Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Next, I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to respond, as well, to some of the assertions of Mr. Dhaliwal and Ms. Kwan.

My colleague Mr. Kmiec had also.... I think it was important to put on the record that the current backlog for spousal applications is 39 months, so it's well beyond the time frame Mr. Dhaliwal asserted to. I think that's very important to have on the record.

As well, to respond to Mr. Dhaliwal's comments, which were ruled in scope, what happened at the end of the Chrétien-Paul Martin government was this: The immigration system was so backlogged that, essentially, anybody who applied to come to the country was on a “no hope” waiting list. It was like saying, “Yes, apply. That's fine, but you're never going to be processed.” There was really no hope of being processed. We are again in the same situation, eight years into a Liberal government. In 2015, at the end of the Harper government, I think the inventory caseload was well under 100,000. Now we're in the millions again. I think that's very important to clarify.

The other thing, for Mr. Dhaliwal's sake, is this: It was also this government that, I believe, on family applications, tried to put a lottery in place—a very unpopular lottery—where people were, essentially, randomly allowed to come to the country, which is eminently unfair. I think it's very unfair to intimate to Canadians...and set immigration targets such that, even if people apply, they won't be processed to come into this country for a decade plus, or whatever the waiting time is now. What should happen is, if we are setting immigration levels, the processing timelines should be such that people actually have hope and can plan to enter the country. I think recognizing the fact that there was a “no hope” wait-list the former Liberal government put in place is very important.

It's across political lines. We all understand immigration is important to this country, and we need to ensure there are expeditious but rigorous processes in place to review applications. I think there is a bit of revisionist history on what happened, as well as on what the current status is.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to that comment.

The last thing I'll talk about is Ms. Kwan's comment. I am going to try to convince her to vote in favour of this motion.

She said she would consider this in other arenas. What other arenas? This is the arena she asked for when she voted to expand the scope. Now, she says she didn't ask for amendments that were beyond lost Canadians, but that is precisely what the instructions in the motion said. It's amendments to the Citizenship Act, so this is the arena, per the instructions from this committee, in which to look at amendments like this.

Now we have a common-sense amendment on the floor. I have heard no arguments against it. I have only heard arguments around process, so I think that, at this point, if people are voting against this motion, it's some sort of coalition deal. Now that we are going through this process, there are common-sense amendments on the floor that make a lot of sense. I think any voting against this is preposterous, frankly, particularly since, throughout all the discussion today, nobody has given an argument against it. I think any voting against this motion is, frankly, partisan in nature. This is a no-brainer amendment. It's exactly what this committee asked for when opening up the scope of this bill.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I'll just give everyone a five-minute break. I think people need to go to the washroom and have a cup of coffee.

I have Mr. Kmiec on the speaking list, but I will suspend the meeting for five minutes so everyone can have a little break. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We have the amendment moved by Ms. Rempel Garner on the floor. Next on the speaking list is Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, all I wanted was to just rebut one point made by Ms. Kwan.

I spoke with Senator Yonah Martin just this morning. She doesn't like what's happening with her bill. Just to reiterate the points she had made, amendments made to the original parts of her bill were entirely okay with her if it was to correct wording that the department deemed necessary in order to address the original principle of her bill, which was to help a small group of lost Canadians between 1977 and 1981. Those were the people they wanted. We got expert testimony from the department that the new wording was necessary. She was okay with that.

Now we are going through it clause by clause, amendment by amendment. The scope has been expanded, so we can consider other matters that would reduce the number of lost Canadians and that would reduce the potential for a person to be stuck in an endless queue on their citizenship application. This waiver that's being proposed on compassionate grounds, I think, meets the principle of the bill. It's well within the scope of the bill.

I will also add that, in testimony at the Senate, at the time there was discussion and debate. One witness said, “That said, if amendments would delay the passage of this bill, then please pass it as is.” Since we're not doing that, it will take a little bit more time.

In the grand scheme of things, the grand scope of things, I'd rather do a good job this time to make sure, for all the matters we would like to consider for lost Canadians and for the changes to the Citizenship Act—like I've said before and have said in the House, I consider this now a statutory review—that we do these properly instead of quickly. Quickly usually leads to unforeseen consequences.

I see an opportunity here to plug a hole and to help stop more future lost Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will take a vote on the amendment moved by Ms. Rempel Garner.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

Now we will proceed to NDP-9.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to move that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm sorry. I'm just going to find the page on NDP-9. I think the next one that I'll go to will be NDP-12.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

I just want to advise you that we have an amendment to do after NDP-9 before we move to the next one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan, are you moving NDP-9?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I am not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to move the following amendment, and it would look like this. It's just coming around to you now.

