Ed Komarnicki

[February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a number of anomalies under the Citizenship Act and also raises the issue of amending the act. These issues surrounding the member's questions are not new. In fact, with respect to the Liberal government, Liberal minister after Liberal minister was aware of the issues surrounding citizenship anomalies and did nothing to help citizens caught up in this matter.

The Liberals had 13 years to do it and could not get it done. They had 11 years of majority governments and did nothing, absolutely nothing, to fix these problems. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Liberal Party and that member to claim the moral high ground on this issue.

While our Conservative government did not create the problem, we will fix the problem for the benefit of all Canadians in all categories. Recently the minister issued a statement to address some of these concerns. At this time, for the benefit of all, I wish to read from the minister's statement:

With the recent need to have a passport to fly to the United States, some people have questions about proving their citizenship, and some erroneous reports in the media have heightened people's concerns. I wish to address those concerns.

In almost all cases, anyone who was born in Canada is a Canadian citizen.

Some people are discovering that, after having lived in Canada most of their lives, they do not have citizenship. These cases deserve immediate attention and so I am making these individual cases a priority. I will use the powers available to me as Minister under the Citizenship Act to resolve these cases as quickly as possible. I have directed my department to deploy the resources necessary to do so.

While these steps are being taken, we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that these individuals will not experience any interruption in government benefits such as health care coverage or OAS payments.

While these cases are being reviewed, these individuals can rest assured that they can remain in Canada.

This government finds it unacceptable that law-abiding individuals who have been led to believe they were always Canadian citizens are not now having their citizenship affirmed.

This is precisely why the minister has instructed department officials that if an individual falls in one of the areas in question and has been recently notified that he or she is no longer a citizen while showing a significant attachment to Canada, our government will do everything necessary to make sure that citizen's status is made clear as quickly as possible.

In fact, the minister's recent actions have received support from stakeholders.

Let me quote from the January 26 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, which said that the immigration minister's “decision was welcomed by Bill Janzen, head of the Mennonite Central Committee”, to which the member was referring, “who has been trying for several years to help an accumulating number of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Mennonites who have lost their citizenship, even though they were raised in Canada”. Mr. Janzen stated, “We are really happy now that the government is committed officially and clearly to act quickly on these cases”.

That is action when we have seen 13 years of inaction. We will see that we stand behind these citizens and make sure that they are recognized, as they ought to be.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the private member's bill tabled by the hon. member for Laval.

I appreciate the hon. member's motives in proposing Bill C-280. It is clear that she and her colleagues, and in fact all of us, want to see a refugee system that is fair and efficient as well as compassionate. These qualities are what we, as compassionate people, hope to see in the systems and programs of our government.

Canadians can take pride in our humanitarian, compassionate nature. That is why Canada's new government welcomes refugees, and over 32,000 were welcomed last year. I am sure all members of the House and all Canadians understand Canada's obligation as a member of the global community to provide protection to those in need.

We also understand the importance of having in place a refugee determination system that is fair and consistent in the application of the rules. As recently as last November, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees praised the fairness and quality of Canada's refugee system in being one of the best in the world.

Canadians also see the value in our system. Last October, Ms. Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, appeared before the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I fully recognize that she supports Bill C-280, but it is worth noting what she had to say with respect to the existing system. She stated:

--I think it is fair to say from our perspective that the Canadian refugee system...has a lot to be said for it....One of the great benefits of the Canadian system is that we have invested in a very competent first-level decision process. Rather than wasting time making a first decision that has to be overturned most of the time on the appeal, we have a first-level refugee determination that, generally speaking, is good.

In other words, an applicant for refugee status in Canada can begin the process knowing that at the first-level hearing the members will be generous in listening to claims and deciding them. Applicants actually can make representation and present evidence and of course the matter is determined in accordance with the judicial principles of fairness and justice. This is the first step.

Our system, which earns high praise from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, currently includes a review mechanism for errors that may have been made by the first-level decision maker. In the current system, if an individual's claim for refugee status is denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board, that person may apply for a judicial review of the claim by the Federal Court of Canada. Ordinarily this review proceeds while the claimant is able to remain in Canada, with full social benefits throughout the process.

