CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Michel C. Simard (Senior Citizenship Judge, Immigration and Refugee Board)

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Michel C. Simard

¹

1545

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Michel C. Simard

¹

1550

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

¹

1555

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1605

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1615

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1620

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

º

1625

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

º

1630

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1645

Mr. Art Hanger

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

º

1650

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

º

1655

Mr. Michel C. Simard

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 076

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues. Pursuant to Standing Order 110 and 111, we are meeting on the order in council appointment of Michel C. Simard to the position of senior citizenship judge, referred to the committee on September 15, 2003.

    Your Honour, Judge Simard, it's our pleasure to invite you before the committee. As you know, we've had your predecessor here before on a couple of occasions, especially when reviewing Bill C-18. I think in the course of our duties as parliamentarians it's important for us to get to know the chief administrative people of the various departments that Citizenship and Immigration deal with, namely, citizenship court.

    I can tell you over the course of the number of months and years that we as a committee have looked at citizenship, Judge Simard...you are extremely blessed with some absolutely great appointments of people who do a fantastic service for our country in showing newcomers and new citizens to our country the great joy and experience they will never forget.

    As I've indicated before, I can still remember my citizenship judge back in 1963 and 1964—he used to look like you a little bit. Again, it's a moving experience. I think it's a public service that is very appreciated by all citizens, not only the ones who are born here, but the ones who become citizens of our country. It is something with which we've been very impressed.

    You should know that in our discussion and our review of Bill C-18 we talked glowingly of the function of the citizenship judge, the purpose of the ceremony, and how important it is for us to try to convince all Canadians, or those who are yet to be citizens, that they should want to get their citizenship, go through that absolutely fantastic ceremony, which I think will always remain with them for a long time in their life. Citizenship is about national identity.

    We want to welcome you here. I know you might have an opening statement, and I'm sure we might have all kinds of questions for you. I hope this is the start of a working relationship between the committee and your offices and all of those good people who help you do your great function.

    Welcome.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard (Senior Citizenship Judge, Immigration and Refugee Board): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your kind words.

[Translation]

    Distinguished members of the committee,

[English]

ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. As the new senior citizenship judge, it provides me with a timely opportunity to introduce myself, and most importantly to share with you my newcomer impressions on the role of the citizenship judge, both in an uncertain legislative framework and in the changing society.

[Translation]

    So just who is this new judge, and what are his qualifications? A native of Quebec City, I graduated with a law degree from Laval University. I was then called to the Barreau du Québec, of which I am still a member in good standing.

    In 1982, the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs called on me to assist him in developing and implementing the federal Assistance Program for UFFI Homeowners, UFFI standing for urea formaldehyde foam insulation.

    One of my responsibilities was to explain the rationale for the Canadian government's policy on this issue directly to groups of UFFI homeowners across the country. I believe I fulfilled my mandate in a straightforward manner while showing respect and compassion toward those who were grappling with this problem. Something I learned from that experience was that the effects of a government action, no matter how well intentioned, can sometimes have serious consequences for citizens.

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair: Excuse me, Judge Simard, because the interpreters don't have a copy of your text, I wonder if you could just slow down a bit. I know that like Italians, Frenchmen are really passionate.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Good. I'll do my best. I will provide you with a translated copy of my presentation for committee purposes as well.

    I've served briefly at the office of the leader of the opposition. I spent four years at the Canadian Nurses Association as their public and government relations officer. I had the privilege to assist that professional association, which represented over 65% of the health care workforce, in developing and delivering its public position statements on issues such as the Meech Lake Accord, the free trade agreement, and the goods and services tax.

    For the last 12 years I was at the helm of the Healthpartners Fund, le Fonds Partenairesanté, a partnership of 16 national health charities raising funds through workplace charitable giving programs. Incidentally, the Government of Canada workplace charitable campaign, better known under the acronym GCWCC, that is now running in your offices and in the federal service in all communities of Canada owes a lot to the tenacity and the dedication of Healthpartners staff and volunteers. We worked hard to convince Canadian employers to provide their employees and retirees with donor choice, but the outcomes proved to be plentiful for them as well as for the health of Canadians.

    As you can appreciate, I have spent most of my professional life in an advocacy role. I strongly believe that the skills and experience I acquired over those years will help me to succeed in the conduct of my mandate as senior citizenship judge.

[Translation]

    I would now like to share with you my first impressions regarding the current role of citizenship judges, as well as the role set out for them in Bill C-18.

    The present responsibilities of citizenship judges are well known. Judges review and approve citizenship applications. They conduct hearings to evaluate whether the language skills, knowledge and residency requirements are met and also to determine whether departure orders apply. And finally, they preside at citizenship ceremonies and administer the taking of the oath of citizenship.

    Today, judges operate in the following environment: a total of 20 part-time and 6 full-time judges, including the senior judge, process more than 225,000 citizenship applications annually in offices in every region of the country. Of these applications, approximately 25,000 require a hearing by a citizenship judge. We preside at some 1,500 ceremonies each year.

    Bill C-18 would substantially modify our role. Some of our responsibilities would be withdrawn, but we would also have to assume new ones. The responsibility for reviewing and approving citizenship applications and conducting interviews would be given to citizenship officers. Citizenship judges would become citizenship commissioners, would continue to preside at the ceremonies and would focus on promoting citizenship and providing the Minister with advice.

    I would like to mention at this point that many judges already take it upon themselves to participate in citizenship promotion activities. Indeed, they even initiate some of these activities themselves. The willingness of judges to do more in the current context is dependent on resources that are not available, given the growing number of applications that citizenship staff and judges must process.

    When it comes to promoting citizenship, the legislative framework in which judges must work is of little importance. We will do our part because we are aware of the pressing need in this area, both among recent arrivals and among longstanding citizens. However, for the promotion activities to be effective and retain their dignity and solemnity, the Department must allocate sufficient funds and resources for this purpose, regardless of the outcome of Bill C-18.

