This Annual Report provides a summary of the context in which the Commission operated in 2005-2006, the initiatives that were undertaken, and the objectives that have been established for 2006-2007.

Yours sincerely,

Michel C. Simard
Senior Citizenship Judge

The Citizenship Judges

The Senior Citizenship Judge of the Citizenship Commission leads a team of Judges and office staff responsible for the effective management of the agency.

The following are the complement of Judges that served on the Commission during the 2005-2006 fiscal year:

Judge Michel C. Simard – Senior Citizenship Judge
Judge Saleem Akhtar
Judge Normand Allaire
Judge Sarkis Assadourian
Judge Sonia Bitar
Judge Brenda Brown
Judge Ruth Cruden *
Judge William Day
Judge Gilbert Decoste
Judge Georgette Ferlatte
Judge Patricia Gleason
Judge Janice Laking
Judge Dominic Mendes
Judge Arthur Miki
Judge Kris Mohan
Judge Robert Morrow
Judge Ann Northcote
Judge Suzanne Pinel
Judge Agnes Potts
Judge Shinder Purewal
Judge Vera Radyo
Judge Roberto Roberti
Judge Barbara Seal
Judge Peter Vecchiarelli
Judge Michael Walker
Judge Sandra Wilking

* Left the Commission before March 31st, 2006

Overview

Mandate

The Citizenship Commission is an administrative tribunal within Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The Commission consists of all citizenship judges working across Canada, and its mandate derives from the responsibilities conferred upon those judges by the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations.

The Commission is responsible for the following:

deciding whether citizenship applicants meet the requirements of the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations;
administering the oath of citizenship and stressing the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship to new citizens;
working to maintain the integrity of the citizenship process; and
promoting citizenship by working with school boards, service clubs, multicultural groups and other community organizations.

The Act provides four types of citizenship applications: grant of citizenship (s. 5(1)), retentions (s. 8), renunciations (s. 9(1)) and resumptions (s. 11(1)). Most of these applications are decided by judges on the basis of a file review. However, when a judge finds that more information is required to make a decision, the applicant is invited to attend a hearing before that judge.

Senior Citizenship Judge

The Citizenship Commission is headed by the Senior Citizenship Judge, who is first among equals. Reporting to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Senior Judge is responsible for ensuring the proper administration of the law and for promoting collegiality among citizenship judges. The Senior Judge also acts as a spokesperson for the Commission, and manages the administrative and professional services that the Commission provides for judges.

Citizenship Judges

Appointment Process

Citizenship judges are appointed by the Governor in Council (GIC) on the recommendation of the Minister. Appointments are for full or part-time positions, and do not usually exceed three years. Their status as GIC appointees’ gives judges the independence they need to exercise their decision-making functions free from outside influence.

Decision Making Authority

Citizenship judges are, first and foremost, quasi-judicial decision makers. Only judges have the authority to decide citizenship applications. The Act does not allow the Department, or even the Minister, to exercise this power. While the Act gives judges the power to decide all four types of citizenship applications, in practice, they make decisions only on applications for the grant of citizenship. For administrative efficiency, applications to retain, renounce and resume citizenship are decided by the Senior Citizenship Judge.

Accountability

Although judges are not accountable to the Senior Judge, the Department or even the Minister for the decisions they render, this does not mean that they have no accountability. Their decisions can be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada by the applicant or by the Minister. Federal Court decisions help clarify the issues that citizenship judges consider and also provide judges with direction in interpreting the law.

Knowledge and Training

To perform their quasi-judicial duties, citizenship judges need to know the principles of administrative law and natural justice, the Citizenship Act and the Citizenship Regulations, the relevant case law, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code. Newly appointed citizenship judges follow a comprehensive training program that provides them with the knowledge and skills they require to perform their duties. After that program, judges participate in on-going training activities to hone their skills.

Roles and Responsibilities

While citizenship judges spend most of their time performing their decision-making role, the public is much more aware of their ceremonial and ambassadorial roles.