It's new clause 1.1. I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.1 Section 5(5) of the Act is amended by replacing paragraph 5(f) with the following:

(f) has not been charged with, on trial for, convicted, subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence under subsection 21.1(1) or 29.2(1) or (2), or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or any other Act of Parliament outlining criminal offences, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act.

I'm happy to speak to it. If you want, take a moment to make sure we all have the proper paperwork.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Do you have it in both languages?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I do. They are right here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will have to get this circulated to all the members. I will suspend the meeting for two or three minutes so that it can be circulated and members can have a look. Then we will come back and I will come to you, Ms. Lalonde, after that.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

If I can have everyone's attention, I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Redekopp has moved an amendment. I hope everyone has that in both official languages.

We have the amendment on the floor, and Mrs. Lalonde was on the speaking list.

Yes, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As a little background on what's going on here, if you look at the Citizenship Act, subsection 5(5), the headline there says “Statelessness— bloodline connection”. It's talking about granting citizenship.

If you look at paragraph (f), which is the part that I am proposing we amend, it lists some offences. It says that a person can be granted citizenship if they have “not been convicted” of some offences, and then these offences are listed. It talks about “terrorism”, an offence under very specific sections of the Criminal Code, or “an offence under subsection 5(1)” of another....

Basically what it does is it lists some very specific offences. What I am proposing in my amendment is to simplify this a little bit. You can ask why we would not grant citizenship to somebody who has been convicted of this offence but we would grant citizenship to somebody who has been convicted of another offence. Why is there the difference between the two?

What my amendment is proposing is to basically say that, if you have been convicted of anything that is a criminal act—in common terms, it would be anything with more than a two-year sentence—it doesn't matter what it is, any criminal offence that is a federal crime would be the test. Rather than cherry-picking this or that or the other thing, it would simply be that, if you have been convicted of a criminal offence, that is essentially what this is intended to do.

I think it simplifies things a bit, because you're not cherry-picking certain offences to say that one is better than the other, or whatever. You're saying that, if you've committed a criminal offence that is more than two years, that would be the criteria upon which you would not be given citizenship.

I think there are some very good reasons we would want to do that. We don't want to be granting citizenship to people who have criminal records. That doesn't make a lot of sense. If we do that, it can create a lot of headaches down the road. Even from a government perspective, we could end up with a whole lot of extra work in departments, whether it's the immigration department or the consular department or other things. There are a lot of headaches and complications when we discover that we have granted citizenship to somebody who maybe shouldn't have been granted citizenship because of these crimes.

One thing I think about this is that Canada has a bit of a spotty record sometimes on things like money that comes in from countries in questionable ways. A lot of us would be familiar with the Iranian situation right now, and how there are people who would be part of the IRGC in Iran who are now in Canada. I'm not talking about conscripts. I'm talking about actual members of the IRGC or their families.

This is an example of a case where we, as a country, maybe aren't quite as diligent as we should be on some of these situations, and we end up having people in our country—and in this case, we're talking about granting citizenship—who just shouldn't be accepted as citizens of our country because of a criminal background. I think it's okay for countries to have criteria and have boundaries on what's acceptable to become a citizen of the country. We have the English requirements and knowledge tests and things like that, which we require, and this is just another part of that test.

Having this tightened up and having it as something that is clear and simple to understand is a benefit and something we should do.

At the very end, it talks about contraventions. If you're not sure what that is, it's that if it has been reduced to a ticket rather than time served, that would would not be part of this. It's basically that, if you've been in jail for two years or more, that would be the criteria.

That's my preamble to this and I would move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

I have Mr. Kmiec next.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I was just going to begin by noting that this would basically be the same idea as the substantive connection test. We've already imposed a requirement by which you could regain your citizenship.

There's a burden of proof that you have to give. I think this is very reasonable. It's that burden of proof, such that the person, even if they meet the over 1,000 days that would be required, would have to then disclose to the department that they have not been “charged with, on trial for, convicted, subject to or party to an appeal”, and then it lays out the offences that would be excluded.

I'm trying to bring them up very quickly here, just so I can refer to some of them.

It's just two years or over. I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to add in. It's part of our due diligence. I think there would be a huge problem if there were former Canadians who are overseas, who maybe have.... There are a lot of honourable people who move on and go on to do other things overseas. They join different international organizations. They move for family. They move for love or what have you, or they're pursuing their careers or a better quality of life somewhere else. I think that's reasonable, but in certain cases, some of those people do get involved in criminal organizations and criminal acts, and we just want to make sure that they don't have a method of regaining their citizenship. I imagine there will be, again, a very small group of people who will be excluded by this extra provision.

It says, “or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3)”. It really refers to people who have already done something wrong or could have done something wrong, because if you're charged with an act you'll have to wait until basically the end of your trial and you'll need to have exhausted appeals. We will know, based on the judicial system in other countries, if you've been found to be innocent or not, and we take that at face value for what it's worth.

