Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

[...]

The Chair: Andrew Telegdi, please.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener�Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, welcome.

May I warn you that new ministers should always be careful about initiatives they pick up from the bureaucracy when they first get into office. I'll give you an example of Sergio Marchi. Ten years ago he was appointed minister and very quickly made an announcement that he was going to abolish citizenship court judges. After about six years of hearings, it seems there was a pretty solid feeling in the committee that our citizenship court judges be maintained, particularly separate from the bureaucracy.

The other one is that you're talking about efficiency. I'm sure every one of us around this horseshoe has situations where we have family reunification. Of course people have to get security checks, health checks. Because of the length of the process, the health check will expire. Then you have to go and get a new health check, and by the time that comes back, your security check expires. So we really look for efficiencies coming through. I would like to have some report on that to the committee.

The other one is turning down visas. I don't think we use our officials in the country enough, because a lot of the time the guarantors who come forward are the ones who should be taken into consideration, and they're not. I agree with my colleague that particularly when we try to deal with overseas people, visa officers, we don't get the kind of respect we should as members of Parliament -- and I don't care which party we're from.

Also, every time you turn a visa down you're losing potential economic development in the form of tourism, because people who come here do a lot of travelling around. So it's an economic loss. But also, when somebody gets married or somebody dies, I think it's very important that we have a process so we can act quickly.

Finally, the Citizenship Act has to come back. We've been kicking it around for six years, and the bureaucracy is just going to have to accept the fact that the committee has made decisions. By not bringing it back in the proper form, it doesn't mean that it should be ignored. We want to act on it, because I believe Canadian citizens deserve that.

(1610)

The Chair: Very briefly, Madam Minister.

Hon. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much, Mr. Telegdi.

I can tell you on the Citizenship Act that I hope that will be the first piece of business on the committee's agenda when we come back in the fall. I think it's very important to get it changed. I have reviewed the act that the committee had been working on and would have attempted to bring it back already, but there clearly isn't enough time to get started on that. But I believe it's long overdue -- we've been waiting since 1977. And I share with you that interest and determination to see us get a new Citizenship Act as soon as we can.

The issue of that constant turnaround of medicals and security checks certainly makes it very difficult for people. It comes down to the fact that we have to get our processing times up faster. I think it's unfair to keep sending people back. I think I got a recent number like 11% as the number of people who are required to take it back a second time. Quite often it delays, it hampers, and it frustrates people who are trying to come here. There isn't any doubt about it. We need to move the process faster as we go through. As the deputy said, over 700,000 visas get issued a year. That's a lot of visas to do. There is a limit as to the resources, as well. You also have to do the processing.

[W.Z. Andrew Telegdi warns Judy Sgro about the bureaucracy, who wants to remove "citizenship court judges" to be replaced by bureaucrats. Ms. Sgro indicates that the Citizenship Act will be re-introduced in the fall of 2004 (presumably after a federal election).]

[...]

The Chair: Andrew Telegdi.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great having the deputy ministers in front of us. We can perhaps get some answers.

The question I have relates to the amount of money the department allocates for what they say are World War II denaturalization cases.

In May of this past year, during the course of the hearings on the Citizenship Act, we had Madam Frith in front of us, and she presented us with some statistics that were less than stellar in terms of success, cases that were very expensive to process. They essentially involved about 20 individuals in their eighties against whom an accusation had been made under the Citizenship Act that they had come into the country fraudulently.

This issue, as you know, has been of concern to me, because I have always maintained that a process that denies section 7 of the charter to individuals to defend themselves is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Just to refresh everyone's mind about what section 7 says, it basically states that �Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.� It essentially says that if somebody is going to be accused of fraud, they must have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We have something like close to six million Canadians who are citizens by choice through naturalization, and there are a number of us sitting around this table. The process that exists under the present Citizenship Act allows for one hearing in front of a Federal Court judge, with no right of appeal of the decision, and the decision is made on the balance of probabilities. The other thing I strongly objected to was that there was no right to appeal.

Eventually, as I thought it would happen, the case was taken to Superior Court in the jurisdiction of Waterloo region, and the applicant went before the court claiming that his charter rights under section 7, and a number of other charter rights, were violated by the process. The question the court had to decide on was whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The decision came down on January 6 of this year [2004], and essentially what the judge decided was that yes, he did have jurisdiction to hear the case and he was going to hear the case.

One of the things in his judgment states:

If revocation of his citizenship is justified, then the consequences must be justified. However, if revocation of his citizenship was not justified, was not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, then the impact upon his liberty and his security cannot be tolerated. In sum, I can think of no consequence, apart...

(1700)

The Chair: Excuse me. Is there a question coming up?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Yes, there's a question coming up, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I would appreciate it if you would put the question.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Actually, this would be good for you to listen to, because it affects a lot of your constituents, including you yourself, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: To continue:

In sum, I can think of no consequence, apart from a sentence of several years imprisonment in a penitentiary, which would be more significant to a responsible citizen than the loss of that citizenship.

Now, this is Ontario Superior Court Justice Reilly.

This is the crux of the issue I've been arguing and it's why I resigned as parliamentary secretary rather than rubber-stamp something coming from my own government, no doubt prepared by the bureaucracy.

When this decision came down, the judge said, �I'm going to hear this case under the charter�, which has been the very crux of my argument all these years. The first thing that happened is that the government launched an appeal. I asked the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who made the decision to make an appeal. They said it wasn't them.

Now, I would like you, as deputy minister, to tell me who made that decision, when you don't believe under the act that citizens should have a right to appeal, and all of a sudden the government is appealing something as fundamental as what's done by Justice Reilly.

Could you please tell me who in the department made that decision?

The Chair: If there's any relation in the question to the main estimates, please go ahead and answer. If there is not, we have other questions.

Go ahead.

Mr. Michel Dorais: There's no relation to the main estimates, other than the fact that the war crime program is now the responsibility of the Canada Border Services Agency, not the department.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other questions?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: There is a relationship to the estimates, because we've spent $100 million on it.

The Chair: Excuse me, I just asked the deputy minister if there's a relationship, and he said no.

[...]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Andrew, do you have a question?

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: Any revocation of citizenship takes place under the Citizenship Act. It takes a decision by the minister. Now, are you telling me that there are absolutely no resources allocated by your department to deal with the Citizenship Act and the revocation section that involves the Minister of Citizenship?

Mr. Michel Dorais: Mr. Chairman, I didn't think that was the question. The member has stated facts on the table. I will not argue with those facts. They're there and they're on record. The decisions were taken by the government -- it's not me who made the decisions, obviously. They were made by the government. I think the question should be addressed to the government.

(1705)