Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I want to welcome the minister to our committee today.

Our meeting will be divided into two parts. From 3:30 to 4:30 we will continue our study on the loss of Canadian citizenship for the years 1947, 1977, and 2007. From 4:30 to 5:30 we will be speaking to the minister about her estimates.

I think the minister has an opening statement, but before that I want to welcome her officials. Mr. Richard Fadden is the deputy minister. Mr. Wayne Ganim is the chief financial officer and director general of the finance branch. Welcome to all of you.

The minister's opening statement will concern both parts of our agenda. We will then get into questions from our committee members.

I'll pass it over to you, Madam Minister. Welcome.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I have the honour of placing before the committee my department's main estimates for fiscal year 2007-08, for which I seek the committee's approval.

I propose to cover only some of the major items in my remarks, and address any areas of particular interest to the Committee in the time allotted for questions.

Overall, the committee will note a decrease of $58.3 million in the department's operating expenditures. This is due largely to the end of special temporary funding during the last fiscal year to address short-term pressures, in particular a backlog in the processing of grants and proofs of citizenship. This special funding helped to bring that backlog in citizenship grants and proofs down to a much more manageable size.

During the 2004-05 fiscal year the number of applications for citizenship grants stood at nearly 175,000. I'm happy to report that as of March 2007 the number of applications has been reduced to fewer than 27,000. This is an 85% reduction from the 2004-05 inventory.

We achieved another significant reduction in the number of applications for proof of citizenship. In March of this year the inventory stood at 17,500. Just over a year ago this number was 22,000.

Under vote 5, grants and contributions, there is an increase of $20.5 million. The major items here are a reduction of $114.6 million because of the transfer of the Toronto waterfront revitalization initiative to Treasury Board Secretariat, and an overall increase of $135.1 million for immigration settlement programs.

In the 2006 budget we increased settlement funding by $307 million over two years. Settlement funding, as you're probably aware, had remained at the same level for several years prior to this increase. That means more support for language training, more support to help newcomers find jobs, and more family support for those building new lives in Canada. This is an unprecedented increase that our government is very proud of.

These are just a few of the major items. I understand that the committee may wish clarification or explanation of any of the many other items in the estimates. My officials and I will be happy to respond to any questions committee may have in that regard.

As the committee is aware, we continue to work to resolve the question of so-called lost Canadians. When I made my first appearance before this committee in February of this year I outlined for the members the steps that my department has been taking to address this challenge.

In fact, I would like to state for the record my appreciation for the efforts that my Department has been making under sometimes difficult circumstances to ensure that every single person whose citizenship is in question is treated with the utmost respect.

Despite widespread media coverage and 400,000 visits to our website for information on citizenship, the number of cases of individuals in Canada whose citizenship status needs to be resolved is still limited. When I was last here, I mentioned that there were about 450 such cases. As of May 24, that number was down to 285.

Recognizing the need to further inform the public, I have instructed my officials to increase their efforts to raise awareness of this important issue. To this effect, we have launched a public information campaign directed at those who may have lost or are at risk of losing their citizenship, or wish to regain it. This campaign includes advertisements in major daily and regional newspapers.

These public notices include where and how to contact the Department for help in any lost citizenship issues.

Since January 2007 we have received more than 45,000 calls at our call centres. Of these, about 2,100, or around 4%, have been about citizenship. Mr. Chair, over 2,000 of those callers have had their Canadian citizenship confirmed.

Similarly, in July the first round of renewals for permanent resident cards will come due. In anticipation, we have already begun a public awareness campaign aimed at permanent residents, reminding them that these cards need to be renewed every five years for those traveling outside the country.

Like you, l have heard the stories, many of which have been told in touching detail before this committee. l have seen the thoughtful proposals from witnesses who have offered their suggestions for resolving this situation.

Using the powers available to me as minister under the Citizenship Act, l acted to resolve lost Canadian cases as quickly as possible. l have so far obtained approval through the Governor in Council for a special grant of citizenship to 49 individuals who did not meet the provisions within the current legislation for a regular citizenship grant but whose circumstances called for special consideration.

During my appearance here in February, l also sought the committee's advice on what additional steps we could take to ensure that everyone who should be recognized as a citizen of this wonderful country is recognized as a Canadian.

It is with keen interest that l have followed your study of this issue and am pleased to announce that this fall l will be tabling in the House a bill proposing a series of amendments to the Citizenship Act. These amendments will address the most pressing circumstances that the committee has been considering. In developing these proposals, we are seeking to meet several key objectives.

People need stability, simplicity, and consistency in their citizenship status, features that were not always highlighted in the present and former acts. Citizenship should normally be conferred by law, not by filling in an application, with the same rules applicable to everyone.

At the same time, we must protect the value of Canadian citizenship by ensuring that our citizens have a real connection to this country. The legacy of Canadian citizenship should not continue to be passed on through endless generations living abroad. To do otherwise would be to sell our citizenship short and would not be fair to all those who have come to Canada and made it their home.