I think it's very reasonable. I think it's a method of protecting the Canadian population and Canadian citizenship from having, potentially, people who may.... The one I'm thinking of most of all, because we had the Federal Court of Appeal rule on this case today, is that Canada actually doesn't have a requirement to repatriate those four ISIS fighters, the suspected ISIS fighters, including one of the Canadians, Jack Letts. He is among those four. They went to fight for the Islamic State.

I have a lot of Kurdish friends who are from Rojava. Many of their families were affected by what ISIS did, and they don't want to see these people forcing the government to return them. I'm glad this court found in favour of the government. I'll say a nice thing: I'm glad they found in favour of the government. The government is right.

I've always been told that the Federal Court of Appeal is where the best judicial opinions are laid down because many of these people have extensive opinions. They're actually asked to interpret Supreme Court rulings at the Federal Court of Appeal because that's where the final decisions are made.

I think this is reasonable. It's basically my understanding that it would be two years plus in terms of those who would be excluded by this provision. I imagine that it's a very small group of people, but again, it's just for the safety of Canadians that we want to increase it. Because it's a small group of people and because it's very limited, and again, completely germane to the issue, it just adds something else to the substantive connection test.

I'm going to support it. I'd ask members to support it too. It's something that we have talked about with other members of other parties and that we thought would be a reasonable thing to do, so we're introducing it here.

I'm glad that my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, pushed for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

I have Ms. Rempel Garner next.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm supportive of this amendment. In earlier discussions with officials on some of the other amendments that were made to this bill, which were substantive, part of what we heard was that there's a ballpark but there's really not a clear line of sight on how many people would be impacted by the amendments that have been made to this bill so far.

I understand that some of the government subamendments that were made to the NDP amendments were essentially to clarify and put some guardrails around some of these things. Even though we might not have as clear a line of sight on how many people this would impact as compared to what would be the case with the original scope of the bill, there were clear definitions around whom it would apply to and under what circumstances.

Because we don't have a clear line of sight right now on how many people are impacted, where I can see this particular amendment having benefit to government operations is on consular services.

With the original scope of the bill, I think the government had a pretty good line of sight on how many people would be impacted and who they were. What I worry about is that, now that we have expanded the scope to potentially tens of thousands of people, I would not like to see our government in a situation of having to provide consular services to a new Canadian citizen who might be in a thorny political situation or something because we have not defined whom this could apply to.

As my colleague Mr. Kmiec said, I do think this amendment falls within the spirit of some of the other amendments that have been made, particularly around the substantive presence test. We've already qualified whom this would apply to with the substantive presence test. We're now adding another qualification.

I think this is also in alignment with other types of definitions that are included in broader immigration policy. This type of information is looked at in terms of applications to come to the country and in various other circumstances beyond citizenship. It's not as though we're setting a new precedent here.

I would urge colleagues to support this amendment. Because we have now broadened the scope of this bill so much, and we don't have a clear line of sight on how many people it applies to, it behooves us to ensure that we have all the guardrails in place so that there aren't serious unintended consequences, particularly given that we have not had time to study this bill or to have witnesses appear and testify on some of these expansions in scope.

I urge my colleagues, particularly those from the government, to support this amendment. I think this amendment would be helpful to the government in particular. I think that, without it, we are lacking a guardrail on qualification.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Next up is Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have some questions for the officials on this.

First of all, I know this is new, so I don't expect you to pull things out of the air too much, but do you have any sense of numbers on this? My colleague just referenced numbers. Do you have any sense of those, either from maybe some past experience on cases like this or from things you may know? I'd be curious about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Girard, go ahead.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

To begin with, I'd like to clarify that subsection 5(5), on the statelessness grant of citizenship, to which this amendment pertains, is available only as a result of the first-generation limit to a child of a Canadian who is born abroad and who is stateless. The subsection 5(5) grant was created as a guardrail or a safety valve when the first-generation limit was put in place in 2009. It's a rare circumstance and a rare occurrence. Nevertheless the safety valve is there.

For the committee's consideration, in general the number of applications received under these provisions is going to be extremely low. I'll ask my colleague in a moment to give the statistics we have on that, in response to the member's question.

In addition, for the committee's consideration, because the provision was created as a safety valve in response to the first-generation limit for a child born abroad to a Canadian, who may find themselves stateless for that reason, the new connection test available for the second generation born abroad and beyond, for whom the parent is meeting a connection test, will very likely result in this provision being used even less than it would in the exceptional circumstances under which it may be used now. That's in response to the member's question.

I'm going to turn to my colleague Uyen, who will give the most recent statistics we have with regard to how many times this provision has been used already, to provide an order of magnitude in response to the member's question.