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.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the Prime Minister and the Government

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be here today to speak on behalf of the people who sent me to represent them in the House of Commons, the people of London West.

This morning, the leader of the official opposition said that if the Conservatives formed government, they would run things the way they did before, specifically referring to when Harper's Conservatives were in power. That is a big shame. After all, this Conservative Party has promised to create barbaric cultural practices such as hotlines that encourage Canadians to spy on one another. It was this Conservative Party that kept families apart through limited family reunification targets, only because it did not want to let many seniors into this country.

Yesterday, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn spent time filibustering a bill that was first moved by the member for Brandon—Souris, who was the sponsor of the bill. He said the Conservatives would make sure they did not oppose the motion, yet they spent three hours filibustering it, misleading Canadians and not following the promises they made.

It was this Conservative Party that introduced significant cuts to the interim federal health program in 2012, which provided health care to refugees and asylum seekers. These cuts led to limited access to central health services for many refugees, including children and pregnant women. The Federal Court eventually ruled that these cuts were cruel and unusual.

It was this Conservative Party that voted against funding the interim housing assistance program ahead of the cold winter months, playing political games, as they have done since we came back to Parliament, with the lives of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers, again misleading Canadians that they are here to serve. They are here to cut programs that are vital and essential to Canadians.

It was this Conservative Party that shut down the family reunification program for two years, separating families. In fact, a statement made by the former immigration minister under the Harper Conservatives said, “If you think your parents may need to go on welfare in Canada, please don't sponsor them.” This was from a minister in Harper's government. It was the same Conservative Party that accused vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees of abusing Canada's generosity.

The Conservatives are doing what they know best, and that is dividing and misleading Canadians. Shame on them. We will not stand for it, nor will we dignify their shameful tactics to divide Canadians.

Let us talk about what the Conservative Party is doing right now at the citizenship and immigration committee. I want to remind the House what the Conservatives said about Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, during second reading debate. There has been a six-hour filibuster on a motion at the immigration committee regarding Bill C-71.

I will take this opportunity to share that I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport. I got carried away.

I would like to share some of the context on Bill C-71. Given the recent legal changes to the first-generation limit that Harper's Conservatives introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts of excluded citizens. This is especially relevant for those born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent.

In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of the older lost Canadian cases by providing and restoring citizenship and removing the need for anyone to file to retain their citizenship by their 28th birthday. However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Supreme Court of Ontario has now deemed unconstitutional based on equality and mobility rights.

The leader of the official opposition has suggested that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that the Conservatives are considering taking away people's rights when it suits them. What the Conservatives did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians, and I think they will do it again if given the opportunity. When Conservatives say that Canadians have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past, as they have repeatedly said they would run the system exactly how they did before.

Bill S-245, a Senate public bill on the lost Canadians issue, was sponsored by a Conservative senator. However, during the study on this bill, the Conservative Party filibustered for over 30 hours. During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is the sponsor for Bill S-245 and the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians. I want to point out that the Conservative Party continues to trade down this bill, even though it corresponds with its leader, who has assured us that the Conservatives will continue to support and advocate for this legislation.

As I said earlier, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn was quoted as saying that they will make sure there is no opposition to it, yet yesterday, the Conservatives spent hours filibustering, with different colleagues in rotation coming to filibuster. It was very misleading that they told Canadians there would be no opposition and it would be passed quickly. These Canadians came to our committee. The Conservatives listened to witnesses and heard them, yet they still misled them and moved into a filibuster.

We have a government bill in front of us that we want to pass. It is wrong that the Harper Conservatives created this division in the first place. However, once again, the Conservative Party is playing political games with the lives of Canadians. Nothing about that is new. They have done it before and are doing it again. I hope Canadians are watching.

The Conservatives are delaying Bill C-71 from going to committee so it can be debated. They are also filibustering at the immigration committee regarding the motion on Bill C-71. I am so disappointed that the Conservatives have been sharing misinformation and attempting to stoke division and drive fear into the hearts of Canadians, but I cannot say that I am surprised.

The Conservatives constantly talk about people's pensions. They talk about the NDP leader's pension, yet they do not talk about the fact that their own leader has a pension of $230,000. The Conservatives also do not want to address why their leader does not have a security clearance right now. These are all questions that Canadians need answers to, and Conservatives should be asking them themselves.

On this side of the House, we remain committed to righting the wrongs of the unconstitutional first-generation limit on families. We continue to support newcomers. We will continue to provide a safe haven for vulnerable asylum seekers, all the while ensuring that our growth is sustainable and that we continue to build more homes and grow our economy. We have prioritized family reunification by expanding the spousal, parents and grandparents sponsorship program, increasing our annual levels and lowering financial requirements.

We are taking action to restore the integrity of the international student program, protecting students from instances of abuse and exploitation. We have made it easier for foreign national physicians with job opportunities to remain here in Canada and seek permanent residency. We have also launched a health-specific category under express entry to help address labour shortages in the health care sector so that Canadians can receive the quality health care they deserve.

We introduced the home child care provider pilot and home support worker pilot to provide pathways to PR for caregivers. We are also the first country to introduce a special humanitarian stream for women leaders, human rights defenders, LGBTQI+ individuals, persecuted minorities and journalists.

On this side of the House, we will always support newcomers, asylum seekers, refugees and citizens, and we will always stand shoulder to shoulder with them every step of the way.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to do my best to use the last five minutes to point out what just happened in the last two meetings on the Conservative side. Hopefully, Canadians can actually get to hear what just happened.

First of all, earlier, we had a visiting MP—our colleague Hallan—who talked about this as being shameful. There's a form of rotation happening here today. I don't know what's going on, Mr. Chair, but we've had quite a few visiting colleagues on the opposite side to filibuster.

I know he's gone now, but I would like to read this into the record so Canadians know that, today, Hallan attacked our colleague Kwan, making some egregious comments about the work she's done. However, not too long ago, he was congratulating her on the work she did on Bill S-245. Today he spent his time calling her out and disparaging her, despite the fact that they spent three hours filibustering on a motion that he was the.... Our colleague Maguire.... He was the sponsor of this motion. He spent time filibustering it. Our colleague Hallan said he wanted to do this for Canadians.

He lied to them, because he spent time not only disparaging people and colleagues who do—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, I find it quite shameful that Ms. Kwan, who also came here as an immigrant, like me, would hold hostage a bill—Bill S-245—that could have given lost Canadians citizenship immediately. Once again, she teamed up with the corrupt Liberal government, and we completely lost hope for all of the lost Canadians who were looking forward to that bill—I had many people reach out to me about that—much like this Liberal-NDP government has held hostage an election that Canadians desperately want, a carbon tax election at that.

I look around the room, even on the Liberal side, and, Chair, at you, and our great immigration shadow minister, the greatest shadow immigration minister that the Conservative Party has had, in my opinion. We all came here as immigrants. We had the chance to work hard, play by the rules and become citizens, and now we get to have the honour and responsibility of sitting here in Parliament. I find it very shameful that Ms. Kwan would take that hope away from those lost Canadians.

Now, like I said, they've held hostage this Parliament and a carbon tax election that Canadians desperately want. This carbon tax scam was sold by this Liberal-NDP government as lies that are clear to see, now more than ever.

First, they lied and said that this carbon tax scam somehow would fix the environment and that all of the floods and all of the fires would somehow miraculously be fixed. We know that's not true, and it's not just us saying that. It's the government's own department, which says they don't measure the carbon tax scam and what it does compared to emissions, because they know—it's like the Prime Minister—it's not worth the cost. There's nothing that directly says that by raising the carbon tax scam, somehow the environment will get fixed. That was lie number one that they sold about the carbon tax scam—proven wrong once again.

The second lie was how somehow Canadians are supposed to get back more than what they pay into the scam. Again, that was proven wrong over and over again by the government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer. I had the chance to question him as well. He said it on multiple occasions: that when you factor in the fiscal and economic impact of the carbon tax, most households are at a net loss. That goes for all of the provinces where this applies.

That was lie number two that was proven wrong, and now this costly Liberal-NDP coalition wants to quadruple the carbon tax scam. They want to make already expensive gas, groceries and home heating more expensive by quadrupling the scam. They already know that two million Canadians are going to a food bank in a single month because of their failed policies. They know that another million are going there this year. They know that families are going to pay another $700 in the cost of groceries this year. They know all of this. They know that they've doubled the housing costs with the failed policies, but again, because of their radical ideology, they refuse to listen to the 70%, a majority of Canadians, who have said, “Do not raise the carbon tax scam.” They refuse to listen to them. It's because of their radical ideology.

Why are Ms. Kwan and the NDP doing this? It's clear to see: Their leader is up for a $2.2-million pension. That's why, in fact, they voted in favour of the carbon tax scam 24 times, all for the greed of their leader being able to get his pension, and that is why they're holding this Parliament hostage now. They refuse to give Canadians the election they want and the one they deserve—the carbon tax election.

On Bill S-245, I want to take some time to thank my brilliant Senate colleague, Senator Yonah Martin, for putting in the work she did for that bill and for getting it to where it was.

Again, it's sad to see that this NDP-Liberal government totally let down the lost Canadians who had hope in that. When we talk about newcomers, after nine years of this government, newcomers are some of the most hit by the failed economic policies of this costly coalition. As I said before, most of us who are sitting on this committee as members came here as immigrants. Why did we come here? There was something before Justin Trudeau that was called the Canadian dream. That dream meant you were able to work hard and put in effort and you would be able to afford a home, groceries and live in safe communities.

Now, because of wacko and radical policies by this costly coalition, none of that is true anymore, so much so that a lot of newcomers question why they came here. What was the point of moving here? They left everything behind and were promised that they would be able to have an affordable home, groceries and safe communities, but when they got here it was a nightmare. This government has doubled housing costs. They gave Canadians 40-year highs in inflation because of their out-of-control spending. That gave Canadians also the most rapid interest rate hikes in Canadian history. Violent crime, auto theft, extortions—everything is on the rise.

Even small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, have more insolvencies. There are fewer and fewer people who want to invest in Canada, because Canada is not somewhere you can succeed anymore under this government. It's clear to see in the numbers. I think there was a number last year that around 400,000 people left Canada. It's incredible. The number one reason that people are leaving Canada is the cost of living. Number two is that their credentials don't get recognized.

I'll put in a plug for a common-sense Conservative promise, which we'll put forward after we have a common-sense Conservative government under our leader. It's the national blue seal program, which will ensure that for our brilliant immigrants, including the 20,000 doctors and 30,000 nurses who live in Canada today and aren't licensed because of this red tape in bureaucracy, within 60 days, if they can prove their skill and take a test, they will be able to work in the field they're supposed to work in. We can get more doctors and nurses into our health care system.

We'll also make sure that we're building the homes and axing the tax in the carbon tax scam once we do form government so that people actually want to stay here. We will bring back that Canadian dream that we all got to realize. It's sad that the Liberal-NDP costly coalition doesn't want others to see that same Canadian opportunity or Canadian dream that we got to see, so much so that we have people leaving in record numbers.

Once again, it's really sad to see that all of this pain and suffering that Canadians are having to be put through is because the NDP is greedy for their leader's $2.2-million pension. That's it. That's all this is all about. Their leader put on this grand theatre two weeks ago, where he said he “ripped up” the agreement. He made a big deal out of it. He wouldn't stop saying that he ripped it up. We said we didn't think that was true. It only took a week after that where he said, no, he taped it right back up. He used the people in Winnipeg for the by-election that he almost lost.

Now that he doesn't need those votes in Winnipeg, he has taped up that agreement once again. He says he has full confidence in the most ethically corrupt Prime Minister in Canadian history, the one who has doubled housing costs and the one who has let crime, chaos, drugs and disorder run rampant in our communities. The leader of the NDP sold out and said once again that he has full confidence in that same Prime Minister and that same government.

Now Canadians have to suffer even more, because this radical ideology isn't going anywhere. They're promising that they will inflict even more pain by quadrupling the carbon tax scam.

Even this costly coalition knows how bad it is. That's why they hid a report—a secret report that their department hid—which proved that around $30 billion is the hole that this carbon tax scam puts into our national GDP. They hid that report. It took a lot for the PBO to come out about that. All of this for a $2.2-million pension....

Newcomers who we talk to all the time have lost hope. Some of them have to sleep in their cars, as we're hearing. Some students are living under bridges. It isn't their fault at all. They were promised one thing, and when they got here, reality was something completely different. It's not their fault that this costly coalition opened the doors and said, “come on in”, and then blamed them for the housing crisis. This is what incompetence looks like.

First, we had Sean Fraser, the incompetent immigration minister, the now incompetent housing minister, and he passed the torch down to someone who in my opinion is even more incompetent: Marc Miller, who doesn't even know his own file. All they did was blame the same immigrants who they said could come here. They opened the door for them, then blamed them. It's like inviting someone to your house and then blaming them for eating all the food and taking up all the beds.

This is the reality and that's why this Prime Minister is so unpopular today.

It's clear to see. Anyone you talk to is feeling the pain of failed policies by this Liberal-NDP government.

Again, this subamendment brought forward by my brilliant colleague, Tom Kmiec, highlights something that Canadians are asking for everywhere we go. Canadians are tired. Instead of getting approval from Canadians, this costly coalition will continue on their radical path to quadruple the carbon tax scam.

I say, and we say, let's give Canadians the opportunity. Let's put it before Canadians. Let's pause the carbon tax scam. I hope Ken will agree, because he has spoken out against it.

Let's put it before Canadians. Let Canadians decide. Do they want more of this costly coalition that will tax your food, your gas and your home heating and make it even more expensive with this carbon tax scam? Or do Canadians want a common-sense Conservative government under prime minister Pierre Poilievre that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime and bring home that Canadian dream that we all once knew, that country that we all love and that we all knew before?

Let's put it before Canadians and call a carbon tax election now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

—quite shameful that....

Since Ms. Kwan wants to speak up, I guess we'll start with the original motion on Bill C-71. I'll just say it's quite shameful that we had a common-sense Conservative bill, Bill S-245—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I guess you were given a chance to not let me speak, and I voted to not let myself speak, which is unusual. It's probably the first time in nine years I voted to not let myself speak at committee. It's like I'm at PROC all over again in my first term.

I wanted to address a few of the things I heard from the other side, because I think it's material to everything that we've been talking about on this subamendment, how we got here and the reason for the particular legislation that the main motion is referring to.

Mr. El-Khoury talked about the drops in the interest rate by the Bank of Canada, and then sort of implied—well, not implied, almost said it—that it's going to keep going down. Is the Liberal government going to force the Bank of Canada governor to lower interest rates? That would be most unusual because I thought those interest rate decisions were entirely independent of government. If monetary policy is no longer independent, I think you should put it on the record that it's no longer independent.

On the $10 day care programs, I remember the Conservative side voted for Bill C-35, which these agreements are attached to. It's a disaster in my home province, where there are many day cares, especially private day cares, that are going out of business. Especially in my riding, there are a few of my communities where I have a lot of home care that provide day homes. That's how I grew up in Brossard, on the south shore of Montreal. I grew up in these day homes, basically. They're critical. They're being put out of business by the Liberal government agreement that was forced on my province. You will see a lot of criticism from our Alberta minister at the time, before she was promoted to the environment ministry, on this particular issue.

About the school food program that Mr. El-Khoury loves to promote, it has fed exactly zero children. I'm pretty sure there's letterhead. There's probably some nice writing out there with a beautiful font going around—no children fed, zero. There are a lot of private, not-for-profit organizations that have fed more children than the Liberal government.

I'll give you an example. Brown Bagging for Calgary's Kids has probably fed more children in one week than the entire Government of Canada has in the past nine years. If anything, the government that you keep supporting on the other side has probably taken food out of more children's mouths by making it so expensive than it's actually fed.

This food program is just a total sham. It's a total sham. You should not promote it. There are other things you could talk about that maybe you could convince the public on. Judging from the polls the public doesn't trust you. They don't trust the cabinet and really doesn't trust the Prime Minister. I have not even met Liberals at the doors who would be willing to say “I trust the Prime Minister of Canada.” I've found Liberals at the doors saying, “I want to continue voting Liberal.” It's not, “I'm going to.” They say, “I want to continue. I want to find a reason to vote Liberal.”

I think they're ready for that carbon tax election that my subamendment is calling for. I think they recognize that this has to be done. There are a few more things that were mentioned about C-37, the originating piece of legislation that introduced the first-generation limit, which the superior court judge found was charter non-compliant. Again, if you read the actual judicial decision in the paragraph 60 range, specifically, the charter non-compliance is connected to the incompetence of the former IRCC minister.

The Minister of Immigration's department is incompetent. He's incompetent. He can't seem to get a handle on his file. Some people are just not meant for this. They're on their fifth or sixth immigration minister. Maybe it's time for a seventh. I'm not sure how many it will take to fix this.

Bill C-37 was unanimously voted on not once, where perhaps the argument made by the NDP would make sense, but twice. It wasn't that it was just unanimously agreed to; it was unanimous without dissent.

Because I have been the deputy House leader on the Conservative side, I'm going to reveal maybe some inside baseball things for the public. Typically in this place, House leaders talk to each other. The deputies talk to each other. We all know the positions of our caucuses. I'm not sure how the other caucuses work, but in our caucus, we run our House leadership. We tell them what to do. We have votes, and they are directed on certain matters on what to do. That's the way it works.

On Bill C-37 at the time, my understanding then would have been that if everybody unanimously supported it, you unanimously supported everything within Bill C-37, including the first-generation limit. Bill C-37 also restored citizenship to a lot of Canadians. It was fixing some of the errors in the 1977 Citizenship Act, and I think that is really important to mention.

To make the claim that a third party who wasn't a member of Parliament, who wrote a book and who made a claim that was not backed because that person had not talked to Stephen Harper, as far as I know, or parliamentarians, the House leadership or staffers of the time.... To make that claim...it's just that. It's hearsay: Somebody said something. I would not take that to the bank. It's also, I think, a false interpretation of what was said in Hansard. I don't have that particular page with me. It's upstairs in my desk.

I look forward to debate continuing on Bill C-71 in the chamber, and I'm going to be there every single time it comes up. I'm going to participate. I'm going to keep asking the same question I asked the minister on the first day. How many people would be affected by Bill C-71? I know how many people would be affected by my subamendment right now. It would be 40 million-plus Canadians, who are going to go to the polls and pass judgment on all of us, including the Conservatives. They're going to pass judgment on our performance, and I'm looking forward to it. I have zero fear for my constituents and the residents in my riding. I am more than willing to submit myself to their wisdom, and if they choose to vote me out, they can do so.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to be able to earn their support. I'm pretty sure. I've got a gut feeling. They're pretty satisfied with my work, based on my door knocking in my riding and other parts of the country. I have a good feeling about it this time. Even the vice-chair says he'd vote for me. I want to make sure of that as we continue to talk about this subamendment I've put forward.

I also want to talk about the delays in Bill C-71 and this sudden rush that I see from at least one opposition party and the government side now because there is a court-imposed deadline. There was a court-imposed deadline in June, and the government never bothered to put up Bill C-71 for debate. It did not even bother. It was on notice as of May 23, so at any time afterwards it could have been put up for debate. There was almost 20 days' worth of debate during which they could have put up the bill.

Why didn't they tell their House leadership to do it? This I don't understand. There was a court-imposed deadline then as well, and their side chose not to do it, so it is interesting that, after the summer, they come back and now they claim this must be rushed because there's a court-imposed deadline for December.

I'll also remind us that the court's decision in Bjorkquist from the judge was made in December 2023. Why did it take 156 calendar days for them to table a piece of legislation called Bill C-71? It's not even that long. It's an open question; anyone can answer it. Go back to the minister. That's 156 days for legislation when there were multiple breaks in between, and then not a single day was it debated. However, today we're being told that this committee must approve an aggressive, partisan, anti-Conservative motion with a whole bunch of hearsay in the preamble to rush the bill through the House.

Then their own members complained, along with one opposition party, that we Conservatives, and others too, because they all participated in it, spent 30 hours debating different amendments and hearing from government officials, and that was invaluable. They want us to take it to committee, but then they will complain that we have to rush it through committee because we Conservatives will take too much time.

They should go back to their comms people. That's a bad talking point. Their policy people should be writing their talking points. As a former policy guy, I fervently believe this. Let the policy people write the points, not the comms people—with all the blessings to them, because I know we have them on all sides. They exist everywhere I'm sorry to say. Policy people should be the ones writing these points. It just makes no sense.

I now understand the Citizenship Act better, I think, than any other piece of legislation before the House. I'm comfortable now when I read Bill C-71 after what happened with Bill S-245, and we moved many amendments. We all know this. More than 10 of them were Liberal amendments the Conservative side voted for. We proposed over 40 amendments, some of them very substantial. That was not a filibuster. It wasn't a waste of time. It was productive. We were doing actual work.

I also made promises during that meeting so they were on the public record, and I intend to keep those promises. If they play games, then we will be here debating subamendments, amendments and main motions like this from here until the end of this session, because the public is tired of the government side especially. They're in government. They're supposed to govern. If they want to persuade us, then persuade us. Persuade my House leadership and persuade Conservative members of Parliament that they are right. So far, I haven't seen that. What I've seen instead are attempts to circumvent the process.

When Bill S-245 was before you, I said we could expedite that piece of legislation if we stuck to section 8, lost Canadians, which we all agree with. It's even in this legislation. We could still agree with it. It was a Conservative idea from Yonah Martin. I will also add the fact that during the minister's speech, when he was speaking in French, he referred to this.

He said “sénateur Martin” instead of “sénatrice Martin”. Not even knowing that the sponsor of Bill S‑245 in the Senate is a woman, a Conservative senator from British Columbia, is truly ridiculous. His staff did not even check to see who Yonah Martin is, why she tabled Bill S‑245—which is identical to Bill S‑230—and why it passed so quickly in the Senate the last time.

I'd like to see an attempt, a serious attempt. If you want to work together, we can, I'm more than happy to, but I have members on my side who have serious concerns about Bill C-71. They also have concerns, like in my riding, that we will not have the carbon tax election my subamendment is calling for.

I find it interesting too that I heard particular members saying that Conservatives are doing this at all committees. I literally wrote that subamendment on my notepad in what I affectionately call my chicken scratch. I can sort of read it, and then I wrote out the French version right afterwards. There are no games here. I don't go to my House leadership to ask for permission. They know that. They're as frustrated with me as you are.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to be here talking about the issue of the carbon tax again, but I want to start with the comments from Ms. Zahid. I agree with her that there are a lot of trolls on social media. There are a lot of nasty comments. There are horrible un-Canadian things that are said by many people online on social media these days. It's sad that it's come to that in our country.

As my colleague Tom Kmiec said, Conservatives are not immune to this either. I don't want to get into an argument of who gets it worse, but I think all of us as politicians have experienced this. It's something that unfortunately we can't control or that we haven't yet figured out how to control. From my perspective, I've always been very fair with what I've said. I will continue to be that way and communicate that way.

Ms. Kwan spoke about the way in which this bill has gone through. I just wanted to remind everybody—sometimes so much time passes that we forget the original orientation of things—that this whole lost Canadians cause started with a Conservative bill from the Senate, Bill S-245. If we recall back, the whole point was to make it very simple. It's been tried to be fixed many times over the years. It has always failed. It has always gotten mired down in complications, which is exactly where we find ourselves today.

I just want to remind everybody that the whole intent was to make a very simple bill to fix a very specific problem of lost Canadians. The Senate actually pushed all the readings through in one day to get it here. The intention was to bring it to the committee. Everybody had previously agreed to this, so get it in and get it into law. It could have been in law for at least a year, at this point, yet because the government chose to hijack that bill and add a whole bunch of other complexity to it, that caused this problem that we find here today.

I just want to remind people that it was always our intention as Conservatives to fix this mistake, this problem, with lost Canadians, and to fix it quickly. That was our intention. However, because of the government's interference in the bill and trying to complicate things and solve 18 problems at one time, here we are. There's a very good chance that this won't get solved in this Parliament, which is a shame.

I want to talk a little bit more about the carbon tax. It has been mentioned a few times today, but I have a bit of a different angle on this. Back in the fall, when the NDP-Liberal government chose to remove the carbon tax on home heating for those voters in Atlantic Canada—it's been pointed out this was a political decision that was made to supposedly protect votes in Atlantic Canada, which of course hasn't happened—there was an outcry.

I have a quote I want to read. It comes from Saskatchewan. Let me read it here. It says:

This exemption is a clear recognition that Canadians are struggling with crushing inflation and higher costs but it has specifically left out relief for the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta....

Instead of picking and choosing who gets relief based on Prime Minister Trudeau’s election map, we’re calling on the federal government to extend relief to all Canadian families.

Who does that sound like? Who do you think said that? I think most people would guess that it sounds like the Premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe. In reality, these are the words of the NDP leader in Saskatchewan, if you can believe it. The NDP leader said those words, which are essentially the same as what Premier Scott Moe said. I think most western Canadians have that belief. It's shocking. The NDP have completely reversed their position. The people on the ground have reversed that position.

I have a second quote from the NDP leader, Carla Beck, from a recent Regina Leader-Post article, as follows:

Standing beside one of Regina’s business thoroughfares...Saskatchewan NDP Leader Carla Beck denounced federal policies that have failed this province...especially [the] carbon tax.

The carbon tax has got to go. Saskatchewan people can’t afford it, Beck said.

Of course, most living here would agree.

I just find it kind of humorous that at a provincial level, everybody, all politicians, are running as fast as they can away from the carbon tax. Even at the federal level now, finally, the NDP are starting to. Because of the extreme pressure and the obvious math of the next election, we're seeing them start to change it.

I also want to point out that when our province of Saskatchewan decided to stop collecting carbon tax on home heating, as was done in Atlantic Canada, for me personally, my bill went down by $20 a month instantly. That's not an insignificant amount to Saskatchewan people.

That's about $240 a year for me and I think that's about the typical average that can be expected. That's a significant amount of money. That's just one little piece of it on the carbon tax. That's pretty significant.

I think it's interesting how things have evolved and how important it is for the government to wake up, listen to what people are saying and understand that very large numbers of people in this country—not just in western Canada but right across the country—very much dislike this carbon tax. However, the government continues to be adamant that it not only wants to continue with the carbon tax but continue increasing it every year and quadruple it from where it is.