[English]

    Active citizenship promotes belonging, and a sense of belonging promotes active citizenship. It is the role of citizenship judges to provide the contextual background for this mutually reinforcing team when presiding at citizenship ceremonies and by seeking out opportunities within their local communities to promote values that constitute citizenship.

    You may be interested to know that the citizenship judges are looking forward to developing a strategic framework on citizenship promotion at their next annual conference to be held in Ottawa in November 2003.

    In closing, may I say that as a community we want to be ready to play our part as proactive ambassadors in the promotion of active citizenship and in building an inclusive Canadian identity.

    Thank you. Merci.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Simard.

    Questions? Diane.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Congratulations, Mr. Simard, on your appointment. It's a new area of endeavour for you. I see that you have many credentials on your résumé, so we look forward to having you in this position.

    You spoke to us about the upcoming changes in the Citizenship Act—maybe, we're not sure. I wonder if you could outline for the committee your own views and ideas, because you're a leader in this area now, of how commissioners or citizenship judges can promote citizenship in Canada.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: If we have access to resources.... It is happening right now. The thing is that we could do far more with appropriate resources. I will give you an example from the on-the-ground perspective.

    You have a judge who is working in an office, and under the current legislation he has basically a monopoly on one segment of the action that is performed at the citizenship office. The only thing the judge can do that nobody else can do is sign all those demands, in order to approve them, and also conduct hearings. You cannot ask a member of the Order of Canada to do those hearings, but you can ask a member of the Order of Canada to perform a ceremony, for example.

    These judges are very well connected with their community. They know where the needs are. They are performing some of their citizenship ceremonies, but they would also like to seek out and get into schools, into high schools, meet the rotary club, the social clubs, in order to talk to Canadian citizens about the value of citizenship.

    I will tell you something. Those immigrants who are coming into the pipeline and want to become Canadian citizens have no choice but to basically look at the credentials they have to get in order to claim the right of becoming a Canadian citizen. I can assure you that when I first saw the exam we make these people pass, I wondered how many Canadians in a room who are born Canadian and have lived here for 20, 30 years could pass that exam with success. They know a great deal, and they know about the value, although we reinforce that, and it's a job that I think we are doing pretty well right now.

    The job we have to do on the immigration spectrum is to convince our current citizens who live here that they also have an active role to play as citizens, which is inclusive of an obligation to open their arms to those immigrants and to let them know we need them. We not only need them to have our schools remain open or to have our economy running, but we want to build something with them based on human rights, based on peace, based on freedom, based on justice. This is the job we need to do, and it is one of the big challenges we have for future years.

    I think at the end we are going to be in a position to see the two communities merging better, and I think it will greatly help integration and settlement of the new immigrants who come to Canada. But, again, this is possible whatever the legislative framework we have.

    It's true that right now in the current law there's nothing that gives us a specific mandate about promotion in the outside, but it has been done since 1947 by citizenship judges. It is nothing new. They never needed an article or a section of the law to do so. They were doing that.

    The thing is we talk about resources allowing us to do that well, to have someone who is able to do a bit of advance work in contacting school boards and making sure we develop a package that could be sent to school boards in preparation of an exchange in citizenship, in preparation of what we call the reconfirmation of citizenship ceremonies that are performed by Canadians like you and me. These take time, and in order to do that and to keep the noble character of it, you need to have some level of preparation. It doesn't take that much, but that little thing is not there right now in most of the communities, as the judge is basically assigned to deal with his hearings and to clear the docket at some point. It is to the point that some of our judges are not conducting citizenship ceremonies, because they are concentrating on bringing the inventory down. That's a thing I would like to see changed over the course of my mandate, but for that I will need the help of everyone.

    We're ready to start our action even without resources, because I know government quite well. They fund when they see results. It's a question of the egg and the hen. You ask for funds and they say we do not have any, but if you are able to do something even without funds to start with and show results with it, the money might come. This is the thing we're going to discuss when we have our annual meeting together.

    I hope I handled your question properly.

¹  (1550)  

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, that was a good answer.

    I see in the new act that you would be responsible for the professional conduct of citizenship commissioners. I assume that under present legislation you have a similar duty.

    I just wonder if you could tell us this. We're all MPs. We've dealt with citizenship judges. There are some excellent people out there who are so well thought of by the communities they work in and there are some who are less effective. What in your view would need to be done to enhance the effectiveness of citizenship judges in their present duties, not in promoting citizenship but just in their duties of presiding over ceremonies? Some are quite inspirational when they speak; others are, shall we say, not very inspirational.

    Have you a plan to enhance the effectiveness of citizenship judges in the way they preside and the way they interact with new citizens?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: We currently have training. Our training program is a continuum. It follows a variety of steps that start with self-training for the judge when he is nominated and receives his training package. We make sure the judges work for a couple of days with people who are already judges and can act as mentors to give them an idea of what hearings are all about, of what a residence case might be.

    After, we have formal training. Step three is four days' formal training in Ottawa. Once you have your formal training, you're considered to be a judge who can start working in your office to do the day-to-day business of the judge's function. You are prepared enough to conduct a ceremony in a very efficient way.

    Now, it does not finish there. We have reassessment. It is my job as senior judge to visit all those places to see those judges at work, to accompany them in their offices when they're doing hearings, to look at their ceremonies, and to provide advice or counsel on ways of beefing up or on words not to use in certain circumstances.

    We have that kind of continuum process in our office.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That's good. Good luck to you.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much. Welcome to the committee. I'm sorry I was late.

    I have a couple of questions for you. Earlier you referred to the book that new immigrants will have to pass. You mentioned that some of us, not me, but some people born here in this country, might fail the test.

    What do you suggest we do with the book? Should we continue with it, or change it, make it much more simple?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: No, I was not suggesting the book was...I think the book contains essentials about geography, about history, also about the--

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Minerals in the country, where we have gold, where we have diamonds--

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Well, it's not that specific in the book. It gives a sense.... I can send you a copy of the new one for your review.

    I think for a person who wants to become Canadian, to know that, for example, the Maritimes have an economy based on forest products and fish is something that ought to be known at some point. To know that most Canadians are working in services is also something useful.