Judges preside over citizenship ceremonies, during which they have the honour and privilege of welcoming new citizens into the Canadian family. It is at those ceremonies that judges administer the Oath of Citizenship and speak to new citizens about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. But more importantly, it is here and at promotional events in the community that judges pass on their pride, enthusiasm and respect for the institution of Canadian citizenship.

The stature of the position of citizenship judge stems in part from the fact that its three functions are mutually reinforcing. The authority of the quasi-judicial function, the prominence of the ceremonial function and the commitment to Canada demonstrated in the promotional function enhance one another and strengthen the office as a result.

Commission Standing Committees

The Commission created two standing committees to address both operational and promotional requirements of the Commission. They are the Legislation and Operations Standing Committee and the Standing Committee on Citizenship Promotion.

Legislation and Operations Standing Committee

The purpose of this Committee is to address legislative and operational challenges of the Citizenship Commission and to ensure the sharing of best practices that contribute to the overall integrity and efficiency of the citizenship process.

These main business activities (within the context of the Commission and its relationship with Citizenship stakeholders) are:

increasing integrity, consistency, coherence and efficiency in the delivery of citizenship services to clients across the country by identifying and implementing best practices;
increasing an understanding of the role and responsibilities of all people responsible for delivering the citizenship program;
finding workable solutions to issues raised with consideration of program integrity, operational needs and service delivery to clients; and
making recommendations of mutual interest at the appropriate level when necessary.

Standing Committee on Citizenship Promotion

The purpose of this Committee is to address the promotional challenges of the Citizenship Commission in the areas of communications, marketing and outreach initiatives that promulgates the importance of citizenship and its inherent responsibilities to stakeholders.

These activities include:

supporting the development of promotional opportunities that align with the national promotional objectives;
acting as a facilitator in organizing the steps necessary to plan and conduct promotional activities in various regions across Canada;
exploring opportunities to collaborate with portfolio partners in joint ventures where judges can promote active citizenship; and
coordinating the development of various tools required to conduct outreach activities.

Relationship with CIC

CIC is the Commission’s primary partner. The Department provides the Commission with administrative, financial and human resources services. It also manages the process in which citizenship judges perform their duties. The Department is a party to the decision-making process by virtue of the right of appeal and the power to grant citizenship, which it exercises on behalf of the Minister. While the Commission and the Department work closely at both the local and the national levels, they maintain an arms-length relationship on decision-making matters in order to ensure the independence of citizenship judges.

The Citizenship Commission – Operating Context

The Environment

Following many years of focus on the anticipated implementation of a new Citizenship Act, the fiscal year 2004-2005 can best be described as a year in which the Citizenship Commission regrouped.

The Commission’s top priority in 2005–2006 was to achieve a full complement of citizenship judges. In April 2005, there were five judge position vacancies and 3 more positions became vacant during the year, 7 new judges were appointed (4 full-time and 3 part-time) and 5 judges were reappointed leaving the Commission with a total of 24 judges (13 full-time and 11 part-time) and 13 vacancies at the end of the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

Appointments and reappointments must be prompt in order for the citizenship process to function optimally. The Commission is grateful to the Government for addressing this important operational requirement. Delays in appointments impact the productivity of local offices, since judges have sole authority to approve applications. Delays also meant that the Commission could not use the salary funds intended to reduce the caseload due to a lack of judges.

Despite various challenges and two changes of government, Citizenship Judges refocused their efforts on improving the application of the current Citizenship Act. There were problems in the citizenship process and these problems were made worse by an ever–increasing workload. The Citizenship Commission’s concern was and remains to ensure that judges have what they need to provide well-reasoned decisions that are fair, timely and in accordance with the law. This is essential to deal fairly and equitably with applicants wherever they may be.

As a result, one of the most important initiatives undertaken during the year was our participation in the CIC-Citizenship Commission Working Group discussions on file readiness. This opportunity to improve the quality of dialogue between Citizenship Judges and CIC proved to be fruitful in identifying best practices and in implementing a coherent citizenship process across Canada.

Over the course of the year, the Commission also proceeded with a review of the Citizenship Judge Competency profile as well as the development of the written tests to assess those competencies.

A more comprehensive training package for judges has also been developed and a special workshop on ethics was incorporated into our 2005 Annual Meeting. Finally, second language training program was implemented to allow the Commission to fulfill its obligation pertaining to the Official Languages Act.