That's why this amendment to the motion is important. It's to allow Canadians to have their say and have a carbon tax election, so that Canadians can speak up and tell government what they want. Then we can move forward from there.

Mr. Chair, we have spoken about this quite a lot, so I would like to make a motion that we adjourn this meeting.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

—that would have been lost altogether. Isn't that right, Greg?

That would have meant that all of that would have been lost and war veterans who fought for this country would have gone to their graves without having been recognized as Canadians. That is shameful. The gender discrimination of the war brides is shameful. That's what happened with Bill C-37.

Fifteen years later, we're trying to fix all of this and again the Conservatives want to play games with people's lives and their suffering. Children that are born stateless are the result of the Conservatives' bill. Separated families are a result of the Conservatives' bill. It got to the point where enough was enough and courageous people took this to court and won.

Even then, the Conservatives say, “Let's put our politics ahead of everybody else and call for an election.” That would mean Bill C-71 would die on the Order Paper. That means constitutional rights will continue to be violated for these lost Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I would add that the Conservatives claim that they support the family members of lost Canadians. Wouldn't you know it? The leader of the official opposition, in correspondence responding to lost Canadian families, said that they would actually see Bill S-245, which is a Senate bill, go to third reading. How did that go?

Not only did they filibuster the bill in this committee for 30 hours but, after we finally got all that passed and it was reported to the House, the sponsor of the bill, Jasraj Singh Hallan, moved in the order of precedence the motion for Bill S-245 as amended to come up to the House for third reading debate and a vote eight times—I think that must be a record—to pre-empt it from actually getting voted on and passed in the House. That is the reality, folks. They can say all they want in all those speeches they just made so that they can put it on social media and say to their leader, “We did our job.”

By the way, to my understanding, they're using that amendment at every committee. It is absolutely a political stunt they're trying to do. I project that they're using it at every committee because I think those are the tactics they want to engage in. That's what we see with those kinds of tactics, a repeat—throw it in, rinse, recycle, start all over again. Those are the kinds of tactics that we have seen over and over again. That's my projection—that it is the kind of thing they will do with the other committees as well, always putting partisan politics ahead of the needs of their community and of Canadians. That's what we're seeing right here, right now, today.

Citizenship Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House, the day after by-elections in two provinces in Canada. There are some commonalities in these two outcomes. In both ridings, the Conservative vote went up by 50% from the last general election. In addition, as in the election in June, when a Conservative was elected in Toronto—St. Paul's, another safe Liberal riding turned out to be not so safe at the end of the day. Something has to happen for people to start listening to what Canadians are thinking. For those across the aisle who are still pretending there is not a problem, that Canadians do not see a problem in the way the country is being run, I ask them to start paying attention and change their direction.

Canadians see clearly how badly government is being run and how they are being marginalized and divided; they are demanding change as soon as possible. One indication of the pure government incompetence is the way the Liberals have managed immigration. One year ago, I was directed to serve on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is not a strength I had before, but my office in Calgary Centre has an immigration caseload that is quite large.

Let me take a moment here to thank my staff in Calgary, Shaney Pap and Laura Wlodarczyk, because they do a fantastic job for Canadians, new Canadians, visitors and families that are navigating the maze of Canada's immigration process. It is a complex enough program, and it has been grossly mismanaged over the past four years.

How do we deal with a backlog of 2.6 million files? We should expedite 1.2 million files per year for two years in a system that previously managed about 320,000 files per year. They increased the workforce by 50%, from 9,200 employees in 2020 to 13,685 in 2023. It was a big increase in government, but corners were cut; we see the consequences of that with the recent arrests that are happening in Canada.

Why is the legislation before us? In December 2023, Ontario's Superior Court declared the first-generation cut-off rule in the Citizenship Act unconstitutional. That ruling was a damning indictment of the Liberal-run citizenship department. The court found a staggering 50% error rate in the processing of citizenship applications. This means that half of all applicants were mishandled, leading to abnormally long processing times and widespread malpractice. Such a high error rate is unacceptable and speaks volumes about incompetence and mismanagement in the current administration. That is the rationale for finding the previous law unconstitutional.

I might suggest that fixing the problem would make the whole issue less unconstitutional, but Bill C-71 proposes to grant citizenship to individuals born abroad with at least one Canadian parent having spent 1,095 days in Canada, the equivalent of three years. At the same time, it fails to require these days to be consecutive and lacks provisions for criminal record checks. This approach is deeply flawed and undermines the very essence of what it means to be a Canadian citizen.

Citizenship is not just a legal status. It is a commitment to our values, our laws and our way of life. By lowering the standards for obtaining citizenship, the NDP-Liberals are devaluing this precious status and putting our national security at risk. The world looks at a Canadian passport as being a very important document.

I forgot to mention at the beginning of my speech that I am splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Thornhill.

Let us compare Canada's rules with rules around the world. The requirement is three years in Canada, according to the proposed bill, and five years in most other democracies. This would be five years of real connection, not just 1,095 days sporadically spread out over a quarter century of a person's life. Bill C-71 would remove the 2009 limit that only allows citizenship for the first generation born abroad.

Under the bill, children born abroad to a Canadian parent, even if the parent was also born abroad, can gain citizenship as long as the parent meets a weak substantial connection test. The parent only needs to show 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada at any point in their life. Since the days do not need to be consecutive, people from multiple generations living abroad, with limited and sporadic ties to Canada, can still claim citizenship for their children. This weakens the substantial connection requirement and risks creating a class of citizens with minimal ties to this country.

Moreover, the government has not provided any analysis of how many new Canadians will be created by Bill C-71. Despite the potential for tens of thousands of new applicants, especially with the removal of the first-generation limit, the Liberals have failed to disclose how many people will gain citizenship through the legislation. This lack of transparency, a common thread, is concerning and prevents us from fully understanding the impact of the proposed bill. Bill C-71 would add thousands of new applications to an already overburdened system.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is already struggling with delays and errors in processing citizenship applications. Adding a significant volume of new applications from abroad would overwhelm the department, exacerbating the existing backlogs. This would lead to an even longer processing time and further erode trust in our citizenship process. The bill does not require individuals granted citizenship to undergo criminal background checks. This poses a potential security risk and undermines Canada's standards of who can become a citizen. Ensuring that new citizens are of good character and pose no threat to our society is a common-sense measure that should not be overlooked.

We do support parts of the bill. While we have significant concerns, there are aspects that we support. Conservatives support the restoration of citizenship to individuals who lost it because of non-application or rejected applications under section 8 of the former Citizenship Act . This primarily includes people born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who were affected by the old rule that required them to apply to retain their citizenship before turning 28 years old. This was part of the original content of Senator Yonah Martin's Senate public bill, Bill S-245, which aimed to address these issues more directly.

We also support the extension of equal treatment to adopted children born abroad. Under the proposed changes, adopted children would be treated the same as biological children of Canadian citizens for the purposes of passing on citizenship. This was supported by Conservative members during the Bill S-245 clause-by-clause committee review, and it is consistent with our party's long-standing position on equal treatment for adopted children.

Conservatives are committed to fixing the broken citizenship system that the Liberals have neglected. We will enforce a more robust substantial connection requirement, streamline processes and address backlogs to ensure timely handling of citizenship applications.

Our approach will restore integrity and trust in the system, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to our great nation. After nine years under the government, Canadians have endured enough chaos and incompetence. It is time for a change. Only common-sense Conservatives will put an end to the Prime Minister's reckless mismanagement and fix our broken immigration and citizenship process. We will restore integrity, trust and efficiency to it, ensuring that Canadian citizenship remains a privilege earned through genuine connection and commitment to this great nation.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the chamber today to give some more context for the proposed legislation to amend Canada's Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe people. I would also like to recognize that indigenous people have been here since time immemorial. The contributions they have made to our country in the past, present and future have been and will continue to be significant. It is our responsibility to continue to work towards reconciliation in coordination and collaboration with indigenous people each and every day.

Being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but, more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes an amendment to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, individuals who either could not become citizens or who lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains.

The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They would also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit. The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once the legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit would no longer apply, allowing Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship on to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to the child if they have lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth.

These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the previous Conservative government.

Additionally, the new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians, and those born abroad to Canadian parents. Any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Once the law is in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for citizenship.

Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and would establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. These updates build on the work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245, further refining the proposal and more comprehensively addressing the issues raised by the courts.

Canadian citizenship represents more than just a legal status; it embodies an ongoing commitment and responsibility. What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no one right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country.

Let us start with how our commitments define us. One of those commitments is to understand ourselves and our history, flaws and all. Our country has a rich history, dating from before the founding of Canada to the indigenous people who have lived on these lands since time immemorial. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their new home. With the exception of indigenous people, every Canadian's history begins with the story of a migrant. As Canadians, we have an ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous people as we continue to strengthen our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis people across the country.

Another commitment we make as Canadians is to come together to build a stronger country for everyone. That is evident in many ways. Canadians spring into action to help those in need, and it is not limited to family, friends and neighbours.

We are there to help, whether that is through emergency response efforts to fight devastating wildfires or floods that threaten our community, keeping food banks well stocked or supporting local charities to help the most vulnerable among us. While these efforts may vary in scope and scale, the sentiment remains the same: We look out for each other when it matters. We know that our country's future prosperity hinges on that sense of goodwill and our continued collective efforts.

Canadians are also committed to inclusion. We choose to welcome diverse cultures, languages and beliefs, and that makes us unique. We value the experiences that have made our fellow Canadians who they are, just as we value the experiences others have. We respect the values of others as they respect ours.

We celebrate this choice. Take Citizenship Week, for example. Every year, across the country and around the world, Canadians use this fantastic opportunity to show pride in their diversity, cultures and achievements. Celebrating our differences helps us learn from one another and better understand the challenges and opportunities that arise in our communities. In turn, we identify new solutions to the problems we must overcome together. Though we are diverse, there are certain ties that bind us. In addition to helping others in times of need, Canadians also work to build opportunities for success and seek to share the benefits of that success with our communities.

How someone becomes a Canadian can vary greatly. As the minister said, it is important to recognize that. Regardless of how one becomes a citizen, we can all agree that we value each and every Canadian equally. Some of us are lucky enough to be born in Canada and are Canadians by birth. Others are newcomers who chose Canada, joined our communities and earned their citizenship. They are referred to as naturalized Canadians. Last, we have Canadian citizens by descent: individuals who are born outside our country to a Canadian parent, who proudly passes down their citizenship.

We hold and value each of these citizens as equal and as part of our diverse country. While we each define how we are Canadians in our own way, Parliament defines who becomes and how someone becomes a Canadian through the Citizenship Act. Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent.

However, it has recently become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments that excluded individuals due to the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional, on both mobility and equality rights. Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts on citizenship by descent. This would apply particularly to those born overseas to Canadian parents.

Today we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, take care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, be more inclusive and share the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadians too. As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians, whether we are citizens by birth, by choice or by descent.

Whether we are born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, our mutual respect for our country and for each other and our enthusiasm to call ourselves Canadians. Canadian citizenship is a fundamental part of who we are. It unites us, opens up opportunities and challenges us to live up to our values: self-knowledge, service to others, democracy, equality and inclusion.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C‑71, which would correct injustices and the institutional nature of the Citizenship Act. I am happy because, ironically, the Bloc Québécois set out to do just that in 2007 and worked incredibly hard on it. I am choosing my words carefully.

I would therefore like to acknowledge the work of the former member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Meili Faille, who took stock and made a list. I know her a bit, so I can imagine how she weighed and re-weighed every detail. She compiled an exhaustive list of problems relating to citizenship. I feel that she must have assessed the individual situation of every Canadian and every Quebecker. Under her leadership, the top experts across Canada worked on two studies, which many of us have quoted in the House. What makes this speech a bit special, if not fantastic, is that it is a privilege for me to talk about the work of Ms. Faille, given that she is now my assistant here in Parliament, and that of her friend Don Chapman, from the Lost Canadians society. Right now, he is a lost Canadian who might be on the high seas or on another continent. I do not know where he is watching from, but I salute him.

I realize that this bill represents an important moment for the families caught up in this circus. It is high time that this citizenship bill made its way through the House. Citizenship is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right rooted in our collective identity.

In Quebec, this concept obviously has a particular resonance. Citizenship is also a reflection of our pride and our desire to build a fair, inclusive society that brings us together and reflects who we are. Obviously, I dream of Quebec citizenship. However, before that, there are steps to be taken. It is unfathomable to ignore the critical importance of this right to full participation in our society, regardless of political stripe.

There are different ways we can become citizens. Some of us were fortunate enough to be born in Canada. Others are newcomers who chose Canada, settled in our communities and obtained their citizenship. They are sometimes called naturalized citizens. There is also citizenship by descent. We are talking about people who were born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.

Today, we must address a crucial aspect of the Citizenship Act that concerns the fairness and inclusiveness of the system. It is well established in Canada that, with very few exceptions, citizenship is automatically granted to anyone born on Canadian soil. However, there are significant challenges when it comes to citizenship by descent for those born outside Canada. These are challenges that we absolutely must resolve.

The Citizenship Act currently imposes a significant restriction. Citizenship by descent is limited to the first generation. In other words, children born abroad to Canadian citizens can only obtain Canadian citizenship if the parent was born in Canada or acquired Canadian citizenship by naturalization before their birth. This restriction excludes those who, due to personal or professional circumstances, have had children born abroad. These days, this is something that can happen to anyone. What's more, it also prevents Canadians born or naturalized in Canada from applying for citizenship for children adopted internationally. This creates inequality and frustration for many individuals who, despite their deep connection to Canada, find themselves unfairly deprived of the rights and privileges of citizenship.

Furthermore, the previous legislation, prior to the amendments made from 2009 to 2015, led to even more complex situations for some, including lost Canadians. These are individuals who lost their Canadian citizenship at the age of 28 if they were born abroad to Canadian parents during a specific period of time, between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, before the law limited the transmission of citizenship to the first generation in 2009. Why keep it simple when it can be complicated?

The amendments proposed in Bill C-71 represent a significant step forward in resolving these long-standing injustices. They seek to expand opportunities to hand down citizenship rights beyond the first generation, which would enable Canadians who are born abroad to hand down their citizenship to their own children, even if those children are born outside Canada. These changes also address situations that were left unresolved by previous reforms and they provide a solution for Canadians who were unfairly deprived of their citizenship under the old legal framework.

By supporting these reforms, we are affirming that our commitment to a citizenship policy that reflects the principles of fairness and justice is essential and that we want to ensure that every citizen, regardless of their place of birth or place of residence, can have their rights fully recognized and protected. By making these changes, we are taking an important step toward fairer, more inclusive legislation that guarantees that our citizenship system is fair for everyone. Since the Citizenship Act was passed in 1977, we have seen that many Canadians, including many Quebeckers, are being deprived of this essential right because of legal shortcomings. Not only does this situation create obstacles in their daily lives, but it also affects their dignity and sense of belonging.

In Quebec, we have always valued justice and equality. It is imperative for these values to be reflected in how we treat citizenship. The proposed changes have to go well beyond superficial adjustments. They have to ensure that this inalienable right is respected and protected for everyone, including those in Quebec who are fighting to have their status recognized.

Yesterday I was explaining to students from Noranda School in Rouyn‑Noranda, who were here visiting Parliament Hill, why our work in committee is fundamental and just as important as our contributions to the debates here in the House. We have here a fine example of how much time it takes and how much work is required in committee. I commend the work of exceptional organizations and people like Don Chapman, who I was talking about earlier. These people work tirelessly for the cause of lost Canadians. I can attest to the contribution of the Chapman family, Brenda and Don, and all they have done for everyone who has asked them for help. I thank the Chapmans on their behalf. Many interventions have been made in committee.

I listened carefully to yesterday's debate on this bill. It is true that the Conservatives put members in a very delicate position in 2008. In response to the parliamentary work of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, they implemented the vast majority of the corrective actions recommended in the report entitled “Reclaiming Citizenship for Canadians: A Report on the Loss of Canadian Citizenship”. While that legislation did fix some aspects, it also contained a controversial provision that limited citizenship to the first generation only, excluding the second generation born abroad. This provision was an integral part of Bill C‑37.

Those who followed the debates at the time will recall that the Harper government clearly stipulated that Bill C‑37 would be repealed if it was not passed in its entirety. If that vote had not taken place, thousands of Second World War veterans, as well as tens of thousands of their wives and children, would have lost their rights in their own country. How appalling, considering the important contribution that veterans have made to the quality of life and freedom of people in this country.

A war bride who was 20 years old in 1946 would now be 98. Many of those veterans and their wives have passed away. If MPs back then had rejected the first‑generation limit imposed by Bill C‑37, those people would have died without citizenship, all because of the attitude of the Harper government at the time.

I have been closely following the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study on Bill S-245 and the enormous amount of work that has been done to try to fix the problematic situations. However, this bill does not actually include the changes that the lost Canadians wanted to see. It is also important to remember that, while all this was happening, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto was hearing a case on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Citizenship Act. The Liberal government waited until it received an ultimatum before taking action.

The bill responds to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling which declared that the first generation limit on citizenship applicable to the children of Canadians born abroad is unconstitutional.

On December 19, 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down section 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act on the ground that it violated mobility rights under section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”, and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, entitled “Equality rights”, which states that every individual is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.

The Government of Canada chose not to appeal this decision and has finally acknowledged the inequity of this restriction. The government has until December 19, 2024, to pass Bill C-71. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill because the Bloc Québécois believes that it rectifies historical injustices.

In his decision, the judge accepted the argument that women are particularly affected because the second-generation cut-off discriminates against them based on their sex, forcing women of child-bearing age to choose between travelling, studying or having a career abroad and returning to Canada in order to maintain their right to pass on citizenship to their children. There is something rather absurd about that. The Bloc Québécois supports any legislation that puts an end to discrimination against women.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for sport, I also want to commend Erin Brooks, a very talented surfer with roots in Quebec who grew up in Tofino, British Columbia. We heard from her at committee. Unfortunately, her dream of representing us in Paris at the 2024 Olympic Games did not come to pass. After spending more than three years in administrative limbo thanks to the Conservatives, she was unable to straighten out her citizenship issues in time to qualify. The Citizenship Act needs to be overhauled to end this kind of nonsense. We are proud of Erin and we wish her a successful career in sport representing us, Quebec and Canada.

Bill C‑71 corrects the situation for the remaining categories of people who have been left out despite successive reforms to the Citizenship Act. It is imperative that we tackle the challenges and injustices in our citizenship legislation with determination and compassion. The amendments proposed in Bill C‑71 provide a valuable opportunity to address persistent gaps and expand access to citizenship for everyone who is entitled to it.

By extending the opportunity to pass on citizenship beyond the first generation and by resolving the outstanding issues left unresolved by previous reforms, we are strengthening our commitment to fairness and inclusiveness. Every individual deserves to have their rights fully recognized, regardless of where they were born or where they live.

In supporting these reforms, we are not only advancing our legislative agenda, but also affirming our commitment to building a fairer citizenship system that respects the fundamental principles of equality. It is time to ensure that our citizenship policy truly reflects the values of justice and inclusiveness to which we aspire. Through these actions, we are demonstrating our commitment to a future where all citizens, regardless of their background, find their place and have their rights fully respected.

In closing, I want to highlight two things. It seems rather ironic to talk about Canadian citizenship and the laws of this Parliament. Back in 1995, I remember when Canada gave thousands of people the right to vote by granting citizenship to newcomers who did not have the background or family ties that come to mind when we think of the lost Canadians. I find it extremely offensive when political issues are used to promote or defend what people call “Canadian unity”. We saw a government illegally fast-track the citizenship process. Then there are the people who contributed and paid their taxes their entire lives who may not even have realized they never had citizenship and who were marginalized and denied certain rights.

Something is wrong there.

Take, for example, Roméo Dallaire, an outstanding citizen. He did not have Canadian citizenship when he did the work in Rwanda that made him so famous and that made us so proud of him and his integrity. These are very real situations that lost citizens encounter and that we must put an end to today in the interest of justice and fairness.

I have a little time left. I would like to use it to congratulate my friend, Louis‑Philippe Sauvé, who was elected in the riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I met him about 15 or 20 years ago in the youth wings of the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois. He is a hard-working activist, and he has proven that over the past few weeks by earning the trust of the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. I look forward to welcoming him to the Bloc Québécois benches.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-71. This bill proposes to amend Canada's Citizenship Act and restore citizenship to those individuals who lost it due to previous unconstitutional legislative amendments.

I was compelled to participate in this debate after hearing from some of my constituents on this matter. However, I was struck by recent comments made by the Conservative member for Edmonton Manning. The member mentioned knocking on doors and talking to Canadians, saying that the changes put forward by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship today, changes that the courts have clearly indicated are needed, are just making more Canadians of convenience and that this would grant citizenship to tourists. I can tell members that I have heard the contrary from constituents.

It was just a few months ago while I was door-knocking in one of our growing neighbourhoods in Whitehorse, Whistle Bend, that I had a great conversation with a woman who had lived in Canada for years. Whitehorse is her home, and Canada is her home. However, she is one of our lost Canadians, and not having citizenship for her country matters greatly to her. She was glad to hear that this bill we are considering today is in the House and that it would bring her a step closer to being a citizen in a country that she had lived in for so long, that she loves and where she will spend the remainder of her days. I want to thank this constituent for sharing her story with me. She pressed us to help neighbours, colleagues and families who are lost Canadians. I thank her. I will do my part to support this bill, which will help lost Canadians. I also thank her for introducing me to her very cute dog, Pete.

Another constituent of mine has shared with me about a family member of theirs. This family member was born outside of Canada while their parents lived abroad working for a non-profit organization. Their dedication to service obviously ran in the family. This individual who was born abroad chose, as an adult decades later, to go into much similar work and now lives abroad working for a Canadian registered not-for-profit organization. This individual now has children while working abroad. A few years after that first child was born, they applied for their child's citizenship and passport, but they were denied based on the young child being from the second generation born outside of Canada.

My constituent's cousin asked why his children being punished with refusal of citizenship due to the service of their parents and grandparents in a not-for-profit organization. There are special considerations for members of the Canadian military but not for citizens in other areas of service.

Here is what I heard: “Not only does it hurt to know that my kids are not citizens, but it also calls into question how I end up feeling about my own Canadian citizenship. I feel very much like a second-class citizen as a result. Although I do not live in Canada, I do feel very much Canadian. I would love to be able to give that gift to my children.”

Families like those of my constituent, and the constituent I spoke with directly a while ago who is personally one of those lost Canadians, have been put into very difficult situations following the 2009 law passed by the last Conservative government. While the Conservative opposition filibustered a bill for 30 hours, a bill put forward by one of their Conservative senators, it is my hope that this new bill can bring some relief and justice to these families placed in such awkward and hurtful situations.

Many people around the world seek to come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. In my opinion, Canada is the best country in the world, and it is clear that it is the top choice for newcomers to begin the next chapter of their lives. Canada is a country that is welcoming, diverse and inclusive. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we are proud to be Canadians, whether we were born here and raised here or came to this country, like me, going through the process of making it our home.

In 2009, Canada's Citizenship Act was amended to resolve this issue and simplify the rules around citizenship. The 2009 amendments repealed the requirement to act in order to retain citizenship, but at the same time, the Harper Conservatives fundamentally changed citizenship by descent by introducing a harmful and unconstitutional first-generation limit. Individuals born outside of Canada in the second generation or a subsequent generation were no longer able to inherit citizenship and could only become Canadians through the naturalization process, which is by applying and coming to Canada, becoming a permanent resident and passing our citizenship test. It is deeply offensive to be asking someone who is rightfully Canadian to immigrate to their own country.

The 2009 changes also ensured that anyone who was born after the 1977 legislation but who had not yet turned 28 when these changes took place was allowed to maintain their status and remain Canadian. At the same time, in 2009 and then again in 2015, the government introduced amendments to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to groups of people who lost citizenship or who never became citizens in the first place because of rules in the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which we now recognize as outdated.

The vast majority of lost Canadians were remedied by legislative amendments in 2009 and 2015. Since 2009, nearly 20,000 individuals have come forward and been issued proof of Canadian citizenship related to these amendments to the Act. In December 2023, a court decision required that the Citizenship Act be revisited once more. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional on both equality and mobility rights.

It was clear during the study at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245 that there is still a cohort of people remaining who refer to themselves as lost Canadians. These are people, of course, who were born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generations and who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of the now repealed rules that required them to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday. This cohort of lost Canadians is limited to a group of people who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent between February 1977 and April 1981, did not take steps to retain their citizenship before turning 28, and were the second or later generation born outside the country.

Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements using feedback from experts and those affected, it made sense to incorporate some of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's suggested changes into the new legislation. Today's legislation builds and improves on the work done in Bill S-245. It would restore and provide citizenship for groups impacted up to the date of the legislation coming into the force of law. It would also create new rules for citizenship by descent from the legislation's start date, ensuring a fair and inclusive Citizenship Act going forward.

This legislation offers the best solution for a welcoming and inclusive future. It would restore citizenship to those who might otherwise have lost it, and it would address the concerns from Parliament and the Ontario Superior Court with the Harper Conservatives' exclusionary legislative amendments from 2009.

I hope we can all continue to work together to quickly pass the legislation and provide a better regime for future generations of Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-71. I would like to sincerely thank those who spoke before me and defended the interests of Canadians who lost their citizenship due to the complexity and shortcomings of previous legislative amendments to the Citizenship Act.

Today, we will take the next step toward fairness and inclusion.

For me, being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but also, and more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts.

In 2007, this place was studying the matter of lost Canadians and Canadian war brides. In March 2007, a witness testified at the CIMM committee and shared how it all started when her brother, by then retired from the Canadian navy, went to get a passport in 2004. That is when she and her brother learned that her family had been stripped of their Canadian citizenship. She thought she was alone, but she soon learned that there were many people like her. They had family members who were World War II veterans and war brides and had learned that they were no longer Canadian citizens. She shared how Melynda Jarratt of Fredericton, the founder of the Canadian War Brides website, put her in touch with Don Chapman and the lost Canadians. Don worked closely with a former member of Parliament, the Hon. Andrew Telegdi, which is how I learned so much about this file.

