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.

[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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Very briefly, the amendments that are out of scope pertaining to Bill S-245 on the lost Canadian issue were items I brought to the attention of Senator Yonah Martin. I actually had a discussion with her. She indicated she would support that, if I were able to get the government's support. She advised me that she met with the minister in this regard as well. I know there was literally a last-minute change of mind out of respect for her Conservative colleagues around this table here.

With that being said, though, my focus here is.... It has always been. I think there has never actually been, at any point in time throughout this entire process, from the minute Bill S-245 was tabled or coming.... I indicated that the scope was too narrow and we needed to address these other things specifically related to lost Canadians.

On this amendment here.... As I said, I would be happy to entertain this in a different arena. That is not to say you can't bring out-of-scope amendments to Bill S-245. Yes, you can. However, I have indicated to everyone that the amendments I intend to bring forward are related to lost Canadians. I was always open and transparent on what my intentions were with anyone who cared to talk to me about this.

To that end, Madam Chair, I'll reiterate that I will not be supporting this amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'll use my time to respond to a few questions.

I'd like to draw colleagues' attention to the instructions given by the House to this committee on the review of the bill, based on a motion that was passed in terms of how this committee should be reviewing the bill. I think this is important for people who are watching.

The motion, which was voted on in the House of Commons, and that I voted against but others voted for, was that.... I'm sorry. This is the motion that was passed here, but then there was a subsequent reflective motion in the House. It is:

...that the committee recommends to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to an application to retain his or her citizenship under section 8 as it is read before April 17, 2009.

I just want to be clear with colleagues, and I want to reiterate arguments that I made earlier. The Standing Orders and rules and procedures regarding the review of bills typically are that amendments are focused on the very narrow substance that is included within the bill as presented before our committee. What this committee—and then subsequently the House—decided to do was to expand the scope explicitly to go beyond those provisions.

My colleague Ms. Kwan argued that this wasn't in scope, but it is in scope. This amendment is in scope.

Essentially, that's what she was intimating, and also that it didn't have anything to do with the bill, but what we are now looking at, for people who are watching, is that what happened here was rather than the government introducing.... They even could have put it in the budget implementation act, frankly, if they had wanted to. Instead, the government.... I'm guessing what happened is that part of the NDP-Liberal coalition deal was that they made a bit of a behind-the-scenes deal on what needed to go into this private member's bill, which was very narrow in scope.

Again, just to reiterate, my understanding from Senator Martin is that this was expedited through the Senate with all-party consensus so the bill could go through. My understanding is that stakeholders were, like, “yes, let's keep it narrow and to the point so it can go through”, but what happened here was that, when whatever deal was made to assuage whoever, the subsequent motion on how this bill would be disposed of was passed before this committee and the scope was opened up.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and since we have now increased the scope of the bill, we all have the right and, frankly, the obligation and duty to follow the terms of that motion, which is what this amendment does. It is completely acceptable. It deals with the matter at hand and I am following the order presented to this committee.

I want to be clear that many of us, when we were deliberating on this particular motion, made the point that we should be carrying forward in the spirit of non-partisanship and out of a desire to help the people Senator Martin set out to help. We all want to do that.

When we debated this motion to increase the scope, there were concerns raised, such as what my colleague Ms. Kwan said: that the department officials wouldn't be prepared to look at amendments. Well, now the members of the opposition have been forced to look at very technical, very substantive changes to the Citizenship Act with table-dropped amendments and without data on impact, on costing or on terms.

I understand that the intent is to help people here, but my job and my first responsibility—my fiduciary responsibility to the Canadian public—when I'm reviewing legislation is to understand things like cost, what the role of government is and what the impact is. Does this impact one group of people and not another? Is this going to cause downstream problems? It might not, but I don't have that data.

That is why the Standing Orders usually restrict amendments to a narrow scope of a bill. However, what we've done here is say, “Be darned with the Standing Orders and the review of legislation. We're just going to open this up.”

What I've done with this is to try to put in place a very common-sense amendment that does actually affect the scope of this bill, because we know that even people who are in this boat—lost Canadians—are subject to the same delays and same incommunicado status that we often get from the department.

I just want to be very clear to anybody who is watching. I take my duty to review legislation very seriously. Opening up the scope of the bill to put in things that aren't in scope on a bill that was already agreed to in the other place puts me in a situation where I am not prepared to vote appropriately without due diligence, and that due diligence will happen here. This is not any sort of game outside of.... It is not fair for me to be put in a position to vote on legislation without due diligence.