Achievements

Citizenship Judge Screening Process

The citizenship judge screening process is central to the Commission’s ability to achieve a full complement of judges. Accordingly, the goal of the screening process in 2005–2006 was to ensure an adequate inventory of competent and qualified candidates in regions requiring appointments.

At an administrative level, the Commission worked with the Minister to fully implement the screening process. This involved adopting new assessment tools, which target the skills and abilities outlined in a new competency profile for the position, which was completed earlier this year. The Commission also worked with the Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office to obtain the Prime Minister’s approval of the screening process.

Preserving the Integrity of the Decision-Making-Process

In 2005–2006, the Commission continued to act whenever it felt that the integrity of the decision-making role of its judges, and in turn, that of the citizenship process, needed to be defended. The Commission continues to be reassured by the establishment of the working group on citizenship issues with its departmental partners, and will maintain efforts to ensure the group’s success.

Training and Professional Development

New appointments in 2005–2006 enabled the Commission to implement its redesigned classroom training for new citizenship judges. The effectiveness of the modified training program was evaluated, and necessary adjustments were made. As previously mentioned, during the course of our 2005 Annual Meeting, a workshop on ethics was provided to Citizenship Judges by a representative of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner.

Improved Management Practices

In 2005–2006, the Commission continued to further the management initiatives that started in 2004–2005. Discussions were undertaken with the Privy Council Office on the Public Complaint Process. The implementation of the Commission’s feedback program on judge performance was and remains dependant upon the GCMS capacity to provide needed data and ministerial approval of the appropriate level of funding.

Promotional Activities

In 2005-2006, the Citizenship Commission continued to develop strategies to promote citizenship and to increase opportunities for Citizenship Judges to engage in promotional activities. These activities included the co-creation of a CBC national website for promoting Canadian citizenship, discussion and submissions for proposed themes and events to support the 60th Anniversary of Canadian Citizenship, and the development of other tools and activities.

The highlights of the Commission’s promotional initiatives are further described below:

Citizenship Week 2006
An agreement was reached between the Commission and the CBC (based in Vancouver) to develop a website for Citizenship Week. CBC dedicated a member of its staff to develop the site.

The goal of the CBC Citizenship site is to promote and to celebrate citizenship across Canada. This website stemmed from a pilot project initiated in 2003.
60th Anniversary of Canadian citizenship
The Commission provided a proposal to the department to mark the 60th Anniversary of Canadian citizenship. The idea was to have a special citizenship ceremony at the Supreme Court of Canada with all Citizenship Judges in attendance from across Canada. This ceremony would serve as the launch event for the Anniversary and would be the beginning of a series of events that the Commission would support during this commemorative year.
Communications and Outreach Projects
During the 2005-2006 fiscal year, the Commission developed a variety of communications and outreach products, including an electronic tool kit. The Commission also provided assistance to CBC in the establishment of a national website for promoting Canadian citizenship. Citizenship judges also performed a total of 305 education or promotional activities over and above their regular ceremonial duties.

Year in Numbers

Like all federal departments and agencies, the Citizenship Commission operates in an environment of challenges and fiscal constraints. In order to fulfil its role in ensuring the integrity of the Citizenship process, the Commission must constantly maintain a delicate balance between sustaining and improving program service delivery, the active promotion of citizenship, and the judicious management of funds.

A summary of Citizenship activities for the 2005-2006 fiscal year is as follows:

Total citizenship grant applications received: 274,697
Total citizenship grant applications processed: 231,848
Number of new citizens: 222,171
Number of unsuccessful applications: 2,521
Number of applications withdrawn or abandoned 7,156
Average processing time for a citizenship application: 13.3 months

New Citizens and Regional Distribution

Region	Number
Atlantic Canada	2,304
Quebec	26,935
Ontario	133,947
Prairies	17,110
British Columbia	38,670
New Citizens Total	218,966

Distribution of New Citizens

Top Ten Source Countries of Birth of New Citizens

Country	New Citizens	Percentage
1. People’s Republic of China	30 160	26 %
2. India	25 123	22 %
3. Pakistan	13 872	12 %
4. Philippines	13 161	11 %
5. South Korea	6 357	6 %
6. Iran	6 121	5 %
7. United States of America	5 459	5 %
8. England	5 084	4 %
9. Romania	5 083	4 %
10. Sri Lanka	4 971	4 %

N.B. The top ten source countries represent 53% of all new citizens.