Today I have listened to a mostly fruitful debate. We know where each party in this chamber stands; all agree that the bill needs to go to committee, but for that to happen, it needs to be called to a vote. Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue.

I did not choose where I was born or whom I was born to, but I am proud that my grandfather chose to come to Canada and that I was born and raised in the Waterloo region. I could not imagine someone arbitrarily taking my citizenship.

The CIMM committee witness also spoke about numerous people she met; they had in common that they were lost Canadians. She also shared some of the reasons Canadians lost their citizenship, including being born out of wedlock or being born on a Canadian Forces base overseas. We can let that register for a second: When a person serving in our Canadian Armed Forces had a baby born on a Canadian Forces base overseas, that child could be stripped of their Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71 proposes to restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, the individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship because of outdated legislated provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains, so lost Canadians and their families launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off.

In December 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that it is unconstitutional for Canada to deny automatic citizenship to children born abroad because their parents also happened to be born abroad. It gave the federal government six months to repeal the second-generation cut-off rule and amend the Citizenship Act.

Several constituents within the riding of Waterloo questioned what this ruling meant. It means that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down Bill C-37, the old citizenship law of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, which prevented parents born outside Canada from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad. The court ruled that the Conservative bill, Bill C-37, violated these people's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, their mobility rights and women's rights, or equality rights.

Today, I hear Conservative members saying that the government should have appealed this ruling. To me, this is telling, and I hope Canadians are watching and seeing their position. The Conservative Party of Canada may have changed their leader several times, but they have not changed who they are or what they believe. They believe in two tiers of citizenship. They support people who agree with them; everyone else does not belong in their vision of Canada. This is appalling and should be very concerning.

My Canada is an inclusive Canada. I respect and value the diversity of people, of perspectives, of experiences and so forth. However, I digress.

In response to the courts, in May, our government introduced Bill C-71, which proposes changes to Canada's citizenship laws that would address the concerns of the court and the constitutionality of the Conservative bill, Bill C-37.

As I mentioned earlier, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. These lost Canadians launched a constitutional challenge in court of the two-generation citizenship cut-off, and they won. The legislative amendment outlined in Bill C-71 respects the court's decision; it would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. As the independent courts have ruled, that is their right. It would also address the status of descendants affected by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit.

The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. After enactment of the legislation, the harmful Conservative first-generation limit would no longer apply. Canadian citizens born abroad would be allowed to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. Within the legislation, a Canadian parent born outside the country would be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the Harper Conservative government.

What is more concerning is that, under its new leadership, the Conservative Party continues to support two-tier citizenship in Canada. It is appalling that Conservatives in this place refuse to respect the courts. They refuse to accept that the Conservatives do not get to choose who should or should not have Canadian citizenship. However, this mentality has existed before. It existed with the previous Conservative government, which introduced and passed Bill C-37. At that time, the point was raised that we could make the legislation better. However, the Conservatives refused; thus, the lost Canadians had to accept a small step. We know today that what was passed is unconstitutional legislation. Lost Canadians took this matter to court and won, and that is what brings us here today.

The Conservative opposition repeats the same behaviours. Bill S-245 is sponsored by a Conservative member. This Senate public bill passed the Senate, completed first reading and second reading in this place, and completed consideration at committee on June 12, 2023. Although it should have been called for third reading debate, the Conservatives continue to trade it down so it cannot be called to a vote. Some people will ask why.

To pass a bill while elected, especially as a private member, is a massive privilege. However, do members know what happened? The Conservatives did not get their way. At committee, a bill can be studied and scrutinized, witnesses and experts can testify, members can ask questions and amendments can be proposed. The majority of the members of that committee proposed and passed amendments. I believe all did so except for the Conservative members. However, because the Conservatives did not support them, they refused to see Bill S-245 be debated at third reading. To me, that is disgusting, as well as disrespectful of the work we do in this place.

I am not surprised, as I have seen the Conservative Party in action for a long time. I know the Conservatives love to change their leader, but they refuse to change their ways. Let us remember what I mentioned earlier: Conservatives support two-tier citizenship, and they only support those who think as they do. That is not an inclusive Canada.

I would also like to mention that Bill C-71 would continue to reduce the difference between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadian parents. It should be noted that any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. With the law in place, the same criteria would apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad, meaning that, if the adopted parent born outside Canada could show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child would be eligible for Canadian citizenship. Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded and establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward.

Our citizenship process and rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it has become clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments, which excluded individuals because of the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear: The Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit is unconstitutional in terms of both mobility and equality rights.

Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts on citizenship by descent. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. For example, former senator and lieutenant-general Roméo Dallaire was born in the Netherlands to a Canadian father and a Dutch mother. He grew up in Montreal. When he was 24, he was a Canadian Army officer stationed overseas. Because of the rules in Canada's Citizenship Act, which have since been amended, he found out when he tried to apply for a passport that he was not actually a Canadian citizen. He was, in fact, a lost Canadian.

Today we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, take care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, be more inclusive and share the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadian too. As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians. Whether we are citizens by birth, by choice or by descent, whether we were born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, by our mutual respect for our country and for each other. This matter is very close to my heart. It is something that I have known for a really long time.

We have the ability today to see legislation advance. It is okay for us to disagree. It is okay to propose amendments. This government, more than any government in our history, has accepted amendments at committee, on the floor of the House of Commons and from the Senate. That is important to do. Getting legislation right is important because we are here to serve Canadians. Today, we have the ability to actually see the legislation advance. Perhaps we need another day of debate. That is okay. I wanted to speak to the legislation as well, and it is important for people to discuss and raise points that will actually improve this legislation and raise any concerns.

However, what is concerning is that the Conservatives today keep talking about how many Canadians will benefit from this. The reality is that these people are Canadian. The court is telling the government and every member here that these people are entitled to their Canadian citizenship. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects them. They should have the ability to be Canadian, and the courts are ruling on that. Therefore, the legislation is really about righting the wrongs of the past. We can move the legislation to committee and debate on amendments, but what will be clear is that something of a consensus is being achieved. I heard from the Bloc and the NDP. I heard from and have spoken with Green members. I have heard the points they are raising. I know where the Liberals stand. The Conservatives are actually not the majority of voices today. Just as they did for Bill S-245, they are making sure that we cannot call it to a vote. They will most likely slow it down in this place. They will read their scripted speeches. They will probably try to move some kind of tactic, or whatever else. Once it goes to committee, I am sure there will be a few tantrums thrown there as well.

However, what is important is that we do this right. As I mentioned in my speech, Canadian citizenship should not be a partisan issue. We have a choice in our country. We can actually ensure that we are not following the lead of other countries. We can do democracy well. We can think about the people who fought in uniform for us to have our rights and freedoms. With rights and freedoms come responsibilities, and I hold those responsibilities very near and dear to my heart. When my grandfather immigrated, he would never have imagined that his granddaughter would put her name on a ballot, let alone be elected.

To represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo is truly an honour and a privilege. To hear their voices and represent the diversity of their perspectives is something I take seriously day in, day out.

I have been here since the day started and have been very impressed with a number of points raised in today's debate. I have really appreciated that even with differing views within our political parties, at the end of the day, we have all been talking about Canadian citizenship and the importance of respecting the independent judicial system.

I believe we should have the question called sooner rather than later. I hope the committee is anticipating this legislation so we can hear from experts and witnesses who can help us ensure this legislation is right. It is the time to do it.

I look forward to receiving some good questions and having the emergency debate that will take place after we adjourn for the day.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-245, which was the original legislation, led to Bill C-71 partially because of the Ontario Superior Court decision. The Ontario Superior Court decision in Bjorkquist states specifically, in the 260 paragraph series, that one of the reasons the judge found the current legislation non-compliant was because of all the administrative burdens, delays and incompetence of government officials.

In fact, in several cases, it was found that out of the sample that the judge took, 50% of the files had errors in them, including sending the wrong Canadian citizenship documents to the wrong family, errors in permanent residency and errors in when a person became a citizen of Canada. It goes on and on, and because of those errors, the judge considered it non-compliant.

Therefore, one of the things we did at committee is introduce an amendment to the original legislation that is not in Bill C-71, which is to block a person from having their citizenship restored or gaining citizenship by descent if they are facing current criminal charges in another country. The Liberals, at the time, voted down that amendment. I thought it was a very reasonable amendment. It would make sure nobody facing criminal charges or who had been charged and convicted of a criminal offence would be able to get Canadian citizenship through this process.

I wonder if the member could reflect on what has happened over the last six to 12 months with other temporary and permanent visa applications, where we have seen the government fail to do proper security screening.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning when the minister rose to speak to this legislation, he did not give a number for how many potential new Canadians would be created through the legislation. When I asked him the question, he did not have a response; he dodged it. This was a question asked to government officials back when Bill S-245 was being debated at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The question was asked repeatedly and the government could not provide an answer.

Is the member not concerned that there would be an administrative burden imposed upon the government? There could be thousands, tens of thousands or 100,000 new applicants requesting proof of citizenship documents and then passport documents, travel documents to Canada and other such services from the Government of Canada. We already have a backlog of over two million applications in different regular streams of immigration to Canada, but also for temporary visa streams to Canada. The minister was incapable of explaining. His words were that there were “logistical planning” issues.

Does the member believe this would pose a greater burden on government services? There would be a greater cost associated with it. There is no definite number for how many Canadians would be impacted. Therefore, it would be irresponsible and reckless to vote for it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my comments are part of the actual debate. I can tell the member who stood up on a point of order, calling into question my statement on the legitimate concerns people have with respect to that second generation limit and beyond, that there are many Canadians who have all sorts of reasons and rationales they can use that might put them into a position where the law that was passed back in 2009 by Stephen Harper ultimately has compromised them. What is being lost in a lot of the discussion, especially coming from the Conservative Party, is that this legislation would have a very profound, positive impact for many people who believe, as they should, that they are Canadian.

The Conservatives are saying no to that. They will come up with a rationale or an excuse to attempt to justify their attitudes toward it, but I would suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in their thinking, which is that the law passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party back in 2009 has a fundamental flaw. It is called the Constitution. The Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights clearly demonstrated, through the Superior Court in the province of Ontario, that the law, as it was passed by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, was in violation of the Constitution. That decision was made toward the end of 2023.

If we were to rewind a bit, we would find that there was a wonderful opportunity to address the issue in the form of a piece of legislation from the Senate that was brought forward dealing with the issue of citizenship. The Conservative Party at the time saw the merit of the legislation to the degree that it was prepared to bring the legislation through the House of Commons on behalf of the Senate. Things were going relatively well until it got to the committee stage.

I was not at the committee, but I am told there were 29 or 30-plus hours, and I am not 100% sure, where the Conservatives filibustered the debate. The Conservative Party felt that the changes the opposition and government members were making to the legislation made it unacceptable, even though the Superior Court in the province of Ontario said that it was in violation of the Constitution.

The bill passed at committee stage, and because it was a Conservative initiative, it means the Conservative Party has to allow it to come up for debate at report stage and at third reading here in the House of Commons. We all know there is a calendar that is set and that allows for private members' business. I am talking about Bill S-245 in particular. It would ultimately be guaranteed, virtually, because it was high enough in precedence to get that debate. Now, the Conservative Party has made the decision that it does not want that debate because when that debate starts, it is only for two hours, which includes at report stage. The brain thrust from the Conservative Party, the House leadership team that believes in things like using the notwithstanding clause to take away rights, is that it does not want to bring it forward, so it will defer it to another piece of legislation.

I do not know how many times the Conservatives have done that. That now leaves the government in a very difficult position because that superior court decision actually allows us to make the changes. I believe it is until the end of the year, but do not quote me on it. We need to see the legislation get through. If it does not get through, that would cause some other issues.

I am actually encouraged that an NDP member stood in her place and tried, through unanimous support, to get it through the House. That was not the first time. When we had the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, there was an attempt to get it through virtually all steps, and I thought that was a good idea.

Now we are saying, at the very least, let us get it to the committee. In fact, some Conservatives will say that it just needs some amendments, and maybe they could support it if there were some amendments.

The problem is that the Conservative Party knows, and I know, the only way this legislation is going to get past second reading and get to committee stage, based on the discussions I have witnessed and the history of the Conservative Party playing a destructive force here on the floor of the House of Commons, is if the Bloc or the New Democrats decide to support a government initiative to time allocate the legislation.

If that does not happen, I do not believe for a moment that the Conservatives are going to allow it to go to committee. They have already made the determination that this is bad legislation. The reason I used that example is so that people following the debate would have a better appreciation of why it is so important that the legislation actually pass.

We are talking about real people not being recognized and given their Canadian citizenship. That is a very real issue. When this legislation passes and receives royal assent, people are going to be given their Canadian citizenship. We all know how important that is to Canadians.

It has been pointed out that there are three ways in which one becomes a citizen of Canada. The easiest and most obvious way is via birth. Some families have been here for generations. My roots go back to the province of Quebec and then over to Manitoba. Some went into other prairie provinces. We have been here for generations. I am a citizen because I was born here.

I often meet families, relatively young couples who might have two or three children. One of the children was actually born here in Canada, and some of them are still in the process of being recognized as permanent residents. That is something the Conservatives seem to have issues with. Some are going through the Manitoba nominee program, and will ultimately become citizens of Canada after going through a rigorous procedure. They have a sense of pride when they are able to say, “My child, this one here, was actually born here in Canada.”

Whether it is that child who was born here or someone like myself, having been born here, we are all equal. That is the way I perceive it. People might want to try to distort that in different ways for different political purposes, but that is one way to become a citizen.

Another way to become a citizen is through naturalization. Naturalization is through one of the many different streams of immigration. Some provinces, including mine, would have been challenged for many years, in terms of a growing population, if it was not for immigration and those individuals who ultimately become citizens of Canada, and most of them do.

Every one of us is afforded the opportunity to go witness, first-hand, swearing-in ceremonies. If one has not taken that opportunity, I would highly encourage all members to participate in a citizenship court. There is a sense of pride when 50, 60 or 70 people are sitting in a room and have all met the requirements to become a Canadian citizen and then are sworn in as Canadian citizens. I have had the opportunity to speak at many of these over the years. I have had opportunities, as I would trust that most have, to extend personal congratulations and to witness tears in eyes because of that step.

This is where I tend to differ. There was a Conservative member who talked about being Canadian. For immigrants coming to Canada, becoming permanent residents and then becoming citizens, the expectation is not that one forgets about one's homeland. Canada is the greatest country in the world to live in and to call home, but it does not mean that we have to forget about the home in which we were born. Ultimately, I would suggest that some of Canada's greatest assets are our diversity and our ability to build upon our world community and how we use that as a way to expand our economy and to showcase our diversity to the world, in terms of how people can get along.

I like to think that we are not a giant melting pot, as some Conservatives might like to try to portray, but rather, take a look in terms of the values and the norms and mores of our society. That is the second way.

The third way is by dealing with the whole idea of descendants and, specifically, the legislation recognizing what I made reference to at the beginning, and that was dealing with the first-generation issue established back in 2009.

Some Conservatives will say that Liberals voted for it at that time. I have heard that on a number of occasions. I can assure the member that I personally did not vote for it at that time, but that does not really matter because I understand the context in which that vote took place. It has been explained here before. It was a holistic piece of legislation coming forward, and that was where the mistake was ultimately made. We had the prime minister of the day threatening to take away the legislation unless it ultimately was able to go through in a more timely fashion without, necessarily, amendments. We know that Stephen Harper was not fond of amendments. I know that first-hand, in many different ways.

This legislation deals with that issue along with something the previous speaker recognizes, something he supports, and that is the issue of adoption. In the House, we often have discussions where we talk about adoptions. We try to give the impression, I would like to think, in a very honest and genuine way, that an adoption is just as important as a natural delivery or a biological child. The way we can enhance that through the Citizenship Act is a very strong positive. I would think that all members would support that.

Taking a look at the legislation itself, and even taking a look at the background of the legislation, I would have thought, as some members have already pointed out, that there would not be an issue with it passing the House of Commons. Unfortunately, based on the debates that we are hearing from members of the official opposition today, they are more preoccupied with the Conservative Party of Canada and their leader than with Canadians as a whole. As a direct result, we find ourselves in a position where there are going to be many people in different regions who are not going to be able to get their citizenship.

There is going to be another speaker after I sit down, and I believe it is going to be a Conservative member. I would like to think, at the very least, that the Conservative member could give a very clear indication that the Conservative Party is not going to require other opposition members and the government to bring in time allocation to see this legislation pass and at least allow it to go to committee.

The Conservatives say that they have amendments or changes. When Senate Bill S-245 was at committee, there were changes that were made to it. The minister has been clear in being open-minded to possible changes. If the Conservative Party has changes, then let us get the bill to committee to allow us to see what the Conservative Party has in mind or what its plan actually is.

We know that members of the Bloc and the New Democratic Party are supporting the legislation, and I appreciate that fact. However, we have a couple of days. Let us see what happens with the legislation. Maybe the Conservatives will have a conversion of sorts and see the value in passing this legislation on to committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

No kidding.

I know the Conservatives, of course, are trying to say that, no, they're not standing in the way, but their record speaks for itself. As we saw with Bill S-245, the Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours, and then even after it got through committee here and was reported to the House with amendments, the Conservatives and the member for Calgary Forest Lawn refused to bring the bill up for third reading eight times and moved it back in the order of precedence eight times.

I'm not surprised by where we're at with respect to that. With respect to this particular motion, this is something that I've been trying to motivate for a very long time. The motivation behind all of that is to say the law needs to be corrected. The unconstitutional elements of, in particular, the “second generation born abroad” provisions and allowing them to have access to citizenship conferred on them from their parents needs to be rectified, as has been indicated by the Ontario Superior Court. It is not only the morally right thing to do. It is the legally right thing to do and is required by law.

The subamendment and the closed work permit study, a study my good colleague MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe brought before this committee and to which I made an amendment, is to really address the findings of the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery and for Canada to properly address that issue. I would be happy to work expeditiously to see that work finished so we can get on to other business, including, of course, Bill C-71 at committee stage, and other items as well, including the Afghan letter, regarding which a grave injustice has taken place with respect to the Afghan situation. I was surprised that the Conservatives would actually agree to adjourn the debate on having that letter and the motion contained in that letter voted on at this committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm absolutely sure who it was, because I was sitting right in the chamber watching all of this. There was one member who actually said no and who subsequently got up to ask a question. All of that, by the way, including my speech, is on the public record.

To the point here with respect to this particular motion, I have to say that it should be no surprise to folks around this table, because it was the Conservatives who filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

I am honoured to be here to discuss some highly necessary amendments to the Citizenship Act.

Bill C-71 continues to clean up the messes created during the Harper administration, particularly with respect to immigration and lost Canadians. We need to do the right thing. We need to move this piece of legislation forward. It is the right thing to do. It is great to see it receiving support from the other parties, but unfortunately it is not receiving support from the party that wishes to not work constructively for Canadians.

This proposal would not be possible without the groundwork laid by the immigration committee during its study on Senate public bill, Bill S-245. I would like to offer my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois members for their efforts to help lost Canadians. Citizenship in Canada is precious. It can be attained by birth, by naturalization or by descent. Citizenship by descent in Canada is what we are here to focus on today.

However, no matter how they obtained Canadian citizenship, all Canadians should be treated equally in a country as proud of its diversity as ours is. We need to amend the Citizenship Act to address the fact that specific groups have been excluded from citizenship.

We also need to settle the constitutional matters raised by the courts regarding citizenship by descent, in particular for people born abroad to a Canadian parent. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the first-generation limit imposed by Mr. Harper was unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights.

It was a Conservative piece of legislation that was deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional.

As the hon. minister said, to understand the scope of the problem, we need to know the history and evolution of the Citizenship Act and the facts surrounding the group known as the “lost Canadians”.

We know that cohort is a limited one. The majority of lost Canadian cases were remedied by the legislative amendments that were implemented in 2009 and 2015, with approximately 20,000 people acquiring citizenship or having their citizenship restored through these amendments. There is a specific cohort that met specific criteria. This cohort of lost Canadians was born abroad between 1977 and 1981, in the second or further generations, and had already turned 28. They lost their citizenship prior to the passing of the 2009 legislation and the repeal of this age requirement.

When I was first elected, I had a couple from southern Italy, who now reside here in Canada, come visit my office. This situation applied specifically to them. The mother was a Canadian citizen born in Italy who obtained Canadian citizenship through her father. The wife was born in Italy. The mother could not pass down Canadian citizenship to her daughter because of the legislative changes brought in by the prior Conservative government. Again, we are still cleaning up Conservative messes nine years later.

The goal of the Senate public bill, Bill S-245, brought forward by Senator Martin from British Columbia, as well as the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, was to restore the citizenship of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule. When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration as amended, it aimed not only to restore citizenship to this group, but also to allow some people born in the second or further generations to be deemed Canadian citizens by descent. Their citizenship status hinged on the condition that their Canadian parent could demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. In other words, if that Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, consecutively or otherwise, their citizenship could be passed on to that child, even beyond the first generation abroad.

Bill S-245, as amended by committee members, also proposed to ensure that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian beyond the first generation can also access citizenship. In those cases, there is a different process for adopted children, but the end result remains the same. They are Canadian.

The Ontario Superior Court decision that deemed the Harper Conservative first-generation limit on citizenship by descent unconstitutional came down after the committee began its review of Bill S-245. Given that the first-generation limit is a key element of our citizenship by descent framework, Parliament must establish a new framework to manage the issues raised by the court and ensure fairness in the Canadian Citizenship Act, something the opposition party does not really understand.

Bill S-245 has now gone through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those directly impacted. Therefore, we have adopted some of the committee's suggested changes in Bill C-71 to ensure the needs of Canadians are accurately reflected. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act in 2024, would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians and their descendants, doing the right thing for all Canadians. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

Similar to the proposals in Bill S-245, Bill C-71 would expand access to citizenship by descent with a more broad approach and a focus on inclusivity. These revisions would address the issues raised by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding the previous Harper Conservatives' legislative amendments, including the first-generation limit.

As with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill will automatically confer citizenship on some individuals born abroad who may not wish to be citizens for a variety of reasons, such as employment opportunities abroad that do not permit dual citizenship. There are also countries where being a citizen of another country can present legal and professional barriers and restrict access to benefits.

To remedy this situation, the proposed legislation will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009. Specifically, this simplified process will require that individuals not reside in Canada, that their renunciation of Canadian citizenship not render them stateless, and that they apply for renunciation of their citizenship through our departmental process.

These changes to the Citizenship Act will ensure that any child born abroad to a Canadian parent before the passage of the bill will be a Canadian citizen from birth. The amendments will also ensure that, in the future, children born abroad to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad will also be granted citizenship at birth if their Canadian parent has a substantial connection to Canada.

I invite members to share their thoughts on the proposal before us today. I too hope that, with the support of all parties, this bill will move forward quickly and effectively.

We are talking about Bill C-71, but more importantly we are talking about Canadian citizenship, what it means and how to obtain Canadian citizenship. I know, in speaking to the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge this summer every week and at events, we have our issues and challenges in Canada. We do, but one thing I know is that I live in one of the best cities in Canada, if not the best. I know I live in a beautiful province, Ontario, and I know Canada is the best country in the world. I know it will be. We have a bright future ahead of us with this fact of being able to attain Canadian citizenship.

Much like the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, my parents were selected to come to Canada as immigrants in the late 1950s and 1960s. They won the lottery. I often joke around that it would be nice to win the lottery, but I won the lottery, because my parents were chosen to come to this beautiful country where I now reside with my brothers and my family all over Canada. It is where my wife and I are raising our three children, two of them who play competitive soccer and whom I spend a lot of time driving around, and a little one in day care. They won the jackpot that their grandparents on both sides got chosen to come to Canada and are now Canadian citizens.

That is a place we are here for. That is our country. It is the best country in the world. Anybody who says otherwise is just being condescending and trying to do it for political gain, and it is really such a shame.

I look forward to questions and comments. I am really happy to be back here to do the good work that we were elected to do as members of Parliament, all 338 of us. We are here for one thing, to make the best country in the world even better.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I am pleased to rise in this chamber today to give some more context to the proposed legislation to amend Canada's Citizenship Act.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to recognize that indigenous peoples have been here since time immemorial. The contributions they have made in this country in the past, present and future have been and will continue to be significant. It is our responsibility to continue to work toward reconciliation in coordination and collaboration with indigenous people each and every day.

Being Canadian means taking steps to tackle inequality and injustice within our society. We do this not only through our words but, more importantly, through our actions. Bill C-71 proposes amendments to the Citizenship Act in response to issues raised in both Parliament and the courts. These changes would restore citizenship to the remaining lost Canadians, individuals who either could not become citizens or lost their citizenship due to outdated legislative provisions. While previous amendments helped many, a small cohort of lost Canadians remains. The legislative amendments outlined in Bill C-71 would help lost Canadians and their descendants regain or obtain citizenship. They also address the status of descendants impacted by the Harper Conservatives' first-generation limit.

The revised law would establish clear guidelines for acquiring Canadian citizenship by descent. Once this legislation is enacted, the harmful first-generation limit will no longer apply, allowing Canadian citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to their children, provided they can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. A Canadian parent born outside of the country will be able to transfer citizenship to their child if they have lived in Canada for a cumulative total of three years before the child's birth. These changes would result in a more inclusive and fair Citizenship Act and would right the wrongs of the previous Conservative government.

Additionally, the new legislation would continue to reduce the differences between children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and those born abroad to Canadian parents. Any child adopted overseas by a Canadian parent before the law takes effect would be eligible for the current direct citizenship grant for adoptees, even if they were previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Once the law is in place, the same criteria will apply to children adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. If the adoptive parent born outside Canada can show a substantial connection to Canada, the adopted child will be eligible for citizenship.

Bill C-71 would restore citizenship to those who have been wrongly excluded and would establish consistent rules for citizenship by descent going forward. These updates build on the work done by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill S-245, further refining the proposals and more comprehensively addressing the recent issues raised by the courts.

