Mr. Redekopp.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Ms. Girard referred to a.... I can't remember the word you used, but it was the clause that you felt was there to try to protect Canada from having unintended consequences, which you felt was not adequate. Which part of the amendment is that?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, if the question was about the previous amendment, which was somewhat similar to this one, I believe it was NDP-4.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, I understood the question to be about which previous amendment was raising these kinds of concerns, and that was NDP-4.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
I'm sorry. I think I confused you.
On this amendment, you mentioned that Ms. Kwan had put a part into this amendment to try to alleviate the unintended consequences on potential future descendants, or things like that. I'm just curious what part of this amendment that was. Does that make sense?
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm just borrowing the binder from my colleague here. If I read proposed subsection (8.1), it begins that, for any period before the day on which subsection (7.1) first takes effect with respect to a person, “Subsection (7.1) does not have the effect of conferring any rights, powers or privileges—or imposing any obligations, duties or liabilities”.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
The interpreter is asking whether the witness is reading from the act or the amendment, just to make sure they're interpreting the right thing.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm reading the amendment.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think my reading is complete.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
In that case, Madam Chair, it should be read again for those watching the televised proceedings. They need to hear the interpretation.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would direct the members to proposed subsections 3(8.2) and 3(8.3).
Proposed subsection 3(8.2) is rather short and refers to “no person has a right to citizenship as a result of any other person being deemed under subsection (7.1) to have been a citizen.” Proposed subsection 3(8.3) says that “no action” or other proceedings for damages “may be brought against His Majesty in right of Canada or any officers, employees or agents of His Majesty”, and so on.
Thank you.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you for that.
I'm a little scared because I actually understand what proposed subsections 3(8.2) and 3(8.3) say. They make sense to me. Now, however, you're saying that is probably not good enough from a legal standpoint.
I guess I'm curious about why that wouldn't be sufficient.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I will repeat my observation that a provision like this, while helpful, is not necessarily ironclad and hasn't been tested, so we don't know the result.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
In other words, it might sound good, but until it's been tested in court we don't really know. Lawyers have a way of doing amazing things.
Okay. I think that's it for the moment.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Again, I have a comparison point.
Regarding the other countries that naturalize a lot of citizens, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, do they have provisions like this of any sort? I guess the United Kingdom is aside because they have a very similar system. Our problems stem from not having adopted our own citizenship act pre-1947.
In the case of Australia, have they done something similar like this, or have they just carried on with different models of their own citizenship act?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I am not aware that Australia has any such provision. The point of comparison relates to a previous point that my Department of Justice colleague made, which is this: Generally, citizenship legislation provisions apply to the living. This is an amendment dealing with persons who have passed away.
Thank you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Girard.
Seeing no further debate, we will go to a vote on NDP-6.
Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.
May 29th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I have a quick question in regard to the timing of this.
This comes up to the original part of it here. Proposed subsection 3(7.1) is to bring it up to date. They weren't citizens when they passed away. If they were alive the day this comes into effect, they would be deemed to have been Canadian citizens right back to birth. That's the correction of it.
I should know this, but what was the time frame of the vacancy, if they were in their twenties at this particular time? Was there a limitation on when they would have been...? Where is the cap involved?