    You have to think of that exam and those who developed it as finding a fair way to measure the performance and the knowledge of the person who wants to get Canadian citizenship.

    As it stands, I find the book pretty neat and pretty correct.

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No, I'm not saying--

    The Chair: He could give you a copy of the test and the book to see if you can pass it, Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I think we should start with the chairman.

    The Chair: I have done it. I passed with 90 points.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Out of 200?

    The Chair: Out of 100.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Okay.

    My other question is, we have Bill C-18 now, and we'd like to change the word “judge” to “commissioner”. I see in the statement by the Privy Council that you're a senior judge. The next time you come here, you'll probably be a senior commissioner.

    The Chair: That's not necessarily so.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I said “maybe” next time.

    The Chair: I just thought I'd correct you. You can't be that assuming.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: It may be that you'll be called the senior commissioner. How do you feel about that?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: You're asking me my personal feeling?

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Yes.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Well, I had a chance to discuss it with my colleagues, and I can provide you with an outline of our collective position this way. Some of us, and I'm included in the pack, think the title of “judge”, for what we want to do, provides us with a kind of solemn credential. I know the fact that the title might have been used without any humility in the past is probably the consequence of what we have today.

    It's true we are not deciding the fate of a case that involves two people. It's generally a person who is in front of you and the state that is in the shadow, a presence in the file. When you get into a school, when you get into a ceremony, the word “judge”, I think, positively impresses a lot of people.

    I don't know about “commissioner”, and I don't want to diminish that title. There are fairly important people around this capital who are commissioners and are very important persons with very high responsibilities. That has been expressed to me through the kinds of consultations I've had with my colleagues. I can tell you I don't think anybody will go hang themselves in the attic if the title “commissioner” is imposed upon us. We will just do our jobs and remain garants of solemnity by our actions and our promotions, basically.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you.

    The other point is you also mentioned reaffirmation. I remember I was here in 1994--Art Hanger and I were original members of the immigration committee--and I think it was in 1994 that we had a reaffirmation ceremony in the Hall of Honour, with a Supreme Court judge. The minister at the time was Sergio Marchi.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Judge Lamer, probably?

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I don't remember the judge's name.

    But what can you do as a senior judge to promote reaffirmation? I think reaffirmation ceremonies are very important, especially for those born in this country. They never went through the system of taking an oath of allegiance to Canada. I think it's very emotional, just as emotional as when someone becomes a new Canadian.

    What can you do, or what can we do together, to encourage reaffirmation ceremonies in the country?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I think it starts with the promotion of citizenship values. Once you promote them and explain them well, I can't think of any Canadian who would object to doing a reaffirmation of citizenship. What are those citizenship values all about? They are about peace, freedom, and justice.

    If you look at each of them...peace.... Whatever community you come from, we commit ourselves as a society and as a country to live together in harmony and to help each other. If you look at justice or freedom, well, freedom in our country is the fact that you can be of a certain religion or political party, you can have opinions that are diametrically opposed to anyone else's, and in the meantime, you're willing to fight in order to keep your opponent's freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If you look at justice, we are committed to the fact that we should respect the law. We should also respect the sense of social solidarity among ourselves. It's not that Canadian to look over the fact that there are people without anything living in the street.

    And these are explained--explained to the youth, explained to the people--as what Canadian values and Canadian citizenship are all about. I think if we promote them and position them well, we will be in a position to get reaffirmation of those values. Whatever the future of this country might be, if we always cherish those values, we will be able to live in peace, freedom, and justice together.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madeleine.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Good day, Mr. Simard. On reading your resumé, I was greatly reassured to see that you spent a number of years involved with the Canadian Nurses Association. Since I know this field quite well, I would imagine that you spent your time there fine-tuning your values of justice and compassion.

    In your presentation, you talked about civic values. I checked in your resumé to see what your field of expertise was. A lawyer is not that much different from a doctor. It's not so much that. However, I did note that you volunteered your services as a minor hockey coach. From that I deduce that you believe it's important to serve as a role model for young people to help them attain their goals. That must be where you draw your sense of civic duty.

    You also chaired the 50th anniversary festivities honouring the Richelieu clubs which, as we all know, are very involved at the community level.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: The francophone community, that is.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's right. You have served on the board of directors of several community agencies and you have also been involved in politics.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: That's right.

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: To my mind, you've gone full circle. Being a citizen means assuming responsibilities at all of these different levels.

    In your presentation, you stressed the pressing need in certain areas. I'd like to hear more from you on that score, and also more about your political commitment. Ours is a vast country. As you doubtless know, I represent a sovereigntist party. I would imagine that you don't intend to be partisan when it comes to your political commitment.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Madam, the mere fact that you are here as the elected member of a democratic assembly, given that you hold certain views to which you are legitimately entitled, is a tribute to Canada and its citizens. Partisanship won't be a problem with me.

    I can tell you that I am prepared to take on anyone who attempts to stifle your right to express your opinion as a democratically elected official. I believe in the principles of fundamental justice.

    The Agha Khan once said that Canada was a country that had succeeded in making tolerance an institution. I would even go so far as to say that we have institutionalized understanding among different peoples. Of course, we don't do everything perfectly, but we do manage to get along and in a way that can serve as a model for emerging democracies.

    Having said that, you asked me about pressing needs. I'll be blunt. The needs are most pressing in the area of citizenship and immigration and Canadian citizens may not be doing enough. After all, we do have a role to play.

    Immigration officers working abroad may approach a Black African national who speaks French and who holds several degrees. They may tell that individual : “Come to Canada. Our country needs you”. They speak quite truthfully. These same Black Africans ultimately apply to immigrate so that they can build new lives for themselves in Quebec, Manitoba or Alberta. I'm giving you the example of a black person from Africa or from francophone Africa, but I could just as easily be talking about an Indian or Punjabi who speaks English. The same applies.