Being a Canadian citizen is a privilege that we should never take for granted. In fact, we should all advocate as strongly for our right to citizenship as the lost Canadians have done. Canadian citizenship represents more than just legal status. It embodies an ongoing commitment and responsibility.

What does it mean to be Canadian? There is no right answer to this question, and that is one of the great things about our country. Since Confederation, many diverse people have chosen Canada as their home. With the exception of indigenous peoples, every Canadian's history began with the story of a migrant. As Canadians, we have an ongoing commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples as we continue to strengthen our relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across the country.

Another commitment we make as Canadians is to come together to build a stronger country for everyone, which is evident in many ways. Canadians spring into action to help those in need, and it is not limited to family, friends and neighbours. We know that our country's future prosperity hinges on our sense of goodwill and our continued collective efforts.

Canadians are also committed to inclusion. We choose to welcome diverse cultures, languages and beliefs, and that makes us unique. We value the experiences that have made our fellow Canadians who they are, just as we value the experiences others have. We respect the values of others as they respect ours. Celebrating our differences helps us learn from one another and better understand the challenges and opportunities that arise in our communities. In turn, we can identify new solutions to the problems we must overcome together.

Though we are diverse, there are certain ties that bind us. In addition to helping others in times of need, Canadians also work to build opportunities for success and seek to share the benefits of that success with our communities. How we become Canadian can vary greatly. As the minister said, it is important to recognize that, regardless of how one becomes a Canadian citizen, we can all agree that we value each and every Canadian equally.

Some of us are lucky enough to have been born in Canada, so we are Canadians by birth. Others are newcomers who choose Canada, and they join our communities and earn their citizenship. They are referred to as naturalized Canadians. Lastly, we have Canadian citizenship by descent, which is when individuals who are born outside of our country to a Canadian parent have their citizenship proudly passed down to them. We hold and value each of these citizens as equal and part of our diverse country.

While we all define how we are Canadians in our own way, Parliament defines who and how we become Canadian through the Citizenship Act. Our citizenship process and the rules should be fair, equal and transparent. Recently, it became clear that the act must be amended to address the 2009 legislative amendments that exclude individuals due to the first-generation limit. The Ontario Superior Court has been clear that the Harper Conservative first-generation limit is unconstitutional on both mobility and equality rights.

Bill C-71 introduces inclusive changes that would address the challenges raised by the courts. This applies in particular to those born overseas to a Canadian parent. Today, we have a choice. We can commit to addressing past wrongs, taking care of those among us who have faced injustice and inequality, being more inclusive, and sharing the benefits we enjoy as citizens with others who deserve to call themselves Canadian too.

As proud citizens of this country, we must uphold the commitments that define us as Canadians. Whether we are citizens by birth or by choice, born in Canada or in another country, we are bound by our shared values, our mutual respect for our country and each other, and our enthusiasm to call ourselves Canadians. Canadian citizenship is a fundamental part of who we are. It unites us, opens up opportunities to us, and challenges us to live up to our values of self-knowledge, service to others, democracy, equality and inclusion.

This legislation would lead to a better Citizenship Act, benefiting not only Canadians, but also anyone who is seeking to understand what it truly means to be Canadian. By restoring citizenship to those who have been wrongfully excluded, we all stand to gain. Our country becomes stronger when we embrace diversity and acceptance.

I am thankful for the members' attention to this crucial piece of legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge Don Chapman, and, of course, the family members who took the matter to court and the legal team that fought this issue so we can now have this rectified.

The Conservatives, on eight occasions, moved the debate for third reading on Bill S-245. They did it in 2023 on October 16, October 25 and November 6, and then in 2024 on January 29, February 15, March 22, April 10 and May 1. That is their record. They moved it eight times. What does that tell us? It tells us that they do not support ensuring that Canada ends the practice of having two classes of citizens.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments the member has shared, and I especially acknowledge the work that Don Chapman has done. I remember working for the former MP for Kitchener—Waterloo, Andrew Telegdi, and they had many conversations. I also take the point that this has been a long time coming and it is important that we get it done.

I would like to ask the member about a private member's bill, Bill S-245, which I understand was sponsored by a Conservative member, and the Conservatives' continuous approach to not see it debated or come to a vote. What I find challenging in regard to that piece of legislation, which the government bill would rectify, is that the majority of members in the House of Commons helped to expand the scope of it and the Conservatives rejected that. The Conservatives tend to believe that there should be two classes of citizens in Canada. They tend to believe that only those who think like them should have the ability to advance.

I would like to hear the member's comments on why the Conservatives did not want to see this bill go to committee so that we could debate and advance it or at least call the question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know just how much Bill C‑71, formerly Bill S‑245, means to me. Indeed, if we grant citizenship to a greater number of Canadians, when Quebec becomes a country someday, it will be easier for them to obtain Quebecois citizenship. That was one thing I wanted to tell you today.

That said, I want to raise two points, and someone may be able to answer my question. I think this motion was tabled some time ago. Today, we have hours of House debate on Bill C‑71.

First, if there is a vote in the House, what happens to this motion?

Second, I’d like to know if it’s possible to table a friendly amendment to Mr. Chiang’s motion. I propose the following:

That the motion be amended by adding after the words “to this committee” the following: “after the committee has completed its report on closed permits”.

Cast your mind back to the conversations we had at the end of the last session, when we agreed on the analysts’ new draft on work permits before resuming this session. We received the draft last week. I congratulate the analysts, by the way. We had the opportunity to get the draft from the analysts. We worked on it. I think we have a duty to wrap up this study at committee, because it is a very important study for a lot of people. We spent a lot of time working on it. I care about it, and I think that’s also the case for several other people.

Therefore, we must complete the study on closed permits. I have no objection to granting priority to certain matters at committee, but I think we absolutely have to finish the work on closed permits. We don’t know when an election might be called. No one knows for sure. I would like us to grant priority to the report as part of the study on closed permits. That’s what I wanted to say.

Can someone answer my first question? If the House votes on Bill C‑71, what do we do with this motion?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the Conservatives want to mislead families. In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in a reply to family members urging them to take action to fix this injustice, said that the Conservatives supported passing Bill S-245. However, what did they do? They did everything they could to delay and obstruct its passage, to the point that they are even refusing to have the bill come before the House for a third reading debate and vote.

They are misleading Canadian families. They are pretending that they stand for justice. They are pretending that they stand for the rights of Canadians and treating all Canadians equally. They do not. It is the very opposite of what they say and who they claim they are.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-enter into debate on Bill C-71.

What is this bill about? It is about a group of Canadians whose constitutional rights were stripped by the Conservatives 15 years ago. Bill C-37 was brought in by the Harper administration. Through that process, the government tried to fix some of the issues of lost Canadians, which Bill C-37 did in part.

However, in that process, the Conservatives also created a brand-new class of lost Canadians. That is, they brought in a provision that took away the rights of first-generation Canadians born abroad to pass on their citizenship to their children who are also born abroad. By doing that, the Conservatives essentially indicated that some Canadians are more equal than others. Second-generation Canadians born abroad did not have the right to become citizens.

This has caused untold harm, pain and suffering to Canadian families. I have met lost Canadian families whose children, as a result of this unconstitutional law, were born stateless. I have family members who have faced deportation as a result of this unconstitutional law. I have met families who were separated, the parent torn away from their children, as a result of this unconstitutional law. This law went on for 15 years.

I joined the House of Commons back in 2015. One of the first things I did was to draft a private member's bill in an attempt to fix this problem. The then minister John McCallum was a minister who, while in opposition, said this needed to be fixed. Successive Liberal ministers have failed to do so until now.

I will grant the minister some recognition for bringing this bill forward. It was not without a fight, because I do not think the government was going to do it. As the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship, I had to lobby, endlessly, successive Liberal ministers to get us where we are today.

There was an opening to get this dealt with when Senator Yonah Martin brought in a private member's bill, Bill S-245, in the Senate. The bill would fix only a very small portion of the lost Canadians issue, what they call the age 28 rule. I will not go into all of the details around that, because most people already know what it is. That bill, in my view, and I said this to the senator at the time, was deficient because it did not deal with a variety of other lost Canadians resulting from the Harper Conservatives' punitive bill, Bill C-37. I had every intention to move amendments to her private member's bill to fix it.

Most notably, I wanted it to ensure that the new class of lost Canadians the Conservatives created, the second-generation Canadians born abroad, would have the right to citizenship, albeit subject to a substantial connections test. They have the right to be recognized as Canadians and their children have that right. We went through this whole process at committee.

Some 30 hours later, the vast majority of the NDP amendments I negotiated with the government were adopted. Where the government supported my amendments, they were passed. However, the Conservatives filibustered that committee for 30 hours over 12 committee meetings. I have to say that committee meetings are precious because we only get two a week. Sometimes we lose them, depending on the calendar day; it could be a stat holiday or whatever the case may be. It is precious time and an important time to get work done.

The Conservatives filibustered that bill for 30 hours. Even then, we persisted and managed to get it through. The amendments were adopted and the report was tabled in this House with a wrong recommendation. Then what happened? The sponsor of the bill from the House was a Conservative member, because Yonah Martin is a Conservative senator. The member for Calgary Forest Lawn was the sponsor of the private member's bill, Bill S-245, which was supposed to be brought back to the House of Commons for third reading debate more than a year ago.

Then what happened? The Conservatives traded the order of precedence for the bill to be brought back into this House eight times. They traded it over and over again to delay the bill from coming back to the House for third reading debate and a vote. To this day, it has not been debated. When I saw that indication, it was as clear as day that the Conservatives had zero intention of doing what is right, despite the court ruling, by the way, that the provision was unconstitutional. Even then, they would not do the right thing.

Then I approached the current Minister of Immigration to say that the government must bring forward a government bill because Bill S-245 would never come back to the House of Commons, as the Conservatives would continue to use delay tactics. After much discussion, the minister agreed and we worked together to bring Bill C-71 here. That is how we got here.

Just to be clear, what did the courts say? I want to put this on the public record. The court decision by the Ontario Superior Court, in a 55-page ruling, found that the second-generation cut-off rule violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it "treats Canadians who became Canadians at birth because they were born in Canada differently from those Canadians who obtained their citizenship by descent on their birth outside of Canada.” The ruling went on to say that “the latter group holds a lesser class of citizenship because, unlike Canadian-born citizens, they are unable to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent to their children born abroad.”

The second-generation cut-off rule denies the first generation born abroad the ability to automatically pass on citizenship to their children if they are also born outside of Canada. In her decision, the judge accepted claims that women are particularly impacted because the second-generation cut-off rule discriminates on the basis of gender, forcing women in their reproductive years to choose between travel, study and career opportunities abroad or passing citizenship to their children.

One family member, who was one of the appellants in the case, was actually told by officials that all she had to do was go back to Canada to give birth. That was during COVID, by the way, when travel was not safe, and she had no family doctor here to follow the pregnancy. She would have had no health insurance and, of course, no family support because her husband was abroad, continuing to work. That means she would have had to give birth by herself here. She would have had to seek an extended leave from work to facilitate that. It makes zero sense to even suggest such a thing, yet there we have it. Her child was born stateless.

That is the reality of what we are talking about. Those are the impacts, real impacts, on the lives of Canadian families. I am so happy the court made this ruling and made things clear. I urged the government at the time not to appeal the ruling, and I am also grateful the government did not.

We heard the Conservatives say earlier they would have appealed the court ruling. Of course they would have. They were the ones who brought in the unconstitutional law to begin with 15 years ago. We also heard from the Conservative member for Calgary Shepard, who said they would apply a criminality test to this issue. Are the Conservatives going to apply a criminality test to Canadians who are born here? It is absolutely absurd to make these suggestions and to hold true to the idea that some Canadians have more rights than others.

This has been struck down by the courts. It is time to do not only what is morally right but also what is legally required by the courts.

The amendments I put through in committee on Bill S-245 essentially call for a substantial connections test for parents who are the first generation born abroad to be in Canada for at least 1,095 days. That would mean the connections test would be extended to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations.

My amendments also restored those impacted since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009, and we would also apply the same amendment to adoptee families. It took some work, a lot of work, to negotiate and get to where we are today with this bill. It took at least 10 years of my time, but that is nothing in comparison with people like Don Chapman, who has dedicated his entire life to this. He was deemed a lost Canadian. He has fought for this and helped so many families regain their citizenship and other families who have suffered, those who have been lost because this law was never fixed.

We have to do what is right, and I hope Conservative members will not filibuster. They said to the family members that they will support this provision, but actions speak louder than words, and all of the actions to date indicate otherwise. I am going to give them another chance now to do what is right, because we have to get this passed. We have to make this law, according to the courts, and because it is the morally right thing to do.

At this juncture, I ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I am asking for this because it would expedite the bill, get it to committee so we can hear witnesses, make this law and do what is necessary and what is right for the people of Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his collaboration and co-operation at committee on Bill S-245. I was delighted to work with him and to see that he supported the NDP amendments. That is the right thing to do, to restore the rights of Canadians, the rights that the Conservatives took away.

I want to ask the member a question. He may not have been elected at that time, and neither was I, but to my understanding and to the knowledge of Don Chapman, who is an extremely knowledgeable guy on the lost Canadian file, when the Harper government brought in Bill C-37, it actually put forward an edict for all the parties that, if they did not support it in its entirety, it would take away the bill. That meant that the Conservatives were able to put a poison pill in that bill with the first-generation cut-off rule.

Would the member agree that is the wrong thing to do on an issue as important as people's basic fundamental rights?

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

Madam Speaker, that rarely happens. I get the impression that my colleague took my speech and summed it up as a question. He is repeating the question back to me as if it was a short, one-page summary of my speech. That is exactly what I said.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C-71, just as it supported the principle of Bill S-245. We are working hand in hand with the NDP and the Liberals. If the Conservatives propose amendments that make sense, of course we will look at them. If the amendments make sense, of course we will vote for them. We are here to work. I do not think that Bill C-71 should stir up any partisan wars. It is not an issue that should get us yelling and calling each other names. When we take a good look at it, the bill is fairly simple. Its underlying principle is clear, namely, that an injustice must be fixed through a bill. That is pretty much a parliamentarian's most basic job.

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

Madam Speaker, some might find it strange for a Bloc Québécois member to speak on a Canadian citizenship bill, but it will be easier for these “lost Canadians” interested in reclaiming their Canadian citizenship to acquire their Quebec citizenship once Quebec becomes a country. I am therefore pleased to speak on this question.

A few months ago, I stood in the House to speak to Bill S‑245, which sought to right a historic wrong by granting citizenship to Canadians whose cases had slipped through the cracks. I spoke about children of Canadian parents who had been born abroad and had lost their citizenship because of changes in the federal rules or for reasons that struck me as hard to justify at the time. In fact, what Bill S‑245 basically said was all these people who had lost their status due to overly complex and often unjust provisions of previous Canadian laws should have their citizenship restored.

This is the idea behind Bill C‑71, which we are dealing with today. In fact, the bill replicates all of the proposed amendments in Bill S‑245, which sought to rectify the Citizenship Act's well-known injustices and mistakes.

Bill C‑71 responds to the decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, which ruled that the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for children born abroad to Canadian citizens was unconstitutional. As we are seeing yet again, the Bloc Québécois is defending the rule of law and a Canadian Constitution that Quebec did not sign. That should come as no surprise, since we will one day have our own.

At that time, the government had six months to amend the act. Bill C‑71 was tabled as a fallback, because Bill S‑245, unfortunately, could not get across the finish line. Why is that? Part of the reason is the partisanship at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Speaking of which, I would like to bring up a point. As everyone knows, and as my colleague pointed out earlier, despite my differences of opinion with members from other parties in the House, I do not indulge in partisanship. What is more, I believe that being cross-partisan often helps me better do my job as a parliamentarian and better represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, who trusted me enough to elect me to work in the House of Commons. Whoever I am dealing with, from whatever party, if I can move a matter forward, I will, with no regard to political stripe. I do that for my people and on principle, because that is how I was raised. I often find the partisan-driven comments I hear in the House disheartening.

Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have fallen through the cracks for far too long. Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration, citizenship and refugees, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship, because this affects everyone here. I am also the critic for international human rights, so obviously, matters of justice are also of concern to me.

Today, more specifically, we are talking about Bill C‑71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. I want to focus primarily on those individuals who are commonly known as “lost Canadians” because of a little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have still not regained their citizenship. They are the last group of “lost Canadians”. This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for these people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28.

At the risk of ruining the surprise and mostly for the sake of consistency, something that is often sorely lacking in the House, I will say that I was in favour of Bill S‑245. Obviously, I am also in favour of Bill C‑71, as are all the Bloc members here. We will vote in favour of the principle of Bill C‑71 when the time comes to do so.

If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, unless it is for reasons of national security. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship.

Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that all are equal before the law. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status granted to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.

In this case, the Canadian government has failed in meeting its obligations to its citizens. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. As I was saying, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizenship must apply equally to all. This is simply a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, in 2024, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time, a time long ago when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Since time has not remedied the situation and since the reforms of the past have not been prescriptive enough, then politics must weigh in. That is what we are doing.

As we know, the process to regain citizenship is quite complicated. As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is probably the most dysfunctional federal government department. Even my colleagues on the other side of the House, who currently form the government, must agree. They too have constituency offices, and most of the telephone calls they receive are about complex immigration cases. Even the Speaker probably agrees with me. Despite the fact that she has to remain neutral, I am sure that her constituency office probably gets a lot of calls about cases that are too difficult to resolve.

Everyone knows that that department is broken. There is sand in the gears and water in the gas. There is clearly a structural problem within the department itself. It is already complicated enough to deal with that department, so there is no need to be so secretive. The problem must be resolved as quickly as possible. We must at least identify the problem and find a solution. I think we have a pretty clear consensus to send Bill C‑71 to committee.

A look at what has previously occurred shows just how thorny this matter is. The act was reformed in 2005. It was reformed in 2009. It was reformed once again in 2015. How many reforms do we need? There are now a large number of Canadians who have been overlooked. Men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad, members of indigenous communities and Chinese-Canadians have been overlooked through every reform. People have been left behind because we have not properly fixed the act. With Bill C‑71, we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.

I therefore urge my Conservative friends to propose their amendments. The Bloc Québécois members will study them, as they always do. If they are good, we will vote in favour. If they are bad, we will vote against. We are easy people to talk to. We do thorough work on our files, and we will carefully study the amendments that our Conservative friends send us.

The bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act to, among other things:

(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;

(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation...;

(c) allow citizenship to be granted...to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;

(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved;

Normally, Bill S‑245 would have gotten royal assent a long time ago, but we did not quite get there because of filibustering. That is what brings us here today. Constituents are having to wait because of petty politics. That is the way it has been over the past year in this Parliament on many files, in many committees. Both sides of the aisle are just the same. I have seen filibustering from the government side and from the official opposition. They are all just as bad. Unfortunately, there are people caught in the middle of all this. People are being held hostage by political or even electoral stunts. That is even worse.

As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois is here to work for our people. We are here working for Quebeckers who care about Quebec's future, and not just when it is time to cater to our electoral ambitions. According to the polls, things are going very well for the Bloc Québécois. We are here to work for our people. If it is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it. Bill C‑71 will be able to give us far more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes sovereign.

When I hear members of the federal parties arguing and then shouting nonsense at each other in the House or playing politics like they did with Bill S‑245, I imagine what it must be like for those who have been waiting impatiently and for far too long for royal assent. There are specific examples in Quebec. Take Jean‑François, a Quebecker born outside Canada when his father was completing his doctorate in the United States. Even though he returned to Quebec when he was three months old and spent his entire life in Quebec, his daughter was not automatically eligible for Canadian citizenship. This type of situation causes undue stress for families who should not have to deal with the federal government's lax approach.

Right now, the government is dealing with more and more delays every time we check. Every single immigration program is guaranteed to be backlogged. A new program has been created, and it is already behind schedule. There are already people on the waiting list. When we look into it, it is a mess. This is very hard for people. These are human beings. These are men, women and children who are caught up in the administrative maze of a department that seems to have forgotten that it should be the most compassionate of our departments; it is probably the least compassionate. It is frustrating. We are seeing horror stories every day. As the immigration critic, I see it all the time.

My point is that we will be there. We are there for people. We put people first. That is why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-71 in principle. We will work hard. We will look at all the amendments brought to the table. I think that is why we are here. That is why we were elected, despite our differences and despite the fact that the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be independent. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. We will get there one day. The people who send us here to Ottawa know that we are separatists. They know that it will happen one day. They know that one day, with Bill C-71, we will have more Quebec citizens when Quebec becomes a country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the Conservatives actually filibustered Bill S-245 for 30 hours at committee. Even after it had gone through the committee and had been referred back to the House at third reading, they traded down that bill in the order of precedence eight times so that we would not get to debate it at third reading in the House and vote on it.

The leader of the official opposition's office wrote to family members who were concerned about their rights being taken away and about their constitutional rights being violated stating, “Conservatives will...preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian. Please be assured we will continue to support and advocate for this legislation to reach its third reading in the House of Commons.” That is in reference to Bill S-245. This is blatantly false. If that is the case, why did the member for Calgary Forest Lawn trade the bill on the order of precedence eight times so that it cannot come to the House for a third reading debate?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to be the first member of the official opposition to rise for Bill C-71. After hearing the minister speak, it tells me that he came here unprepared to deal with the substance of the legislation that he himself tabled in this House.

First of all, I will debunk a bunch of things that were said that are incorrect. They are not true. If we look at the record, as I said in my question, on February 15 and February 7, 2008, in the original debate on Bill C-37 on the first-generation limit that introduced the rules that existed between 2009 and the end of 2023, when the Ontario Superior Court ruled that there were two charter violations, the Liberals voted for it, supporting a motion to move forward with the legislation at the next stage. They did not do that once such that we could perhaps say they were not paying attention, but they did it twice. They accepted the logic of it.

Not only did they accept the logic of it, but there is a report from the 2005 immigration committee that recommended putting something like a first-generation limit rule in legislation. In 2005, former prime minister Paul Martin was in charge, which means there was a minority government and a majority on the committee decided to push forward that recommendation. It was then adopted in 2007 by Diane Finley, the immigration minister at the time.

The ridiculous claim that we on this side are taking away rights or that rights are being taken away is absolutely false. All Liberals supported it. In fact, even the NDP supported the motion at the time. There are some members sitting here today who were in their seats at the time they supported the Bill C-37 motion, not once but twice. Let us start with that.

Nobody would lose their citizenship through this legislation. That is not what we are talking about. The Conservatives believe that everybody has a right, if they meet the rules, to apply for citizenship, but new rules would be created for citizenship by descent with a substantive connection clause that a judge said was necessary. We disagree with how the substantive connection test is created and what the rules for it are. That is a substantive reason to oppose this legislation at second reading, something that all other parties knew about because, as the minister mentioned, we were going through this during the Bill S-245 debate.

I think I have shown that this is not anything new. Other parties supported the first-generation limit at the time. They were all onside to push through Bill C-37. Our belief is that naturalized Canadians like me are treated exactly the same in the Citizenship Act and the law as Canadians who were born here. My children were born here and I am a naturalized Canadian. We are considered generation zero for the purposes of current legislation.

I am not the only one saying that. It is a judge saying that. In paragraph 9, he said, “gen zero: the applicants belonging to gen zero are Canadian-born citizens who had children abroad, or naturalized Canadian citizens who had children abroad after their naturalization, and whose children acquired Canadian citizenship automatically by descent.” We are really talking about grandkids.

The critical question that government officials have been incapable of answering is about sound logistical planning, the words the minister used just now. As sound logistical planning indicates, when we are passing legislation and proposing it to the House, members in the House should know how many people would be affected by it and how many people would be included, because this is about grandkids who are born abroad to parents who were abroad when they get citizenship by descent. That is the critical question here, and the Liberals have not been able to answer it. They have not been able to answer how many people this would apply to.

With all the benefits we give out to Canadian citizens, which Parliament has voted on, such as transfer payments, the ability to travel on a Canadian passport, one of the strongest passports in the world, and the ability to be evacuated from certain countries when there are issues and problems overseas, as we saw during the pandemic, we would think the government would take the summer to do its homework. However, the minister did not do his homework. Instead, he came here to accuse the Conservatives and anybody who disagreed with him and, frankly, did not even read the record from 2008 to know how his own party voted. The Liberals were in support of the same rule that the Superior Court in Ontario found for two reasons is not charter-compliant. That should have resulted in an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On a matter as important as the Citizenship Act, I would have liked to see the government appeal it. The minister refused to explain to the House why he did not seek that appeal, why he chose not to go forward with it.

As found later in the ruling, which I am going to read from partially because I think it is important, one of the reasons that the legislation was found not to be charter-compliant is the bureaucratic incompetence at the immigration department. That is entirely on the back of the minister. He is responsible for the logistical planning, which are his words, to make sure there is no backlog, that applications have the correct information in them and that officials are held accountable.

I am going to read from sections 263 to 265 of the ruling, which are different parts. The judge noted:

On cross-examination he testified that his source for this information were various unnamed IRCC case managers. However, the information Mr. Milord obtained from these case managers was replete with inaccuracies. With respect to Ms. Maruyama, these include misidentifying the year Ms. Maruyama’s father was naturalized as a Canadian citizen, Ms. Maruyama’s mother’s citizenship, the reason for rejection of Ms. Maruyama’s children’s application for permanent residency.... There were also errors in Mr. Milord’s evidence about how Mr. Chandler’s child acquired Irish citizenship.

Paragraph 264 states:

I note that in addition to these errors, at the outset of the hearing, I was advised that Mr. Burgess had been told that his child, QR—

This is to hide the identity of minors.

—had been granted permanent residency or citizenship status. However, counsel for Mr. Burgess was unable to confirm exactly what was going on, because in the mail, the Burgess family had received citizenship documents pertaining to someone else entirely, unrelated to the family or this application.

In paragraph 265, the judge found in a very small sampling that there was an error rate of 50% in these particular case files. I think for many of us in our constituency offices in our ridings, about 80% to 90% of the work is immigration case files. I hope members will agree with me that we find them replete with errors time and time again. It was because of errors on the bureaucratic side by the minister and the department he runs and is responsible and accountable for that the judge found there were charter violations. That is not a problem with the original idea that the Liberal Party of Canada supported. I am going to repeat that to them: They supported it not once by accident but twice. They knew exactly what they were doing at the time.

