Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

At this point, there was, I think—

I'm sorry, I can't recall that particular point in time. What I can tell you is we've taken action since then, including advertisements in newspapers, which you may or may not have seen yourselves, and we have examples here, to make sure that the awareness is being raised now.

I have to say that, frankly, we were a bit surprised that despite all of the media coverage this issue has received, we didn't get a huge upsurge in the number of people coming forward with this problem. We were prepared for it. We put in special hotlines and such to deal with it, and where the number of people being dealt with was around 450 for a number of years, we've also reduced that to 285. That shows that we're handling these issues faster than they come in. So that's the good news on that one.

I'd also like to point out that there are approximately 250 cases that are being put on hold, as per the Federal Court's instructions, while the appeal is being heard in the Joe Taylor case.

Regarding some of your other questions, in terms of agreements with provincial governments to ensure that benefits and such are in place and remain in place while these individuals' cases are being reviewed, the deputy minister has sent letters to his provincial counterparts, as has one of our ADMs, to provide detailed information and request their cooperation in these issues. And that's been working.

We had a case just recently, in fact, where a woman was in danger of losing her benefits while her case was reviewed. We were able to make arrangements, and her benefits were continued. And as it turned out, hers was one of the many cases in which someone in fact had not lost their citizenship, but merely needed proof of their existing citizenship. So those things are working well, and of course we do work with other government departments on this issue as well.

I'm not sure that I understand your question about being an immigrant in your own country. The proposals that I'm making for legislation in the fall all date back to an effective date of January 1, 1947, for two reasons. One is that that's the date that citizenship came into being in this country. Prior to that we were British subjects or, for the purposes of immigration only, Canadian citizens but without what we know to be citizenship. That's why we're celebrating the 60th anniversary of Canadian citizenship this year.

The second reason for not backdating it prior to that period is that as long as the Taylor case is before the courts, it would be terribly presumptuous of us, and perhaps even considered contempt, to supersede that with new legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madame Faille.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming back to the committee.

Minister, I want to come back to what you were just explaining about why 1947 was chosen as a cut-off date in your proposal for the new legislation. It seems to me that a number of the most difficult cases and the most emotional of the cases that we've heard have dealt with people who were born outside of Canada, to a Canadian, prior to 1947. All of these have disturbed us all greatly, to see those folks—whose commitment to Canada I don't think is questioned by anyone—go through the hardship and frustration of having their citizenship questioned fairly late in their lives, and with very significant consequences for them. Is there no remedy to solve the situation legislatively for those folks? I hear your answer that Canadian citizenship wasn't acknowledged officially until 1947, but there was a connection to Canada established before that, and we did operate under some rules before that. Why can't we go back further than that and have a fix this fall for all of those folks as well?

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

I'd certainly like to help those people if I possibly could. I think we've demonstrated that goodwill in all of the other cases in the priority that we put on helping them. We really have put a lot of effort into this, and we're trying to prevent these cases going forward. That's why we're bringing forward the legislation.

January 1, 1947, is the date when actually Canadian citizenship came into existence. Now, the issue with the Taylor case is that this case is being appealed for legal reasons. We believe there were errors in law there, and the court itself has said that anyone who would get a negative decision because of the existing rules had to have those decisions stayed. So we can say yes but we can't say no, and in fairness, we have to stay them all until such time as the Taylor case has been decided. Anything else would be contrary to the order of the court and it could also be potentially viewed as contempt of that court order.

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

So you don't have the option of introducing legislation that would deal with those folks until that court case is settled—is that the department's position on that?

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

That's the advice, yes.

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

It's very problematic, given that I think those are some of the most compelling of the cases that we have heard here. I know we're going to be looking for a solution for those folks.

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

I agree—I do.

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

Yes, it's very problematic.

Minister, you mentioned, I think, just a few minutes ago that there were 200 cases in abeyance because of the Taylor case.

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

Two hundred and fifty.

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

I think when your officials were here last time, they said there were 400. Has that number changed recently, or is it—?