When there is an opportunity, when the committee has voted, to essentially do a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then that is what we will do. We will take the time to do that because we all have the same rights on this committee to do that—opposition, in a coalition agreement or not. We all represent close to a million, roughly.... Well, I represent 120,000 people. In this room, we probably represent close to a million or over a million people. For us just to push this through because somebody in some backroom deal says that we're going to increase the scope because their private member's bill didn't get through in the last Parliament.... That's not my problem. I have to make sure that I'm doing my due diligence, and I'm not sorry for that.

My colleagues have been asking very good questions. Frankly, we haven't even received responses on some of the data we've asked for. We've been put in a position to vote on amendments that were done in a deal, and frankly, we've now had a point of privilege on this matter with stakeholders when we weren't even looped into the matter. I find this atrocious, the whole process atrocious, and I will try to maintain my composure here.

However, for somebody to intimate that it is somehow not appropriate to follow the letter of a motion that they themselves put forward and voted in favour of.... They have another think coming on how this is going to proceed. We are going to proceed with diligence and also undertake the order of that ruling. If they wanted to push this through quickly, then what should have been done was that we should have relied on the work that was done in the Senate, because it was done quickly and with diligence. However, that is not what happened here. What happened was this: “Let's put in place a whole bunch more amendments that are out of scope and then expect everybody around this table to vote without doing that diligence.” That's just not fair. It's not right, and that's why there are rules on order.

Let's get back to the matter at hand. One, this amendment here is in order, based on the instructions of the House. Two, it does impact the people who are with the original scope of the bill. Three, the staff here have, with regard to my colleague Ms. Kayabaga's question, talked about scope in terms of what it would apply to. Four, I'm just going to argue that some people have said the minister may already have certain powers and whatnot. It's not clear in this regard, and there's nothing in the Citizenship Act that talks about processing delays. It's a very unclear, nebulous process on which the minister can and can't do this. Then what happens is that, when we are communicating on this with constituents or if there are immigration lawyers who are looking at this, they are unclear as to what and when the minister may intervene. I would like more clarity, and that is why this motion is here right now. That's why we're seeking to amend this act.

Colleagues, if other colleagues are looking at amendments that are far beyond the scope of the original bill, then so will we. Again, Madam Chair, I want to re-emphasize that, should the government have wished to have done this, it could have put any other amendments in the budget implementation act. It could have put in place another piece of government legislation, or people could have put a private member's bill forward. However, that is not what happened here.

They changed the rules of Parliament, essentially. Now we are just responding to those changes.

I hope my colleagues will support this, because it gives the minister an additional tool. It recognizes the fact that oftentimes the department doesn't really have any political imperative to maintain service standards, even within a narrow scope, and it clearly gives people who are stuck in quagmire situations, such as the ones we've been discussing in the scope of this bill, some hope. I would hope that my colleagues would give the minister another tool and give people some hope.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I have three more people on the speaking list. Before I go there, I would request that all the members please stay on topic. We are dealing with Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. All your comments should be within that scope, please.

Next on this list is Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's very helpful because it clarifies the muddiness that's been presented, as though this would apply to every other case and every other stream. That clearly is not the case.

Now, of course, I would be tempted—although I'm not going to do so, so you don't need to respond—to ask the officials how many people are in the situation of having to wait over five years for their grant application to process, and so on and so forth. However, the officials are not here and equipped to answer those questions because we're here to deal with the issue of lost Canadians. I would be happy to entertain these kinds of suggestions at a different time, and even a study if people want to take a look at that and to initiate that process.

I would also say that, for people who need, perhaps, an urgent recognition for citizenship, such as in the examples Mr. Kmiec has mentioned, there is of course a provision in which that could happen, and that is honorary citizenship, which the minister has the authority to grant as well. Because citizenship applications have a hardship component within them, in respect of which the minister can exercise that right to look at those cases for delays, I think that at this point we should focus on what is before us, which is the issue of lost Canadians.