The following are the basic outlines of the proposal we are working on.

First, nothing in these proposals will take away citizenship from anyone who is now a citizen of Canada. I'd like to repeat that: nothing in these proposals will take citizenship away from anyone who is now a citizen of Canada. This is not about taking away citizenship from anyone who now has it, but rather about correcting past problems and protecting citizenship for the future.

Second, anyone born in Canada on or after January 1, 1947, will have their citizenship confirmed, even if they lost it under a provision of the 1947 act. The only exceptions would be those born in Canada to an accredited foreign diplomat, or who have personally renounced their citizenship as an adult.

Third, anyone naturalized in Canada on or after January 1, 1947, will have their citizenship confirmed, even if they lost it under a provision of the 1947 act. The only exceptions would be those, as above, who renounced their citizenship as an adult or whose citizenship was revoked by the government because it was obtained by fraud.

Fourth, anyone born to a Canadian citizen abroad—mother or father, in or out of wedlock—on or after January 1, 1947, is a Canadian citizen and will have their citizenship confirmed if they are the first generation born abroad, but no further.

We believe that these proposals would resolve the issue of citizenship for most of those people whose status is currently in question. They would also eliminate onerous and confusing retention requirements and provide assurance that this situation will not be repeated in the future.

These proposals will resolve most but not all of the situations that have arisen. Those rare cases where the facts turn on circumstances of births outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947, and where citizenship is in doubt would remain. Given the variety of individual circumstances in these cases, I believe that we must continue the current approach to judge each case on its merits, and, as warranted, use the powers available to me as minister to bestow special grants of citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act. This would also be the case for unforeseen situations that we have not yet dealt with.

Mr. Chair, I know that time is running out, and I am looking forward to your questions. In conclusion, let me reiterate what I have said to the Committee in the past. The Government takes this issue very seriously.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable things that we can possess. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that it's conferred fairly and rationally in a way that protects our country and our citizens.

The proposals that I've put before you today are in no way intended to be the final word, as they will need to be more fully fleshed out in a bill for parliamentary review. I've outlined them today to make clear that the government feels that the act needs to be amended to deal with the most pressing issues.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm now prepared to answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madam Minister, for your statement. I'm sure we have many questions.

I guess, as per the agenda, we could focus the first half on the loss of Canadian citizenship and the second half on the estimates.

We'll go first of all to Mr. Telegdi.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister.

Just before I get in there, your proposal for anyone born to a Canadian citizen abroad, mother or father, in or out of wedlock, on or after January 1, 1947, excludes Mr. Joe Taylor, whose case you are appealing to the Supreme Court after the government was ordered to restore citizenship. We heard from witnesses this morning who were born before January 1, 1947, who are children of war brides, and one whose daughter is actually serving in the Canadian military and looking forward to going to Afghanistan. Here we have a child of a war bride; she is now a grandmother who is going to help to take care of her grandchildren while the mother is fighting for Canada in Afghanistan, and she would not qualify under this provision.

Minister, the previous government had $20 million allocated for changing the Citizenship Act and bringing it into compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The previous ministers under the previous government asked this committee on citizenship and immigration to produce reports to give guidance to the department as to how that could be done. These reports on updating Canada's citizenship laws were virtually unanimously passed through this committee. Updating Canada's Citizenship Laws: It's Time received unanimous support in this committee. The other one, Citizenship Revocation: A Question of Due Process and Respecting Charter Rights, not only got approved by this committee but went through the House of Commons to concurrence, and your party concurred.

I'm going to read this into the record, and it is important to get this into the record. This is by probably the most knowledgeable person on citizenship and immigration matters in the Conservative caucus, Diane Ablonczy. This is what she said:

—the Conservative Party of Canada will absolutely oppose the revocation of citizenship by politicians behind closed doors and will oppose citizenship being denied on any vague and unidentified grounds. We will uphold Canadian values of due process and certainty in the law.

Here is another thing she said:

—if we are going to strip someone of citizenship, it must be by the highest standards of due process and the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is another quote:

—it's very clear that there is something very wrong with an act that purports to strip citizens of their citizenship behind closed doors by a few people who also have political considerations guiding their decisions.

This goes back to a debate in 2000, when we had the then critic Mr. Leon Benoit, member for Lakeland and critic for the Canadian Alliance. What he said was this:

The power should be left to the courts. Any political connection should be taken out of revocation of citizenship. There are too many potential problems as a result of that remaining.

These are just some of the quotes put forward.

Last week, behind closed doors, you went against everything you said as the Canadian Alliance Party and as the Conservative Party, and you proceeded to strip citizenship on something that is totally archaic and judged by the courts to be anti-charter.

Since you are the minister responsible, when you did your actions on the revocation, first, did you read the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeal, which unanimously restored the citizenship of a person from whom you took it away? That's number one.

Second, did you ask for a report, as you were supposed to by directive of that court, before you could do such a thing?

Please answer the questions.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

There are several questions raised there.

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

There are two questions.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

First of all, what I'd like to do is congratulate the committee on the fine work it has done in terms of what needs to be done with the Citizenship Act and the changes to be made to it. Unfortunately, the three prior bills that were brought forward by the previous government all got dropped on the table; that's why we're making efforts now with Bill C-14, Bill C-57, and the legislation that I'm proposing to table in the fall to address some of the problems that have been raised by this committee. I hope that because of that we will have the support of the committee.

In terms of revocation, there is a process that was followed with these individuals. The process was initiated under the previous government. It has taken many years because as a country, and regardless of political party, Canada has taken the position that we will not be a safe haven for war criminals. It's just that simple. There is a legitimate process in place through the Federal Court, and that is the process we have begun.

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

Mr. Chairman, I asked two questions.

Number one, did you read the directives of the Federal Court of Appeal? You did not answer that question. And also, did you follow the direction of the Federal Court of Appeal? Have you even read the Federal Court of Appeal decision that unanimously—unanimously, I might say—restored the citizenship?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The decision of the Federal Court is what's under appeal. While it's under appeal we are to carry on in normal fashion, except that we are to stay the removal of anyone who might otherwise qualify—

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

Mr. Chairman, this witness is clueless—

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We have followed those instructions of the court.

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

This witness is clueless of the Federal Court of Appeal decision that unanimously restored—

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

It instructed restoration—

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

I day say that I'm amazed that we could have a minister that's this clueless on an act where she can take away citizenship—contrary to ten years of Conservative positions and Alliance positions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a follow-up comment, Madam Minister? We have about 20 second left in Mr. Telegdi's time.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

If I might, I think the honourable member is mixing two different issues. One is war criminals, in which case we are very clear. We've been following the decisions of the Federal Court. The second issue, quite separately, is the Joe Taylor case. That decision is being appealed, as we speak. Therefore, it shouldn't be implemented.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Telegdi, and thank you, Madam Minister.

Ms. Faille.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am disappointed about the issue of Canadians who lose their citizenship that we are discussing today. I wonder what message we are sending to people who come to Canada when we place so little importance on the contribution of people who are born in Canada, who have served in the army and paid taxes, or who are living in the United States and currently receiving a pension outside the country. We had the case of Mr. Vallière this morning. We are sending them the message that they are immigrants in their own country. That is the option we are giving them. This is tragic and completely unacceptable.

I would like to ask the Minister a question. Does she think it is reasonable for a person born in Canada to become an immigrant in his or her own country? That is the solution we are proposing for some citizens. I would also like the Minister or the people in her Department to give us their opinion about the unresolved citizenship cases. What criticism was there from those people in terms of the Department's decision not to implement the solution it had proposed: that they apply for permanent residence and have it noted on their citizenship cards that they are immigrants in their own country? Does the Department inquire into how those people feel when they learn they are not Canadian citizens?

In its last appearance, the Department misled us as to the efforts being made in terms of communication. It then sent us a letter telling us that the information was incorrect. I would like to know how much the campaign you are currently running has cost and who got the contracts. I have also asked that the agreements with the provincial governments and other departments to ensure that services are not interrupted be tabled. The case of Mr. Vallière is precisely a case where services could be interrupted.

Have you approached Revenue Canada or other departments to try to contact seniors? We are talking about measures that affect seniors, who in some cases are very attached to Canada because they served in the army or are still paying taxes here. It is completely unacceptable that they would not be Canadian citizens.

If you cannot answer in the time I am allowed, I would like you to provide me with these answers in writing. I would also like you to give us an overview of the impact of the Taylor decision. How many cases have been stayed? When will they be resolved?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'll try to answer as many of those questions as time permits.

I would like to clarify one thing right up front, and that is the accusation that anyone at this end of the table misled the committee deliberately last time. I would point out—

[An hon. member]

You did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I would point out that I had been in this position for a grand total of approximately five weeks at that point in time, and that the period during which the alleged advertisement was to have taken place also preceded the time that the current deputy minister was in the job. It was an honest mistake. I believe we've all, at this table, made at least one of those in our lifetime, and I would certainly ask for your indulgence on that. As soon as we realized that there was an honest mistake made, we made sure that the committee was informed, and that apologies were made.

To address the content issues here—

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

Excuse me, Ms. Finley, I just want to clarify what you are now saying. You acknowledge that no effort has been made at this point to contact people to inform them of the consequences of losing their citizenship.

That is in fact what you have just told us, is that right?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

No. I said that there had been, but that the time preceded the involvement of either of us at the department, and clarification was provided—

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

So the Department has nothing to show regarding efforts that have been made at this point?