Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Our meeting will now come to order as we consider a couple of notices of motion.

The first one we have is from Mr. Jaffer, that the committee invite the members from Eglinton—Lawrence.

Anyway, I'll pass it over to you, Mr. Jaffer, to present your motion.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think it's pretty clear. I know the committee indicated the last time that they didn't think it was necessary to bring in the previous Liberal members on another issue dealing with the appeal division. We've spent a fair amount of time in this committee on the issue of lost Canadians. He's not here today, but Barry Devolin raised a very interesting question that made me realize it might be interesting to hear from these previous ministers. The committee may recall that Barry's question was pretty clear: why was there nothing done by the previous ministers on this particular issue? What was their hesitation?

I don't think the meeting would be very long. It would be very focused on trying to hear from them directly what the challenge was and what they saw internally as a problem. It's also an issue that we could ask our minister, the current minister, about when she comes here to deal with the estimates. We could ask her what holdups she's seen so we can compare her position with that of the previous government, and just find out what the holdup was.

The motion's pretty straightforward. As it's written, it just says “invite the members from Eglinton—Lawrence...York West...and Bourassa...to discuss the issue of lost Canadians and the actions they undertook to deal with this problem while serving as Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration”.

I just thought it would be useful to hear that, namely because of what Barry Devolin had asked of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Jaffer.

You've heard the motion. Do we have any further discussion on the motion?

Mr. Telegdi.

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

The comment I would make on it is that one of the problems we have had is that under the Liberals we had six ministers in 12 years, and under the Conservatives we've had two ministers in 14 months in total. I think the problem is that the ministers didn't have the grip on the portfolio that they really should have. This is a standard kind of situation, so it doesn't make any more sense to call on Monte Solberg than to call onDenis Coderre and the whole batch of them. Denis Coderre, when he introduced it, said we were going to have it within a year. So outside of taking up some time, I don't know if we're really going to resolve anything around it.

The legislation was drafted and passed by Parliament. Accommodations were made. Boards with two members went down to one with the understanding that we would have the appeal division, and it didn't transpire, notwithstanding that Parliament passed legislation.

I just don't know what they're going to contribute. What I told Mr. Devolin is that we have a problem in terms of having real direction for the department. So I think the ex-ministers' coming forward is not going to really address that.

I'm not laying any blame on the Liberals or the Conservatives. We're the only two groups that have been in government since this thing came in. I think we should just proceed and get it done, and find a way of putting in a mechanism with which we can make it work. I really think we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Go ahead, Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I don't support the motion. I don't think that bringing in the former ministers helps us solve the current problem. The problem can be solved by the current government. Those are the folks we need to be discussing. I don't want to see this deteriorate into some kind of partisan bickering here at the committee. The reality is that the former government didn't solve the problem, but hopefully we can contribute to finding that solution now.

I think it might be interesting to hear from the former ministers, but I don't think it's determinative of what we do now. What we have to figure out is the current government's attitude to it and how it sees the current situation, and make recommendations to finding the solution now. I don't think either Mr. Volpe or Ms. Sgro can add significantly to our discussion of that issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the purpose of this motion derives from either political theatre or really getting to the perception, or the point of view at the time, of former ministers. In terms of the latter, we've already heard from the department, from the current minister, on the department's point of view. Obviously the glaring absence of Monte Solberg, the former minister, leads me to think that it's just partisanship theatre.

So we have a job to do. We heard the testimonies from the department. We heard the minister's opinion. We just need to find a way to solve it now.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame Faille.

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

With regard to citizenship, the bottom line started in 2005 with the provision requiring that one has to apply within 28 years in order to retain citizenship. Some problems also arise in view of the fact that under the new regulations and the need to harmonize our policies to those of the United States, people must apply for a passport. The problem is more recent but it nevertheless has been in existence since the implementation of the legislation in 1977.

I think that we would really limit the scope of our study by asking these people to testify. Although it existed at the time, the problem was perhaps less significant. The legislation should have been rewritten in 1997 or 1998, but the legislator never introduced a new bill on citizenship. According to my experience in this committee, I would say that as of 2004, we really thought that a new bill on citizenship would be introduced.

Under these circumstances, we don't want to pursue the idea that we should request previous ministers and a limited number of ministers to come and testify before this committee. That might not be fair, in view of the fact that some problems which go back to a much longer time, should also have been dealt with by previous ministers. This is the reason why I do not support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Is there any further discussion on the motion? If not, I will call the question.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Next is a motion by Mr. Telegdi, that the committee receive testimony from an additional group of individuals.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Basically, as I said before, Mr. Chair, we really need to try to do some reconciliation between what we heard from the groups and also try to answer some questions. For example, how many people have their cases on hold because of the Joe Taylor decision that's before the courts?

When we come in with recommendations, we have to have an understanding as to what recommendations to make and what might be possible. For instance, do we recommend that a moratorium be put on anybody having this issue affect them until such time as legislation has been passed? We could make allowances for cases that are extreme or whatever. I think we really have to have an understanding before we come in with the recommendations, and I think there's a great deal of knowledge in the department that we haven't had the benefit of hearing.

For those reasons, I would like to see these folks be brought before committee and to have them appear as witnesses so that we can come up with recommendations that are going to be realistic at the end of the day, and we address the problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, thank you.

Madame Faille—

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

Let must just add, Mr. Chairman, that over my years on this committee--I think Rahim will probably agree with me here--I have never ceased to be surprised about the kind of stuff that comes out. When the lost Canadians first came forward, I was totally flabbergasted. I was sitting on that side of the table the first time Mr. Chapman came here. Genuinely, this was a real shock.

How is it that one can be on this committee and not even know about it, not even be warned by the bureaucrats about it, not even have it raised as a problem that this committee should be looking at to try to redress? When I think about the thousands and thousands of people who have been caught in this, it's downright frightening. We heard from the witnesses about some of the really debilitating situations this puts them in.

So I think we have to hear from them to be able to do a report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame Faille, and then Mr. Siksay.

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

I am going to support Mr. Telegdi's motion. Department's officials appeared before us. I think that these people's opinion can help us come to a decision.

However, I was wondering whether Mr. Telegdi would agree to an amendment to his motion so that we may invite someone from the institute of Canadian citizenship to appear. This institute was set up by the former governor general, Ms. Adrienne Clarkson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That would be an amendment to your motion, Mr. Telegdi. You will accept that?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Chair, I strongly support the motion as well. I think this would add to our consideration of this important issue. But I want to ask Mr. Telegdi about the last two points in his motion.

You say in your second last point, “A representative from the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Case Processing Centre--Sydney.” But there are already at least two folks from the case processing centre on the list. Do you have someone specifically in mind, or is there a category of official that you have in mind?

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

No, actually it could go.

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

So we don't need that reference? We could strike that clause?

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

That's right.

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

You also mention Hugh MacDonald. The name rings a bell for me, but I'm not sure who he is or why he's on your list.