps a ballpark estimate of what we might be talking about in categories--but let's just take them category by category. I'll do two.

First of all, on the war brides and the war babies, the previous witness, Ms. Jarratt, indicated there were a number of war brides. I'm not sure of the number she quoted. It was perhaps 65,000 or so. In your estimation, you've indicated that there are about 25,000 to 30,000 war brides. Dealing with war brides alone, I understand that the majority of those war brides who entered Canada have remained here as citizens, have always been citizens, and don't actually have problems with citizenship. Would that be correct?