    These persons arrive in the country --I'll use the example of a person from francophone Africa - and settle in a province other than Quebec. When they try to enrol in an educational institution, they're told that their status doesn't entitle them to do that. They end up have to do battle with school boards to have access to French-language schools. In my view, it's critically important to explain certain things and to heighten public awareness of the need for political change.

    That's one need. Another is the fact that some new, highly educated immigrants who want to integrate into Canadian society end up driving cabs because for all kinds of reasons, professional associations want to protect their field's exclusivity. I think there's a lot of work to do on that front as well.

    We can't change things overnight, but I do think we can do a great deal to increase public awareness. We can promote values and set an example for young people and adults alike to make them understand what they should be doing as citizens. We're asking people to be loyal to Canada, but that loyalty goes both ways. I'm a loyal citizen, but once I've proven my loyalty to my country, I expect to receive some support in return once I've become a citizen and to be allowed to be a citizen in every way.

    I attended a settlement conference in Calgary. I listened to a Rwandan national say that it was one thing to be executed in his own country, but it was quite another to die a slow death while watching your every hope fade and not having your qualifications recognized by your adoptive country. We need to remember these words and to say to ourselves that we can always do better.

    If the justice community can do more -- and I believe it wants to do more because this ties in with the values that will make us a stronger society -- then by all means it should move in this direction. All Canadian citizens stand to reap the benefits of such action.

º  (1605)  

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have another question, Mr. Chairman.

    In response to Mr. Assadourian's query, you mentioned that citizenship judges were somewhat “disappointed” about the possibility that the title of judge, which lent them a certain amount of prestige, would be dropped in favour of the designation of commissioner. I have no doubt that if current judges become commissioners and continue to perform their duties with flair, then they will still enjoy the same measure of prestige.

    Under the proposed legislation, some responsibilities are being taken away from judges and are being reassigned to others. The bill talks about the new commissioners providing advice to the Minister. I'd appreciate an answer to the following question in your capacity of legal expert.

    As you know, Bill C-18 is currently before the committee. We have started our clause-by-clause study and a number of the bill's provisions are proving to be problematic. As a legal expert, do you have any concerns about the provisions respecting citizenship revocation, no possibility of appeal, unknown grounds and so forth? If you do in fact have some questions, do you intend to broach the matter with the minister and advise him on the consequences of citizenship revocation with virtually no chance of appeal?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I understand that the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec have made representations on this issue. I am currently looking into the matter. I have to say that I have yet to firm up my position, as I had many other matters to attend to. However, I can tell you that part of my job at this time is to provide advice to the minister and if I will certainly let him know if I detect anything out of the ordinary.

    Having said that, I play an advisory role, while decision-making is the minister's bailiwick. However, I have no intention of shirking my responsibilities. If I witness a situation that in good conscience I must question or denounce, I will do so, but any decisions will be made by the minister, who will assume his responsibilities, while I continue to assume mine.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair: Jerry.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I know under the legislation that we're looking at this point in time the role of a citizenship judge is diminished considerably--in my view, at least. Would you comment on that? I'm not really sure what the added responsibilities are.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: You have a good question there.

    I don't think we can talk fairly about added responsibility. I think it's a shift of focus more than added responsibility, because we're talking about more promotion. We already do promotion.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's one of the areas we've heard loud and clear from your--

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: That's my perspective. Since 1947 we've had that promotional responsibility, and you have that in the reaffirmation process. Reaffirmation is a process that is directed to Canadian citizens. That's promotion. That's the end product of the promotion of the judge, to conduct a reaffirmation of citizenship ceremony.

    About the so-called loss of responsibilities, if you look at it from a very practical and pragmatic point of view, most of the hearings are based on language knowledge, knowledge of Canada, and residence case. Bill C-18 deserves the credit of clarifying a very, very delicate question about interpretation of residence in Canada, and I'm not going to discredit Bill C-18 if it would be only for that.

    I think it solves immeasurable and fairly important problems, because our poor judges are basically judging on residence and basically have the choice between three types of interpretation, as we speak: a very open one, a very liberal one; one that is kind of in the middle, which we call the Koo decision; and a very, very strict one, which is, I think, the Muldoon decision. There's Muldoon, there's the Koo decision, and there's also Thurlow, which is fairly open.

    Those decisions could be appealed by the minister if the minister isn't happy with them. Then they go to the Federal Court. In the Federal Court they basically divide themselves in two: those who want the people to have an effective presence of 1,095 days over the four years preceding their application and those who say, well, no, there is also an objective test to perform. But for the judge and for the applicant, the end result of the case is going to depend a great deal on the people you meet at the hearings, in the first case, with the judge, and also, if there's an appeal, it will depend on the judge of the Federal Court.

    It creates a great deal of uncertainty, and in all fairness to our judges, we never had a ruling of, let's say, an appeal court that would say to the Federal Court, “No, no, this is the way we go”, and then we go.

    Bill C-18 provides you with that. It's clear now: a six-year material period and 1,095 days, which means you have your two feet in Canada for three years out of six...instead of three years out of four, but you can go out to study or you can go on holidays, and we're more flexible.

    There's no more of that now. It's 1,095 days over a six-year period. That is the period we examine, or that the civil servants will examine now, and that will be pretty obvious, pretty easy to determine.

    I personally don't think you need to have judges do so. It streamlined the problem. If you call it a loss of responsibility, I don't consider under the terms of Bill C-18 on residence that it's a big responsibility.

    The thing about signing the document is that they arrive at the office with 150 forms and say, well, these people pass. They passed the exam, they speak the language, there is no residence problem, and then you sign. Is it a responsibility that we basically want to fight for? I don't know. Is it something a civil servant or a government officer could do? I think so.

    Then there's the knowledge and the language. With the tests we have now, knowledge and language are pretty straightforward. We have developed language benchmarks in both official languages.

    With reasonable people...basically, we have to think of the team. We are judges, but we work with people, and these people are also competent. I know these government officers. They are doing their job. They are assisting us. I think well-trained government officers will be able to carry out those functions, and I think our time will be better used to go out and talk about citizenship to rotary clubs and to everyone than to do those kinds of tasks.

