Speaking Notes - The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, before the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration — “The loss of Canadian citizenship, 1947, 1977, 2007”

Ottawa, Ontario, February 19, 2007

Check against delivery

Mr. Chair, Honourable Members.

Thank you for the invitation. Today marks the first occasion I appear before this committee in my capacity as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In my new capacity as Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, I am grateful for the opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts and recent actions on a matter that is so fundamental to Canadian identity.

Just last week I had the honour of attending a very special citizenship ceremony at the Supreme Court building where we celebrated the 60^th anniversary of Canadian citizenship.

We held a special event, where families from every province and territory gathered to take the Oath of Citizenship. While I found the ceremony very moving, the event gave me pause to reflect on how fortunate we are to be Canadian citizens and what it means to be a citizen of Canada—that is that citizenship isn’t just about rights, it’s about responsibilities.

With respect to my appearance before you today, I must say that I welcome this opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding the acquisition, retention and resumption of Canadian citizenship.

Recently, the introduction of the U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative has increased attention on the issue of citizenship, and as people are seeking to get passports, questions about citizenship and proof of citizenship are emerging.

Some media reports have highlighted cases of various individuals who have been affected by the loss of Canadian citizenship.

While some people have for various reasons lost their Canadian citizenship, there are also examples of people who never actually had citizenship despite having every reason to believe they were Canadian citizens. Other cases have involved individuals who have not lost their citizenship, but rather have lost their proof of citizenship, and need to apply to replace it.

To reiterate what I said in a statement released on January 24th, I wish to reassure concerned stakeholders that in almost all cases, anyone who was born in Canada is a Canadian citizen.

Recent media reports have highlighted very few examples of individuals who, having lived in Canada most of their lives, actually do not have citizenship. I will emphasize that my officials have identified a small number of people who fall under these anomaly categories.

As I said before, these cases deserve immediate attention and that’s why I have and continue to make these individual cases a priority.

But before I go on, Mr. Chair, I know that many members of this committee and other stakeholders want the citizenship anomaly issues addressed through amendments to the Citizenship Act.

In this regard, I am open to considering appropriate amendments to the Citizenship Act.

I would welcome the committee’s participation in further examining the nature and scope of the problem, to help us identify and evaluate a number of options.

If there are responses to this issue that would protect the value and integrity of Canadian citizenship, then these should be considered. If all members of the committee support specific legislative changes, I would be happy to look at these options.

In the present situation, the advantage of having unanimity is obvious. We all want a lasting solution and I believe that we can find one acceptable to all of us.

That said, my immediate focus is on helping people caught up in this situation right now.

Legislative change could take time and affected individuals should not have to wait indefinitely for the Citizenship Act to be amended and passed.

I look forward to the Committee’s recommendations and to hearing from the various witnesses who will be presenting over the next few weeks. It is my hope that these hearings will provide viable options for consideration in looking at the most effective ways to address the issues.

I want to assure all concerned that I will carefully examine and consider the options, legislative or otherwise, in the interest of creating a fairer system for all.

I appreciate the dedication and creativity that each member around this table has shown to resolve these issues. I know that several of you have worked hard for countless hours on previous committee studies and reports relating to citizenship. I look forward to you imparting your combined 19 years of committee experience with me.

At this time, I would like to provide some context to the current situation. While the problem is real and deserves immediate attention, there is no evidence that it’s as massive as has been reported in the media or portrayed by some honorable members. These reports have mentioned thousands, hundreds of thousands, and even possibly over a million people being affected.

Mr. Chair, to put things in perspective, at this time, we are talking about approximately 450 individuals whose cases have come to our attention and merit further consideration. Despite all the attention on this issue, that number has not grown significantly, but it will evolve over time.

In fact, many of the calls we have received have been about Canadians who have simply lost their documents. These Canadians have not “lost” their citizenship; they have lost their “proof” of citizenship and have needed to replace it—much the same way as anyone who loses a birth certificate has to apply to replace it.

This may be a frustrating step for someone who needs that proof to apply for a passport, for example. But in this age of heightened security concerns, it is important that we take steps to verify identity and check for potential fraudulent applications.

The department of Citizenship and Immigration processes more than 60,000 applications for proof-of-citizenship a year from people who need to apply for a passport and other benefits, and most people obtain proof within a few months without difficulty.

At this time our focus is on the 450 cases. This includes people who, by law, had to take steps to retain their citizenship but did not do so, people who never became citizens; and people who could have registered as citizens but did not.

As members of the committee are well aware, a person’s status may be affected by the 1947 Act, or by the 1977 Act, or amendments to them, depending on their situation.

As members of this committee are well aware, not every application for Canadian citizenship is legitimate. But each application involves a human story, and deserves close attention.

For the interest of all concerned, I’d like to outline for you some of the actions I have recently taken to address the issues discussed since becoming Minister last month.

My departmental officials are giving these applications serious attention, Mr. Chair. They are ensuring that the due diligence expected by you and the Canadians we represent, is carried out.

As I mentioned earlier, I am using the powers available to me as Minister under the Citizenship Act and moving to resolve cases as quickly as possible. I have recently obtained approval through the Governor in Council for a special grant of citizenship to 33 individuals.

This group of individuals includes those who do not meet the provisions within the current legislation for a regular citizenship grant, but whose circumstances call for special consideration.

These people demonstrate a significant attachment to Canada, currently live within the country, and have lived in Canada most of their lives.

In many cases we are dealing with individuals who never became citizens. For example, we have cases of people who were born abroad and didn’t have their birth registered. Between 1947 and 1977, if you were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, you had to register your birth abroad. Some people who lived on the Canada-U.S. border were born in the U.S. because that’s where the closest hospital was. Under the laws in place at the time, if the birth was not registered, they would have U.S. citizenship and not Canadian citizenship. These individuals could have registered as citizens but did not.

