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.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Then now I'm going to ask.... On May 1, though, there was a number of 40,000 to 60,000 used. Does that refer to the total expected persons who could be impacted by Bill S-245 in the way it's originally written, or is it based on the amendments we had done until then, or is that total lost Canadians? I guess it could be three different options.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Do I take that to mean that I can't have the expert analysis that was done by the department? It's just that it would help me understand the drafting differences between Bill S-230 and Bill S-245 and the thought process for the amendments being proposed at this committee and the future amendments that might be proposed on this bill.

There are lots of different lost Canadians. This is a very complex piece of legislation. I'm just curious as to why we can't have those documents.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Did something change? Did the department discover that there would be unintended consequences if the wording of Bill S‑245, which was Bill S‑230, was kept as is?

[Nicole Girard]

I can't recall exactly when we began our deeper study of Bill S‑245. I can't recall offhand, but it was some months ago, in preparation for these hearings, that the study was undertaken.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm just going to go back to territory we've gone over before, because there was a previous version of this bill, Bill S‑230.

You talked about doing a legislative review the last time Bill S‑245 was coming through, and that's when the department identified that the original wording of Bill S‑230.... This is what we have gotten rid of, and now are amending in order to avoid unforeseen consequences, as you just described.

When did the department discover those?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Just to make sure I understand this, the original Bill S-245, as presented, had just a few words. These words here, which take up more than a few words, are to replace those words and to make them do what the original intent was of the originator of this law.

Is that a fair statement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

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, we were on clause 1. Madame Lalonde had just moved amendment G-5, so the floor is open for debate.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm just concerned here because Bill S-230 was considered by committee, and Bill S-245 was redrafted, I assume, by the Senate clerks and the legislative clerks that they have there. They were drafted in the same manner, and then it sailed through the Senate at all stages with the understanding that the work had been done on Bill S-230 on the previous committee, on June 16, 2021, and that the bill had no errors at the time.

I have two officials who spoke. One was Catherine Scott, associate assistant deputy minister, strategic and program policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. That testimony—and I've gone through it—didn't identify an issue here. The other official was Alec Attfield, director general, citizenship branch, strategic and program policy, IRCC. He did not identify there being any known issue with the wording of the bill. You said that there were citizenship experts since then.

Are these internal to the department, or are they external to the department?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move that Bill S‑245, in clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 19 on page 1.

The explanation is that these lines could be interpreted as shifting the application date of the first-generation limit from April 17, 2009, to June 11, 2015.

When Senator Martin appeared before this committee, she acknowledged that this provision was something that legislative drafters told her should be included for clarity, but she did not know the technical reason why.

We believe that the way this is written amounts to a drafting error. Pushing back the application date of the first-generation limit would result in significant unintended consequences. Therefore, this amendment proposes to remove those lines of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We will start with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the granting of citizenship to certain Canadians.

Today we are joined by the witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. We are joined by Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship policy; Uyen Hoang, senior director, legislation and program policy; Alain Laurencelle, senior counsel, legal services unit; Allison Bernard, senior policy analyst; and Jody Dewan, senior analyst.

Thanks a lot for appearing before the committee. I want to thank you for coming again and again, and thank you for your patience and understanding as we get through clause-by-clause on this bill.

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

From my perspective, I think that it's important that we actually get back to doing the work before us, and that is on Bill S-245. The implication of lost Canadians is significant. There are many people whose lives have been disrupted, and they have waited for 14 years to see if changes to the law could be made. We have an opportunity before us today through Bill S-245. It is my hope that we can focus in on the work before us, get the clause-by-clause done and refer the bill back to the House accordingly, so that we can move forward. I know that, most importantly, the people whose lives have been impacted want to see this work done.

Madam Chair, from my perspective, I just want to say thank you to the witness for shedding light on this. I don't have any further questions for the witness. I do hope that we will be able to get back to doing this important work.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

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

Actually, I don't have much to say.