The minister talked about the substantive connection test without referring to it directly, saying that there would be a three-year naturalization limit. That is an incomplete statement. It is an incomplete answer. The suggestion to use the same rule that we have for permanent residency is found in three out of five applications for permanent residency to Canada. I do not think that is enough, and I made that case at the immigration committee during the Bill S-245 debate. The reason I do not believe it is enough is the way it is going to be calculated.

The rule would be applied if the parent of a child can demonstrate 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada at any time before the birth of the child. If someone is having children later in life, they would have more time to prove the 1,095 days to pass on their citizenship by descent. If they ever travelled back to Canada, they could obviously give birth to their children in Canada. As a Canadian by descent, they could do that here, and they would have birthright citizenship, just as my children did when they were born in Calgary. All four of them were born in Calgary.

For the 1,095 days, we proposed to make them consecutive so that someone could prove a substantial connection to Canada. The Conservatives agreed at committee that three years seemed like a reasonable amount. If someone went through a K-to-12 system or went to school for a few years and then their parents left Canada for whatever reason, such as for work opportunities or take a year off, three years consecutively would be a good demonstration of a substantial connection to Canada.

That was voted down by the Liberals. In fact, they voted down nearly all of our amendments. We proposed over 40 of them, and let it not be said that we are unreasonable. We actually voted with the Liberals on 10 of their amendments. We said that we could see the wisdom of them. There are sections in Bill C-71 that we agree with, like treating adopted children of Canadians equally to those who are naturalized or born Canadians. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. For the faster revocation rules for citizenship, if someone does not want their citizenship and wants to give it up, we agree that there should be a simpler process.

The example the minister gave is incomplete. The best example to give would be members serving in the Australian Parliament, who cannot be dual citizens. That is directly in their constitution. Certain members here might have Canadian citizenship eligibility by descent, and we do not want to make them ineligible. In my case, I am a dual citizen. I am a citizen of Canada by naturalization and a citizen of the Republic of Poland by birth. They would charge me about $565 to give up my citizenship, and I am not giving up one red cent for that. There are still some red cents in circulation, and I will not pay one red cent to the republic to give up my citizenship. The application is entirely in Polish as well. Our rules for individuals to renounce their citizenship if they do not want it would be much simpler. I find it interesting that the minister did not even know that about his own legislation.

We also support another important part, which was in the original Senate bill, Bill S-245. It came from our colleague on the Conservative side, Senator Yonah Martin, who wanted to address 50 months of lost Canadians between 1977 and 1981. We agreed. That is why the legislation came here. At the time, we asked if we could pass it quickly enough to look after the section 8 lost Canadians. We agreed that they should have their citizenship restored because they missed the cut-off date. In fact, one of our members from Saskatchewan almost became one of those lost Canadians. He only found out within a few months that he needed to apply to maintain his citizenship. We agree with the principle that this group of Canadians should have their citizenship restored and protected.

The other changes the government is proposing are not what I would call proper logistical planning, to use the minister's term. Why should we believe that the minister is capable of managing the new applications that would result from people seeking their proof of citizenship documents? That is why I asked how many people there would be and how many resources would be needed to process them. Are they in the thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands? Are there more than that? That would be a huge burden on the department.

Back in September 2022, the former minister announced that we would have all digital applications. The claim was made at committee, in both public and private, that it would help to reduce the backlog of immigration applications. It has not done that. We are still at over two million backlogged applications in the system, and some of the wait times are just as long if not longer than they used to be for some of the major PR programs.

I will read a few of the headlines about this from different commentators and immigration consultants. The first one, by Sergio R. Karas, is from Law360 Canada: “Bill C-71 depreciates Canadian citizenship”. Here is another: “First reading: How the Liberals keep dropping the barriers on who can become a Canadian”. This is by Jamie Sarkonak: “Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians”. “Government bill will allow Canadians to pass citizenship rights to kids born abroad” is a Canadian Press article. Here is another one, from Brian Lilley: “Trudeau Liberals making moves to cheapen Canadian citizenship”. Another says, “Canada Introduces New Bill to Restore Citizenship by Descent”.

We should go into the provisions on the substantial connection test, about which I have, again, a lot of concerns. At committee, we proposed a change to make it 1,095 consecutive days.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

moved that Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as we return to the House, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathering today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I am honoured to rise in this House today to discuss the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act. The legislation would provide a clear framework for citizenship by descent with the immediate goal of restoring and granting citizenship to lost Canadians.

Some of us, like me, were fortunate to be citizens by birth. Others come from far and wide, choose Canada to be their home and earn their citizenship through our naturalization process. There are those who are Canadians by descent, who are born outside the country to a parent who is a Canadian citizen.

Regardless of how someone acquires their citizenship, I think we all agree that we appreciate each Canadian just the same in this great nation of ours. Whether one was born Canadian or chose Canada as their new land, we are united by a common set of principles and mutual respect for our communities and our country. We are all proud to be Canadian.

Since the founding of what we now call Canada, people from around the world have made this country their home. Canadians are a welcoming people who help others and one another. We demonstrate our commitment to others within the community and the world over when we support charities, volunteer our time and extend a helping hand to those in need.

Canadians are a diverse group, but we share a set of common values and take pride in who we are and what the country stands for. We are welcoming, inclusive, generous; a country that supports human rights, equality and respect for all people. There is no doubt that Canadian citizenship is highly valued and recognized around the world. We want our citizenship system to be fair and accessible and with clear and transparent rules. That is why, when issues arise around our citizenship laws, it is important that Parliament address them.

Given recent challenges to the first-generation limit that Harper Conservatives unfairly introduced, it was clear that changes were needed to the Citizenship Act to address cohorts excluded from citizenship. This is especially relevant for those born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.

It is important that members understand the history of the Citizenship Act in order to better understand how this problem arose. Canada's first citizenship law was passed in 1947. It contained provisions that could revoke some people's citizenship or prevent others from becoming citizens in the first place. Today we view those provisions as outdated, and they were either removed or amended. Those affected by these provisions who lost their citizenship or never became citizens are referred to as “lost Canadians”.

In the past, Canadians could hand down their citizenship to their descendants born abroad not only in the next generation but also beyond the first generation, so long as they met certain conditions and applied by a certain age.

When a new citizenship statute took effect in 1977, children born abroad to a Canadian parent also born abroad were citizens, but they had to act to preserve their citizenship by age 28, or else they would lose it. This requirement was not well understood, so some people lost their citizenship and became so-called lost Canadians.

To wit, my department generally receives 35 to 40 applications for resumption of citizenship per year because of this problem.

In 2009, several amendments to the Citizenship Act remedied the majority of these older lost Canadian cases by providing or restoring citizenship by their 28th birthday. Since 2009, approximately 20,000 individuals have come forward and have been issued proof of their Canadian citizenship because of these changes.

However, the Harper Conservatives introduced the first-generation limit, which the Ontario Superior Court has deemed unconstitutional on equality and mobility rights. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and that they are considering taking away people's rights when it suits the Conservatives. What the Conservative Party did here is a concrete example of taking away the rights of Canadians. When Conservatives say that we have nothing to fear, Canadians need to take note of what they have done in the past.

This is a record where Conservatives, with the Leader of the Opposition as one of their members, took people's rights away. This should speak for itself.

The legislative amendments of 2009 also allowed anyone born after the 1977 act who was not yet 28 years old when the changes took effect to retain their status and remain a Canadian citizen.

However, there is still a cohort of people who self-identify as lost Canadians. These are people born abroad to a Canadian parent after 1977 in the second generation or beyond who lost their citizenship before 2009 because of rules since revoked that obliged them to take action to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday.

Some of these people born abroad were raised in Canada and were unaware that they needed to take steps to retain their Canadian citizenship. We know that the number of people in this cohort is rather small. We know this because the only people affected are those who were born abroad in the second generation or beyond between 1977 and 1981; in other words, only Canadians who had already reached the age of 28 and lost their citizenship before the passage of the 2009 act, which revoked the requirement. As we can see, this is a complicated issue.

Senator Martin of British Columbia introduced public bill S-245 in an effort to address the issue. The goal of the bill and the amendments adopted by the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is to restore the citizenship of this cohort, of these lost Canadians affected by the age 28 rule.

When Bill S-245 was studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the bill was amended to include not only a mechanism to restore the citizenship of this cohort but also a mechanism to allow some people born in the second or subsequent generation to be born a Canadian citizen by descent if their Canadian parent could demonstrate that they held a substantial connection to Canada. That is, if a child's Canadian parent had been in Canada for three years before the child was born, they could pass on their citizenship to that child. Bill S-245 also proposes that children born abroad and adopted by a Canadian could also access citizenship. The process for adopted children is a grant of citizenship.

What has changed since we began the review of Bill S-245 is a key decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that determined that the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent was unconstitutional. It is clear that the House must now take immediate action to address the issues the court noted.

Since Bill S-245 went through a number of changes and improvements based on feedback from experts and those impacted, the Conservative Party continues to delay the progress of this bill. Not only that, but Conservatives filibustered Bill S-245 for nearly 30 hours during the actual study. It is obvious, again, that there is little care for Canadians' rights.

During that time, the member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who sponsored Senate Bill S-245, as well as the former Conservative immigration critic, recommended the introduction of a private member's bill or a government bill to address the remaining cohort of lost Canadians.

We have a government bill in front of us to do just that. Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2024, establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to lost Canadians and their descendants. This revised regime would also address issues raised by the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling by providing a pathway to citizenship for those born or adopted abroad. Similar to what is proposed by Bill S-245, this bill expands access to citizenship by descent, but in a more comprehensive and inclusive way.

Like Bill S-245, it would restore citizenship to the last cohort of lost Canadians, but it also proposes that all individuals born outside Canada to a Canadian parent before coming into force in this legislation would also be citizens by descent, including those previously excluded by the first-generation limit.

For those born outside our borders, beyond the first generation, or after the legislation comes into force, they would be citizens from birth if their Canadian parent can demonstrate their own substantial connection to Canada. That means that the parent was in Canada for three years, cumulative, and it does not need to be consecutive, before the child was born.

Any child born abroad and adopted by a Canadian parent before this bill's coming-into-force date would have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees, and that includes those previously excluded by the first-generation limit. Today, we are dealing with fundamental issues of fairness for people who should be Canadian citizens.

When the legislation comes into force, the same substantial connection to Canada test will apply for Canadian adoptive parents who are also born outside the country to access a grant of citizenship. If the adoptive parent was physically in Canada for 1,095 days or three years prior to the adoption, their child could access the adoption grant of citizenship.

Finally, as with previous changes to the Citizenship Act that helped other lost Canadians, this bill would confer automatic citizenship on some people born outside Canada who may not wish to be citizens.

In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including in government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers, including restricting access to benefits. That is why this bill will provide access to the same simplified renunciation process as the one established in 2009.

Most people who would automatically become citizens when the bill comes into force but may not wish to hold citizenship will be able to use the simplified renunciation process. This mechanism has a few requirements. These individuals must not reside in Canada; they also must not become stateless by renouncing their Canadian citizenship. That is an important point. In addition, people must apply to renounce the citizenship granted to them through the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Does everyone have all the answers they were looking for? Okay.

With that, I really want to thank all our witnesses for appearing before the committee today. I know that it has been a late evening.

This is our last meeting before we adjourn for the summer break.

On behalf of all the members of the committee, I really want to thank our clerk, Keelan Buck. Thank you for the service you provide to us in this committee.

Thank you to our amazing analysts, Julie Béchard, Andrea Garland and Philippe Antoine Gagnon. Thank you for your service to this committee.

Thanks to all the interpreters and to the support staff.

This session has been a good one. We did a lot of work. I especially want to thank all the members for their work on Bill S-245.

We have been in many meetings, and many long meetings. All of us are supported by an amazing staff. Let's give a big hand to all our staff. Jeff Jedras does an amazing job. He really provides a lot of service to this committee.

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I find it a bit rich for the member to say that hybrid is problematic because of the issues around interpretation. I noted last week that, when we were doing votes in the House, many of the Conservative members were out in the lobby, just steps away from the chamber. Instead of coming in to do the vote, they were doing it through hybrid. Worse still, they were not using the proper headsets, hindering the ability of the interpreters to do interpretation. Even though the Speaker repeatedly told them to either give a thumbs up or thumbs down for their votes, they refused to listen and talked anyway without the proper headsets. Now they are saying that it is not working.

The member talked about resources. I sit on the immigration committee. If we want to talk about wasting resources, do members know what the Conservatives did? They wasted 30 hours debating Bill S-245, on lost Canadians. so we could not get on with business. Talk about wasting resources.

On the question of hybrid, I have to say this. One would think, the way the Conservatives are talking, that the only mechanism is to use Zoom to do our business, and that is not—

Citizenship and Immigration

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration relating to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I understand that the Liberals are angry because the Conservatives took a lot of time over Bill S‑245, and decided this evening to speak for an extremely long time without saying anything at all. Everyone knows that we all agree on the motion.

I'd like to tell my Liberal friends that if the Bloc Québécois wanted to, it could carry on at length and read from books. If we wanted to play that game, it would not be amusing. I'm prepared to do my share of work and to get going immediately. People should stop wasting the committee's time. Just because someone has spoken for far too long doesn't mean you have to do likewise. If you criticize someone for something, then you shouldn't do what they did.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't want to delay this any longer, but I just want to put some things on the record because I did hear my colleague, Mr. Redekopp, state that we were trying to vote against this motion. That is not what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure that we do not delay Bill S-245, which had many people's lives in jeopardy. I'm glad that we were able to get to that point.

I also think that it's important to strike a balance on what we're doing right now. We're deeply concerned about the students, and that's really important to note. This is really important legislation, and we've received hundreds of letters from people who are looking for it to be passed. I think we can go clause by clause, considering that it's typically a two-hour process. This is something that the Conservatives have dragged out for over 30 hours, and they've showing no signs of stopping this.

We're here right now, in this moment, because of the 30-hour process that we just finished: going through the clause-by-clause on Bill S-245.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all my colleagues for voting on this motion.

The international students are in a devastating situation. I've seen it in Brampton. Many of my constituents approached me. Our team of Brampton MPs have also had, numerous times, discussions on this issue. I think we need to have empathy for those students. We should not exploit the situation and play politics with those innocent students and their issue. This motion could have been passed way earlier in this committee if we hadn't wasted so much time on certain amendments on Bill S-245.

I want to thank all the members. At the same time, I'd like to request of my colleagues.... Those international students have gone through a lot and they're going through a lot. Let's not play politics with that. They know this side of the aisle's record on immigration and international students. It's amazing, so they know the genuineness.

My request to all of my colleagues is this: Let's not exploit the situation. Let's not politicize the situation. Let's move on to the motion moved by my colleague Ms. Kwan and deal with this issue as soon as possible.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Chair, I'm not here to debate whose motion is better.

I want to thank each and every member of this committee for finally supporting the students who are facing this difficulty. I don't think anyone is not in favour of the five-year ban, based on that letter, being taken away and the deportations being stayed, whether they are stayed until whenever.... Even if they were to do their studies and stay afterwards, I think everybody probably meant the same thing. There was no problem on this side of Bill S-245. We were always saying to our Conservative and NDP friends that, of course, once we finish this, we will deal with that issue. I'm glad each and every party is supporting dealing with this, and that the motion proposed by Madam Kwan and amended by me is going through.

Let's get on and see. Even if students come to you, as an individual.... Let's pursue those cases with the ministers of IRCC and public safety to make sure they feel that the support is there and that we're standing with them shoulder to shoulder. We should not play politics with this issue or make this issue a political football, when those students, at the end, keep suffering.

That's where I want to leave it, Madam Chair. It's not only the Liberal members on this committee. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that many other members have approached me. They are talking outside this group. We have already met with the IRCC minister's department, as well as CBSA, to make sure we are prudent on this issue and support it as much as we can.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to show my support for these wonderful students.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think the amendment is necessary.

The order of precedence we have is actually on bills. Bill S-245 was before us, so we had to deal with that. Now that it has been dealt with, it is my full intention that this be our next study. I think there is commitment from committee members here to do that. I don't think this is necessary, Madam Chair.

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

Briefly, Chair, this is to your comment earlier about how we were dispensing with Bill S-245 and that's why we weren't dealing with Mr. Redekopp's earlier motion, which I believe precipitated this debate on this issue. Not to challenge your ruling, but to be fair, the Standing Orders do allow committees to essentially control their own destinies. Motions can supersede business, as we saw with the motion on Bill S-245 that changed the scope of the amendments that were delivered.

I think what Mr. Redekopp's motion does is it clarifies that there will be no delay. There will be no other business that will precede this particular issue. We're enshrining that so things don't accidentally get scheduled instead of this particular study, particularly since we've agreed to add more time for study on this issue.

I support this amendment because it clearly says that this is the next order of business. This is the direction that the committee is giving to you, Chair. I would urge my colleagues to support it for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It will read “on the basis of misrepresentation and provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.

We have a subamendment by Mr. Redekopp on the floor. Mrs. Lalonde wants to speak to it.

To bring on record what Mr. Redekopp said, this committee adopted a motion earlier. Everyone was in favour of it, that the legislation would have priority. Based on that, we had to get through the legislation to get on to any other business of the House.

That's why the committee has been going through meetings on Bill S-245. It's because of this motion the committee has passed, that the legislation holds a priority. I just want to put it on record that we had to get through that legislation before we could do anything else.

Next we have Mrs. Lalonde and then Mr. Dhaliwal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I know you have been very patient, and you had to spend your husband's birthday with us to get through Bill S-245. On behalf of all the members of the committee, I really want to thank you and your team for being here for many long evenings.

Thank you to all the support staff and to the interpreters.

I really want to thank all the members for their co-operation and for their patience.

I thank all our staff also, because we can't do it without staff.

Thank you to everyone for getting this legislation through. Hopefully, I will report it back, and we will be moving on.

Yes, Ms. Kwan?

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

I want to ask my colleague what he meant.

For us, it is very important that we move forward on Bill S-245. We have spent over 28 hours throughout this wonderful initiative. I'm sure that a lot of people outside of this House, and this committee, will be happy to see this coming to a vote.

I would be happy to find out more about how the member wants to proceed, but my first thought is to get Bill S-245 to a vote.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is no issue with the NDP, Bloc, Conservatives or us on the Liberal side, bringing any of those motions or anything to do with those students. We all want to help.

However, the main thing is Bill S-245. If we can get that out now, then I'm sure every member in this House—on the Liberal side, I am certain—is fully in support.... They are not only supportive; in fact, they are already talking to the minister and to IRCC and CBSA to make sure justice prevails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal, let me recognize you first.

We have to complete Bill S-245.

The meeting was suspended. We are resuming. Once we get through that, then we will proceed.

We need to get through Bill S-245. We have that legislation that is of importance. First we need to clear that.

After that, we can see where we can go.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to take a slightly different tactic tonight.

In the last few meetings, I started by trying to move my motion to talk about the Indian students. I think we all want to see some action on the Indian student issue, but I don't want to see it voted down another time. I think that would be bad.

What I would like to suggest, and maybe this is more of a point of order than anything, is that after we're done with Bill S-245—hopefully, tonight—we move to committee business, where we can consider that motion and other committee business, if it comes up.

I'm wondering whether we could have an agreement that we could do that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are continuing our study of Bill S-245.

When we left off, we were debating the question on whether the chair shall report the bill as amended to the House.

I have two people on the speaking list, Mr. Redekopp and Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There were just a couple of points made by Ms. Kwan. There was a short point about the intentions or the views of Senator Yonah Martin. It's commendable that the member reached out to our colleague from the Senate when the bill was tabled and that she met with Senator Yonah Martin and that she said her views had changed between then and now, at some point.

That's not comparable to us. We sit with our Senate colleagues in all of our meetings. I know that's different from the case for most caucuses, but our senators are involved in everything we do, with regular reports in caucus. They listen to the whole debate and they get to participate in it. They are equal members in our national caucus.

I should know. I chaired the national caucuses of the Conservative Party during the pandemic as well as a little before that and a little after that. Her views did not change. I thought she was very clear, when she came before the committee on Bill S-245, which was taken through the Senate so quickly, that there was a common understanding among senators that the substance of the bill was the same as that of Bill S-230.

That's why Senator Martin was able to convince her Senate colleagues to expedite the bill and to convince our caucus that the substance had not changed and that, therefore, this bill should be pushed through because it was essentially the same as before.

You can't interpret every conversation you have as a permission slip for any action to be taken. I did follow up and I have followed up repeatedly with the senator in question and also with the House of Commons sponsor of the bill, who was my predecessor on this committee, about their intentions concerning the contents of the bill.

At this final stage of the bill, I just want to ensure that we have a common understanding of how we got to this point with some of the work we have done and where we agreed on certain amendments to be passed. Again, having one-off discussions doesn't compare to being in the same caucus room. I know it's different for certain caucuses that don't have senators who sit with them regularly, but in this case we do, and I believe we've reflected what was Senator Martin's understanding when she testified at this committee as a witness. Also, we have been able to speak to her continually about stakeholder relations, the contents of the bill and certain amendments to be considered.

As my colleague Mr. Perkins said, when all of us are drafting bills, the tighter a bill and the simpler it is, the more likely you are to get consensus from more people. When bills are changed at committee stage—and it happens, and I agree. I'm sure if there is another IRPA bill or maybe the government will have a bill to amend the Citizenship Act at some point or a modernization bill, as they like to call it, there will be amendments made by the committee that may result in our having to return to our caucuses to get a review or to get agreement on them. That is how my caucus works. When a bill is substantively modified, seriously amended as this Bill S-245 will be, it should be reported back to the House and it will require us to go back to caucus.

We have a caucus meeting tomorrow. I think all of us have caucus meetings tomorrow, so I was wondering, Madam Chair, whether you would be willing to perhaps suspend the meeting, and I could take it back to my caucus, and we would meet tomorrow at 3:30. I could therefore get direction tomorrow morning from my caucus team and the Senate caucus members on the Conservative side as well, and I could come back to the committee. We could either expedite it or we could maybe reconsider it, but I would hope we could expedite it. I hope my caucus would give me very clear direction.

That is how we work. We have a consent system. We have caucus advisory committees, and I don't think that's a big revelation to anybody out there, but there is a substantial amount of consultation that every shadow minister has to do on their file and every sponsor of a private member's bill or a Senate bill has to do.

The substance has changed. The scope is much beyond that of the original version that came to this committee. On at least one of those matters—the adoption clauses—we did agree with them, and I'll stand by those votes. I thought we voted wisely to expand it there.

I think that would perhaps be better for us, because it is late and I know this committee met extensively on Monday. I was not here on Monday. Forgive me for that. It was my oldest son's junior high graduation, and that's one of those things you can't miss, especially when it's your first one who is graduating. I could not miss that, so I was present for that.

That would be my suggestion and perhaps you could take it under advisement.

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You are going out of scope. Please keep your remarks to Bill S-245. Otherwise, I will have to cut you off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Perkins.

I would request that you please keep your comments to Bill S-245, such as whether the bill can be reported to the House as amended.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll be very brief and say that when Bill S-245 was tabled, I had a chance to meet with Senator Martin. I indicated to her my intentions of expanding the bill beyond the scope it touched on.

The senator made it clear to me that as long as I had the minister's support, I would have her support as well. That, of course, changed at the last minute, because later on, I was advised that she would no longer be able to proceed with that out of respect for her Conservative parliamentarians.

Anyway, I just wanted to set the record straight on the process that I embarked on. We are where we are. We've gone through several rounds of this. I don't want to prolong this, but I want to get that on the record.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

No, and I want to speak to that.

The reason it's still a no—despite the fact that we've had I don't know how many hours of debate to get to this point—is that I want to make very clear that both my position and the position of my caucus is that this was a bill where the sponsor came here and distinctly said where the tracks were to go, in her view. I reiterated and spoke to her again during the clause-by-clause consideration.... I just want to make sure it is understood that we were opposed to the expansion of the scope of the bill and the votes that were held then. We did not want to go beyond the original scope. It was a very narrow support and help for a certain group of lost Canadians that we were trying to address.

Expanding the scope then led to our side thinking of things we have heard from constituents and stakeholder groups and from witnesses before the committee on important amendments that could be made.

I then said in the House during the debate on the tabled reports from this committee, when concurrence was moved, that we would consider this a statutory review. We tried to demonstrate that this would be what we consider a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. Therefore, we would make amendments that we thought were necessary or important or that addressed concerns we heard in different communities.

Again, we showed some goodwill. We voted for some of the amendments, such as the improvements in language that the department brought forward and said needed to be done—the difference between Bill S-230 and Bill S-245 and the difference in language that needed to be brought forward. We decided that, yes, we would vote in favour of that.

There were measures in there to make sure that adopted children would be treated equally to children born in Canada and children naturalized in Canada. We supported those as well.

We did not support the substantial connection test being only 1,095 days, and we suggested it should be successive or continuous days. We thought that it could have been toughened up with some prohibitions on persons who have been convicted for crimes with two years plus a day. It would have strengthened the bill. We could then have voted for a substantial connection clause, especially if it had added more days.

I have to say, there was much unpleasantness in May, unfortunately, during those breach of privilege debates that we had to have at this committee. I will also remind you, Chair, and others at the committee, that I proposed a motion that would have seen us deal with amendments at the table by May 15—for other parties to submit them—now that the scope had been expanded.

I know that this was a long and arduous process. However, I think we've learned more about the Citizenship Act than any of us on this side and on that side probably knew. I have copious notes now, and I probably understand the Citizenship Act better than I ever wanted to. Now when somebody from my caucus comes has a question or a bright idea, I will use the content from this meeting to dissuade them from touching this act and making further amendments, because I realize how simple it is to lose entire groups of Canadians and make more lost Canadians in so doing.

I hope we also demonstrated the fact that we can be reasonable and can proceed to quick votes when necessary, when time is of the essence. We were making a point that the way May went down was, in my view, still not acceptable and that we all take this back to other committees that we may serve on so that this doesn't happen again.