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: There have been comments about underserviced areas. Could you comment on that?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Most of the demand we have, or the big bulk of applications we receive, is now concentrated in three areas: Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal.

    The way the machine works, from the date an immigrant lands and the date he wants to get his citizenship and do the oath of citizenship, we need to feed that machine some demands. As we speak now, the delay for a person making an application is about 12 months; there's a 12-month delay between the day of application and the day you are invited to the citizenship ceremony. That's about the case.

    We have 26 judges, and they are mobile. When we see surplus inventory in an area, for example, and slack in another, we call the judge who is in the slack area and basically send him to help his colleagues clear the docket in the other areas.

    I cannot talk of a crisis right now. It's true there are regions that are a little bit more stressed than others, but they are currently able to basically meet the demands as we speak.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: How many citizenship judges are there in Canada?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: We have 26 right now. Six of them are full-time, including myself, and 20 are part-time.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: Do you feel there is an even enough distribution, or that they can be mobile enough, to cover the regions of Canada in an adequate way?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: If we basically want to look at doing a proper job in promotion, we will have to contemplate the possibility of having more judges going and having more judges for more regions as well, because you have to develop a balance within the regions too. I'm not suggesting we should have a judge in every village, but we should think of having more judges.

    If we basically want to undertake a promotional program for citizenship values, it should be a task that does not only regard citizenship and immigration, but should also become an intergovernmental task. We're working to explore avenues with Heritage Canada, Elections Canada, the RCMP, and a lot of Canadian agencies--the people who are involved in these things--to basically develop a program that could be applied and from whom we can get resources to improve the program we want to provide.

    But once again, that program does not depend.... To do it, you do not need Bill C-18 or Bill C-84. It's a matter of political will, because we can currently do so, which has been the case since 1947.

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: I just have one final question.

    Would it be reasonable to work with the provinces and develop some type of educational program? From your perspective, every young person in Canada would have a course; it doesn't have to be a major one, but just cover the fundamentals of good citizenship and why good citizenship is important. Could we not foster that type of thing, working with the structure that is there and without adding to our staff, and promote citizenship in a much stronger way?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: That's an interesting avenue, but I think judges provide something a curricular program will not.

    There are a lot of provinces that, at some point, do what they call “citizenship classes”. That's the case with my children at École Jean-de-Brébeuf in Hull. They have a pretty good program in the province of Quebec. They start at grade three, where they talk about respect, because they want to address the problem of taxage or bullying.

    When you're able to meet the teacher, as I did at my school.... We do not have a law, but I did it and went to the school with the book and the product we have. But it takes time; I did it on my time, because I know a lot of people at school. But if I wanted to go to any of them, I would probably need the help of somebody who would call the board to organize it, make sure we have a flag, and then provide them with a package telling them what to do in order to organize a very well-run ceremony. That is basically how we can mesh with them.

    If we are able to launch this through the responsible departments of the Government of Canada—I'm thinking of Heritage Canada—I think the political landscape might be favourable these days to think about talking of those things without making it an exercise in political propaganda. But in talking about values, we will render a service to the whole nation.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you, and congratulations.

    The Chair: Mr. Hanger.

    Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too would like to offer my congratulations, Mr. Simard, on your appointment. I've had some time to read over your bio here. It's quite interesting, actually. Certainly you've been involved in a number of areas, including some volunteer work, I gather. You also worked for the federal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Honourable André Ouellet. For how many years did you work for his office?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Well, I worked with André Ouellet until the day the Conservatives kicked us out in 1984. There's no secret.

    Mr. Art Hanger: I wasn't looking for the secret, but....

    So you've had quite an experience, then, a cross-section of activities. I see too that you are in the Quebec bar. Are you presently serving?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: A member of the Quebec bar? Yes, I did practise law for about two years in the city of Quebec.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

    It says here that you “present cases to tribunals of civil, criminal and administrative jurisdictions”.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Yes.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Are you referring to a civil court, a criminal court...?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Basically, I represented clients in front of the Quebec Superior Court, the civil section of it; at the provincial criminal court; and at some administrative tribunals, quasi-judicial bodies such as the Workers' Compensation Board and stuff like that.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

    I see you've also been active in the Liberal Party of Canada.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Oh, of course.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Well, it's always nice to know what the background is.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: But if you look at it well, you'll see that I was not always in agreement with my party line, and I basically stepped over it from time to time. I'll tell you that I'm a free man, and I want to remain free. At some point you have to have disagreements.

    You can rest assured that just being the member of a political party doesn't necessarily mean you've sold your soul.

    Mr. Art Hanger: There certainly has been an opportunity for more free expression lately than there has been in years past. So you're right, I think there's a new and revitalized feeling, amongst the politicians at least, that they can express themselves more openly.

    But, no, I think it's important...even as an appointed person, you know you're going to sit in a bench of authority, and to have a certain freedom I hope would be paramount in your thinking. There have been situations in the past where that hasn't always been the case. You may or may not be aware of that. It can happen.

    Too, you're obviously going to be communicating with the minister. Exactly how is that going to occur, your communication with the minister?

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: If I need to talk to the minister, my access to him?

    Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I have what they used to call an arm's-length relationship with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. To reassure you, I can tell you that right now neither he nor his office have been at all intrusive in my day-to-day work, and they have been really, really open to my comments. I can also tell you that I have easy access to his office, even just to tell him that I find a piece of legislation or a project to be right or something I have some reservations about.

    So it's an open relationship, and I will manage to keep it that way, as far as I'm concerned.

    Mr. Art Hanger: I'm just looking at the act and the duties of the citizenship commissioner. It does clearly point out here that there's actually a substantial involvement or connection there. I'm just kind of curious about what form that takes.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: It is not written in the current law right now, but exactly the same type of meaning is included in my description of authorities.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Are you accountable to the minister?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I am accountable to the minister, since I'm an order in.... Of course I am accountable. I am nominated at pleasure, which means they could decide to get rid of me tomorrow, if they want. And I think that's the case with most of our judges. These are nominations that are performed à titre amovible; in English, “removable”.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

    The Chair: As long as it's a pleasurable experience.