Mr. Emery, I understand, basically, that you had communications directly with all parties except the Bloc Québécois. There should be some checking to do on both sides, because my impression is that several people from several parties are involved. Thank you for coming here, in any case. It must not have been easy, as Ms. Lalonde said so well. Thank you for participating in the Committee's consideration of Bill S‑245, and I wish you a good trip home.

Madam Chair, I will not be using the rest of my speaking time. Thank you.

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

At that meeting, I assume you advocated for change to Bill S-245 and for other changes related to lost Canadians. Is that correct?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes.

I was just going to ask whether we're going back to the amendments and clause-by-clause for Bill S-245, and if yes, I would like to move on to the next—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witness for being at this committee's meeting today.

First off, I'd like to touch on the issue around the overall strategy because that seems to be the central issue here. Right from the beginning—and I'll repeat it again at this committee—I engaged with stakeholders all the way through to talk about Bill S-245 and what amendments needed to be made. Through that consultation, it was clear to me that the groups wanted the lost Canadians issue addressed once and for all, and not just as it related to the narrow category that was established under the bill itself.

There were a variety of areas that we needed to address, including those who had lost their right to pass on their citizenship to children born abroad. There were issues around what I loosely call “war heroes”. Those are individuals who fought for Canada, went to war for Canada, for example, died for Canada and never came back. However, at the time they did that, because Canada was not formulated as a country—Confederation had not taken place—they were not recognized as citizens in a technical sense. Part of the goal, of course, was trying to address those people and to make them whole, even though they may have passed on. Their descendants have already had access to Canadian citizenship. It's just really a symbolic thing.

Another category that needed to be addressed, for example, included those who faced discrimination because of Canada's immigration laws and citizenship laws over the years. I was trying to capture those individuals and make them whole.

Anyway, there are a number of these kinds of categories. Right from the get-go, I made it clear that's what I was trying to do.

In that process, it was determined, through the stakeholder consultation, that they would like to see the government address this by way of conferring those rights back to them. In that process, I came up with a number of suggestions to address those. For example, being in Canada for 1,095 days, consistent with what the Citizenship Act outlines by way of the number of days, was one connections test.

There were other connections tests that I thought were important to establish a connection to Canada, such as if someone voted in Canada or was on the voting registry, or for example, someone who went to school here or who worked for Canada or represented Canada abroad. Those were the categories that I thought for sure we should consider to establish that connection.

In that process, in discussing all of this with the stakeholder groups, I proposed that this was what we should do by way of amendments. Various drafts and instructions went to the law clerk, who then came back with lots of different drafts and different things at different times. In that process, I also recognized that I needed the government to support this.

I had these conversations, by the way, with the minister and the minister's office to see if we could come to an agreement and work collaboratively to find a way to address the lost Canadians issue. It was a long process. We put a lot of work into it.

While I didn't get everything I wanted in those negotiations, it was generally agreed to that we would address the issue of the lost Canadians on this second generation born abroad question by establishing a citizenship test. I had wanted it to apply to parents and grandparents. The government wanted it to apply only to parents. I don't agree with it, but I also recognize that I'm not in government, and that this required negotiations. That's where it landed.

The overall strategy of where we landed was something that I did share with stakeholders, all the way through from the beginning. This committee was advised of that as well, so there's no mystery there. Specifically in terms of the subamendments—yes, the subamendments—I should just point out, too, that those subamendments members are referring to were never submitted to the clerk, by the way, as an official package that came back to us. It didn't, until much...until when we were debating this matter.

Loosely, what were the subamendments to do? I knew the government would amend my amendments and that they would only apply the 1,095 connections test to parents. I knew that right from the beginning going in, even before all of this stuff went into the clerk.

In my view, which is what I have been saying all along, I do not believe that there was a breach in confidence here, most certainly not by me or my staff. We did not provide the amendments package from the clerk after it was released back to us to anyone.

We had drafts from legislative counsel on the amendments that I wanted to achieve. We did share some of those drafts with stakeholder groups to invite their feedback and so on and so forth. That's all within the purview of what we are allowed to do and is part of the normal engagement with stakeholders.