Bill S-245

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain it.

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

Thank you very much for that.

If I could go on, I'll say that basically every speech I've listened to on this topic, sadly, has pointed out that every time someone tries to tinker with the Citizenship Act, we end up with unintended consequences, which typically take the form of a new group of lost Canadians.

Do you have any concerns that Bill S-245 as written may create additional or different groups of lost Canadians? If so, how do you recommend that we stop that from happening?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today.

I do have a few questions. I would like to focus my attention on Mr. Hayer for this particular Bill S-245.

In the previous hour, Mr. Hayer, we talked a lot about the scope of people who would be impacted by Bill S-245. In your professional opinion, do you think Bill S-245 is too narrow or too broad, or does it strike a good balance? As I'm going to be asking you more questions, could you briefly elaborate on why you've chosen that option?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

We heard some testimony in the last hour about this bill, Bill S-245. The purpose of this bill is really to rectify mistakes that have been made in the past, and it affects a very small cohort of people. We also heard from others who would like to expand this bill and make it a bit larger to include many other people, and that would potentially complicate and perhaps even prevent this bill from going forward.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on Bill S-245, if you have any thoughts on it, if you've looked at it at all.

[J. Randall Emery, Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Randall Emery. I am a regulated Canadian immigration consultant and the executive director of the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, which stands for democratic, equality, multicultural and mobility rights.

We applaud Senator Martin and MP Hallan for sponsoring Bill S-245, which would address one of several inequities in citizenship law for children born abroad. We also call on them, and all parties, to champion amendments to address more lost Canadians.

As we balance competing concerns, we should think about three things: our constitution, international considerations and the human cost of continued inaction.

First, Canada should respect equality and mobility rights when addressing citizenship by descent. I've met many of you personally, and I understand the concern for people passing through Canada. However, just as people pass through Canada, Canadians pass through other countries. Moreover, some Canadians have genuine connections to Canada and other countries at the same time. If we employ some connection test, we should apply it equally to all three groups. Failing that, we should at least give impacted Canadians the same deal we afford government workers.

Current law forces some Canadians to choose between mobility rights and the legal and moral duty to care for their children. For example, as described in the ongoing charter challenge, a Canadian parent has been exiled with her children on multiple occasions since 2017, with the child now experiencing suicidal ideation. This is unjust and unfair.

Second, Canada should follow other countries to avoid the worst unintended consequences. Canada ranks dead last on family unity when we compare ourselves to the G7, our European trading partners, Australia, New Zealand and other continental American countries. Half of these countries ensure unlimited citizenship by descent by simple operation of law. Another quarter ensure citizenship retroactive to birth provided the birth is registered. We are the bottom of a cohort dominated by English-speaking countries, which creates its own problems for us as a shared culture.

The counterpoint to concerns about job restrictions abroad due to automatic citizenship is the concern for family separation due to lost citizenship. Some countries revoke citizenship if you voluntarily apply for another. Examples include Japan, Spain, Germany and Austria. To avoid the more serious consequence to a much larger group of people, we recommend that citizenship be opt-out with renunciation versus opt-in with a grant application.

Finally, we must consider the human cost of continued inaction. In addition to the charter challenge, stories submitted during this study clearly illustrate the harm to individual families. One mother has three daughters, two are Canadian and one is not, simply because of the year of her birth. One family has ended six generations of Canadian heritage, because the mother was born abroad in the eighties, lived in Canada for nearly 30 years and then went on to have children in the U.K. The problem also impacts my children, who are seated in this room today.

Officials told you last week that the scope includes untold numbers of children, possibly in the tens of thousands. In other words, the law inflicts severe harm to Canadian families in vast numbers. The egregiousness of the issue calls for an immediate response.

Let me conclude by, again, thanking Senator Martin and MP Hallan for sponsoring this bill. We implore them to champion amendments with members of all parties to address as many lost Canadian issues as possible, including the many historical ones.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Martin, I want to thank you for thinking about the lost Canadians.