I should point out that there is a common belief that the court considers only errors in law in determining whether a case will be returned to the IRB for another look. This is not correct. The Federal Court can overturn and has overturned IRB decisions based on errors in finding of fact. The appeal division at the heart of this bill will not in fact be bringing that much more to the applicants in this sense.

When we look at the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, we see that it can do a number of things, including declaring the order invalid, setting it aside, or referring it back for further consideration. Some of the grounds the court looks at are that the first tribunal acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe, that it erred in law, or that it based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. Those are the grounds, along with others, that the Federal Court can consider.

When we look at the section that this private member's bill wishes to bring into place, we note that it allows the appeal division to look at the record, just like the Federal Court can, without calling new evidence, without calling viva voce evidence. This particular tribunal can of course either affirm the decision or refer it back to the first tribunal for further decision, as the Federal Court can; in fairness it can substitute its own decision. When I asked the registrar of the Federal Court whether the number of grounds set out in the Federal Court of Appeal were actually broader or more extensive than the ones the refugee appeal division proposed, the answer was yes, that is correct.

The refugee determination system is noted as being fair and a model for others to use. If a judicial review with the federal court is not successful, the claimant has the right to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. This process addresses situations where there is new evidence, a change in circumstances, or a concern with respect to danger in terms of removal.

Another avenue available to a failed refugee claimant is provided by the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, and that is on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This is one that a good percentage of applicants take advantage of for their benefit.

In considering the bill, we must also consider whether opening another level of review, creating yet more processes, will enhance what is already regarded as one of the best and most generous refugee determination systems in the world.

The cost of putting the RAD in operation is estimated to be a minimum of $2 million in start up costs alone and an additional $30 million on an ongoing annual basis to the federal and provincial treasuries. This includes the cost of items such as the provision of health care, legal aid services and other social assistance as necessary.

These are not small sums and we must consider the impact on our partners in the provincial and territorial governments. It is they who bear much of the responsibility for the welfare of refugee claimants while they await the determination of their claims and the hearing of their appeals.

Consider if you will, Mr. Speaker, a study carried out by immigration officials which followed 100 random refugee claimants from 1998 to 2004 and the number of processes that were required from beginning to end.

By 2004, 71 claimants had achieved some kind of resolution, while 29 had not. It took 2.1 years on average from claim to landing as refugees. It took four years on average from claim to landing in other categories, such as humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

It is expected that implementation of the sections of the act dealing with the refugee appeal division would add at least another five months to the refugee determination process. As we all know, that is on a minimal basis, but there will be perhaps a year, nine months or more, added to what already is not functioning as efficiently as it should.

This is of concern. As praiseworthy as our system is, if Canadians express one concern about it, it would be to have less delays in the refugee determination process. All quarters and all parties have expressed this concern.

Indeed, it was the previous Liberal critic who said that she found the current process allowed delays by failed claimants ad infinitum. I might just quote a portion of what was said by the critic:

--I think it's important that when we look at the RAD, we see it not as being off and by itself but within the context of all the other types of appeals to which refused refugee claimants have access. I'm talking about humanitarian and compassionate grounds, I'm talking about risk of return, I'm talking about the Superior Court, and so on.

If I were a refugee claimant who had been refused and I went to the RAD, if the RAD existed, and the RAD told me, no, I couldn't do it, then obviously my next step would be to go on asking someone else, and someone else, and someone else. Because right now that's what the system allows, almost ad infinitum. I would make the suggestion to the committee that when we come to our suggestions and recommendations for the minister and the House on the role of the RAD and whether the RAD should exist, we should put it in the context of all the appeals that are possible for refused refugee claimants. We should try to bring some kind of homogeneity and logic to the whole system of appeals on behalf of the refugee claimants.

The acting chief administrator of the Federal Court of Canada administration services said he agreed 100% with that aspect of it.

