Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Clark Goodman]

I believe that we process over 60,000 proof applications a year. That has probably gone up over the previous years for a variety of reasons. As I indicated, the call centre numbers are that we've received about 1,900 calls on lost citizenship.

Getting back to the proofs, we process about 60,000 a year, and that has risen over the past few years, but that's due to various issues: as you mentioned, WHTI; people wanting to resolve their status; and of course just the very nature that as more people have grants of citizenship, they just lose their cards and need to replace them. Part of our business comes from the natural flow of having to replace cards that are damaged or lost.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A few minutes.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

You can go ahead.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Ms. Grewal has yielded some of her time, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the witnesses could tell us something. Could they enlighten me as to which provisions in the 1947 act still apply? There was a more recent act in 1977, of course. Which specific provisions still apply from 1947 that were not changed in 1977? If it's a huge, exhaustive list, please tell me that as well.

[Mark Davidson]

Mr. Chair, when Parliament passed the new Citizenship Act in 1977, the entire 1947 act was repealed. In citizenship law, the status or the citizenship that an individual may have would depend, sometimes, on the law that was in place at a particular major life moment—for example, when someone was born or when someone lost their citizenship. Therefore, although the 1947 act is no longer in effect, individuals may not be citizens today because of something that had happened during the time that 1947 act was in place—in other words, between 1947 and 1977.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I understand.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You are over by about 15 seconds.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

I'll come back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the officials for coming and giving testimony.

I have just a couple of really straightforward questions to start off with. A constituent of mine, Mr. Don Chapman, is actually in the room today, and I'm sure you're aware of the good work that he's done with respect to lost Canadians. Obviously he was trapped under the laws in the 1947 act, and is classified as a lost Canadian. I'm wondering—It's a really simple question—why is the department ignoring the 1947 remedies, subsection 5(4), to deal with giving Mr. Chapman his citizenship?

[Mark Davidson]

In 1977 Parliament, as I said, repealed the law. In 2005 Parliament, via the mechanism of Bill S-2, permitted individuals in Mr. Chapman's circumstances, who had lost citizenship under the 1947 act as minors, to apply for a resumption of citizenship. Mr. Chapman and a number of other individuals had appeared before this committee and Senate committees in order to encourage the passage of that law. So in order to allow individuals such as himself to apply for citizenship, Mr. Chapman, in a previous appearance at this committee, had indicated that he's chosen not to apply under the provision of the law that he had encouraged Parliament to take advantage of.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Has he not asked the minister to remedy his situation based on the laws in place in 1947, which took away his citizenship, and asked for a subsection 5(4) ministerial intervention to grant him his citizenship?

[Mark Davidson]

I can't comment on that; I'm not aware of it. I am aware that there is an amendment to the Citizenship Act that had been made by Parliament in 2005 that would permit individuals such as him to apply to resume their citizenship, and indeed, about 170 people have taken advantage of that provision and have applied to resume their citizenship.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to go on to the testimony of Mr. Goodman here. Although I may be wearing a white shirt and a grey pinstripe suit, I was raised in North Vancouver on a school of hard knocks. I think I can tell when we're getting snowed, and I think the committee here is being snowed.

I asked specific questions. In your testimony you said that you're managing an inventory of 400 cases, and then we learn that there are actually 400 cases that are being held in abatement. Are there 800 cases? Are there 400, or is there zero in inventory?

[Clark Goodman]

We have 400 active files that we are working on right now.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Are those 400 active files the ones that were held in abatement due to the Taylor case?

[Rose Anne Poirier]

Yes. They are also subject to the motion for abeyance as a result of the Taylor case, Mr. Chairman. As we were instructed to do, notification to all these applicants has been completed and we have proceeded with notifying the applicants, offering options to the applicants who are affected by the Taylor case.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

And they were notified by whom?

[Rose Anne Poirier]

They were notified by the program support officers in a unit at the case processing centre in Sydney responsible for dealing with those types of cases.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

And who instructed you to do that?

[Rose Anne Poirier]

It was an operational direction that we received as a result of the court proceedings with the Taylor case.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Who specifically gave you the instructions?

[Mark Davidson]

Mr. Chair, the abeyance decision was a stay decision that was issued by the Federal Court of Appeal in the Taylor matter. So we are following the instructions of the Federal Court of Appeal in that matter.

I'd also just like to clarify that we are working through some of these cases. We have been able to resolve individual cases in the Taylor stay. As Rose Anne indicated, we're giving individuals options and giving them the opportunity to take advantage of different options, in order for us to continue to operate within the instruction of the Federal Court of Appeal.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Specifically, who told you to give these different people the options you've laid out? Who specifically gave that order?