Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to come back to a question that Mr. Wilson asked earlier. He said that Mr. Chapman had lost his citizenship because of the 1947 legislation, but, according to section 5 of that same statute, his Canadian citizenship could have been restored to him.

So, if he lost his citizenship under a statute that was out of date, even if it was repealed in 1977, why was he not given back his citizenship under that same statute? Was this question answered? If so, what was the answer?

[Mark Davidson]

I had understood Mr. Wilson to be referring to subsection 5(4) of the present Citizenship Act, and my answer was that I was not aware of whether or not Mr. Chapman had made a submission to the minister on that matter.

I can't comment on whether or not Mr. Chapman did make a claim to get his citizenship back under the previous Citizenship Act, the 1947 act, during that period from 1947 to 1977, because frankly I don't know the answer to the question.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In my opinion, Mr. Chapman's case is unacceptable. He's a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. This is incredible. Why is the legislation being followed to the letter in such a case? Other witnesses appeared before the committee, including a woman who cried because she had lost her citizenship.

So, why is the process taking so long? The people coming here are human beings, not animals. You are public servants, you are human beings as well. You should understand, therefore, how they feel. You are blindly enforcing the legislation. It's as if you believe that the legislation comes first and that there's nothing to be done other than to comply with the legislation.

I find this difficult to swallow.

[Mark Davidson]

It would have been impossible not to have been affected by the testimony that the committee heard. Yes, we understand that it's quite shocking. It has been shocking for individuals to hear these messages. Nevertheless, we can't ignore the law. It would be inappropriate for civil servants not to pay attention to the law. It's the role of parliamentarians to take the initiative to change the law if they feel it's necessary. Our job is to implement and administer the law that is given to us by Parliament.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I understand that the legislation must be taken into consideration. I am not telling you to disregard the law, but if Mr. Chapman's brother and sister are Canadians, how is it that he is not? This is unacceptable, because it's the same family.

[Mark Davidson]

I couldn't disagree with you more. There are some very strange outcomes as a result of the 1947 act. I use the word “archaic”. The 1947 act had a number of very bizarre provisions whereby individuals lost their citizenship, not because of anything they had done, not because they wanted to lose their citizenship. Nevertheless, that was the will of Parliament in the late 1940s, that individuals such as Mr. Chapman, who were born in Canada, would lose their citizenship if certain actions were taken. At the time, I can only presume, Parliament had the feeling that that was appropriate.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I would like to make a final comment. I'm a Catholic priest and I thought that such aberrations were the exclusive jurisdiction of the Catholic church. I realize that there are just as many in the Government of Canada.

Thank you.

[Some Hon. Members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are you finished, Mr. Gravel? Because you do have a minute left.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am finished.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I'd like to take the remaining minute.

Could you tell me the difference between a refugee who comes here by boat, in a container, and someone like Mr. Chapman? What is the difference between the two, in your opinion? Are these two individuals treated in the same way? Could you tell me what the difference is between the two, from a human perspective?

[Mark Davidson]

I'm not sure I can respond to the issue of a refugee who arrives in a container. What I can say is that in the case of Mr. Chapman and other individuals like him, Parliament, in 2005, felt there was a reason to amend the law. Parliament, the House and the Senate, amended the law to provide an opportunity for individuals like Mr. Chapman to resume their citizenship.

About 170 individuals have taken up the offer Parliament has provided, and we are processing those applications for a resumption of citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Batters.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to change the focus of the meeting a little bit, if I might.

We have before us respected civil servants, public servants, who serve their country on a daily basis, who do the best job they can under the legislation that's been created for them. We recognize there are some flaws in a 1947 act. There may be flaws in a 1977 act. A lot of these problems seem to have emerged from an act that was made by parliamentarians in 1947.

Some members of the committee want these public servants to sit here on the hot seat and take a tremendous amount of abuse today for a problem in the law. I think it's distinctly unfair that you've been placed on the hot seat, you've been accused of.... We've heard about Mr. Wilson's snowstorm, that we're being snowed. I couldn't disagree more.

Your comments, Mr. Goodman, on the bottom of page 2, I think that paragraph says it all. You've got 37,693 calls. In the end, you've got a problem with 75 cases. You've got 75 cases we are working very hard to resolve. You've dedicated the appropriate resources.

I sympathize with these individuals who are lost Canadians. I have a lot of sympathy. I think every one of you would say you sympathize with these individuals. These are anomalies in legislation that you're working hard to address and correct.

Am I right in that? You're sympathizing and you're working hard to address it.

[Mark Davidson]

If I might just make a comment, in the citizenship program we prefer to make people citizens. We prefer to promote citizenship. We do about 2,500 citizenship ceremonies a year. It's something we enjoy a lot.

Since 1947, we've granted citizenship to about six million people. That's an activity we really enjoy. We all get a lot of satisfaction from playing that role.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Right. For anyone on this committee to suggest that you'd have any other motives to the contrary is absolutely ridiculous. You're respected public servants, you have families, you have lives, and I hope you sleep better tonight because of this intervention.

I'm being very sincere, Mr. Chair. I have a lot of sympathy for lost Canadians, a lot of sympathy, some of whom are probably in this room and a lot of people paying attention to every word at this committee.

I do not have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal members opposite. Why haven't you, as civil servants, heard this indignation for the years they were in power? The previous Liberal government was in power for—

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

We did!

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Sorry, Mr. Karygiannis, I have the microphone.

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

You might have the floor, but check your figures and the facts. We've been here time and time again. Let's not make innuendos here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Telegdi commented that this problem has been going on a long time. He then said we have a bad law. He talked about the Chapman case. He became aware of that in 2003.

Why didn't you change it then? Flat out, Mr. Karygiannis, why didn't you change the law? You promised—

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

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

You promised $20 million. You said you promised $20 million to—

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

It was there and your government went through it.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I've heard so many expressions from your government.