There was some mention made about two members being better than one, but in tracking the decisions of a two member board, less than 1% of the cases resulted in a split decision. The question now is, when we take those factors into account, that alone is sufficient basis for implementation.

I am sure all hon. members understand that when Parliament passed the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, it gave government the authority to decide when to implement these sections of legislation. It did so by making the sections come into force by governor in council resolution. The bill proposes to sidestep that and to make it effective on a sooner basis.

Canadians trust the government and the governing party's judgment. Canada's new government is listening to Canadians. It listened to Canadians who wanted to see funding increase for immigrants and refugees by adding $307 million more to services that help them adapt to life in Canada. It also increased the budget by 25%.

Canadians would be right to question whether a fourth avenue for appeal would make the system any fairer, especially when they are already seeing some people in the system for many, many months, and even years in some cases.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, January 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of my questions is about looking at what already exists: the pre-removal risk assessment, which is an appeal process, the compassionate and humanitarian grounds process, which is another one, and as well the application to the Federal Court of Canada, which can look at not only the record but the factual situation, as this appeal proposes. We have cases taking two to four years, and this legislation would add yet another layer of time.

Would the member not agree that we should not look at the legislation in isolation? Would the member not agree that we have to look at the whole system and what it will do not only in terms of adding time to the system but in terms of costs as well, costs for the government and the provinces?

[Immigration, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are always looking at ways to make the system better than it is, but we can say that the system has various aspects in it for the present situation to be looked at on its merits, not only in the Federal Court of Appeal but also through humanitarian and compassionate ground applications, pre-removal risk assessment applications. When we look at the system, we have to look at all of it in conjunction before a decision is made to implement just one aspect of it, which would add more delay to the process and extra time to get it determined.

[Immigration, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canada has one of the finest refugee programs in the word. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner has said so and has indicated that other countries model on this program.

We have various appeal routes that can be taken to the Federal Court by leave to appeal and actually appeal. We also have a humanitarian and compassionate ground application process that can be taken by applicants at any time. It is certainly a system that we are proud of.

[Petitions, November 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather appropriate for me to be presenting these petitions as we are discussing Bill C-27, the dangerous offender legislation. I introduce these petitions that were received by my office with respect to pedophiles and repeat sexual offenders. To date, we have received over 15,500 signatures through the petition. Signatures are coming in every day. They are from every province in the country, from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, et cetera. They show that people have compassion about this issue. The petition itself says that from time to time children are abducted by known repeat sex offenders and Canadians desire that steps be taken to prevent incidents from occurring.

The petitioners ask that we proceed with changes to the justice system and legislation that would result in harsher penalties for convicted pedophiles, which Bill C-27 does, by mandatory, compulsory, electronic or other forms of the monitoring of pedophiles upon release from custody, ensuring compulsory public notification on movement of convicted pedophiles, and ensuring that such repeat offenders be designated as dangerous offenders. Bill C-27 is before the House. It is being debated as we speak. We would ask the opposition to join with us in putting forward some legislation that would correct many of the issues in this petition.

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, November 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-285 seeks to require CMHC to transfer funds from its reserve to provincial governments. There is no question that the objective of the bill is laudable in the sense that it encourages social housing. This is something that is already being done by this government and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

However, a simple mechanical formula, as that expressed in Bill C-285, is in isolation and without regard to all of the factors that must be taken into consideration and without regard to all the players involved in Canada's housing system.

Canada's housing system involves many players working together to help meet the housing needs of Canadians. The federal government itself, through the auspices of CMHC, is a key player in the system, providing funding and working to promote partnerships that will increase the supply of affordable housing.

Additionally, the federal government helps maintain the existing housing stock and supports research that helps identify new ways to ensure the housing and support requirements of those in need are met.

However, the government does not act in isolation. Provincial governments play a pivotal role in providing housing, funds for housing and support services. Furthermore, municipal governments, community associations and others help with the on the ground delivery and management of housing and associated services. Working with these partnerships is at the core of CMHC's mandate. Through active involvement with partners and stakeholders, CMHC has been serving Canadians for the past 60 years. Beginning in 1946, CMHC was given the job of helping to house more than one million returning war veterans and to lead Canada's national housing programs.