When the sponsor of a bill asks that we not affect the contents of the bill, the substance, the scope and the principle, and that we leave it intact and have a simple up or down vote on whether we support the bill as is, it is a courtesy to our colleagues not to—what I will again call—vandalize their bill. I have used that language, and I will continue to use that language, I'm sure, at report stage, at third reading of the bill and then as it goes to the Senate.

The witness testimony that was heard at the Senate committee was that, if amendments were to be made, that would delay the passage of this bill and it should just be passed as the original. There was a certain gentleman who said that repeatedly. I have the witness testimony from that committee on Bill S-230 when it was being debated originally.

Now that there are amendments that are very likely to pass, this bill will likely go back to the Senate. That could be as late as perhaps the fall—late fall—or into the spring session, and who knows whether there will be an election then.

I am just laying out the concerns I have with the way this was done. This bill could have been passed way back in May. I am convinced of it. It could have been royally assented to and then we could have worked on a different piece of legislation, or a member could have tabled a different bill that could have been considered. That's not me, because I drew third from last in the private members' bill draw.

I will note, for the benefit of all of us, that senators seem to be able to legislate faster than members of Parliament. We get only one chance from one draw in each Parliament, while senators can keep drafting new bills and expediting them through the Senate, if they can convince their colleagues....

I just think there's a certain measure of unfairness that now has been built up in our system, whereby members of Parliament get to legislate less quickly and less easily than senators can, and senators don't have an elected mandate from the public to push the bill, so they push.... Nevertheless, they are nominated and they are appointed by the Governor General upon the advice of the Prime Minister, so they can do work like this, like Bill S‑245.

I just want to lay that out, because I've seen a few articles using the F-word and people know how much I love that word, because I've used it at other committees. It's not the one you think. It's the “filibuster” word. We have not done that. We have asked questions to wonder about the contents of the Citizenship Act and the impact on different groups of lost Canadians. We also had structural amendments that we wanted to do on the Citizenship Act, which we have proposed and laid before the committee. Unfortunately, none of our amendments passed even though I heard that some of them were.... The content was quite good and could form part of future private members' bills that any member can pick up and reuse. I just want to make sure that members remember that and also that the vice-chair of this committee and I can be merciful when we want to be merciful and allow things to continue and proceed to business.

Madam Chair, there is a group of hopeful Canadians out there—international students who really need our time and our efforts—and I really hope that this committee is going to do that, but with the state of this bill right now, I know that I'm going to have a very tough time presenting this to my caucus to convince them that we got something in it. There's nothing in here that I can really point to, nothing to convince them that this bill is the same substance as it was before it came to this committee intact. That is a concern to me. This might happen to any one of us with our bills in the future—where the content might be deleted and replaced with things that we don't agree with—but it looks silly when you're the sponsor of a bill and you're whining to have to either vote against it or against your colleague's bill just because the content has been drastically changed from the original.

I want to put that on the record, because I'm sure there will be journalists who will want to refer to this, and I would want to refer to it, too, and send them the clip. That way, it can answer all of their questions on our feelings and thoughts on the process up until this point.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

No, we don't. I've checked with the legislative clerk.

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill S-245 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Mr. Kmiec.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Amendment G-10 reads that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Coming into Force

Order in council

3 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but no later than the 548th day after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

I would like to give some thoughts on it.

Madam Chair, this motion introduces a “coming into force” provision to set a future date when the bill will take effect, but no later than 18 months after royal assent. I think we can all understand that, with all the complexity around this bill, IRCC will need time to prepare for the changes. This will help assure an orderly implementation of operational readiness, systems changes and the development of supporting regulatory changes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move amendment G-10. However, I want to move the updated version that I believe was sent to members recently.

I would like to read it in both languages.

For my friend Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, I will read the French version first.

Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 23, page 1, de ce qui suit:

Entrée en vigueur

Décret

3 La présente loi entre en vigueur à la date fixée par décret, mais au plus tard le cinq cent quarante-huitième jour suivant la date de sa sanction.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will read amendment 47 on new clause 3.

That Bill S‐245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):

(h) overriding licensing boards under federal jurisdiction and provincial licensing boards with regards to foreign credentials, which include, but are not limited to, numerous fields such as medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, among others, to enable immigrants to practice their professions in Canada, which may serve as a step towards gaining citizenship.

Madam Chair, this is also a very significant issue in Canada right now. Newcomers to our country have skills. They have training. They have had, in many cases, years of experience in a certain field. When they come to our country, they're told that they can't practise their profession, whether it's as a doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer or veterinarian—there are many examples.

I've spoken to many people who have literally decades of experience in certain professions, yet the process to get licensed in Canada is so onerous that, essentially, they have to start again—spend many thousands of dollars, take years of education, essentially repeating what they've already learned, not only through school but often through experience.

Certainly in Canada, we need to have standards. We need to make sure that people who come here to work in those jobs have the skills and education required. That goes without saying, but at the same time, we know there are a lot of cases in which people meet that standard, and they would meet that standard but there are gatekeepers in the way. There are licensing boards. There are other boards that restrict the adoption of people into their groups so that those people cannot practise.

What is so important, I think, is that we eliminate these gatekeepers and allow for co-operation among these groups in our country so that we take advantage of the tremendous pool of labour that is just there before us.

It seems somewhat obvious to me, given that most parts of the country would agree that we have a shortage of doctors, for example. We have many newcomers who have been trained as doctors, who may have years and even decades of experience as a doctor in another country, but because of the way the licensing boards in Canada have set things up, they are just not able to go through the process. Either they can't get in or the process is so onerous and time-consuming and expensive that it's just not something they're able to do.

Particularly if you're a little bit older in years and you've already gone through school and have practised as a doctor, for example, for 20 or 25 years, to be told that you need to start again, the same as a 19-year-old or 20-year-old student and go through five or six years of education again, it's not a very attractive thing for many of these people. I've talked to them, and they've shared that exact thing with me.

This amendment goes to the part where the minister is able to make regulations. It would allow the minister to, essentially, force licensing boards to adopt certain standards when it comes to credentials, because sometimes the credentials are where people get tripped up. It lists some of the areas that this would work in, like medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, etc. It basically gives the minister the ability to go in and write regulations that will ease the transition of newcomers to our country into the field that they're trying to work in.

This is, I believe, something very important and something that needs to be done. It wouldn't necessarily be simple. There would have to be co-operation, but I have confidence in our ability to co-operate on things like this, particularly today, right now in our country, when we have a shortage of doctors, for example.

I'm quite confident that there would be a way to co-operate to make this work, for all levels of government and licensing boards to work together, but if the minister had a little more power in this, I think it would be helpful.

That's why this amendment is here. That's what I'm hoping for. I really hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I see that Mr. Perkins is on the list, but I would like to give my ruling on this amendment.

Bill S-245 amends the Citizenship Act to provide for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. This amendment, which has been moved by Mr. Kmiec, proposes to establish a review mechanism for bonuses for senior public servants at the levels of EX-1 and DM-1 or above.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to read it into the record so the public is clear on what we're trying to do here.

It's that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):

(f) requiring that service standards of the department in managing application backlogs are tied to bonus compensation at the EX-1 and DM-1 levels and above on an annual basis, where bonus compensation is withheld or wholly rescinded should the departmental backlogs exceed more than five per cent of total applications.

I am trying to find it on my computer here quickly, Madam Chair. I have the department's spending for last year on how much was paid out in bonuses.

As we know, the department's immigration backlog is about 2.1 million. It grew by about 100,000 applications during the public service strike. Right after the pandemic, it was at a high-water mark, since 2015, of about 2.9 million applications that were backlogged.

In the Treasury Board Secretariat submission—the departmental plans that are submitted by the department when it tables its estimates—usually there are sections in there that refer to the service standard expectations and how many applications they expect to complete by a certain threshold. The department has a target for every stream, and usually they try to meet it within a fixed amount of time 80% of the time.

However, that's not the experience that many of us have with our constituents. Probably 90% of the work in my constituency office in Calgary is on immigration case files, and many of those are related to backlogs. Backlogs cause problems for constituents. They mix up their lives. It delays planning for family reunification. It makes it very difficult to plan trips for families. It's very difficult to know whether you can grow your business or not when you're waiting for someone's work permit.

Although this is my favourite example to give, it is not a happy example. I have a constituent who came to me about a month ago. Her temporary resident visa application was from Tanzania. This application has been 1,113 days in the system.

I have another constituent from Nigeria. Her husband wasn't able to join her to celebrate Christmas in 2022. Every time she logged into the system, the delay kept increasing—every single time. When my constituency office and I would follow up with the agents, they told us we would have to wait.

I don't think that's acceptable. In the private sector, compensation bonuses are based on performance. The department, at this level that I'm referring to, the EX-1 and DM-1, is not performing up to the standard of my expectations.

A few months ago, I filed an order paper question in the House asking for the total amount being spent on bonuses. Over $30 million was paid out in 2022. Sadly, I don't have the exact number before me here, but quite a bit of money was spent by the department on bonuses.

For the benefit of my constituents and yours, Madam Chair, and I'm sure just like every one of us around this table, I would like to tie that to performance. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's strictly on the service standards set by IRCC and nothing more. I think tying the two together would give a very strong incentive to the most senior members of the department to drive the department towards excellence.

When you have an application backlog of two million, including all applications that are within the service standard and those that are way beyond the service standard, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that bonus compensation be withheld or wholly rescinded if the backlogs exceed more than 5% of total applications.

You could do it by streams. You could do it by overall numbers. I think it's reasonable to do. I think it's time that our constituents back home see some type of accountability from this department that has, as we know, doubled its staff since 2015 and doubled its budget since 2015.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Amendment CPC-41 should be distributed. I'll speak to it once it's in everybody's hands.

Amendment CPC-41 is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (27) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Tet.

Tet is an important day of celebration and a time of reflection and hope for many in Asia. It's especially celebrated by many people in the Vietnamese community. I remember growing up with many friends, and a lot of my mom's clients especially were either from Vietnam or from Hong Kong. Tet is a chance for families and extended family members to celebrate together and give blessings for good luck and for cleansing of bad fortune in the past.

Again, it's really important for us to make sure that we enshrine this in legislation and ensure that persons don't have to pick between going to their citizenship ceremony and taking the oath to become new Canadians versus spending that time with family and being able to celebrate some of their cultural inheritance and holidays from their countries of origin after they come here to Canada. I think it's important to enshrine that in law and to make sure that Tet is one of those holidays.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Amendment CPC 40 should be distributed, and I'll just hold off until it is.

Amendment CPC-40 is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (26) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Onam.

Onam is an annual harvest festival celebrated predominantly by the people of Kerala. The purpose of the festival is to commemorate the mythical King Mahabali, celebrate the end of the monsoon season and welcome the harvest.

Again, Madam Chair, I believe it's important that we avoid such important cultural holidays when setting days for citizenship ceremonies so that persons don't need to choose between spending the day with their families and taking their oath of citizenship to become new Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is amendment CPC-34. There is a CPC-35 and a CPC-36 as well. I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity

24.1 (20) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Hanukkah.

In brief, the eight-day Jewish celebration known as Hanukkah commemorates the rededication during the second century before Christ of the second temple in Jerusalem. Often called the “festival of lights”, the holiday is celebrated with the lighting of the menorah, games, traditional foods like latkes and doughnuts, and playing games with the dreidel, which is a little instrument that you spin. It's kind of like a die, but you get to spin it too.

I think it's important to ensure that we don't have citizenship ceremonies on days when persons practising the Jewish faith will be unable to attend a citizenship ceremony to take the oath and would much rather spend time with their families. Hanukkah is a very important holiday. It's one of those high holy days in the Jewish calendar.

Thank you, Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

CPC-33 will be followed by CPC-34. CPC-33 is being distributed, so perhaps I'll just wait a moment.

CPC-33 also relates to proposed new clause 1.4.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity

24.1 (19) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Vesak.

Vesak is the most important day in Buddhism, when Buddhists in Canada and around the world commemorate the birth, enlightenment and passing of the Buddha. The community celebrates by going to prayer at the temple and meditating upon Buddhist teachings of kindness, generosity, peace and compassion.

It's an important day, and we should ensure that citizenship ceremonies are not scheduled on the same day that many Buddhists will be celebrating Vesak.

Thank you, Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes. The next amendment, amendment 32, is being distributed. I'll just pause.

Let me read this amendment on proposed new clause 1.4.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity

24.1 (18) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Puthandu (Tamil New Year).

Again, this is another significant day in the Tamil calendar, something that we need to respect and be careful of as we schedule citizenship ceremonies.

Puthandu is a significant celebration for the Tamil community, as it marks the beginning of a new year. It is an opportunity to reflect on the challenges and successes of the past year as well as to look toward the future with hope and optimism.

To mark this occasion, friends and family will come together and begin the celebration by decorating the entrance of their homes with kolams, which are designs made of coloured rice flour.

They will also exchange gifts and greetings, dressed in new clothes, and enjoy delicious food together.

Just as in the previous amendment, this is an important time that we must be careful to respect, and make sure that we don't schedule citizenship ceremonies on these days so that we respect the Tamil culture in Canada.

I would just implore my colleagues to support and vote for this motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you. I see we're becoming very efficient at distributing these amendments. I'll pause for a moment.

This amendment also relates to proposed new clause 1.4.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (17) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Thai Pongal.

This is also a very important holiday. I found that the best description of this holiday actually came from Minister Hussen. He said, “Tamils celebrate the end of the harvest season by coming together and enjoying pongal, a sweet and savoury dish made with rice and fresh milk.”

His statement continued, saying, “At the heart of Thai Pongal are the values of respect, compassion, and mutual support within families and communities—values that unite all Canadians and speak to who we are. Coinciding with Tamil Heritage Month, Thai Pongal also highlights the enduring strength and resilience of the Tamil community, while also serving as a continued reminder of the great impact they have made and continue to make.”

This is an important holiday for Tamils. I think it's important that we recognize that and respect that as we're setting citizenship ceremonies.

Before I finish, Madam Chair, I want to mention one thing: You'll notice that we have not mentioned Christian holidays. As a Christian, I can say why that is. It's simply because those holidays are already recognized, because those are on the calendar that we follow in this country. Those holidays are here, and all we're trying to do is add to those and bring some balance with all the other cultures and religions that we have in our country.

For those of you who are wondering why we haven't raised Christian holidays, that's the reason: We don't need to. They're already in the calendar and they are respected by the department for that reason.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment relates to proposed new clause 1.4.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity

24.1 (16) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Yalda Night.

This is a really important Iranian holiday, and I have two very good leaders in Saskatoon, Bijan and Pooyan. They're very strong Iranian leaders in the community and they're doing lots to hold up Iranian causes in Saskatoon and literally across the country.

Bijan told me, “Most Iranian holidays are based on natural phenomena, given that the Iranian calendar is synchronized with the earth's revolution around the sun. Yalda happens during the winter solstice, which is the longest night of the year, and is a celebration of enduring and passing the longest of nights and moving toward a future with more sun and sunlight, both literally and also as a sign of moving from evil to good.

His brother Pooyan said, “Personally, these traditions play an important role in maintaining identity and a sense of self, besides their benefits. I also believe living through governments like Iran's creates a sense of distance and distrust among people. These holidays are an opportunity to heal the wounds of our relationships, practice kindness and trust, and love each other again.

“When I look at people's faces during these celebrations, I see decades of tiredness and of being alert and anxious. I love seeing them laugh and smile and embrace each other. It also helps that these occasions remind me of my childhood when I didn't know much and life was simpler and more fun!”

Again, I would hope that I could find support to pass this amendment.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, I will read amendment CPC‑29, beginning with the French version.

Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant:

1.4 L'article 24 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit:

Respect des jours fériés et des jours d'importance pour la promotion de l'identité multiculturelle du Canada 24.1(15) Les cérémonies de citoyenneté ne peuvent avoir lieu le jour de Newroz.

Newroz is the first day of spring. I do say “Newroz” because it is also considered a national Kurdish celebration, and I also chair the Parliamentary Friends of the Kurds group on Parliament Hill, which I started. I've been a big advocate of recognition of the Kurdish people in Canada for who they are. They are a distinct indigenous group in the Middle East.

In Kurdish mythology, Newroz combines nature's awakening from a long, cold winter with a nation's awakening from a long life of captivity and repression. The lighting of fire, gatherings and dancing hand in hand at Newroz symbolizes unity, tolerance and the victory of light over darkness.

Canadians of Kurdish heritage celebrate Newroz. They see it as an opportunity to share their rich culture with other Canadians and to keep the spirit of Newroz alive mainly in three ideas [Technical difficulty—Editor] and resilience.

For those who may not know, especially in the city of Akre in south Kurdistan.... There are four parts of Kurdistan that are important here. In south Kurdistan, which is also called Bashur, Bashuri Kurds celebrate in Akre, where the entire mountainsides are lit on fire. Fire is so important because it's a representation of the spring, the starting of something new. They light large bonfires. This happens in all four regions of Kurdistan. It also happens in Bakur, which is the territories in Turkey; Rojhilat, which is the western provinces in Iran; and Rojava, which is the northeast region in Syria.

I think it's an important time of the year. There are also picnics that are planned for afterwards, but this first night is incredibly important and it should be set aside so that Canadians of Kurdish heritage don't need to choose between attending their citizenship ceremony to swear an oath to become citizens and celebrating Newroz with families.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

New clause 1.4 is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (14) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Muharram (Islamic New Year).

Again, this is another significant date for Muslim people. It's the whole idea of respecting these dates when people are not really available to do citizenship ceremonies.

Zunaib told me that the Islamic New Year marks the migration of Prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina, which was a turning point in the history of Islam. Muslims use this occasion to reflect on their journey of faith, renew their commitment to God and seek forgiveness for their sins. The Islamic New Year is a time of introspection, prayer and gratitude for the blessings of life.

He said that overall, Islamic holidays are significant not only because they celebrate historical events or religious beliefs, but also because they offer an opportunity for Muslims to connect with their faith, their community, and their humanity.

Mumtaz told me that recognizing these holidays would demonstrate Canada's commitment to religious freedom and respect for the diversity of its citizens. It would also be a way to acknowledge the significant contributions made by the Muslim community to Canadian society.

He added that recognizing these holidays would enable more people to participate in the celebrations without having to miss important things. Recognizing these holidays would also promote social cohesion and unity by bringing people of different faiths and cultures together. It would provide an opportunity for Canadians to learn and promote greater understanding and respect for diversity.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It proposes new clause 1.4. It is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (13) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Eid al-Adha.

This is another very significant Muslim holiday. In fact, it's coming up very shortly here.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have another amendment, amendment CPC-26, that I'd like to distribute. I'll give you a minute.

Amendment 26 would amend Bill S-245 by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1 (12) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Eid al-Fitr.

Again, following on the last one, the end of the month of Ramadan is Eid al-Fitr. That's one of the great days of celebration as well in that festival, particularly since that's the day when everybody puts out their very best food and their very best of everything. Again, for me it's an exciting day to visit with families and eat way too much. It's a good thing.

Mubarak said this about Eid al-Fitr: “Eid al-Fitr is an annual celebration that is celebrated at the end of Ramadan. To me it is a day of gratitude to God Almighty for enabling me to successfully go through the month of Ramadan. It is a day of joy and happiness in which I like to go visit my family and friends, exchange gifts with them, have food during the day and on and on. Eid is particularly very exciting for children. They get gifts and mostly cash from elders.”

This is what Abbas told me: “Eid-al-Fitr is my favourite. After the blessing of the month of Ramadan when people are so pious, practise good deeds and donate generously, we celebrate Eid at the end of the month as a reward. This festival brings people together to exchange gifts and presents, meet and greet friends and families, and enjoy feasts and food.”

Again, this is a very, very significant day. In fact, I believe we had about 15,000 people come together in Saskatoon for the Eid al-Fitr celebration. That's a large number for a city like Saskatoon. Much food was consumed on that day; I can say that.

I would encourage you to accept this amendment to the bill.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is for new clause 1.4. It is that Bill S‑245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity

24.1(11) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on the first day of Ramadan.

As we all know, Ramadan is a 30-day festival or celebration. It's a very important time of the year for those of the Muslim faith. That first day is always a very significant day as they begin Ramadan.

I have just a couple of things I wanted to read. Fatima from my riding told me this:

Ramadan, the 9th month of the Islamic calendar, is a time of spiritual rejuvenation when Muslims spend time reflecting on how to become the best they can be. The primary focus is fasting which fosters self control, mindfulness, gratitude, and feeding the soul. During this month, there is renewal of intention to be more [focused on] acts of worship with more prayers, charitable deeds, and better overall conduct.

She goes on to say that it's also a time when families gather to share the Iftar, or breaking of the fast together, traditionally with dates, as was the practice of the prophet Muhammad.

I'm sure all of us have been to Iftars. It's a wonderful time when.... For those of us who don't fast, it's not actually a good thing, because we end up gaining weight during the whole period. The whole point is you have to fast to balance off the Iftar, but I'm learning. I have done a little bit of fasting and my goal is to get better at that.

Mubarak sent me this, which I thought was very touching. He said:

My faith is one of the most important parts of my life. The religion of Islam is my identity, my hope and my lifeline. I like to celebrate everything that has to do with my religion. For example the month of Ramadan, it is one of the most important months on the Islamic calendar. It is a month of fasting with a lot of prayers but with very less sleep and food.... To me, it is like a physical and spiritual boot camp in which I try to enhance my spirituality, morality and seek nearness to The God Almighty not only for a month but for the entire year until the next Ramadan arrives. It also helps me physically to cleanse myself in many ways.

I think this is a very important time for Muslims in Canada. That's why I believe that the first day of Ramadan should be respected and we should not schedule citizenship ceremonies on that day.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In amendment CPC‑20, I move that Bill S‑245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (8) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Vaisakhi.

On Vaisakhi, Sikhs celebrate the inauguration of the Khalsa, gathering with their community in gurdwaras all around the country. Together, they listen to kirtans, read sacred scriptures and reflect on the timeless values of peace and charity. Vaisakhi also coincides with the time of harvest in India, inspiring generosity and thankfulness for the many blessings we receive.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (7) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Holi.

The logic of this is similar to the other ones. Holi is a popular and significant Hindu festival, celebrated as the festival of colours and spring. We should not be putting citizenship ceremonies on those special days for Hindus.

Thank you, Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

In amendment CPC‑20, I move that Bill S‑245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (6) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled during Navratri.

Madam Chair, the logic of this one is that Navratri is an annual Hindu festival in honour of the goddess Durga that spans nine nights. It is celebrated differently in India's various regions. For many people, it's a time of religious reflection and fasting, while for others it's a time for dancing and feasting.

Again, persons who have a citizenship ceremony on one of those days may not be able to attend for religious reasons. Therefore, we should not be scheduling citizenship ceremonies during those days, when a person would be unable to attend.

Thank you, Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (5) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Diwali.

Diwali is the festival of lights. It's the most important holiday in the Hindu calendar. It symbolizes the spiritual victory of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance. It's also celebrated with several other religions in India—I thought I should note that.

I think it's important that we not hold citizenship ceremonies on those days because we have many residents of Canada becoming citizens who are faithful Hindus. Therefore, we should make sure that we respect Diwali.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (4) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled during the Mid-Autumn Festival.

This is a fairly important holiday. The mid-autumn festival is also called the moon festival or the mooncake festival. If you haven't had mooncake, Madam Chair, I highly recommend it. I've had it many times before with my family. The festival “is a celebration of the rice harvest and many fruits [that go along with it]. Ceremonies are held both to give thanks for the harvest and to encourage the harvest-giving light to return again in the coming year. It is also a reunion time for families”.

Families would be unable to attend should they have a family member who is about to take the oath of citizenship. Therefore, it should not be scheduled on that day so that they can spend time with family. The citizenship ceremony should happen on a different day.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're on CPC-15, and there's CPC-16 afterwards, as well.

On CPC-15, unfortunately, if we had passed the previous one, Chair, then we wouldn't need this one now, but this is the amendment.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 (1) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Simbang Gabi.

Simbang Gabi is a devotional nine-day series of masses attended by Filipino Catholics, usually celebrated during Advent from December 16 to December 24 in preparation for Christmas Day. It's regarded as an important tradition to praise and worship God. This religious tradition encourages community development and camaraderie among parishioners through a common effort of prayer, celebration, fellowship and charity. It's especially important to Filipino Catholics.

Thank you, Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: Part VI, section 24.1 Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity 24.1 Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on enumerated days of significance. The Minister or the Department must take steps to offer alternative days in accordance with the respect and promotion of Canada's multicultural identity.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

All right, Madam Chair.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: 24(10) A document of citizenship must be provided immediately upon completion of the oath of citizenship.

The logic of this amendment, since we're doing what I would call a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, is that at the citizenship ceremony, when you attend in person, and actually when you attend it virtually as well, the department has you cut your permanent residency card. The PR card is cut. Oftentimes they ask you to cut it visibly in front of these civil servants, because you can't have a PR card and citizenship at the same time, obviously.

What happens then is that they mail a document of citizenship. But they already know who has attended there. They can kind of check them off the list. There's no reason that you couldn't have them just print off the document of citizenship. I personally would much rather that we go back to the old way. I won't fish out my citizenship card from my pocket, but the old cards are much better. This is a big document of citizenship.

The reason that one is so important is that you need that to get your passport. You need that for your passport application. It's 30 days or however long it takes, depending on how remote you are. You may live in a remote community or in an apartment block where there may not be mail delivery every single day, depending on how the contractors work with Canada Post.

The logic of this is to just do it at the ceremony. It's just a process issue. Just give it to the persons as they're there. Because citizenship ceremonies may take an hour or two or three to complete, I think the department has enough time to check off who is there and check them off digitally in the database. Then they can just print off the document at the location, or have them ready to go. Whoever doesn't show up, the department can just bring it back to their offices.

I think it's a huge process improvement for new Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I will read CPC amendment 12 into the record.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following: 24(9) The Minister must disclose in advance to Members of Parliament the location, time, and date of all citizenship ceremonies that will be attended by their constituents, either in‑person or virtual.

The logic of this is simple. As parliamentarians, we should know when our constituents are becoming citizens of Canada. This is not done on a consistent basis.