    Mr. Art Hanger: No, I think these are important points. I'm not sure if your seat is considered quasi-judicial or not. I'm not quite sure how it's defined.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: It's a very strange definition. I'll tell you, I did examine it from the legal perspective, and to tell you the truth, on the arm's-length and the quasi-judicial role, yes, we have the discretion right now, through the current legislation, such that we are not pushed, and should not be pushed, by anyone from the department about recommending or deciding one way or another. It will be our decision, and nobody should interfere with that, although there is an appeal process that the minister could use if he's not happy.

    I did try to explain what the current situation was, especially on residence issues, in terms of potential problems for judges. I think it's unfair, because the appeal judge, if you get to Federal Court...you might be a good guy or a bad guy, and vice versa.

    You know, as far as the rest is concerned, the minister himself does not represent in front of us when an applicant comes to us. The applicant comes alone. The hearing process is kind of, “There is a difficulty with your file,” and we inform them that we haven't been able to pass them for various reasons--their knowledge, or the exam they failed, or their residence, or they missed days, or there are stamps in their passport that suggest they probably misinterpreted the questionnaire and we have to examine it. So it's not, so to speak, the same....

    If you look at the IRB, for example, you have a person who could be represented by a lawyer, and you have the lawyer of the department representing the minister, arguing about things where you have to have a clear-cut decision. This is more a quasi-judicial role, what we're doing right now.

    And I'm not crying about the fact that Bill C-18 is basically sending that to civil servants, because I can assure you, civil servants could accomplish that work in a very, very efficient and honest way.

    The Chair: I'm happy you brought that question up, because that's the line of my questioning, if I may.

    Mr. Simard, I'm very impressed with your passion and I think your understanding of the job function as it relates to the value that judges and the government place on citizenship, because it is a continuum of immigration to citizenship, even people born in this country.

    With regard to Bill C-18, while it tries to define regulatory and legal matters, when we're talking about citizenship, I think the United States Supreme Court says that citizenship is perhaps the most important property right a person can achieve. Therefore, to take it away...and I know it's not your function to talk about annulment and revocation, as Madeleine talked to you about, but I'll cloak it in this issue.

    I like your vision, and I understand what you want to do, but I'm not as convinced as you are, and neither are our witnesses at our committee, that the role of a judge should be given to the role of a bureaucrat to determine some very, very judging and humanistic variables. Nothing in life is black and white, and members of Parliament know that full well.

    So when it comes to the question of residency, it doesn't matter whether or not it's the old definition of 1,095 days and four years, or 1,095 days and six years. We're going to define it much better for you in a way that I think is much easier. But at the end of the day there has to be someone who may have to take some variable circumstances into consideration.

    Let me just ask you, with the different Federal Court jurisdictions that you just talked about, what directions are you essentially giving your judges now? Which course should they take with regard to--

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I'm not allowed to give them any direction. I'm just telling them, “Be coherent: when you start analysing a case and you strongly believe, in your interpretation, it's Thurlow, do Thurlow, but do it from start to finish. If you believe it's Koo, do Koo, from start to finish.”

    Who am I to influence their discretion? They are an independent, quasi-judicial body.

    The Chair: And they have to write their decisions. It has to be defensible either to the minister, who can appeal it, or to a federal court. I understand that.

    The problem is...and I don't want to get into it now, because Bill C-18 will discuss whether or not you take some of the judging issues out of the equation in terms of language, residency, and knowledge of the country, all by way of testing. At the end of the day you might only interview 25% of the time, but 25% of the time may very well be important.

    The other issue that I think is important, too, is annulment. As you know, Bill C-18 says we may want to take it away from you if in fact you've lied or misrepresented on your application. Some people are saying maybe you ought to take a little longer at the front end of the process--eye-to-eye contact--as to whether there is any question of impropriety, before you're given citizenship, not after you've been given it and we want to take it away from you.

    But I want to ask you about this, because I think you have major challenges in your department or in citizenship. There is a backlog of over 100,000 people who want citizenship in this country. You are nine months backlogged in the system. You have judges--I think the question is of 20 part-time and 6 full-time--and yet people are having to wait nine months.

    Tell us what the problem is, because from the time a person puts an application into Sydney and they get around to doing whatever they do, to the time it gets to the local office, it is unacceptable that it should take someone nine months to get their citizenship, after spending three, four, five, or six years here.

    I know you've only been on the job since September, but I can tell you that this is a major, major problem in every jurisdiction in the country. Across the board, people are lined up and waiting for months and months. This committee has been very supportive in terms of resources, because we know that without people you can't process that paper. I don't care whether or not you call them commissioners and I don't care whether or not you call them judges; it's the job that needs to get done.

    I'm telling you, over the course of the past year or two, there have been many thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who just can't get through the system, and it isn't going to get any better. So tell me what your impressions so far are in terms of how we get from A to Z in the most efficient, fair, and effective way.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: There are a lot of people involved in that process, and the backlog you are referring to is mainly due to the fact that there are tons of departments and tons of organizations that request security clearance from the RCMP, and pray to the Lord every night that they do not solve their problems too fast, because if you look at the continuum of citizenship, it's like a pipe with water in it. Now the flow is pretty good. We have a problem, and the water is bulking at the RCMP for fingerprints and for safety clearance. If they would basically solve their problems tomorrow and become super-efficient, the downstream people who have to streamline those things will be in crisis.

    Having said that, I heard recently that the RCMP are reviewing their system. They are bringing in a solution, but the fact that we have a backlog is mainly due to their being overwhelmed with requests for safety clearance, for this and for that, and with citizenship, it has that direct effect.

    The other thing I would like to comment on is your reference to the things the judge could bring. You are going to examine Bill C-18 vis-à-vis the current legislation. If I can offer you a tip on the way to evaluate the possibility or not, basically ask yourself, “What room do they have under the current legislation to exercise discretion?” We are the champions of discretion.