Citizenship Commission Activities

The 2005-2006 fiscal year was a time where Members of the Commission and its staff were marked by pressures of the Citizenship process. In 2005–2006, full and part-time Citizenship Judges performed the work of the equivalent of 15 full-time judges.

The productivity of the full complement of citizenship judges and the average output per full-time equivalent (FTE) is indicated in the following chart.

Citizenship Judges:
- Number of citizenship judge positions: 24
- Number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs): 15
- Number of Members of the Order of Canada conducting citizenship ceremonies: 27

Activity	National Total	Average Output per FTE
Citizenship Applications
Applications received	274,697 [note 1]
Applications processed	231,848 [note 2]	15,457
Applications approved (i.e. new citizens)	222,171	14,811
Applications not approved	2,521	168
Applications withdrawn or abandoned	7,156	477
Ceremonies conducted	2,901	193
Citizenship Hearings
Hearings conducted	12,994	866
Hearings resulting in approval	10,418	695
Hearings resulting in non approval of application	2,576	172
Retention, Renunciation and Resumption [note 3]
Retention
Applications received	1504
Applications for processing	1089
Applications approved	334
Applications not approved	3
Administrative action required [note 4]	83
Decisions pending	669
Renunciation
Applications received	303	N/A
Applications processed	287
Applications approved	230
Applications not approved	3
Decisions pending	54
Resumption
Applications received	306	N/A
Applications processed	306
Applications approved	80
Applications not approved	0
Administrative action required [note 5]	90
Decisions pending	136
5(3) and 5(4) Waivers [note 6]
Recommended	217	N/A
Waiver granted	210
Waiver not granted	7
Appeals to Federal Court (Applicant)
Appeals filed	48	N/A
Appeals heard	24
Appeals granted	9
Appeals refused	11
Appeals withdrawn by applicant	4
Appeals to Federal Court (Minister)
New appeals filed	0	N/A
Appeals heard	4
Appeal granted	3
Appeal withdrawn	1
Mandamus
Cases filed	8	N/A
Cases heard	5
Cases granted	1
Cases denied	1
Cases withdrawn	3
Civil Action
Cases filed	1	N/A
Cases heard	1
Cases denied	1
Revocation
Cases filed	1	N/A
Cases heard	1
Cases granted	1

Objectives for 2006-2007

secure adequate A-base funding to conduct the Commission’s business (e.g. the citizenship judge screening process, training and professional development, and the Annual Meeting);
achieve a full complement of citizenship judges;
implement the Minister’s direction regarding the Citizenship Judge screening process;
preserve the integrity of the decision making process;
implement redesigned professional development for judges;
follow-up toward increasing promotional activities with school boards and other partners in various regions.

My Thanks

Whatever good things have been done and accomplished during the year under review, all are due mainly to the professional skills, dedication and teamwork of each of my Citizenship Judge colleagues and to Citizenship Commission staff members.

In this last section of the Annual Report, I want to publicly express my sincere thanks and praise for what they have contributed, individually and collectively, to every area and stage of our legal, ceremonial, promotional and administrative activities.

1. Represents number of applications received by CPC Sydney in 2005-2006.

2. Represents total number of applications processed in 2005-2006 – not all applications received are processed in the same year.

3. For administrative efficiency retention, renunciation and resumption applications are decided by the senior judge.

4. File requires additional documentation; revisions or returned incorrect form.

5. Ibid.

6. GCMS indicates there were no 5(4) referrals in 2005-2006.

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

The Department

Visas and Immigration

Living in Canada

Citizenship

Resources

Proactive Disclosure

Citizenship Commission – Office of the Senior Citizenship Judge

2005-2006 Annual Report

The Citizenship Commission

Letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada The Honourable, Diane Finley, P.C., M.P.