I know that in my riding, I often get an invitation when there's a special occasion when it's being done, but this is not being done on a consistent basis. I remember one year when my pharmacist became a Canadian citizen, I wasn't made aware of when this was going to happen.

It would be good because sometimes, because of how large some of our cities are, there are people from different ridings being lumped together in some of these ceremonies. If all parliamentarians knew, we could make plans to attend. I think, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to be there and to participate in what is really a huge life milestone for many persons who are obtaining their citizenship.

I have never had a citizenship ceremony in person that I regretted attending. They are all terrific to attend. I'm hoping we can find consensus at the table here that it should be a requirement to tell members of Parliament when citizenship ceremonies are happening.

We already get a list of new citizens. It's not too much to ask the department to send us a list of all citizenship ceremonies where our residents are going to take the oath of citizenship. It would just be one little extra step. That way, we can make ourselves available to participate in this. We could help the department make sure there are good, strong showings at the citizenship ceremonies, as well.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I will begin with the English, and then I'll read the French.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following

24(8) where a citizenship ceremony has been scheduled for a person, employers in federally regulated industries must grant that person leave for one day to accommodate the ceremony.

I am now going to read it in French.

Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant...

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have another amendment I'd like to propose. This one is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do have another amendment I'd like to move. After I have read it in English, I will read it in French as well.

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following

24(7): where a citizenship ceremony has been scheduled, the Department must provide the person with at least seven days' notice prior to the date of the ceremony.

I will now read it in French.

Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant:

1.4 L'article 24 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit 24 (7) Lorsqu'une cérémonie de citoyenneté est prévue, le ministère donne à la personne un préavis d'au moins sept jours avant la date de la cérémonie.

I'll explain the logic of this one. It's pretty simple. After hearing some of the debate at the table about persons having difficulty planning ahead of time, I did take the liberty of looking up what other countries do. Right now, we can make mandatory at least a seven days' notice for a person when they have a citizenship ceremony scheduled. In the United Kingdom, citizenship ceremonies have to happen within three months of receiving an invitation, so there is actually quite a bit more notice being provided. In New Zealand, there is a four weeks' notice before the ceremony, so it is not unusual for countries to provide a notice period for the department to inform the person that they are now eligible to take the oath of citizenship, and by which day. There is a notice period that gives people time to plan out when they can reasonably be there, and if there is a need to reschedule, they can take it up with the department.

So that's the logic. It's just an easier method for new citizens to take the oath of citizenship, making sure of their timeline so that their families can all be there.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm going to read it in French, Madam Chair. Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant:

1.4 L'article 24 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit : 24 (6) Lorsque les cérémonies de citoyenneté sont virtuelles, elles doivent a) être enregistrées afin de confirmer que le serment de citoyenneté a été prêté de façon appropriée b) être géolocalisées sur le territoire du Canada

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

24(6) where citizenship ceremonies are conducted virtually, they must

a) be recorded for the purposes of confirming the oath of citizenship has been appropriately carried out

b) be geolocated within the territory of Canada

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

We are resuming meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-245.

When we left off, we were debating a subamendment to amendment CPC-8. We had Mr. Redekopp and Mr. Mazier on the floor, so I will go to Mr. Redekopp, as he was on the speaking list.

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Mazier for what I think is really getting at the heart of both what the Conservatives are trying to accomplish with this amendment but also, in light of the feedback received from other parties and other officials, to make sure that it gives the discretion required while maintaining the heart of what we're endeavouring to accomplish, and that is to ensure that the value of that process of joining the Canadian family is in fact preserved.

I think, actually, if one looks at this amendment in the context of the larger conversation and specifically the subamendment that takes in some of that feedback—and we're endeavouring to be constructive here—it accomplishes and checks all the boxes required to ensure that what would be passed as part of Bill S-245 actually accomplishes the stated objective.

I won't get into some of the details about the scope being opened up and some of the debates surrounding Senator Martin and some of the past elements of what got us to this point. I won't go there, but I would hope that members of this committee would see that we're certainly willing to be constructive and collaborative and get to a point where some of the concerns that have been raised are addressed. I think this will be a step forward, both for this amendment but also for the bill itself.

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

So the scope of compassionate grounds would be broadened.

In fact, if we were to adopt the amendment as it is currently worded, there is a risk of creating all kinds of problems, and in particular leaving us quite some distance from achieving the main objective of Bill S‑245, which is to grant citizenship to people who should never have lost it in the first place.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Thank you. I'm going to change the questioning to Ms. Girard.

In the existing bill that is proposed, S-245, how does this amendment speak to what we already have? Do we have a mechanism to deal with the situation where compassionate grounds are a fact?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have an amendment I would like to make. This would be new clause 1.4, that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

24 (5) Should a person be unable to attend an in-person citizenship ceremony, the Minister may waive this requirement only on compassionate grounds and a virtual option should be offered in those circumstances as requested.

That's the motion, and I have things to say about it, but we will take a minute just to make sure everybody has it, including the officials.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have an amendment that I would to move, to make a new clause 1.4. It is that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

24(4) The Department of Citizenship and Immigration shall not create an online web form for the oath of citizenship to be completed.

I have things to say about this. I'm just wondering if everybody has this amendment.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a new amendment. It's new clause 1.4. I move that Bill S‑245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

24(3) The oath of citizenship cannot be completed through an online web form.

That's the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are doing clause-by-clause on Bill S-245.

We have Conservative amendment 5 on the floor, and I have Mr. Maguire on the list.

Mr. Maguire, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are on clause-by-clause on Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor. Seeing no one....

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

This a non-debatable motion. Mr. Redekopp has asked to have debate on his motion. We will go to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will now resume our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor.

The floor is open for debate. I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I think we're getting into.... We're dealing with Bill S-245. We are doing clause-by-clause.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I just want to let folks know so that they can anticipate this.

The motion would read:

That, following news reports that international students admitted into Canada with valid study permits were issued fraudulent college acceptance letters by immigration consultants, and are now facing deportation, the committee issue a news release to condemn the actions of these fraudulent 'ghost consultants' and call on the Canada Border Services Agency to immediately stay pending deportations of affected international students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted, such as the Humanitarian and Compassionate application process or a broad regularization program.

I just want to let people know that it is my intention to move that motion at the end of the meeting today, assuming we can finish Bill S-245.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before we get into Bill S-245, I would like to first put on notice the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study into the targeted exploitation scheme faced by 700 Punjabi international students in which they were unknowingly defrauded by a “ghost” immigration consultant who used inauthentic admission letters for their student visa application; that this study be comprised of two meetings; and that the study consider:

a) how the situation was allowed to happen;

b) why fraudulent documents were not detected until years later when the students began to apply for permanent status;

c) the significant harm experienced by students including financial loss and distress;

d) measures necessary to help the students to have their deportation stayed, inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation waived, and provide a pathway to permanent status; and

e) that the committee also examine how to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

I'm putting this motion on notice, Madam Chair. I fully understand the precedence of the order is for us to finish Bill S-245, for bills to be dealt with. Then we can entertain other studies, so I've put that forward.

The other thing I want to note, Madam Chair, is that, at the end of the meeting today, I would like to move the following motion. The language is as follows—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I will remind you that we will be meeting for three hours today.

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 will continue our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

When we left off, Mr. Kmiec had just moved an amendment from the floor, which has been distributed to the committee. The floor is open for debate.

I have two people on the speaking list, Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kwan.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Some of the amendments we're not going to be carrying through. It's hard to tell which ones we will be moving forward with, based on the conversation at the table.

I proposed an amendment, as you know, Madam Chair, about a month ago to reset the deadline for amendments to May 15. After a very brief debate, that amendment was voted down on Bill S-245. I wanted to avoid this situation, but it's now impossible, so this is a floor amendment. I have floor amendments to move. There are members of my committee who want to, and I'm not going to rush them.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank my dear friend Mr. Ali, not only for bringing all these statistics and personally attending the meetings last week but also for all the great work he does, not only for the people of Brampton Centre but in fact on any real issue. On the student issue, he was there, and on any other issue that comes in that affects the immigrant community, he has always been there. I want to thank him.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the committee members that I came to Canada as an immigrant as well. I came to Canada in 1984 and landed in a beautiful city at that time, Calgary. I went to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and to the University of Calgary, getting my engineering degree.

Madam Chair, I got my citizenship in 1987 at the earliest moment I could. I was very proud and am still very proud to be Canadian. It's not only me. In fact, all my family are Canadian citizens, including my mom, who is very vibrant. She worked here in this country. She still today, at 83, goes with me when I am campaigning or doing any social work. She is ahead of me all the time with the energy she carries, but she came to Canada not speaking any English.

I remember when Conservatives were in power and we talked about citizenship for people aged 55 to 65 for people who did not have knowledge of the English language, and I can tell you that my mother would have had to wait a long time if that had been in effect at the time when she took her citizenship. I'm sure there were many, but in fact, I still remember when the Liberals came back to power and brought in Bill C‑6, which brought that age back to 55 and gave many immigrants whose mother tongue was not English or French the opportunity to have their citizenship earlier. I can tell you that the Liberals were helping.

In fact, I took the oath personally, and I have that small card, the one that Mr. Kmiec was mentioning, but I have also seen excitement on the online meetings. I still remember that I was asked to come to one of the homes. Mr. Sashi Kumar, who is a Canadian citizen now, lives in my riding. He invited me. He was very excited to become a Canadian citizen and to have an opportunity to do it online. They decorated the whole home, they invited the whole family and they invited me, and I made my way to them to see the excitement.

The technology changes, and I think it's totally appropriate to have both a personal ceremony and one online for people who are in difficult situations, like Madam Kwan's mom. I'm sure there are still many out there in Canada who are in the same situation today. They cannot go personally to attend their ceremony and they want to opt out, do it at home and celebrate at home, the way that Mr. Sashi Kumar and his family did when they invited me. I was very proud to be part of that celebration at home.

Madam Chair, as I said, I could go on for hours, but I know that Bill S‑245 is a very important bill as well because it is going to help many Canadians who have lost their citizenship. I know Senator Martin. She's a wonderful person. I have a very excellent working relationship with her, and she's also from beautiful British Columbia. I would love to see this bill go through ASAP.

The important question that maybe we should be asking officials in terms of the online test that came in during COVID is about protecting the integrity of that test. It came to my knowledge that there might be an opportunity for some fraud if the people themselves don't appear for the test, but others do, from the outside. What steps are being taken by the department to make sure that we are able to protect the integrity of our examination centres or examination tests or whatever they have for citizenship?

That would be my question, Madam Chair.

With that, I want to thank each and every one of you who spoke so passionately about the citizenship ceremony, whether it be in person or online.

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

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

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding “at an in-person citizenship ceremony” after “oath of citizenship”.

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

Thank you.

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

1.4 The Act is amended by adding the following after Section 23:

Members of the Senate shall not be eligible to be delegated authority unless they are an appointed member of the King's Privy Council.

I can't believe that we're here, but I think that any time this committee now has an opportunity to clarify that members of Parliament and other parliamentarians, particularly the Senate, do not have delegated authority to make decisions that affect either citizenship or other immigration applications, we should avail ourselves of doing that.

There are pending court cases now, given that a member of the Senate took it upon herself to assume that she had delegated authority to make these types of decisions. Given what's happened before and what our committee has been seized with this year, I think it's important to articulate in acts that there has to be a clearly delineated line of authority to make immigration decisions, be it, as in this case, the Citizenship Act or otherwise.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is so kind of you.

We were at NDP-12.

I want to make a point about this meeting that was called. We are typically given 48 hours' notice, and I'll note that we had sent a letter calling for an emergency meeting to consider the case of international students. That did not happen, and there are international students facing deportation this week.

I find it terribly unfortunate that we couldn't have had that meeting and done two meetings on Bill S-245 this week. This one could have been dedicated to these international students.

I was a bit tardy getting here because I was doing interviews. It's such a huge case right now, because the deportation inadmissibility hearings have now been done.

With that, I had marked one question to ask the department officials here. It's one I've asked previously when there has been a switch of amendments. One was a floor amendment and one was the one provided with the package. What is the difference between the two, the original NDP-12 and this version of NDP-12? I can't remember whether I had this information. I want to have an understanding of which one I would prefer to vote on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

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 a new NDP-12 amendment.

Mr. Kmiec had the floor right before we adjourned, so I will let him continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. We will have to stop here, because we don't have the services beyond eight o'clock.

We have a time slot available for 11 to one tomorrow, and I am requesting that we have the meeting for Bill S-245. I have checked and the resources are available. We can get that time slot, so I will request that the meeting be called. Details will be sent out to you with regard to the room number and everything.

We will have the meeting tomorrow from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Details will be sent out. It will be on Bill S-245's clause-by-clause consideration.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[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.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today we will be dealing with the potential matter of privilege regarding Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act by granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

We are joined by Mr. Randall Emery, executive director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council.

Welcome. Thank you for appearing before the committee.

Mr. Emery, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning. You can please begin.

[The Clerk]

My apologies. I missed the previous amendment.

I reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), at the next meeting.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Keelan Buck]

It reads as follows: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Thank you for that, but I have another tweak that I would like to make to this motion. It has to do with the part that refers to Bill S-245. We talked about that a bit. I believe we need to change it so that we are referring to the potential breach of privilege rather than to Bill S-245 so that we don't have any problems with.... We have to be careful with our motions, because privilege motions take precedence over this, and I want to make sure that is done.

My amendment would be as follows. Replace where it currently says “current study of” with the wording from my original motion, which is “potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to”, and then it carries on. It would read as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)”. Then add my previous amendment, which I think was “by Wednesday” or “at the next meeting”.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As usual, Madam Chair, I'm going to play the role of Quebecois sovereignist trying to find a compromise between the federalist parties on Canadian citizenship legislation. Described that way, it may seem funny, but that is nonetheless the situation in which we find ourselves.

I'm trying to find the common sense in it all. I just want to make my colleagues aware that, if the witness does not appear quickly, as per the Conservatives' request, we're going to end up with a committee that doesn't function. If we don't consider their proposal, we're going to lose more time than we thought we could gain.

I suggest my Liberal and New Democrat friends agree with the Conservatives. Let's get the witness to appear. Afterwards, we can delve into the essence of the work we have to do as a committee, which means completing study of Bill S‑245.

As usual, my federalist friends, your good friend the sovereignist is trying to find a compromise for you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My colleagues Ms. Rempel Garner and Mr. Genuis were talking about timeliness, essentially. That is the basis of what I am talking about in my amendment. I want to reiterate—it's what my colleague was just speaking about—that this is a very important, pertinent issue that we need to deal with as quickly as possible.

I'm concerned that the way the motion is written doesn't convey that. In fact, it doesn't even mention this issue. It mentions Bill S-245.

That's my concern. We need to do something to put a little more teeth, if you will, into this motion so that we make sure it's done in a timely manner and as quickly as possible. The next meeting would be the one to do it at. For all the reasons that have been stated already, we need to deal with this first, or as quickly as we possibly can. It does affect what we do in some other deliberations potentially.

We've had a lot of very good questions. Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to discuss a lot of the NDP amendments with the NDP. That's partly why we ask a lot of questions of the department officials who are here and who are probably bored out of their minds at the moment.

We appreciate your being here and the answers you have given so far.

It's important that we ask those questions about the bill. However, we also have to be careful that there aren't improper influences happening to us as well. We've all had different people contacting us about this bill. It's one thing if somebody has an opinion and they share it with us or with our office, but if that person has been privy to very detailed information about amendments, it can change things. It can impact, in an unfavourable way, what we choose to do, potentially.

I know there are particular stakeholders who have been phoning us repeatedly, sometimes multiple times a day. That isn't necessarily helpful for us. Some of those things can be wrongly influenced by somebody having information that they shouldn't have.

That's the core issue, getting back to the privilege we're speaking of today. That's why I think it is important that we put a time condition on this. It's so that we don't end up at the end of June and find out that we don't have a chance to get the witness here.

That's why I want to see us have some kind of time limit so we get this done very quickly. My preference would be to do it right away, this week, and then we can dispose of it and, as we said, move on to the substance of the bill. As we all know, there is a deadline to get that done, which I believe is June 15. We still have some time and that's a good thing. However, we do need to get that done. That's the timeliness factor and why that needs to be done quickly.

I also want to address the question of whether there has been a breach.

Madam Chair, you rightly stated that you are not the arbiter of that. You do not decide whether there has been a breach, but you decide whether there is enough evidence to support an investigation into that. That's what you've done, and that's good.

There was some mention from Ms. Kwan about the document that was not tabled, and that was the choice of the person who had the document. From what I understand, in that document—I think Ms. Kwan alluded to some of this—there were very specific references to specific amendment numbers. Even if somebody generally understood that government amendments are typically numbered G-1, G-2, G-3 and so on—even if they understood that basic concept—they would have no way of knowing, for example, that G-3 is specifically about this versus G-5 being about that. They wouldn't know that. That level of information, which is what I recall seeing in the document, is very specific. To me, that is very indicative of a potential breach. Somebody, somehow, passed that information on to them. That's why I think it's important that this be reviewed in more detail.

The other thing that was in that document, as I recall, was a bit of a strategy: that A is going to happen and then B will happen, or there will be a motion for this and then an amendment for that. There was a bit of a plan, if you will, that had been created and devised.

That is essentially what was in this document, which, when it was received, seemed a bit interesting. Then, lo and behold, when we had our last meeting, the plan that was outlined in that document was in fact exactly what happened. Clearly this person not only had access to information they shouldn't have had, but also had access to the strategy, if you will, that was going to be used by the person moving that.

I'm not sure that was necessarily part of a breach. I don't know. That's what we'll have to study, because that part I'm not exactly clear about. Certainly having some of that information, I believe, was clearly a breach of privilege. However, as was said before, we around this table certainly reserve the right to agree or disagree that it was a breach, because at this point we haven't had the full disclosure. I also believe that's why it's so important to have this witness come, because they're the one who knows. They know the answers to these questions, and every one of us needs the opportunity to ask these questions to find out the truth about where this came from.

It's not so much about punishing somebody necessarily, because there could be legitimate faults in the way that some members run their offices. I don't mean that in a critical way. It could be an legitimate hole that needs to be plugged, if you will.

I love aviation, so I often watch—and some of you may have watched—shows in which there is a plane crash and they describe all the things that happened that led up to that plane crash. Often there are multiple things. It's not about assigning blame so much as it is about figuring out what went wrong and plugging the hole so that next time it doesn't happen.

That's kind of the same principle here. It's not so much about assigning blame to somebody. It's about figuring out why it happened and what flaws, if you will, there were in the system and then figuring out a way to plug those holes, to fix those flaws so that it doesn't happen again. I believe that's really important and a really important outcome of this.

That summarizes some of my thoughts for now. As I said, the main thing I want to do is make sure we have a timeliness associated with this so that we don't end up just delaying it and not dealing with it. I think that is very important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The motion that Mr. Dhaliwal had put on notice, and the motion he moved, says:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the current study of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

That's the motion that Mr. Dhaliwal has moved. Mr. Redekopp has moved an amendment. Now we have an amendment on the floor. We have to deal with the amendment and then proceed to the main motion.

I have Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your ruling.

As for the motion that's on the table, I think it makes sense that we would hear from him.

I just want to address quickly that Ms. Kwan mentioned a tactic—that this is a tactic, I think she's implying, to stall or something like that. This is not a tactic. This is a very serious potential breach of parliamentary practice and privilege. It's something that, regardless of what committee it happened in, is a very significant issue. It's also precedent-setting, and I think we need to deal with it accordingly. It doesn't matter what issue is before us today. I think it's incumbent on us as MPs to stop and deal with this issue.

I wanted to make sure that was that on the table.

I would like to propose an amendment to this motion. After what has been proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal, we would add the following:

, following which, the committee report to the House of Commons the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), to a member of the public before clause-by-clause consideration and amendments and subamendments were moved at committee.

I believe the clerk has this wording, not with Mr. Dhaliwal's piece but with this piece, so that can be sent around.

Essentially what we're doing is saying, yes, let's get Mr. Emery. Let's bring him to committee. Let's talk to him. Then, following that, we will write a report and report it to the House. That's essentially what my motion is saying.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I speak to the motion, I want to first touch on an issue with your decision.

What you found is that the matter raised relates to a matter of privilege. However, it is my understanding, Madam Chair, that you have not found that privilege was violated at this committee. I just want to make sure that was the case.

With respect to the motion from Mr. Dhaliwal, I certainly support the motion to call the witness to come before the committee to provide clarity on the question of privilege. To be sure, if that motion passes, the motion is to call the witness to speak before the committee on the question around privilege and not to revisit, I assume, the issue around Bill S-245. If I'm incorrect, I would like to have some clarity on that. I think that's an important motion from this perspective.

I had the chance to review the Hansard from Mr. Kmiec that was made at the last committee meeting. He seemed to indicate that he believed a breach of the committee's privilege has occurred. I will quote from it:

What I have heard about the Liberal NDP compromise is that they will offer subamendments—

That has just happened.

—to the NDP amendments to increase the connection test to 1,095 days—

The subamendment made the reference back to the substantial connection test.

—only for parents—

We just removed grandparents.

—and by right vs. grant.

His comments appear to be outlining the process of how things occurred, and certainly that is how....

In my engagement with my stakeholder groups, I advised them that the NDP intends to move amendments to address the connections test issue and that there are a number of areas I would like to pursue. However, there was only agreement to move forward on the 1,095 days and the parents, not the grandparents. All of the stakeholder groups certainly knew that, and that is something I have informed them of all the way through. Most stakeholder groups were advised.

It is my view that it's highly likely that the individual may well have.... I'm assuming that this is a very sophisticated individual who actually talked to every single party, in all likelihood, and got information on what their intentions were.

My intentions have been open and on the public record from day one in terms of what I would like to do to amend Bill S-245 and bring forward amendments that are indeed out of scope to address the lost Canadian issue once and for all. Negotiations and discussions with the government side were something I started even before this year to see whether or not we could find a way to move forward on that. These discussions had been under way.

When it was clear that the government wasn't going to move on some of the items I would like to see go forward, I did inform the stakeholder groups I was connected with to let them know and to ascertain whether or not this was something we would still want to proceed with. That's as clear as day.

It is entirely possible that the individual in question may well have talked to a variety of people, gotten this information and been able to piece together what the procedure is. To me, that is not surprising at all, nor does it show that privilege has been breached.

What we are talking about here for privilege to have been breached is for the documents to have been shared. I can assure this committee once again, as I did in the last committee, that the documents the clerk sent to committee members were not shared by my office at any time—not by me or by my office at any time.

I don't mind bringing this individual forward. What I am concerned about, though, is this. I feel this is a tactic being exercised as an attempt to distract from the work we're doing and to delay the work we're doing. We're under a tight timeline, as all members know. We have to report back to the House on this work, and we have a 30-day limit set from previous committee meetings, by way of extension.

There's no surprise here. I know that some people at this committee meeting would not want to see the out-of-scope amendments dealt with. I'm disappointed about that, because it certainly seems to be a change of position, but that said, that's what they want to do. I think efforts are being made to prevent our being able to report to the House in a timely fashion. That's my greatest concern.

To get to the bottom of this issue, I think what would be required is for documentation to be provided to prove that in fact a breach has occurred. I do not believe it has.

Madam Chair, what I would also like for committee members to receive is the email that Mr. Kmiec provided to you at the last meeting. I requested that from the clerk, and I was advised that it was handed to you, Madam Chair, as a casual act, as opposed to it being tabled as a document. However, what I thought I saw at the committee was that the document was tabled. That seems not to be the case. I think it would be appropriate for that document to be shared with all committee members so that we can see exactly what the suggestions are in full.

Madam Chair, is a motion required for that document to be shared by the clerk with all committee members? If it is, I'll be happy to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, pursuing the same grounds you mentioned, Mr. Kmiec raised a matter last week that we should all take very seriously. It is, of course, a concern to all members here. That's why on Thursday I put in a notice of motion and moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the current study of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

It is very important to hear from the witness so that he can provide us with more information and context on this matter before the committee. Hearing from the witness first will better inform the drafting of the report, and I hope all my colleagues on both sides will be able to support this and understand the intent. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, but we won't know until we get the witness in front of this committee.

With that, I would ask for the support of my honourable colleagues on both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll pick up where we left it last week. I have to give my ruling, and then I'll acknowledge you.

Welcome to meeting number 64 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).

Before proceeding any further, I will return to the matter raised by Mr. Kmiec during the committee's last meeting on Wednesday, May 3. He described a situation in which a member of the public appears to have gained detailed knowledge of the package of potential amendments to Bill S-245, which was distributed to members of the committee and was understood to be confidential. He suggested that this matter relates to parliamentary privilege and asked the chair, in accordance with the usual practice for matters of privilege in committees, to decide whether the matter indeed relates to privilege.

Several other members have spoken to this. I asked the committee to allow me to consider the matter further with the understanding that we would get back to the matter at today's meeting. Thank you for giving me the time since the last meeting.

I would like to inform members of the committee that, based on the procedures and rules, the matter at hand pertains to potential amendments and subamendments to a bill that are understood to be confidential once they are distributed to the committee and until they are moved at the committee. Based on what the committee heard on Wednesday, May 3, it appears that such confidential information may have been shared with members of the public.

As such, I agree with Mr. Kmiec that the matter he raised indeed relates to parliamentary privilege. That's my ruling on that.

With that, I have a speaking list: Mr. Dhaliwal, Ms. Kwan and Mr. Redekopp.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal

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

Thank you very much to my colleague.

I'll be very brief, because I would love to think that we could end Bill S-245 today.

NDP-3, with that amendment, now describes who can meet the connection test. The person who can meet the connection test is a parent born any time, as long as their second-generation child is born after April 16, 2009.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Hopefully, the attempt is successful.

The amendment would read, once amended three times over, like this:

That Bill S-245, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 1 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 3(3)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c), (e), (g), (g.1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;

(a.01) if the person was born after April 16, 2009 and, at the time of his or her birth,

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

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

(A) had a substantial connection with Canada, or

(B) had a parent who was a citizen with a substantial connection with Canada.

(2.2) The portion of paragraph 3(3)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at that time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now I would like to move subamendment number 3.