    What I told you before about those things was that I personally feel that there is not that much room for discretion now, with Bill C-18, as it stands, but if you decide otherwise, the question you should ask yourself is, “What room could that person have to exercise discretion in making a decision?”

    If there's too much room, I agree with you that maybe you do not need a government officer to do so.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Isn't that the very reason why the government wants to take away total discretion from an independent person called a judge and leave it up to the bureaucracy to determine whether or not you meet residency requirements, whether or not you can speak either language very well, or whether or not there's a knowledge of Canada? It wants to take away all discretion and let some bureaucrat and/or some automatic system do it, as opposed to the humanizing aspect of citizenship, which is about talking about the value of what that citizenship means.

    There is discretion, and we know that other judges don't like you to have the word “judge”. It causes them some sort of insecurity all of a sudden that you're a citizenship judge, because you do judge. Perhaps within the system there ought to be some discretion in judging. That's what the committee has been debating for a year or two. We may decide to keep you as judges and to heck with what the government bureaucracy says, because that's what Canadians have told us so far, and every witness who's come before our committee.

    We need to understand what the real job is, because, as you said, it's of great value. But how do we process? And, yes, you can blame the RCMP--everybody's blaming the RCMP these days, because they have so many jobs. The RCMP is doing forensics, they're doing checks and everything else. They're doing an awful lot of work for every other department, and guess what, they're not getting the money they need in order to do it.

    Is there perhaps something within your department that you can look at, perhaps retired people who can do the security checks, fingerprints, or something like that? When a citizen is in our country, you're already checking their identity and their criminality in this country, because they wouldn't have gotten here as landed immigrants if there was a problem abroad.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Yes, but I think the fact that we basically do that for citizenship is to make sure they do not relate with the prohibition section of the law, which remains in 22(1)(c).

    Having said that, I hope I didn't lead you to believe that I was blaming the RCMP. I was basically stating facts. It is a fact that they have too many demands, and they are trying to solve the problems.

    The other thing I would like you to basically keep in mind, and I think it's fairly important, is about our role vis-à-vis the process. We are not responsible, the citizenship commission, for the citizenship office. It's CIC, the department, that is responsible for that. We have a role to play, we are part of the team, but we do not have any control. I don't think it would be fair to be held accountable for things that happen with backlogs and all that stuff. It would be our problem if the judges were not doing their job, not conducting their hearings, and it piles up because there are not enough judges to do the thing. But as far as the rest is concerned, it is something that is totally out of our control. We work as a team, we talk to each other and we facilitate our lives, but the department has a life of its own on that.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Art, Madeleine, and Sarkis.

    Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Simard, I find this conversation rather interesting, because it seems like even 10 years ago we were talking about backlogs. Backlogs still exist and here we are 10 years later. And that included not only the immigration side of things, but also citizenship. I've been very much aware, having participated in citizenship ceremonies, that there is a real backlog and an inability to be able to properly evaluate many of those applying. The caseload is such that even--if you want to call it this--an examination of the applicant is rushed through just to get the numbers down, and the knowledge is lacking dramatically in all the areas you're going to be responsible for.

    Now you, as the act clearly points out, will be offering advice to the minister. What are you going to offer him in this particular case, where in fact we do have a backlog, where there are people moving through the system who have not been adequately tested or who really don't have the knowledge they should have to become a Canadian citizen?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: As I told you before, I think right now the system is working as far as citizenship is concerned. It depends. If you think it's not normal to basically wait a year before getting your citizenship once you have made your application, that's another story. If you would like to perform a process in three weeks that is somewhat complicated, I think it's not realistic. Let's face it, it takes time.

    To answer your question about giving the minister advice, I have not been informed right now that there is something that impedes us from doing our job under that delay of 9 to 12 months. It's now a matter of deciding whether or not it is normal in a fairly complicated process to ask nine months to get your citizenship. It's a matter that could be discussed.

    Mr. Art Hanger: It's not so much time I'm questioning, it's--

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: The quality? Look at the numbers. Out of the 225,000 applications we had over the last fiscal year, about 10% of them were problematic. That's 25,000. Don't be impressed by big numbers. Most of them right now under the current situation and with the current system receive their things pretty fast.

    It's a matter of waiting. It's not the fact that there's an evaluation problem; it's a matter of waiting for security to basically clear the prohibition because the person passed the exam, they met the officer, and the officer realized they had enough language potential to become a citizen. They passed the exam 20 out of 20 and got residency without any problems. These cases are among those the judges sign between their hearings, in order to say, go, go, go. We prepare the hearings for the citizenship oath accordingly.

    In terms of the problematic cases, the ones that need to be evaluated, it's 25,000 we're talking about. Where are they going? Out of a nine- or twelve-month process there are delays that are also the responsibility of the applicant. I'm not trying to defend Citizenship and Immigration, but I have enough experience to say this even if I have only been on the job for two months, because I did hearings. You realize that in those cases there are some people who are not helping themselves by not providing the requested documentation and all that stuff. Maybe with some creative administrative measure we can put an onus on them to basically bring the file, or respond to a letter when they receive it, or make sure we can assess them on the fact that they know the language enough to read the correspondence we are sending them.

    There are tons of phenomena that could happen, but in most cases it's pretty efficient as a process. In what I saw I didn't meet anyone telling me the system was in crisis; it was a bit far from being there.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Art Hanger: I hope I don't portray to you that I'm saying the system is in crisis; I'm not. I'm saying there are some inefficiencies in it, as you are well aware, and they include some of the testing of those who are actually accepted as citizens. I think it falls short in that area. How important of a weight you put on that I think is my question. That is why I say, what advice are you going to give to the minister on that point? Maybe you have to evaluate that a little bit more yourself.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I think it would be only fair for me to evaluate it a little bit more right now.

    There are a few things I can tell you about that I've already raised with the department. One is strengthening the rules, especially when we are preparing hearing cases of residents to make sure the applicant who is in that situation provides the requested material at least 10 days before the hearing for the judge to be in a position to have a complete file in front of him.

