:
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
These public notices include where and how to contact the Department for help in any lost citizenship issues.
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
:
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.
:
At this point, there was, I think—
[English]
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.
:
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?
:
Good afternoon, Minister. I am used to the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice. We will try to be gentle.
I was surprised with the first part, Minister. If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to go back quickly to the first part. You say you have launched an information campaign, that you have tried to reach as many people as possible, and that you have a 1-800 number. Some people live in the United States. Does the number work in that country? You can answer that question later.
Have you advertised in the United States? Some borders are very close, in some places, and people cross them. Is there a 1-800 number in the United States and elsewhere in the world?
My second question relates to me directly, Minister. I have written to you and I am very pleased to see you today. Once immigrants arrive in Canada, whether they be doctors who settle in remote areas, or butchers or bakers in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, my riding, they have to go, for security reasons, and meet with someone in your Department in Ottawa, in Gatineau or in Montreal. I could give you names, if you want.
Since there are doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists and nurses in remote regions who are immigrants, they have to close their offices and they cannot work their shifts in the hospitals. That is what is happening in regions like Abitibi-Témiscamingue.
Could your officials go into remote areas, if only once a month, to do this checking? In fact, they could do all this checking. Professors at the Université du Québec in Abitibi-Témiscamingue have to come here. They tell me that they lose three days for a five-minute meeting, simply to be sure that they are indeed the same people.
I hope that you have enough time to answer my questions.
:
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your extensive answer.
I want to turn to the issue raised by Mr. Alghabra regarding foreign credentials. This is an important issue as well. Congratulations on the announcement of the Foreign Credentials Referral Office.
I've done a little bit of homework on this issue because I think it's important, particularly for the Liberal members opposite, to hear a little bit of the history of this issue. At the end of this comment, I'm going to ask you how you were able to get the job done.
As you're aware, this is an important issue for Canadians, especially to immigrant families who have settled in this country. This issue, though, has been a pressing topic for some time and the previous Liberal government had been promising to deal with it for years. In 2002, before my tenure in the House of Commons, over five years ago the then Liberal minister of state Jean Augustine said, and I quote, “The recognition of foreign credentials is a government priority.” However, in five years the Liberals didn't get it done.
In the Speech from the Throne that same year, the Liberals promised, and I quote:
The government will work with its partners to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials and will fast-track skilled workers entering Canada with jobs already waiting for them.
Again, of course, the Liberals didn't get it done.
It's interesting to note, Minister, that Liberals made yet another unfulfilled promise in their 2004 Speech from the Throne. Let me read from this document:
The government will do its part to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience. It will also implement measures to inform prospective immigrants and encourage the acquisition of necessary credentials before they arrive in Canada.
And of course they didn't get it done then either.
Amazingly, Minister, the previous Liberal government even admitted its own failures on the recognition of foreign credentials in the Speech from the Throne to open the 38th Parliament. That's when I joined this illustrious House. In the 38th Parliament they said, and I quote:
Efforts to improve the recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience have yielded too little progress. Looking to the growing contribution that will be required from new Canadians as our population ages, this government
—the then Liberal government—
will redouble its efforts, in cooperation with the provinces and professional bodies, to help integrate them into the workforce.
Though the Liberal government admitted its failure and promised to redouble its efforts, it still didn't get it done. So, as I promised, Minister, please can you tell us, with all this Liberal inaction—I've just given a history from 2002 forward—how were you able to make some progress on this very important issue and get things done for Canadians?
I have quite a number of questions. I would like to remind the committee that the Bloc Québécois has made numerous submissions to successive governments since 2004 concerning recognition of foreign credentials. I am very pleased to officially learn that the Conservative government has backpedalled on the announcement made by Mr. Solberg about duplicating the efforts of the Government of Quebec.
I have also held consultations in Quebec. The people and organizations are happy with the initiative you are taking at present. On the other hand, there is still a question: when are you going to transfer the funds so that they can pursue their initiatives, prepare their action plan and move ahead on this subject? Quebec started well before some provinces and it is on the right track.
Premier Charest announced measures in March—I do not remember the exact date—to make it easier for immigrants to enter the labour market. We are still waiting for the funds that were previously announced by the Liberal government. The announcement was for $68 million and the organizations were not informed that this money would not be renewed. So we are still waiting for our share. That is my question about recognition of foreign credentials.
The Auditor General's report that was tabled in May told us that the government had no strategic plan for human resources outside Canada. We learned from the newspapers that there were rumours of embassy and consulate closings in some regions of the country. We also learned that the government was targeting some continents more than others in terms of attracting permanent residents. Does Citizenship and Immigration have a plan in that regard? Do this Department's offices abroad have the same human resources problem as the Department of Foreign Affairs?
This brings me to a question about Quebec. What resources are you allocating for processing Quebec's cases? This is an area that is under shared jurisdiction. What measures are being taken to honour and to move toward the 25% to which we are entitled?
I have another question on the same subject. How does the Department determine the unit costs of the various immigration services? How do you determine the cost of a temporary visa, a student visa, a work permit, or a permanent resident visa? You may not have figures at present, but you could provide them to the committee later.
I am concerned about the size of the backlog. What are you doing to transfer the large amounts we charge immigrants? Where do those funds go at the end of the year? Are you charging more money to provide the services than what they cost you?
I have one last question that relates to the overall case management system. If you do not have time to answer, you can do it in writing. Through an access to information request, I have received a report setting out the architecture of the system. Of the reports found in that architecture, which ones are currently available? Is the Department experiencing a delay in delivering the system?