In other cases, we are dealing with individuals who were Canadian, had to take steps by a certain date to remain Canadian, but did not do so. The current law says that if you were born abroad to a Canadian citizen, you’re a Canadian citizen. But if your Canadian parent was also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, you have to take steps to retain your citizenship by the time you reach 28 years of age.

This government didn’t put the rules in place. They have been there since 1977.

And as long as we have had citizenship, Mr. Chair, we have required individuals born abroad to Canadian parents to retain their citizenship. Some members have criticized this requirement, suggesting that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. But that would mean, by extension, that an individual could move away from Canada and his or her descendants, for generations to come, would continue to be Canadian citizens without ever setting foot here or developing any real attachment to Canada.

I would note that, in 2005, this committee recognized that there should indeed be limits on this type of citizenship, and that the department should revise its citizenship cards to make this clearer. We have now done that.

With respect to cases, I have made it my department’s priority to review each of them on an individual basis.

With respect to actions we are taking, I have asked my department to take a number of steps to deal with this situation.

• We have assigned additional staff to handle these cases, and created a dedicated unit in our call centre so people with questions about their citizenship can speak directly with someone who can help them.
• In those cases where it is a question of loss of citizenship, a program officer is being assigned to each case.
• We are working with our partners to ensure that while cases are under review, nobody is removed from the country, and benefits such as health care and Old Age Security are continued.
• We are working with the Passport Office to refer people to our call centre to speak directly with our citizenship agents.
• And we are helping to expedite the process for people who have not lost their citizenship, but rather have lost their proof of citizenship, and need to apply to replace it.

Mr. Chair, allow me to give members of the committee a sense of the response we have been getting to these measures.

We get status updates every working day, so the numbers will continue to change, but since we set up the dedicated line for citizenship issues in our call centre on January 26 (2007), we have received 692 inquiries about a potential loss of citizenship.

To put that in perspective, 692 calls represent about one-half of one percent of the overall calls to our call centre on all issues.

In 675 of those cases, their citizenship has been confirmed and no further action is required.

Of the remaining 17—17, Mr. Chair—seven have been invited to apply for a discretionary grant of citizenship; another three were identified as permanent residents and asked to apply for a regular grant; two more have been asked to apply for permanent residence; and five require further examination.

This is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands, indeed the millions, of cases we have been hearing about in public.

Mr. Chair, we have to look at each situation individually. Where it is deserved, I am keen to resolve the situation as quickly as possible. As I said, we gained approval to grant citizenship to 33 individuals, and we will work to resolve more cases.

I would be remiss if I did not briefly mention the situation of Mr. Joseph Taylor. I am limited in what I can say about Mr. Taylor, as his case is before the courts. Although the Government of Canada is appealing the Federal Court decision on Mr. Taylor, I want to assure members that I am not unsympathetic to those seeking Canadian citizenship.

We are prepared to expedite an application for permanent resident status which will allow him to apply for citizenship once he has satisfied certain requirements that would include living in the country for a period of time.

I wish to emphasize the reason that we are appealing the Federal Court ruling is because we believe that it is wrong in law.

It reinterprets citizenship, and extends it prior to Canada having its own Citizenship Act in 1947. It applies the Charter retroactively, meaning that it applies the Charter to a point in time before the Charter even existed. These and other factors have implications for all legal matters that go well beyond Mr. Taylor. I will give you one example.

The Federal Court ruling suggested that not enough effort was made to notify Mr. Taylor and his family directly of the relevant provisions of the 1947 Act that could impact his status. Mr. Taylor, who had lived here for three months, when he was one year old, had moved back to Britain with his mother. The Canadian government had no way of knowing where he was.

The judge’s ruling suggested that the normal legislative and Parliamentary process is insufficient and that all individuals who may be affected by a change in legislation must be notified, no matter what the circumstances.

Imagine the impact that this could have. Legislators regularly change tax laws.

If individuals could claim that because they weren’t notified individually and directly, the new law wouldn’t apply to them, we would have no way to apply the law to anyone.

Mr. Chair, I repeat what I said at the beginning: we are fortunate to be Canadian citizens and Canadians expect us to take the issue of citizenship very seriously.

We need to apply the law, and to ensure that our system is functioning as it should and as it was designed to work.

Of course, there must be room for compassion and common sense, and where it is merited we have some flexibility to help individuals, and I will continue to do that.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly address an issue that was in the media yesterday.

We are committed to establishing an office that will help qualified foreign-trained professionals become accredited so they can practice in their chosen fields in Canada.

The 2006 Federal Budget set aside $18 million over two years to take the first steps toward establishing this entity, and Advantage Canada reaffirmed that the Government will move forward on this commitment. Improved labour market integration is critical so that Canada can continue attracting and retaining the skilled immigrants it needs.

I want to stress that all levels of government have a role to play in integrating newcomers into Canadian society and the economy. My colleague Monte Solberg, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development Canada, and I are engaging our partners as we move forward, including provinces, territories, 440 separate regulatory agencies each provincially or territorially regulated, post secondary institutions, sector councils, and employers across the country.

We look forward to making future announcements about our progress in the coming weeks.

To sum up, the issue of citizenship is fundamental to Canadian identity. With citizenship comes both rights and responsibilities.

Moving forward, I want to assure honourable members and concerned stakeholders, that as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I look forward to the Committee’s recommendations.

I look forward to a collaborative and constructive effort on behalf of all members to address these issues in the most appropriate manner.

I want to assure honourable members that I will carefully examine the options, legislative or otherwise, in the interest of creating a better and fairer system for all.

Thank you.