[Translation]

    Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I have one final question. When the Commissioner of Official Languages, Ms. Adam, testified before the committee on Bill C-18, she stated that it was important for citizenship judges, regardless of how they might be designated, to be quite proficient in both official languages. Given the civic values that you have advocated and given the fact that Canada is a vast country with an Official Languages Act dating back almost 35 years, in your capacity of ministerial adviser, do you intend to promote bilingualism for judges?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: I'm already one step ahead of you. The ministerial advisory committee responsible for reviewing applications from Canadians wishing to become citizenship judges -- as you may know, any Canadian can apply for the position -- stresses the need to provide services in both French and English in the main regions of the country.

    That being said, I'm in the process of developing a language training policy. Many of our anglophone judges have some basic knowledge of French and would like to improve their language skills to better perform their duties in both official languages, especially the taking of the oath of citizenship ceremony which is administered in both official languages and in some cases, when conducting interviews.The investment we're planning to make in this program should prove extremely useful, particularly since people are asking for this training. I won't deny an anglophone willing to learn French the opportunity to do just that. Bilingualism is one of my top priorities and a professional and personal goal that I intend to pursue during the course of my five-year mandate. I believe that I will have accomplished something if I can truthfully say that thanks to my efforts, the Citizenship Commission provides services in French in the main regions of the country. You can rest assured that this is a goal I intend to pursue.

[English]

    The Chair: Sarkis.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much.

    I'll start my questioning with Bill C-18; I want to conclude my part with Bill C-18 again.

    When you become a member of Parliament, one of the first things you're told is, “You never phone a judge”, especially when you're a Liberal in the government. If the opposition finds out that I called a judge about someone getting a traffic ticket in my riding, all hell will break loose.

    If my office has a problem with the citizenship process, do I have the right to call you, as a judge, for a constituent? That's my first question.

    My second question is, if we changed that to a commissioner, I'd have the right to deal with a commissioner, who I could phone on behalf of my constituent, but a judge I cannot talk to. That's point one.

    The other point is, if civil servants did their job, it would be much easier for me to deal with the civil servants on behalf of my constituent than a judge. So I don't need the judge blocking me from doing my job for a constituent.

    I want a comment on this.

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Well, if that is your view on things.... I do not want to provide any lessons on administrative laws, but I strongly believe in the separation of power in this area.

    I think if I were an MP, I would not phone a judge. And if I did receive a call from an MP on a case, my advice to that MP, or to anybody else, would be that “I am an independent decider and I want to remain independent”. It would be preferable to basically cease that conversation and to talk about anything else, but not about the case.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: But if you become a commissioner, I could talk to you?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: No, because if we have any discretion on that level, whatever the name, we will remain independent deciders.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I could phone....

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: You can call my office today to discuss promotion, or to discuss the fact that you would like to join a ceremony we're doing in a school, and to do this and to do that, but when we are seized with a case, there is a kind of glass or bulletproof dome that falls upon us, and you're not allowed to call us. We are there to decide.

    How would you basically allow someone to call and intervene in a process where a judge has to make a decision about your case?

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: If parts of your duties moved to a civil servant, I could call the civil servant, right?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Yes.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So how do you feel about that?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Well, as I said to you, you can call people, but it depends on the capacity of the person you call.

    Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Like a citizenship case?

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: In a case of citizenship, I'm sorry, but I think it's a matter.... Once you're seized with the file, it has to be dealt with between the applicant and the judge, period.

    The Chair: We'll end it on this matter, but the point that Sarkis is raising touches on the issue of what the commissioner will do. I must admit that so far, all of the witnesses and the minister have been very supportive, and even the Prime Minister, I think, in his heart of hearts....

    This is a decision that was made less than 10 years ago; the minister, Sergio Marchi, brought it in back in 1993-94. Yet here it is 10 years later and we have yet to implement it. Why? There may be some very, very good reasons.

    But at the end of the day, I think you've touched not only on the honour and the—

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Solemnity.

    The Chair: That's right. You've touched not only on the honour and the solemnity that people feel, but...and not only the judges who are now in place, but also the people who have experienced it.

    So when you start to look at the job switching from a judge who is independent and has discretion to essentially one saying that the commissioner will be responsible for the ceremonies, but you, my friend, will not have anything to say about that file again, it is going to be a totally bureaucratic function with the bureaucrats who deal with 90% of that file now. I would agree that citizenship is the back end of a long process that the department works on.

    But I want to tell you, we're very impressed with the people who are there serving Canadians and new citizens to be. I'm impressed with the judges, and I'd like to see more of them. It's not a question of money, though we've heard that some areas are underserviced. London, Ontario, hasn't had a judge in two years, but thank God for the judge in Hamilton or Windsor who has in fact picked up the slack. We're about to—

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: Yes, Judge Mendes—a charming man, a very capable man.

    The Chair: Yes. He was recommended by myself and my colleagues as a very good community person.

    Finally, we're going to have someone there. My point is that part of the backlog.... I will be honest with you. This committee has always been supportive of the department and those people who work within it in terms of getting you the resources you need.

    It's unacceptable, in my opinion, that you should have to wait two, three, and four years to get into this country. It is equally unacceptable, once you've put in your time, that you should have to wait nine months or a year to get your citizenship. I don't care whose fault it is. It's a question of resources and commitment. If it means giving the RCMP more resources or you more resources and people in CIC work more functions.... You said right from the beginning that citizenship, what you experience and what we experience, is the most important thing—settlement and moving people, a sense of belonging. The further out you keep the people from feeling that they are part of the Canadian family, the worse off it is for them. The sooner we can bring them into the country and the sooner we can make them citizens, the better a society we can create.

    So I applaud you and your vision. We may disagree on the operational side of things—that's fine.

    I want to thank you so much, Judge Simard. Hopefully it won't be the last time you will come to this committee. I hope you'll come and be a visitor every once in a while and tell us how things are going.

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Michel C. Simard: It will be a great pleasure for me, sir.

    Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

    The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We're adjourned.