:
Thank you for the question, and I do appreciate you standing in today.
We've actually achieved quite a lot. The previous government introduced a tax, if you like, of almost $1,000 per newcomer to Canada. We cut that in half. This is money that's used to help newcomers integrate into Canadian society. Whereas those levels had been frozen for almost a decade, we added $307 million of new money. That's good news.
We've made it possible for the first time for university students to work off campus for up to 20 hours a week. Prior to that they could work on campus, but we want to help them get involved in their communities, expand their work experience, and make them more valuable employees in the future.
We've also made it possible for temporary foreign workers and for the self-same university students with experience to apply under certain conditions to stay in Canada, apply for their permanent residence from within Canada. No longer will they have to leave and make application and then come back.
As well, we've improved and streamlined the temporary foreign worker program, making it more responsive by opening up special offices in the west to help employers. We've worked with the provinces, with B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, and we're in the process with others, on making lists of occupations under pressure. These are occupations where we know there's a shortage of workers. So when employers come looking for a labour market opinion and ask can they bring someone in, and we're saying no, you can skip that step and go find your people and bring them over. We're accelerating the responsiveness to the labour market needs.
So we've done a lot of things. We've also brought in Bill to help adoption and to help adopted children become Canadian citizens more readily. We've introduced Bill , which is to help protect and keep newcomers to Canada from becoming sexually exploited or abused or subject to human trafficking, and then today I just announced that we want to bring forth further legislation, amendments to the Citizenship Act, to help.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Let me just say to Mr. Batters, we certainly don't need a history lesson from somebody who has been to three meetings. Many of us have been here for many meetings. Many Conservative members had great experience. The fact of the matter is, what the Conservative government said while they were in opposition they totally contradicted when they came into government.
Minister, countries are opening up their citizenship. You only have to look to the European Union; you only have to look to what Australia has done. It seems to me we're closing up shop in Canada. We had one gentleman, Senator Roméo Dallaire, who referred to the bureaucratic terrorists in the system when he was asked what the problem is with lost Canadians. That is the best description I have heard in all my years on Parliament Hill when I was frustrated by the bureaucracy.
Minister, of the five members on the committee, only one has had previous experience and only one has a significant population of immigrants in their riding. You and your predecessor fall into the same category. And this is the Conservative Party that was supposed to be sensitive to new Canadians.
Minister, knowledgeable people dealt with the policy on revocation. A former critic who was the most knowledgeable person in your department put it very correctly in her statements when she was here, and she was a lawyer.
There isn't anybody on Parliament Hill who likes war criminals or wants war criminals in Canada. That's not what this issue is about.
Minister, if you believe you are dealing with war criminals, I issue you a challenge in front of the media to go outside this room and name two war criminals you took citizenship away from. If you and your deputy minister go out there and make that statement, name names, I dare say you'll be in court so quickly your head will spin.
You did one thing that's somewhat of an improvement, and that is you now have finally conceded that you're going to try to do a new citizenship act. I will assist you and I think all the members of the committee will assist you. I also ask you to call on the Conservative members who have had experience on this committee, who have heard the witnesses, who have made the cross-Canada trips listening to witnesses. I think that is very, very important.
Minister, there's a gentleman by the name of Charles Bosdet who offered to assist in the drafting of a new citizenship act. He is very, very knowledgeable, and I certainly hope you take advantage of that.
I would like you to provide this information to me, because you have a lot of leaks in your department. To their credit, a lot of civil servants are unhappy with how that department is run. One of the things I found out is that you cancelled $4.9 million within the department to celebrate citizenship. I want to get that report in front of the committee.
The other one is that when CBC Radio was doing its due diligence in terms of—
This is a real live example of what's happened on the committee. When the minister wants to be constructive and wants to hear suggestions on how we can improve the system, we get very partisan and refer to those who are carrying out the laws and regulations as bureaucratic terrorists. In light of what's happening in the world today I think it's shameful, it's disrespectful, and it's totally out of order. Someone who has been around for that long in Parliament should know better and doesn't. It's unfortunate that's the case.
For the 13 years that the honourable member has been involved in the government that's been here, this problem has existed. They have done nothing about the problem. They absolutely have not addressed it, and he's had ample time to do it.
In the short time that the minister has been here, they have not only addressed the issue but have also taken it.... And any comments that are attributed to anyone in the department in the light of bureaucratic terrorists is simply unacceptable. It's untrue, it's unnecessary, and it's totally unfounded. I think the member should take that back and apologize. If he is an honourable member, he should do that.
Having said that, I can say this: The previous government had, for 10 or 11 years, basically frozen funding when it dealt with immigration issues and settlement issues, while this government has put $307 million, as the minister has indicated, and $13 million for the foreign credential recognition office and another $51 million for temporary foreign workers.
When we look at the estimates that we're looking at today, the dollars have been increased in every category in the immigration program--the host program, the immigrant settlement and adaptation program, and the resettlement assistance program. I think progress is being made. If this particular member wishes to be less than helpful, that's fair enough, but let's let the facts speak for themselves.
I want to direct the minister to a specific question. I know the Vietnamese community was here before this committee. They presented a very passionate and compassionate case for themselves. The previous government didn't do anything for the 100-some of them who were left stranded in the Philippines. The government didn't get the job done, as we talked about today.
They have made a very passionate case. Are you, Madam Minister, prepared to take those cases into consideration and indeed see if we can help them find their way through?