Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Mark Davidson]

This was worked out within the department, taking into consideration the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal.

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

Was it the deputy minister, or how high did it go? Was it the minister?

[Mark Davidson]

I can't recall exactly who made the decision. But it was certainly made within the department.

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

Can anybody recall where the decision was made? Was it a minister's decision? Was it a deputy minister's decision? Was it verbal? Was it written? Was it faxed?

[Mark Davidson]

It was certainly arrived at through a number of meetings. The decision to do this was communicated, definitely in writing.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

A direct question was asked. I am sure that the memories of the officials at this table, who were asked to be sworn in, have not lapsed. Can we ask the officials, or can we, through you, ask the department to get minutes of those meetings that were held in order for that directive to be given to them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's not a point of order. Officials are answering the questions as best they can. I can't determine as chair whether the answers are correct or not, so it's not a point of order.

I have to go to Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge your ruling. There was a direct question; nothing was answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There's no ruling. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for your patience and indulgence and taking the time to answer the questions that have been put.

With respect to the numbers and the numbers game, I know Mr. Telegdi has referred to the numbers, but when I was there, when Mr. Edmonston testified, he himself indicated that he wasn't able to say what the numbers might be. He identified categories or groups of people, some of which, or none of which, or a percentage of which might be affected, but he wasn't able to say definitively one way or another. I simply want to dispel any suggestion of the types of numbers Mr. Telegdi indicated.

Would you agree that was the essence of Mr. Edmonston's testimony?

[Mark Davidson]

I think that was the essence not only of his testimony, his response to questions, but also of the brief he gave the committee in advance of his testimony.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It was good to hear clarification that the money Mr. Alghabra referred to was for implementation that never took place and of course wasn't necessary.

As I try to summarize, what I hear is that what the department is attempting to do is apply the existing rules on a consistent basis, but that there are some rules that are limiting, for one reason or another. Perhaps you are looking to parliamentarians to fix those rules that need fixing to ensure that the problems we've struggled with are taken care of in an appropriate manner.

I appreciate also that there is ministerial intervention, but that intervention of course is circumscribed for appropriate cases.

Would you agree with me that ultimately some type of legislative fix, if you want to call it that, would be required?

[Mark Davidson]

As civil servants, we must operate within the law we have. Obviously if Parliament feels that law is deficient, it's up to Parliament to take the necessary action.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I see that the call centre obviously received a good number of calls. We have to be careful to distinguish between calls that are not so much about lost citizenship and calls that are citizenship questions that can legitimately be answered or have proof of citizenship, many of which can be taken care of in the ordinary course of events.

For the ones that would actually fall into the category of lost citizenship, the number is relatively small. Would you agree with me on that?

[Clark Goodman]

I can only point to the hard numbers I have presented today. As I indicated, I think it was less than one-half of 1% of the overall calls that the call centre received.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm pleased to see you have taken a proactive approach and a focused approach, with respect to the issue that has been raised around citizenship and lost citizenship, by way of a dedicated unit and an expedited process, where possible. As we've heard from the questioners, it's something that is to be encouraged as we move forward with further action from this committee or however the committee wishes to deal with it.

Ultimately, we would want to see that focus continue and be sharpened to ensure that those who have legitimate issues, particularly those who have a strong connection with our country, are given the appropriate attention to ensure their concerns are addressed in one fashion or another.

I think that's all the questions I have, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Telegdi.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I dare say we will have many more meetings at which we'll get to discuss this, because the answers we are getting and the rationale we are getting are, I think, totally unsatisfactory.

You know, to say that a law exists.... Well, instead of fixing discriminatory laws that have been judged by the courts to be not compliant with the charter, they're litigating them. We're wasting resources litigating them. And to say that Bill C-14, on international adoptions, is the priority I don't think is acceptable.

I want to commend you, Mr. Davidson, for pointing out to the committee that the previous government had $20 million to fix the Citizenship Act. When this government came into office, they cancelled it. So I just want to thank you for making the committee aware of that.

Yes, it's a good thing you know this: $20 million, just to repeat it.

Now, one of the problems I have is dealing with the bureaucracy. This whole citizenship thing is incredibly Kafkaesque, as was stated by The Economist. We're the laughingstock of the world. It seems to me that if civil servants in Trinidad and Australia can fix their acts, we should be able to fix our act too, instead of wasting money on putting people like Mr. Chapman...or else turning a tenth-generation Québécois into a first-generation Canadian, denying her heritage. It's a bad law.

I've been on this committee for a long time, Mr. Davidson. I sat through Bill C-63, twice introduced to Parliament, to the committee, with extensive hearings. I sat through Bill C-16. I sat through Bill C-18. In not one of those cases has the department alerted the committee or the minister...because I don't believe the ministers knew about this problem. It wasn't until Mr. Chapman came forward, I believe in 2003, that I was alerted, that the committee was alerted that this problem existed.

This problem has been going on for a long time; I think it's really critical that we understand it. And I believe it is the job of the bureaucracy to alert the minister.

I will read from a letter written in 2005 to Mr. Siksay, signed by Minister Volpe, as follows:

The Canadian Citizenship Act, which came into force on January 1, 1947, automatically granted Canadian citizenship to women who were married to Canadian soldiers overseas before that day. Children born to these couples also obtained citizenship automatically, by birth on Canadian soil or through their Canadian father, if born outside Canada.

I mean, that's what a politician will know. That's what a minister will know. And if you believed that, Mr. Chapman wouldn't have a problem. All those folks wouldn't have a problem.

In 1999, on the CIC website, it said that if you were born in Canada, you were a Canadian. The fact of the matter is that I have served that length of time on this committee, and I did not know about this whole issue until it came to 2003.

I think the lost Canadians listening to us—and they are many—are pulling out their hair. They really are pulling out their hair at the complacency and the answers they are getting from the bureaucracy.

Conferring subsection 5(4).... This was done to Magali. It turned her from a tenth-generation Québécois into a first-generation Canadian—just unbelievable.

My question to you—And there are going to be many more coming, because this just won't do. I have the question for every member here.

Will you tell us, Mr. Davidson, did you get together and caucus and talk about what you were going to say at this committee—that you're going to stick to your 450 numbers and about what kind of evidence you're going to get? Did you do that?

I want an answer from every one of you at the table; just yes or no.

[Mark Davidson]

Mr. Chair—

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

Yes or no.

[Mark Davidson]

—we took our appearance here very seriously. We definitely prepared, and yes, we definitely met a number of times over the last couple of weeks in order to prepare for this appearance. We take the actions of this committee—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my answer.

I'm just giving notice that the next time they come, I want to see them sworn in. I'm giving notice, because I'm going to see them back again and I want them sworn in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That depends on whether or not the committee wishes to do that.

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

I'll be putting that forward to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, time's up. That was five and a half minutes, so we will now go to Mr. Gravel.