I'm tempted to bring forward all manner of amendments that would be outside the scope of Bill S-245 but are something I really want to see through, such as, for example, an amendment to deal with statelessness. I recognize, however, that maybe I would not be doing that appropriately and would, therefore, be undermining the very people who are trying to get their situation addressed. That would be the families with lost Canadians, who have been waiting patiently to see what this committee does. To that end, I will not be supporting this amendment, and I'm hopeful that we can actually get through the entire package of all the amendments that are before us by 7:30 p.m. today.

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

Thank you.

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding before line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.1. Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Waiver by Minister for administrative delays

3.01 The Minister may, in his or her discretion, after having reviewed a person's particular circumstance, waive on compassionate grounds in the case of any person who has waited over five years for a response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to their application due to administrative delays.

Thank you.

My rationale for this amendment is as follows. My understanding is that the.... I do have it in both official languages here, if colleagues need it.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would, in principle, agree on the significance and on the importance of my colleague's request. I think from this side of the House, and I would say for all members of Parliament, we realize how individuals who are fraudulent should never be part of the immigration process for those who are the victims of this.

I also know, with confidence, that the government is taking this very seriously, Madam Chair. However, I am left thinking that we have something here, which we are already discussing, that has a meaningful impact for many individuals. This particular bill we are studying, Bill S-245, is of value also.

Without undermining what I think we, collectively, from all sides of the House, would like to do.... Also Madam Chair, I think a motion was actually requested by my esteemed colleagues a few months ago that legislation should set precedents in this particular committee. It was passed unanimously and was brought by my Conservative colleague.

At this time, I would like to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 68 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

A reminder to all the members that we will be meeting for three hours today, so the meeting will continue for three hours. We'll try to have a little break halfway through.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians. We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

When we left off, we were debating the amendment moved from the floor by Ms. Kwan, which is a new version of NDP-8.

The floor is open for debate. Thank you.

Mr. Kmiec.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to simplify this. I'm trying to get clear in my mind the question that I had.

Today, forget about this Bill S-245. Today, the parents adopt a child. The parents who adopted a child, for some reason, unfortunately die. That relationship does not exist now, and that child would not be able to come.

As I said, there are many spousal cases. They get married and because the spouse dies, that relationship goes away. How would it address those cases?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'll read this into the record so that people know what I'm talking about.

Essentially, it brings forward all of the changes—I guess this is a better way of saying it—we talked about earlier around the connection test and the application for parents. It applies it to adopted children as well. That's essentially what this does.

The new NDP-8 will read as follows. First, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clauses:

1.1 Subsection 4(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 3(1)(b), subsection 3(2) and paragraphs 3(3)(a.01) and (c), if a child is born after the death of either of their parents, the child shall be deemed to have been born before the death of that parent.

1.2 (1) Paragraph 5.1(4)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if, at the time of their adoption,

(i) only one of the adoptive parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph 3(1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (g.1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r), or both of the adoptive parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs, and

(ii) neither of the adoptive parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada;

(2) Paragraph 5.1(4)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if, at any time, only one of the adoptive parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs 3(3)(b)(i) to (viii), or both of the adoptive parents were citizens under any of those provisions and, at the time of their adoption, neither of the adoptive parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada.”

Effectively, this brings all of the changes that were passed previously on the connection test and this has application for parents of adopted children as well.

In an ideal universe, Madam Chair, I would have liked to have grandparents apply here. I know that is not the will of the majority of the committee. I'm not going to be able to get that through. I have accepted defeat. Therefore, I'm moving this amendment, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Bill S-245.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

(On clause 1)

When we left off, we were on clause 1.

Ms. Kwan moved NDP-5. Mrs. Lalonde moved a subamendment, which was adopted. Mrs. Lalonde then moved a second subamendment.

The floor is open for debate on the subamendment.

Mrs. Lalonde.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Now we will proceed to our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-245.

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[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.

[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.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

NDP-5 states that Bill S-245 in clause 1 would be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following:

(4) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (7):

(7.1) Despite any provision of this Act or any Act respecting naturalization or citizenship that was in force in Canada at any time before the day on which this subsection comes into force, a person is deemed to be a citizen under paragraph (1)(b) from the time that they were born if

(a) the person is a citizen under paragraph (1)(b);

(b) the person was born after April 16, 2009 and before the coming into force of this subsection; and

(c) at the time of the person's birth, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs.

(5) Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (8):

(8.1) 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—under any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any other law on the person or on any other person who may have any of those rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties and liabilities as a result of the first person becoming a citizen.