There is also another function of CMHC and that is the insurance and securitization component. In that respect, it is meant to be a commercial enterprise that operates in the private market with others that provide mortgage insurance. With respect to the introduction of mortgage insurance by CMHC relating to building or house loans, it operates as a business, a business that earns its income from insurance premiums and fees but at rates that are competitive with and on a level playing field with other business enterprises offering a similar service.

This bill essentially requires, in accordance with an inflexible formula, the transferring of CMHC's mortgage insurance profits to the provinces for social housing purposes. This initiative would not require further parliamentary debate or approval where all parliamentarians would have the opportunity to examine and put the initiatives to the test. It plans to have an arbitrary formula based on specific percentages without regard to those items that might essentially cause a need to have a greater reserve. The bill proposes to have the transfer made automatically without any parliamentary consultation whatsoever.

The clause, as it now reads, intends to amend section 29 that establishes a reserve fund. It states that moneys get placed to a reserve fund after taking into account a series of events like bad debts, depreciation and anticipated future losses. I find that some of those are calculable but the anticipated futures losses are dependent, in a large part, on the economy, on interest rates and a whole series of factors. To arbitrarily fix it at a specific rate, as being proposed in this bill, does not bear relationship to those factors and certainly is not something I could support.

While CMHC is not a private insurer, it is subject to the same risks and follows the same guidelines set by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for capitalization for prudent management and in order to maintain a level playing field with private mortgage insurers. The reserves required by the OSFI serve to protect the Canadian taxpayer from potential future costs arising from mortgage defaults. If, indeed, the interest rates were to go up substantially, there would be a significant claim on the reserve fund. If that fund were transferred out according to an arbitrary formula and without regard to potential loss, it could have significant effects on the Canadian taxpayer because, in the end, it is the Government of Canada that guarantees the due performance of the mortgages.

In order for CMHC to be competitive with other institutions that are operated privately to provide the same services, it needs to establish a reserve to properly capitalize its assets to ensure that if there is an economic downturn it can cover those losses.

Currently, to purchase a home in a low equity ratio of say 95% or 5%, those loans are insured by CMHC, which is backed by the Government of Canada that has a stake in this matter. It can provide housing to first time homebuyers at a very low down payment of 5% in this case and interest rates that generally would not be available unless one had a 25% down payment. This insurance is financed by premiums that go into the CMHC revenues.

Without a doubt, the CMHC plays a distinctive role in our housing system and delivers substantial benefits to Canadians. For example, CMHC mortgage insurance has helped one in three Canadian families buy a home of their own with as little as 5% down and at interest rates comparable to those for homebuyers with a down payment of 25% or more.

I have less difficulty with the objects of the use of the funds proposed to be transferred from CMHC than the formula suggested to raise those funds. Those objectives are: first, for social and affordable housing purposes; second, to encourage a supply of quality housing at affordable prices; third, to increase housing choices for the people in the provinces; and finally, to contribute to the creation and development of housing cooperatives.

It is also important to recall that the government is already taking action in all of the four aforementioned areas. For example, through CMHC, the federal government has demonstrated its commitment to social and affordable housing by spending $2 billion annually, primarily in support of some 633,000 households.

In addition, a major component of CMHC's assisted housing efforts are directed toward Canada's aboriginal population, both on and off reserve. CMHC provides funding for specialized housing construction and renovation programs, capacity development and ongoing subsidies for existing portfolio of assisted housing on reserve.

Moreover, we are encouraging the supply of quality housing at affordable prices. For example, we are moving ahead with the $1 billion affordable housing initiative and working with provincial, territorial and other stakeholders to deliver affordable housing for Canadians.

More broadly, the one percentage point reduction of the goods and services tax is helping Canadians by making housing more affordable. As well, the budget includes a provision for a strategic investment of as much as $1.4 billion to establish three housing trusts. These trusts will focus on affordable housing, northern housing and housing for aboriginal people living off reserve.