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

No. Perhaps I might explain that. The numbers vary because they're static; things change every day. We talked about 400 to 450 cases that had been identified to us. Since then, we've had another approximately 130 cases come forward because of the publicity, because people have been applying for passports and are looking for proof that they may or may not be citizens.

When I last appeared we had approximately 450 cases before us that we were trying to assess where they fit, whether they were in fact citizens or not, or in which category. Of those 450, we've added 130 to that. There are now about 285, in total, that have not been resolved one way or another. Two hundred and fifty of the 285 have been stayed because of the Taylor case. So we're only dealing with about 35 right now, which we're addressing, and saying, okay, what are the circumstances, what are the facts, and what, if anything, can we do to help them?

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

Minister, one of the things we've heard is the difficulty in getting information from the department for folks who find themselves in the situation of having their citizenship questioned. We heard another one of those stories this morning. I think the service was probably shabby by anyone's standard, unfortunately. I'm just wondering if there's any measure in place to do advocacy for people who come with those kinds of questions, and if there is, how that information has been put out through the department. So when someone comes and is confronted with the crisis that their citizenship is in question, how is the department dealing with that, and how are people taking people through that process so that it recognizes the huge disruption in their lives that this question causes?

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

Well, we do recognize that this can be a very difficult, very emotional time for people. That's why we've taken a number of steps. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of the story that you were told this morning. We do endeavour to help everyone we can, as sympathetically as we can, and that's why we have special, dedicated people in our call centre, the hotline, so that they understand. We're not just dealing with anyone who picks up the phone, but people who are dedicated to this, so that they understand the sensitivities.

We've also accelerated the timeline with which these individuals are to be dealt. And all of our people who are on this end of it, who are trying to help, have received training in being sympathetic and how to handle customer calls. If there are documented cases, I'd very much like to be aware of them so we can deal with them, because, frankly, that's not the way we like to do business. That's not acceptable--not to me.

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

I'm sure, Minister. And I think if you look at the testimony of this morning from the Cochrane and Galbraith family, you'll find some problematic situations that they described and may merit your attention.

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

I'd be happy to look at that.

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

I wanted to ask one quick question about the question of revocation of citizenship, because it's something the committee did a lot of work on in the last Parliament and made, I believe, a unanimous report on that matter.

I'm very concerned about the evidentiary standard that needed to be upheld in that process, given the seriousness of revoking someone's citizenship and taking that kind of measure against them. I wonder if the minister believes there's a problem with the war crimes legislation that exists in Canada that would merit going to a lesser or subsidiary process of revocation of citizenship to deal with serious issues of war crimes or suspected war criminals. Why are we not dealing with a war criminal under war crimes legislation or Criminal Code legislation? Why are we moving to what I would call a lesser citizenship revocation process and dealing with folks in that manner? Doesn't this serious crime merit serious attention through a direct approach of the war crimes legislation?

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

Revocation is a very serious issue. It doesn't happen very often at all, but there are circumstances very clearly laid out where it's appropriate. This has been done in accordance with the law that has been in existence since the 1980s. I believe it was in the 1980s that the policy was brought in. It has been consistent. It has been before the courts. The courts have upheld it. In fact, the Federal Court is very much part of the process in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of an individual's complicity in that process.

I would point out also that the final decision does lie within the Governor in Council. That process is a very onerous one, actually, and everything was conducted, all of the exercise, in accordance with the law as it exists now. I think the fact that there were cases where the Governor in Council declined revocation speaks to the fairness of the system.

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

Yes. And I think the committee really does want the government to look very closely at our reports from the last time because we were concerned about the evidentiary provisions, balance of probabilities, a lower standard versus beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the higher criminal standard for revocation and which we thought was appropriate for revocation, given the seriousness of that act and given how important citizenship is to people in Canada.

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have a comment on Mr. Siksay's comment here, Madam Minister, before I move on?

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

Just very briefly, I appreciate the concerns. Those are beyond the scope of my department, and I'd be happy to pass them along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister.

Certainly it's refreshing to see the approach you've taken on this issue, particularly when the legislation dates back to, of course, 1947 and 1967. A lot of anomalies were created and hardships flowed from that and have been in existence for a number of years. The steps to address the immediate concerns and allocating resources to do that and then to come forward with some constructive proposals for legislative change I think is refreshing in this instance.

I know you've asked this committee to study the issue and come up with some particular proposals in terms of how to address them. I know we've heard from a number of witnesses—I think Mr. Chapman maybe four or five times, and perhaps more than that—who have certainly identified many of the particular areas that needed attention. There's no question about that, and I think our responsibility would certainly be to give that type of recommendation or advice to you.

As you well know, the committee has been sitting for a long time and there were a number of extra meetings and a number of witnesses called, some more than once, to reiterate the situation without actually coming forward with a report and no report in sight. I think we're venturing now into the issue of undocumented workers, and still you haven't received the recommendation of this report.

This morning I indicated that there's certainly a lot of politics being played with this issue, which is an emotional one and one that is certainly near and dear to many hearts, and it seems to be going on and on, as opposed to constructively attempting to sit down and work together to get this done.

In fact, the conduct we saw in one case was a fairly aggressive approach taken toward junior officials that I would call perhaps shameful and regrettable. Certainly the responsibility for them is to apply the legislation and the regulation as it might be, and it would be our job as parliamentarians to give them something to work with. Certainly I can say that some of the members, and Mr. Chapman in particular, have taken a lot of steps to try to move this along, and certainly had some partial legislation, but we're looking for something far more constructive that would apply on a broad basis that would address many of the situations.

I see you've picked 1947 as a date, and that's the date of the Citizenship Act, and also reserved unto yourself the section 5(4) remedy that will allow you to deal with specific cases. I take it from what you're saying that you're prepared to look at those cases in advance when you have an opportunity to do so.

Again, having heard some of the submissions to Mr. Chapman, and in particular also from the Mennonite community about children who are deemed out of wedlock simply because the marriage was not recognized civilly, how do you see this legislation addressing the concerns raised by those groups, at least, as well as the other specific groups that came before this committee?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that this is a very emotional issue. It's also a very troubling one. I know there are few things I value as much as my Canadian citizenship. It's a great privilege to be Canadian, and it's certainly not something I would ever want to lose or have in jeopardy. That's why we've taken such strong clear action to help these individuals where there is doubt, whether it's the border babies or the war brides or people who have failed to retain their citizenship. But I think that with the privilege of Canadian citizenship come responsibilities as well.

I believe that if one is far enough removed that one doesn't have an attachment to Canada, or one doesn't have any meaningful relationship with Canada, I'm not sure that—Let's say someone is third generation—two generations, they and their parents—neither of whom has ever set foot in this country or made any contribution to the country. I'm not sure that by the third generation they have any real interest, other than perhaps the convenience of being Canadian. That's why we're proposing to limit it to the first generation born abroad. Otherwise, we would be devaluing Canadian citizenship.

The proposals that I'm looking to put into legislation for the fall do not, by the way, preclude any input from this committee. I would welcome it if the report can be presented and there's unanimous agreement on it prior to the tabling of the legislation. I'm always willing to make it better, if that's possible. But in the absence of such a report, I felt it was important to act, that we take action to correct as many of these situations as possible, as readily as possible and as soon as possible. That way we can avoid the problem for people in the future, and that's why we're doing this. It will not help everybody, there's no question about that, but it certainly will help the vast majority of the cases with which we've had to deal and most of the witnesses who have appeared before this committee on this issue.

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

It seems that some of the witnesses I've heard from over the course of time have found a myriad of different types of applications and forms, and perhaps conflicting information. They've gone through a myriad of things to try to resolve their problems, and are really looking for some simplicity on a go-forward basis. Of course, many have tried to understand which category they fit in.

What I hear from you, Madam Minister, is that you're actually going to, through the legislation...or are hoping to confer citizenship without going through a lot of applications and paperwork. I'm wondering if that's correct.

In addition to that, taking 1947 going forward, would those who have not renewed their citizenship or have forgotten to take certain administrative steps fall into this sort of go-forward basis that clears all of those who may have lost their citizenship through one anomaly or another?