I want to thank you for helping me. I'm sure you recall, when I brought in a private member's bill and one of the Conservative senators took an adjournment. You were the deputy leader. You were there and Senator Ataullahjan was there to help me with my bill on April as Sikh Heritage Month. I see the passion on your side, as well, to get it through.

On the other hand, I have some questions here that I am sure you and Mr. Hallan will be able answer. I'm also one of the people who came to Canada in 1984 as an immigrant in Calgary. I got my citizenship at the very first opportunity in 1987.

Senator, I know you have done significant research into the changes made to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015. We know those changes came into effect on a delayed basis with a coming into force provision.

Considering all the complications highlighted by IRCC officials, do you think a coming into force provision might help ensure that Bill S-245 doesn't lead to unintended consequences? If not, why?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You are satisfied that those individuals, although not captured in this bill, have had a possibility of redress under previous legislation and that it is not an issue for Bill S-245.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you for that.

Senator Martin, I was going to ask you, if there are amendments made to this bill, and some of them I believe would be perhaps out of scope to the original intent when it was brought here.... Because the Senate didn't consider them—Bill S-230 at the time was considered and was studied at committee, and Bill S-245 was expedited through the Senate because it was the same bill—do you believe senators, your colleagues, will want to do a full review at a Senate committee before passing the bill?

[Yonah Martin]

Yes. The exclusion provision, which is subclause 1(3), was tied to the date of the coming into force of Bill C-24. There were some concerns during the drafting of Bill S-245 that not including the subclause may cause conflict between my bill and Bill C-24. That's why it was put in.

However, if what I'm hearing from departmental officials now is that there could be some confusion and an unintended consequence, as I said, I would be very open to an amendment that would clarify that specific section.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

There were no issues then, but now people of a lower grade.... There was no assistant deputy minister here last week. They said at the Senate two years ago that there was no problem. Now they've raised that there are problems.

Mr. Hallan, since you sit on the finance committee, and you've sat on this committee as well, have you ever heard of a situation where over the years officials have contradictory opinions on the same bill? This is the identical bill. From Bill S-230 to Bill S-245 nothing has changed in the contents, but now there are two opinions on the bill's content.

[Yonah Martin]

No, I don't believe that. I think as written it does address those who were captured in the age 28 rule. That's clear.

On the question about June 2015, which would effect moving the first-generation limit from April 2009 to June 2015, the second part of the explanation from legal counsel says that, while it could be made more clear, as written the bill does not purport to have retroactive effect. That would need to be explicit. It cannot be implied. Without retroactive effect, anyone born between 2009 and June 2015 would be governed by the Citizenship Act as it read prior to the enactment of Bill S-245.

The subclause was put in so that my bill, if enacted, will intersect and work effectively with the previous bill, Bill C-24, and not the opposite, as implied by the official. If there's something that could be amended to greater clarify this, I'm very open to that.

[Yonah Martin]

I believe that's what was raised by the official: that the bill, as written, is unclear as to the effect of the first-generation limit, but could be interpreted as moving the limit for anyone born between April 2009 and June 2015. I found it interesting to hear her perspective in that it's not something that officials raised with us when we studied the bill in the Senate.

I had the law clerk in the Senate who helped me with Bill S-245 sort of give me a response to that concern, because it was not something that we encountered in the Senate. This is something that I received, actually, just before this committee: that subclause 1(3) was included to remove the current transitional provisions in subsection 3(4) and subsection 3(4.1) of the Citizenship Act, which have and will continue to have their effect.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I understand that you developed Bill S-245 after consulting with stakeholders, as any good legislator would do, and there have been a number of submissions sent to this committee by stakeholders asking that Bill S-245 include a solution for people born abroad in the second generation after 2009. Would you say that you support expanding this bill to include provisions of this nature?

If not, would you care to explain why you would think it would be problematic to allow individuals born abroad in the second generation after 2009 to acquire Canadian citizenship?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I would like to welcome the senator to our committee today and to welcome back our colleague from the opposite side who has left our committee.