Likewise, we are also working to increase housing choices. Funding for CMHC's residential rehabilitation assistance program, commonly referred to as RRAP, and several related housing, renovation and adaptation programs has been extended for 2006-07 at a cost of $128 million. RRAP provides financial assistance to repair homes occupied by low income people. This program is also used to create housing by converting non-residential buildings into residential use.

We are also providing resources for cooperative housing. Across Canada, where CMHC administers, there are about 53,000 households living in some 2,000 non-profit housing co-ops currently in operation. In addition, where CMHC administers on behalf of the federal government, CMHC will provide some $100 million in 2006 to federal cooperatives under various programs. This is how it should work, where parliamentary appropriations address the needs envisioned by the objectives outlined.

However, the proposal to use profits in a mortgage insurance business for social housing purposes means essentially that the premiums are, in effect, being used for social objectives and are, in effect, being funded by individual homebuyers as opposed to the Government of Canada.

Bill C-285 would lock the government and Parliament into a very rigid formula that would circumvent, not only Parliament's direction but also do it at the expense of first time homebuyers and those purchasing mortgage insurance.

It is for these reasons that I cannot support the bill. We cannot use moneys collected from premiums made by first time homebuyers and use those funds for social housing objectives or any other objectives for that matter. Those types of objectives should be made by Parliament and by appropriation from this House where everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the process and actually have a vote because in the end it is the taxpayer that is responsible.

[November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that the member for Davenport and his party failed to do anything about the number of people who are in Canada illegally except watch their numbers grow over 13 years.

We also recognize that the former Liberal government left a backlog of over 800,000 people waiting to come here through legitimate channels. We deal every day with the former Liberal government's failure to make immigration and labour programs work for Canadians and for Canada.

Canada's new government and Canadians also recognize that the solution to these failings is not to declare an amnesty to say the rules no longer apply. Canadians and their new government respect fairness and the rule of law. Amnesty would be patently unfair to the thousands of people who seek to come to Canada every year and are prepared to follow the rules.

Instead, Canada's new Conservative government is working to find ways to address labour shortages and encourage responsible and responsive immigration. This work is well under way and many groups and stakeholders will be part of that process, but we are not prepared to embrace a stopgap measure that compromises the basic principles of the rule of law.

[November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt. This member has raised the fact that the system is flawed and needs to be fixed. The Liberals had 13 years to do something about it and failed.

Canadians see the strong and growing economy under the new Conservative government. So robust is Canada's economy that employers in some regions and for some industries are contending with labour shortages that they long ago warned the old Liberal government were coming.

Canada's new government is working to address this challenge. We passed a budget and are developing policies that end the Liberal immigrant funding freezes and neglect. We are standing up for Canada by putting Canadians to work and attracting and retaining skilled foreign workers and professionals. Canadians know that this is what a responsive immigration program does.

From the outset of his appointment, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that Canada's immigration system must be geared to the needs of Canadians and to the Canadian economy. The new government increased immigration targets to their highest level in 15 years, demonstrating that Conservatives know Canada needs well educated, highly skilled people.

The minister also knows that this country was built with bricks and mortar and we need people with hard hands. Canada accepts 100,000 temporary workers a year. This summer, our government opened new temporary foreign worker units. This fall, the minister will be taking further steps to make Canada's temporary foreign worker program more responsive to labour market needs.

Temporary foreign workers get Canadian work experience. They learn our languages. They adapt to the Canadian way of life. However, under the rules the Liberals created, these workers, who have all the ingredients for success, get sent home just when they are getting settled here. As recently as this morning, the minister stated to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that he is looking for ways to give people who take part in our legitimate temporary foreign worker program the chance to call Canada home.

Yet the member for Davenport voted against our budget and against increases for immigrant literacy and language training and programs that help them integrate into our new communities. He and his party stand opposed to our government's work to improve the temporary foreign worker program.

On January 23, Canadians showed that they knew the Liberals were ineffectual when it came to dealing with immigration and labour matters. What word other than ineffectual explains how one can be chair of a Liberal caucus committee on undocumented workers but fail to get anyone in the cabinet of the former government to listen or implement a plan?

The member for Davenport and some of his colleagues say that a regularization scheme was ready to roll out the door had it not been for the fact that the Liberals lost the confidence of Canadians last November. Neither the member for Davenport nor his colleagues explained why the Liberals did not think enough of this plan or this issue to make it part of their election platform. It was a pretty thick platform with a lot of commitments, where everything was a priority. They even included old promises that they broke for 13 years.

Still, there was no mention of undocumented workers or regularization schemes. In any event, Canadians voted for a government that reflects their values and commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

The bottom line is that any scheme that gives legal status to foreign nationals who have not been authorized to immigrate to Canada and are not participating in a legitimate worker program is unfair to those who have applied to come here legally. Any scheme that rewards with legal status foreign nationals who are working in Canada without authorization undermines the rule of law, our existing employment programs for Canadians and for foreigners, and the work of Canada's new government in building a better, more responsive, legitimate foreign worker program.

[Point of Order, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I, perhaps, have a somewhat tamer point of order which is in response to a previous point raised. I want to clarify the facts referred to in the comments made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas on Tuesday, October 17, when responding to the point of order I raised in respect to Bill C-14.

Before making a ruling, I believe it is important to note that the member was incorrect when he asserted that the denial of citizenship to an adopted child was a de facto denial of an immigration visa and permanent residence status. The member made this argument to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no difference between citizenship and immigration matters so that you would conclude that the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board may hear citizenship matters.

The fact is that citizenship and permanent residency each have a very different status in law. Indeed, so substantial are the differences that each is defined in separate statutes, as are the procedures and applications relevant to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member would have you overlook the fact that there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that provides the Immigration and Refugee Board with powers or a mandate to deal with citizenship. The procedures and process for citizenship are limited to the Citizenship Act. None of those procedures or processes refer to or relate to the IRB.

More fundamental to the argument by the member for Burnaby—Douglas is his incorrect assertion that one can look past the lack of a citizenship mandate of the IRB by finding that citizenship decisions have an impact on the applicant's visa or permanent residence status application. The member, simply put, was wrong.

The fact is that denial of citizenship has little impact on permanent residence status. It is certainly incorrect to say that a denial of citizenship is a de facto denial of permanent residence. Under the current law it is possible for a permanent resident to apply for citizenship and be denied with the denial having no effect on his or her permanent residence status.

The second significant error to the member's submission that I wish to clarify is his suggestion that the incompleteness of the amendments may be addressed by regulations to Bill C-14 by stating:

...that requirements as to its operation can be delineated in regulations developed to implement the act, and therefore the amendment meets all the tests of completeness.

The member made this argument hoping to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to overlook the fact that the legislation that creates the Immigration and Refugee Board does not already recognize citizenship or a role for itself in dealing with citizenship matters.

The member's submission that a new role for the IRB can be delineated in regulations to Bill C-14 is incorrect. I gave my remarks on October 6 on the inadmissibility of an amendment that requires subsequent amendment of an act that was not before the committee. I do not propose to repeat those comments here but to simply respond to the member for Burnaby—Douglas' contention and clarify that there are no provisions in the Citizenship Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would permit the making of regulations that would change the existing mandate of the immigration appeal division.

If his submission is to be taken as being that the regulations to Bill C-14 can speak to the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division and broaden them to allow the immigration appeal division to deal with a citizenship matter, then I would refer to my previous comments on October 6 only to add that regulations to an amendment of the statute may not amend another statute that was not before the committee.

In this instance, regulations to an amendment to the Citizenship Act may not amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division.

With respect to the royal proclamation, the argument essentially was that since there would no longer be appeals under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, somehow these funds could be applied to appeals under the Citizenship Act, is somewhat circular in the sense that if there is no appeal provision in respect to the adoption provision in the Adoption Act, moneys would be saved and in order for the appeal to happen we would require additional funding which would require a royal proclamation. For that reason, also, it would not be acceptable.