Evidence of meeting #70 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
I'm going to come back to the point, Madam Chair, because I went there to tell Larry, and said—
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Okay, Madam Chair.
The question he asked me is a very serious question.
In fact, I see many cases come to our office that are of a compassionate nature, and that's not necessarily because we are elected people but because we have hearts. When it comes to officials, they have to go through a lot of things when they make their decisions. It's not necessarily just the thing that is compassionate to us that will fit their criteria. They have to make sure that they do their duty to determine that case.
Today, if we look at any case for which we apply or we inquire about for the waiting times, as was mentioned earlier, Madam Chair, it is 34 to 36 months, because they have to make sure that they do their duty—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I think this point was raised earlier and was explained.
Mr. Hoback, you asked the question, so the next one I have on the floor to have a question is—
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
He didn't get a chance to answer the question. He was just heading there.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
What he was trying to explain has already been explained, so I'll go to Mr. Redekopp.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
No. I have a point of order, Chair. I was asking if he had any suggestions—
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
No, I have not. You don't know what I'm going to say.
Ma'am, I asked if he had any suggestions to amend it and to make it better so that it functioned better.
He has not gotten to that point in his answer. Would you give him the floor so he could complete his answer?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'll ask you to, please, give a quick answer without going into other conversations.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Madam Chair, the short answer is that I already explained that we should give an opportunity to people who want to have this oath ceremony in person. They should be able to go in person. If people do not want to go in person, then they are satisfied, because we are fighting for them in fact. The Conservatives are fighting for those people who want to do it in person.
Parliament is already giving them the opportunity if they want to go and have a personal oath, and we already have that for compassionate reasons. If people are not able to go, for any reason, they should be able to do it anywhere instead of the department determining it and delaying it for another three to four years.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just for your information, we will have another amendment after this one. That's just so that you're aware.
I wanted to go back. Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe had asked the officials this question of compassionate grounds. I think it was a good question. I just need some clarity from the officials on this.
It sounded like you were not very supportive of the wording because it's not specific enough. I think that is generally what you were saying, but here's where I'm confused. Is that not what regulations are for? Is that not something that's done on a very regular basis?
I'm sure there are many examples of legislation that is not clear down to the specific details, but it's the implementation by the department through the regulations, through the gazetting process, that actually enumerates all of those important details that we as legislators don't have the ability and the insights, frankly, to do. You probably don't want legislation coming from us that is very prescriptive and that is very specific, because it's likely to cause unintended consequences, as we've talked about many times at these hearings.
I would ask that question to the officials, Madam Chair.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, as has been mentioned, flexibility is needed in the system to accommodate a variety of circumstances, but the larger point I've been seeking to make through my comments about design and how the program is delivered is that “one size fits all” equality is not equity. Right now, as Mr. Dhaliwal and others have mentioned, people who have compassionate circumstances have to come forward to the department and make a request. The request needs to be assessed. That takes additional time. It can take additional documentation. Citizenship is delayed.
The Government of Canada needs to do better in terms of accessibility and in terms of how we serve Canadians. Rather than having the critically ill come on bended knee and say, “I need compassionate circumstances. I need some flexibility and I'd still like to become a citizen,” the idea is to accommodate these kinds of circumstances by design: If you have no issues and you wish to attend your ceremony, select that option and take your oath at your ceremony. If you have some circumstances, don't take additional months to make a special exceptional request of the department for accommodation. Select an e-oath. Become a citizen right away. Celebrate that ceremony with your loved ones at a later date, when it's possible for you, if that's an opportunity that you would like to take up.
I have no further comment, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
According to what I've heard, if this amendment were applied, there would be a lot more paperwork and red tape.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's right.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
And yet the Conservatives are bragging about their common sense and the need to reduce red tape, paperwork and the amount of time required. That may not be their intent, but this amendment would mean that it would take longer to process applications.