Senator, I want to ask you a few questions about this bill.

Last week, IRCC officials explained to us that Bill S-245 will restore citizenship only to some of the people who were impacted by the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, but would remedy those who never applied to retain their status before they turned 28. However, those who have applied to retain it but were unsuccessful due to not meeting specific residency requirements will not see the remedy from your bill. It seems obvious to me that both groups impacted by the former section 8 should be scoped into this bill.

Do you agree? If you don't agree, could you share why?

[Yonah Martin, Senator, British Columbia, C]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, colleagues.

It's a honour for me to speak to you about this Senate public bill. Bill S-245, formerly Bill S-230, is an act to amend the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain citizenship. The bill is about a group of Canadians. I say, “Canadians”, but they are lost Canadians until we are able to reinstate their citizenship rightfully.

I am a proud, naturalized Canadian. I was born in South Korea and first arrived in Vancouver in 1972. I became a citizen five years later. I understand the value, the symbolism and the importance of our citizenship. I come to you today humbly as a naturalized Canadian and someone who came across this important group of lost Canadians and their plight. I know that there are other groups as well, which I have learned, and I've been able to work on them with Don Chapman, who is here as one of the witnesses today. I know that he is a true champion of lost Canadians.

This Senate bill addresses a specific gap in the Citizenship Act to capture a group of Canadians, or lost Canadians, who lost their status or became stateless because of changes to policy.

In 1977, the Citizenship Act added a new provision that applied only to second-generation Canadians born abroad on or after February 15, 1977. In order to keep their citizenship, these individuals had to reaffirm their status before their 28th birthday. This law was passed and then forgotten. The government never published a retention form. There were no instructions on how an individual would reaffirm their Canadian citizenship, and those affected were never told a retention requirement even existed.

In 2009, the Citizenship Act was amended by Bill C-37. It was one of the first government bills that I had a chance to study as a member of the committee that studied Bill C-37. This change saw the age 28 rule repealed entirely. Canadians caught up in the age 28 rule but who had not yet reached the age of 28 were grandfathered in. However, what I didn't fully realize at that time was that Bill C-37 did not include Canadians who were born abroad between 1977 and 1981, essentially those who had already turned 28 before the passage of Bill C-37 in 2009. Today the age 28 retention rule still remains in effect only for those second-generation Canadians born inside a 50-month window from February 15, 1977, to April 16, 1981, those who had already turned 28 when that age 28 rule was repealed through Bill C-37.

Many of these individuals were raised in Canada from a young age. They were born abroad. Some, like me, came to Canada much younger, such as at two months of age. They went to school in Canada, they raised their families in Canada, and they worked and paid taxes in Canada, yet they turned 28 without knowing that their citizenship would be stripped from them because of the change in policy from that previous bill I spoke about. Bill S-245 will allow these Canadians to continue their lives without fear, knowing that they are valued and supported by reinstating them as Canadians.

Again I would like to acknowledge the work of Don Chapman, a tireless advocate and champion for lost Canadians who will appear before you later today.

Colleagues, Bill S-245 received unanimous support in the Senate, and today I invite your support of this bill here in the House of Commons committee.

I would also like to acknowledge MP Jasraj Hallan, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons, and thank him for his work and dedication to helping lost Canadians and to this bill, which will reinstate citizenship to a group of lost Canadians who have always been Canadians and rightfully deserve to be given back their citizenship.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention MP Jenny Kwan, who has also been a tireless champion on this particular issue.

Thank you, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's part (c), “That, invites be issued for the appearances of senior departmental officials from the Department of National Defence to appear before the committee....” Is that okay? That's good.

Now we can proceed to Bill S-245.

You have my apologies, Senator Martin and Mr. Hallan.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, regarding the granting of citizenship to certain Canadians.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the sponsors of the bill, the Honourable Yonah Martin, senator, and Jasraj Singh Hallan, member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn.