Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2023

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I do have two subamendments, and I'll go one at a time.

I move that amendment NDP-5, reference number 12307559, which proposes to amend Clause 1 of Bill S‑245 by adding after line 18, on page 1, the following:

(3.1) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (6.2):

(6.21) A person who is deemed to be a citizen under paragraph (1)(b) from the time that they were born solely by operation of subsection (7.1) and who, before the coming into force of this subsection, was granted citizenship under section 5 or 11 is deemed never to have been a citizen by way of grant.

These are our proposed subamendments, the first of two, and I would like to provide some explanation, because I know these are extremely technical and complicated. I want to make sure it's clear.

The NDP amendments aren't referring to the same cohort of people that the government subamendments touch. In the government's subamendments are about the former section 8s, who were second generation people born abroad between 1977 and 1981. The NDP amendments address the situation for children born abroad in the second or subsequent generation after 2009, including those who will be born in the future. NDP-5 describes what happens to children who were born abroad in the second or subsequent generations since April 16, 2009, and are still alive when this bill passes. If the children have parents who met the connection tests prior to their birth, these kids will become citizens.

This subamendment addresses an issue similar to the one talked about in G-5. In this case, it's about the situation of a child born abroad after 2009 who received a grant of citizenship at some point in their life because they immigrated or received a special grant, but now is able to receive automatic citizenship because of this bill.

This subamendment clarifies that individuals in that situation are now deemed to have never received a grant and are now considered citizens by operation of law from the time they were born.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

My question is for the analysts. This time, it might be more relevant than my previous question. Sorry again about that.

From the beginning, we've been talking about very hypothetical cases. We had no choice. All the questions we've posed to you often dealt with hypothetical cases that may or may not happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, is it for the analysts or for the officials?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's for the officials.

Excuse me, I used the wrong word.

If I understand correctly, if we pass Bill S‑245 as is, with its amendments and subamendments, and Quebec becomes a sovereign country in 2028, it means that the next two generations of Quebecers, who would then be living in another country, would be Canadian citizens too, even if they were not born in Canada?

Would it therefore mean that these people, as expatriates with Canadian citizenship, could vote in Canadian elections for two generations?

It's a hypothetical case, but I was wondering about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is an interesting question. I'm sorry, but I can't give the committee an exact answer. It requires looking more closely at both the facts and the various legal provisions that could come into play. A scenario like that requires more in-depth analysis.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

And yet the legislation is clear. You are born abroad to Canadian parents, and your children would be born abroad to Canadian parents. The second generation would also be born abroad, but born to the first generation of people born abroad with Canadian citizenship.

Logically, according to the legislation, and taking into account currently proposed changes, that hypothetical case would happen unless agreements are struck later. Right now, if we rely only on the bill, I'm right about that scenario.

[Nicole Girard]

Was there a question for the government's representatives, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Is there any clarification you're looking for, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, or just a...?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No one can tell me if I'm right or wrong. However, based on the hypothetical case I presented and what we are voting on, I thought it was clear. Unfortunately, I get the impression that people don't find it clear.

I'm done, Madam Chair, but I believe my federalist friends might find it interesting to think about.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Girard, do you have any clarification for his question?

[Nicole Girard]

I don't have anything to add. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal is next.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I have difficulty with this. If sovereignist Quebeckers want to separate and have their own country, why wouldn't they...? Now they have Canadian citizenship, and my dear friend Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe is asking if they will be able to vote in Canadian elections. They might as well stay with Canada.

All I can tell you, Madam Chair, is that the chances will only improve if Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe becomes the leader of the Bloc and can progressively and [Inaudible—Editor] work with other people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I just want to answer briefly.

In any event, it really would be a case of interference at that point. We’re not going to start a new debate on the subject. I thought we already had enough fun with it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp is next.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Just so that I'm tracking here, this subamendment goes before anything that is in NDP-5, and it doesn't delete—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

This is an amendment. We don't have any subamendment. We have an amendment on the floor.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm sorry, but this is a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The amendment....

[Voices]

No, no, it's a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's an NDP-5 subamendment. I'm sorry about that. It's a subamendment.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Do you see how confusing this is?

Okay, so the subamendment to NDP-5 comes before any of the text in NDP-5 and doesn't delete any of NDP-5. Am I correct in that statement?