I'd like to move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by adding the following after the proposed text:

(2.2) The portion of paragraph 3(3)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at any time, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a.2), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) if the person was born after April 16, 2009 and

(i) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (viii), or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those provisions, and

(ii) at the time of their birth, neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada.

Madam Chair, NDP-3 is proposing automatic citizenship by descent, beyond the first generation, for anyone who has a parent who meets the requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. However, as written, it would exclude someone who has a Canadian parent who was born before February 15, 1977, even if they meet the substantial connection requirement.

We believe that this is a simple oversight, and this subamendment fixes the oversight and allows the parent to meet the substantial connection requirements, regardless of when they were born.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move a second subamendment.

I move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the text of the proposed subparagraph 3(3)(a.01)(ii):

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

This makes a change to the list of people who can meet the substantial connection requirement introduced by NDP-1. NDP-3 proposes that it should be the parents or a grandparent, but this makes it so it can be only the parents.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for the sake of this not being super confusing to everyone, I'll put one amendment on the floor at a time.

I'll go back to the first one I was proposing. I would like to move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the words “(g), (h)” in proposed paragraph 3(3)(a):

(g), (g.1), (h)

and by substituting the following for the words “(g), (h)” in proposed subparagraph 3(3)(a.01)(i):

(g), (g.1), (h)

This is a minor change, Madam Chair. The bill gives citizenship to all those impacted by the former section 8. These individuals will now be represented in the act under new paragraph 3(1)(g.1). We needed to add (g.1) to NDP-3 in two places to add them to the list of the people who can't automatically pass citizenship to children born abroad without substantial connection.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to propose subamendments to NDP-3.

I'd like to move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the words “(g), (h)” in the proposed paragraph 3(3)(a):

(g), (g.1), (h)

and by substituting the following for the words “(g), (h)” in the proposed subparagraph 3(3)(a.01)(i):

(g), (g.1), (h)

That was (a). Then:

(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

and:

(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a.2), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 63 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.

I want to thank the officials who are here today. We are joined by Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship policy; Uyen Hoang, senior director, legislation and program policy; Erika Schneidereit, counsel, legal services; Allison Bernard, senior policy analyst; and Judy Dewan, senior analyst.

Thank you, all. Thank you for providing us this support as we go through clause-by-clause on this.

We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill. When we left, we were on clause 1. NDP-2 was just voted on and was defeated.

I'll remind you that since NDP-2 has been defeated, amendments NDP-7, NDP-10, NDP-11 and NDP-13 cannot be moved, since they refer to paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2.

We will begin with NDP-3.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to move it?

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

Thank you.

Chair, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding the following after line 8:

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

Waiver by minister for administrative delays

The minister may, in his or her discretion, after having reviewed a person's particular circumstances, 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.

I'm happy to submit that.

Here's my thinking on this one, Chair. In the back-and-forth from the department on Ms. Kwan's amendment and then the government's amendment, we have all heard a lot about the impact of the administrative delays on people trying to enter the country through other administrative streams for which there are backlogs. I believe that there are over two million cases in the system right now, give or take.

There are many situations where persons are waiting over five years. I think what happens too is that, rather than look at how they can get through the regular system in a sensible period of time, they seek to lobby us for changes like we're seeing in this bill or whatnot, as a way to try to get to Canada. What I think is problematic is that when these persons come to us—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill S-245, in clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8 on page 1. As written, the bill only remedies the status of some of those who lost citizenship due to the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, those who never made an application to retain citizenship. This amendment deletes these lines from clause 1 to allow for the introduction of a more inclusive provision through amendment G-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just to clarify, we have NDP‑1 as amended. I will just read it so that everyone knows.

Motion 12263633, which proposes adding clause 0.1 to Bill S‑245, is amended by substituting the following for that clause:

0.1 Subsection 2(2) of the Citizenship Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(d) a person has a substantial connection with Canada if the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

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

I'd like to thank my colleague for the proposed amendment.

I would like to propose a subamendment to limit the definition of “substantial connection”.

I move that NDP-1, proposing to add clause 0.1 to Bill S-245, be amended at proposed paragraph (d), after the words “connection with Canada”, by adding “if the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days”, and by striking proposed subparagraphs (i)(ii)(iii) and (iv).

The explanation of my reasoning is that this subamendment changes NDP-1 so that the definition of “substantial connection” can only be met through a physical presence of 1,095 days, equivalent to three years in Canada.

The time spent in Canada does not need to be consecutive.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

In regard to Bill S-245, we already had one extension. We cannot get any further extensions. In our motions we have said that the legislation takes priority. If we are not able to finish clause-by-clause for Bill S-245, we will have to take this up on Wednesday and then reschedule the meeting with Mr. Garneau.

What we have scheduled right now is one hour with Mr. Garneau and one hour with the DND officials. We will have to reschedule them.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I have one further question of clarification before I move the first amendment.

In the event that we don't finish these amendments today, so that is to say that we don't finish the package for Bill S-245 to be referred back to the House, then this debate will carry on to Wednesday. Former minister Marc Garneau is supposed to come before the committee on Wednesday. That would mean, then, that the clerk would try to reschedule the Honourable Marc Garneau.

Am I right in understanding that process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Before we begin, I have just a few housekeeping notes.

You will notice that our regular clerk, Stephanie, is not with us today. She has taken an indefinite leave, and I hope she will be back with us very soon. Until then, Keelan Buck will be filling in. Members can reach him via the general committee email.

Welcome aboard, Keelan.

In regard to scheduling, for Wednesday we have scheduled former member Marc Garneau for one hour and DND officials for one hour on the Afghanistan motion. We intend to begin consideration of the draft report on application processing times next Monday. I will note that, as the committee has prioritized legislation, these meetings will be moved back, as needed, until we have finished Bill S-245. Also, regarding today's meeting, I have verified with the House administration, and they have informed me that the resources are not available to meet for more than two hours.

Today we will be going through Bill S-245, an act to amend the citizenship act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians. 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.

Before we begin, I will just read some instructions so that all members understand how this meeting will proceed.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk of the committee. Members should note that amendments should be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. I will try to go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Each amendment has been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

In addition to having been properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. A ruling of the chair is non-debatable, and the only recourse is to appeal that decision. If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Thank you. I hope everyone is clear.

Yes, we have Mr. Kmiec.

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

Madam Speaker, I would just note that, when the Liberal-NDP coalition was trying to shut me down on this, I was barely a minute into my speech. These members need to let me get to the point I am trying to make, instead of just trying to silence me, as the government is doing with its censorship bills. This is what we are dealing with here, being silenced.

Instead of debating the budget, as we are supposed to be doing, the NDP put something forward called a concurrence motion. That is what we are debating right now. The concurrence motion is to deal with a very tricky bit of Liberal-NDP machinations, which is actually really harming people and delaying the help that Bill S-245 would provide.

Instead of debating the budget, we are debating a concurrence motion on something that happened, and I want to break down what happened. Bill S-245 is an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It went through the Senate. It was introduced by Senator Yonah Martin to deal with a very narrow scope, dealing with something called “lost Canadians”. It was very narrow in scope, and because it was so narrow in scope, it sailed through the Senate, on the understanding that it would stay narrow and it would go through the Senate.

It came to the immigration committee. What ended up happening was that, first of all, before moving this in the immigration committee, the member for Vancouver East went and did a press conference, pre-positioning herself to do this.

The Liberal-NDP coalition got together and did two things. It moved a motion to extend amendments to the bill by 30 days, which delayed action for people who would have been impacted by the bill, and then it also moved a motion to extend the scope of the amendments that would be debated well past what was in the bill itself.

For those who are watching who may not understand what this does, it allows members, in a private member's bill, which is supposed to be very narrow in scope, to put forward any amendment they want. What that does, in effect, and the reason why I do not think we should have done that, is forces the bill to go back to the Senate yet again.

This is going to delay justice for the people who we had non-partisan, all-party agreement to deal with. That motion itself, to do what the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do, passed in the citizenship committee with its support. Even though it passed, it introduced this concurrence motion in the House of Commons today, and it is doing what? It is eating up time to debate the deficit budget issue because it doesn't want to talk about it.

If it is saying, oh no, nobody should talk about this and then we go back to the budget, we actually gave it an opportunity to go back to debate. My colleague from Calgary Shepard rose to move a motion about an hour ago to move on from the debate, yet it voted against that.

That is the agenda here. The agenda here is to curtail debate on the budget while it is supporting the passage of Liberal censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18. These are the types of tactics that we are going to see over and over and over again from this Liberal coalition because it does not want to stand up for what Canadians need, either in the budget or in Bill S-245.

When the Liberal and the NDP coalition decided that it was going to delay the passage of the bill through the committee and delay justice for people who were in that bill, who we all support justice for, and open up the scope of the bill, it forgot one thing. It forgot that, if it opened up the scope of the bill for its one issue, which the senator and the Senate did not want because they agreed to sail it through on a small amendment, it forgot that maybe other people would want to put forward amendments too, such as me and my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

It then had the audacity and the gall to stand in this place during this debate, which it did not need, and which it put forward to waste time on debate on the budget because it does not want to talk about how much deficit spending money it puts forward, which has caused an inflationary crisis in Canada, all while it is putting forward censorship bills. Because it does not want that debate to happen, it puts this debate forward.

Now it is saying that it is because the Conservatives want to put forward amendments to the Citizenship Act. Well, guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is supporting censorship bills Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 to shut down conversations in the Canadian public, are using a concurrence motion to shut down debate in the House of Commons, we are absolutely right that Conservatives will be putting forward motions beyond the scope of the bill. It is as simple as that.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wants a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, then let us giddy-up and do it. I have a lot of great ideas, which I will definitely be bringing forward. This does nothing to help the people who could have been helped if the NDP had just let this go.

The other thing I can show is why we should not be delaying this bill and why the scope of the amendment should not be put through. It is not just because it delays justice for people within this bill; it is also because the NDP is propping up a government that has refused to do this in its own government legislation. If the government had actually wanted to do anything else, it has had nearly eight years to put forward, through its own government legislation, what my colleague from the NDP wants to do.

The NDP is actually in a coalition with the government. I do not know if the NDP wants to go to an election, but I know the Liberals do not. Considering what the polling numbers show today, I do not think there are a lot of people on the Liberal backbench who would want to go to an election today.

The NDP could be using that coalition agreement to say that, within a piece of government legislation, we need to do this. However, they do not actually have the leverage they claim to have over the government, so what they are trying to do is sneak through committee what they cannot get the government to do in the House.

To people who are watching and are impacted by this bill, I say that the Liberals delayed the passage of the bill because they did not understand what they were doing. That is brutal. It is terrible. I cannot believe it. I cannot believe they would not do what we all agreed to do in a non-partisan way, as the Senate did, which is to get Bill S-245 through.

Today, we are debating the concurrence motion and the substance of the motion, and we are using House of Commons time that we could have used to debate the budget. The Liberals moved this concurrence motion even though the bill has already passed through the immigration committee. They actually ate up hours of critical, precious House debate time, which we could have used to talk about the budget. This is a path to ruin that the government, the Liberal-NDP coalition, put us on by inflationary, deficit spending in the budget bill. That is critical.

People cannot eat. People in Vancouver, the member's home riding, are eating out of dumpsters because of the inflation crisis and the affordable housing crisis. Today, she moved a motion that would essentially cut off debate on the budget today, even though it has already passed through the House of Commons.

If my colleague wants to open up the scope of the bill so that it is going to have to go back to the Senate anyway, through her actions, not mine or those of any of my Conservative colleagues, then we will be putting forward other amendments as well. One of the amendments I would like to put forward, given that we are now reviewing the citizenship bill, has to do with the fact that the Liberals said they were going to do away with the need to have in-person citizenship ceremonies. This is something that has received wide, cross-party condemnation. I have an opinion piece published in the Toronto Star on April 10. The title is “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”. It goes through quotes from non-partisan people, including Adrienne Clarkson, a former governor general; a Syrian refugee; and others who are saying the government should not be doing away with the requirement for in-person citizenship ceremonies.

I would like to amend the Citizenship Act to ensure that, rather than doing away with the ceremonies because the government cannot figure out how to get services to where people want them, the government would actually be required to make sure new Canadians have the right and the ability to go to an in-person ceremony, take the oath with fellow new Canadians and be welcomed into the Canadian family in such a glorious way, instead of doing what it is doing now.

Members in this place have used up precious House time. I am speaking here because members of the Liberal-NDP coalition voted against a motion to end debate on this and move forward. They gave me an opportunity to speak. For once, instead of speaking on Bill C-11 or Bill C-18, the censorship bill, I am, they are darn right, going to speak in this place. I am certainly also going to be putting forward amendments. I do not know if they have forgotten how this place works or have forgotten that each of us has our own individual rights to work within the process that they put forward.

They stand up and say that one person can put forward an amendment that is completely out of scope, but they are going to use that to justify delaying justice for the people in the bill and use that to delay debate on the government's inflationary budget deficit crisis bill. Therefore, yes, I am going to put forward amendments that make sense for my constituents. My constituency is a diverse community in north central Calgary where the Citizenship Act matters. If the member for Vancouver East is going to use her Liberal-NDP coalition position to try to get the Liberal government to extend the scope of the bill and, in doing so, delay justice for people, while delaying debate on the budget, then yes, I am going to be putting forward amendments to amend the Citizenship Act.

To the people and stakeholders watching this, this bill could have been through our committee already. It could have been sailing through the House. However, what is the Liberal-NDP coalition doing? Instead of the government putting forward its own legislation to address any additional issues, the NDP is proposing a motion to extend this by another 30 days, plus have a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. It is plus, plus, plus. They did not think through the process. I am sure that when they were talking to stakeholders, they did not talk to them and were not honest with them about what could or might happen if this path were undertaken.

If I had been meeting with those stakeholders, I would have said that this is something we need to lobby the government for in different legislation, because the senator who put it forward in a private member's bill had agreement among her peers on a narrowly defined scope in the bill in order to get it through and get justice for people. If we do what the member for Vancouver East is suggesting, we would delay it for another 30 days. Then it would probably have to go back through the Senate. The Senate takes a lot of time to look at things. Then it would have to come back here again. That would be months and months of delay, when it could have been done maybe before June. Now we do not know when it is going to be done.

That is why I opposed the approach in committee. Frankly, it is why I oppose using all this time in the House to continue a debate that the NDP-Liberal coalition settled at the immigration committee, an unwise course of action, only to vote against it. They just voted, an hour ago, against moving forward. Also, as we saw at the start of this debate, time after time my colleagues were getting interrupted by points of order, with members saying we should not be allowed to raise the issue of the budget. Absolutely we should be able to raise the issue of the budget, after the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against a Conservative motion that would allow us to move forward to debate the budget.

However, here we are, and if members have given me the opportunity to speak by not moving on that, absolutely I am going to speak about it. Of course, the Liberal-NDP coalition does not want to talk about that inflationary budget, that big, expensive nothing burger that would cost Canadians more, that would lead to food inflation and that is not addressing the core issues facing this country, because it is an embarrassment. They do not want an election because they are all afraid of losing their seats. Canadians are on to them, just as I am on to them right now.

I am tired of this. I am tired of these games. We did not need to have this debate in the House. This could have gone forward to the immigration committee. What we have done, in effect, is delay justice for the people in Bill S-245, delay debate on the budget and, in doing so, delay justice for all Canadians, who are dumpster diving in Vancouver East to eat and who continue to not be able to afford places to live.

This is a hard truth. It is an inconvenient truth for everybody in this place. However, it is time coalition members are confronted with it. There are consequences for the actions of the coalition and its backroom dealings. They lead us into places like this, where they make mistakes on parliamentary procedures and where they do not explain the implications of their actions to stakeholders who are advocating for change in this bill. Again, the government could have done this.

Committees of the House

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just heard the member say again that he is in support of ensuring the lost Canadians issue is addressed. The Conservatives say that, and I hope it is actually true. If it is true, we have an opportunity to do it. It is a rare moment when all the parties in this House say they want to do this, and we can seize this opportunity to make those necessary amendments, through Bill S-245, and also indicate to the Senate that this is the direction we want to go.

I believe Senator Yonah Martin, who has done this work and put this bill before us, would support it if the Conservative members would join the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals to say that we need to go out of scope to address the lost Canadians issue once and for all, particularly because of the first-generation rule cut-off the Conservatives brought in, which hurt so many families and which we need to get rid of.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by letting you know that I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am here to talk about Bill S-245. It is not something I planned to do today, and I am sure most members in the House had not planned on doing this, but here we are, and I want to make sure that people are clear on what it is we are talking about.

This is a private member's bill that has come from the other place, the Senate. Senators, just like members of Parliament, are able to produce legislation called private members' bills, so this is the legislation that has come from Senator Yonah Martin from the other place. It is her intention and her idea. It is something that she wants to see done. That is what we are talking about here. It is now in the House and we are working with it.

The subject of this is the “lost Canadians”. We have heard many different explanations of this, but many people may not quite understand what that is. Essentially, our Citizenship Act has some flaws in it that cause certain people to either lose their citizenship or to not get it in the first place. They create these little categories of people who, through no fault of their own, do not have access to Canadian citizenship.

There have been attempts over the years to fix some of these problems. Many of them have been fixed over the years, but there are still some groups of people who are still considered lost Canadians and are not being treated the way they should be, as they are unable to receive Canadian citizenship status. Over the years, there have been bills brought attempting to plug those holes and fix those gaps to ensure that those people who deserve to be Canadian citizens are, and this bill is one of them. There is a particular group of people, a fairly clearly defined group of people, that it seeks to remedy. It is not trying to fix everybody, and that was part of the point initially.

I also want to mention that often times when we think about people who are not citizens of Canada, we immediately think of immigrants. This does not necessarily mean immigrants. There are in fact many people who would not consider themselves immigrants who fit into these categories of lost Canadians. They are just Canadians who do not have their citizenship. There are different categories of these. Part of the point here is that trying to catch them all, and fix all of the holes in the legislation in one shot, is very difficult. It has been attempted over the years and, so far, it has been unsuccessful. We believe that a better approach is to target a very specific area, a specific group of people who are lost, and at least fix those, and then if there are more holes, we would fix those holes, rather than trying to do everything at once. This is a simple bill to fix one of those groups.

This is the same as Bill S-230. In a previous Parliament, the bill was studied in the Senate. It went to committee, was looked at carefully, and was sent here to the House to be worked on. Then an election happened, so that legislation never saw the light of day. Therefore, the attempt to rectify the citizenship situation of those lost Canadians failed. It failed because it did not get through the process in time before an election was called. That is very significant because right now we are in another minority Parliament, which means an election can happen at any time, so we do not have a lot of time. Time is not our friend in this case; we need to move to pass these bills quickly.

The same senator, Yonah Martin, has now put forward the same bill, Bill S-245, which has also gone through the Senate. This time in the other place it was not reviewed or studied because it was exactly the same as the previous legislation. Therefore, the Senate decided to fast-track it, move it through the other place and then to the House here so that we could deal with it. That is where it is now. It is here in the House and we are dealing with it now.

I just want to mention this with respect to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Yonah Martin. She was able to get it through the last Parliament. It took a lot of work and effort to bring everybody together to agree on things, but she was able to get it as far as it got. Unfortunately, it was not far enough. However, she was able to get it here quicker, which is a testament to her ability to work across party lines and with other people in the Senate, because she knew that time was the enemy and the biggest problem that the bill faced. The assumption that went along with that, as she got it to this House, was that it was the same bill as last time. From the Senate's perspective, this bill is the same one that it studied before and therefore it did not need to study it again. That is important and we should remember that.

Why are we here today? We are studying this bill at committee. We are getting very close to the end. There has been a lot of debate and talk about it. We have heard many witnesses speak to this bill. Indeed, there are many groups of people who represent these groups of lost Canadians, because there are numerous groups of lost Canadians. Everybody wants to solve this problem. The Conservatives want to fix this problem, as do the Liberals and all of the other parties. However, we want to fix it; we do not just want to talk about it. We do not want to study it to death, but fix it. We were able to get a lot of testimony and hear a lot of things to understand what the scope is and how it is going to work.

So people understand, what happened toward the end of this process is this. With respect to private members' bills, we have to stay within the scope of the bill. We cannot add things that go beyond the original intent of what, in this case, Yonah Martin had. There must be some ideas out there to do that, to go beyond the scope of this bill, because the government and the NDP teamed up together to bring this to the House now so that it can authorize the committee to go beyond the scope of the bill. That is what we are here talking about today.

This is really significant, because the originator of the bill, in this case Yonah Martin, had an intent for this bill. She came to committee and spoke about the bill and what her intent was. She was specifically asked if she would allow for amendments to the bill that would expand its scope. She was very clear on that. She said that she was willing to accept amendments that would clarify the bill, but she was not willing to accept amendments that would expand it. The reason she said that was very simple and makes a lot of sense.

Why would she accept amendments to clarify the bill? She wants the bill to be successful. She wants to plug that hole for this group of lost Canadians once and for all, so in her mind, if her words were not quite correct and somebody had a better idea to make those words a bit better, she was all ears and willing to do that. It only makes sense, because we want to get the wording correct. We have an army of lawyers in this place who are able to interpret our laws and statutes who I am sure had ideas and suggestions to clarify those things.

Why did she not want to expand its scope? It is very clear. She knows that if the scope gets expanded it creates a whole new pathway for this bill. First, it goes beyond what she had intended, which makes it more complicated, which means more work and more understanding is required. It goes from a simple one-page bill to a multi-page bill that has implications on all kinds of things. Most significantly, should it come through the House and be amended and expanded in scope, then it ends up back in the other place. Why did it pass through the other place very quickly? Because it was the same bill that had been studied in the previous Parliament. It had been looked at and studied in the Senate. The senators had their chance to talk about it and tweak it. That had all been done. The only reason they expedited it through this time was because it was exactly the same as the last time.

If we put two and two together, if it goes back to the other place having been changed, what is going to happen? The senators would say that it is not the same bill and would want to know what happened. Senator Martin would have to explain that it has changed and grown in scope and they would say that they need to study the bill and that it is going to committee to be studied.

With the way timelines work around here, we would be adding months to the process. The enemy of this bill is time, so we would clearly be doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing, which is adding time to this bill. We would be adding complexity to it, which means it would have to be studied at committee and looked at again. At the end of the day, there could be an election. We all know that an election could happen at any time. It could happen over this issue today. I heard members saying that might happen, so we never know what could happen. We never know what the day is going to bring. Time is the enemy of this bill, and this process would be adding a lot of time to it. That is the whole point of why Senator Martin wanted this to be done.

As I close, I want to highlight two things. First, we are all in support of fixing these problems for lost Canadians. There are no members on either side of the House who do not want to fix this law and correct the problem there. That is a given.

Second, we oppose the idea of the government taking a private member's bill, expanding it and putting things in there that were never intended to be there by the member who raised the bill. That is something we are very concerned about. We do not want to set a precedent. We do not want to allow the government to come in and pull up someone's bill and do that.

It was great to speak in the House today.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the comment about Don Chapman. Don Chapman came to committee and said very clearly that he wanted to see the scope of Bill S-245 be expanded to incorporate amendments for lost Canadians and the first-generation cut-off rule the Conservatives brought in be rectified so that the families of lost Canadians would not be lost anymore and be supported through this process.

The Conservatives say they support what Don Chapman would like to see done. Would they then pass this expansion of scope request in this House and not filibuster the work that needs to be done at committee?

Citizenship and Immigration

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be joining the debate on this bill. I want to begin by thanking my constituents again for returning me to Parliament to serve them, to speak on their behalf and to bring the voice of Calgarians here to Ottawa, to our national Parliament. Every day, I think about how lucky each and every one of us is, all 338 of us, to be able to represent constituents in the House of Commons and work on their behalf.

I also want to start by saying that I am a Canadian who was born overseas; I happen to be one of those who were naturalized back in 1989. I was able to share that story when I was doing outreach activities on the Island of Montreal. I also talked to many new Canadians about their experiences of coming to Canada. I reminded them all the time that anyone could become a member of Parliament if they make the effort, tell the truth and have the work ethic and dedication. Representing people in this country in a legislative body is a great privilege, and we should never forget that.

I want to go over a few points very quickly, just to give an outline of the trouble I have with what is happening today with this concurrence of a report coming out of the immigration committee. There is the issue of timing and how we have come to this point, where the vote would now be necessary. I want to talk about the mover of this Senate bill, Senator Yonah Martin of British Columbia. I want to talk about Senate Bill S-230, the original piece of legislation, and how Bill S-245 is basically the exact same bill.

I also want to speak briefly to process. This is not an issue related to the substance. I think many people agree on the substance; of course, Conservatives agree because this is a Conservative legislative initiative. It is very simple to understand why Conservatives, for example, would not do something like move amendments to a bill being proposed by a Conservative. It is because we all agree with it. We went before our caucus. We had a presentation. Of course we agree with it; it is a Conservative senator proposing a Conservative idea. That idea is the rightful restoration of Canadian citizenship to a particular group of Canadians, and we are talking about a small group that is affected.

The bill is very simple. It is all on one page. It is a simple idea that would address a specific group. This does not mean that others do not have a case for it to be restored. There is a legislative case for it to be done. However, this particular bill has been in the works in two minority Parliaments now to try to fix it. As we know, minority Parliaments are unpredictable, despite there being an NDP-Liberal coalition. Here, we have a government and an opposition party, and we do not know where one begins and the other one ends. We do not know when there could be an election; that would wipe out all the legislative initiatives being considered by the House and by the Senate.

That is exactly what happened to Bill S-230. When the election was called on August 15, 2021, it wiped out all the legislative initiatives that were under way back then. Bill S-230, dealing with these lost Canadians, had already gone through the Senate. It had one meeting of consideration, with expert testimony being provided by government officials; this was useful in understanding that the contents of the legislation were correct and would in fact fix the situation that we are facing. We heard new testimony and new consideration on Bill S-245.

The timing is the issue that I am hung up on. I do not know when an election could come. I want to expedite a bill like this, with no changes, in order to consider new legislation. The House is always free to do that. Any member of the House or any senator could table a private member's bill. In fact, senators can now legislate faster than we can, which I think is wrong. I hope some government members would agree with me on that. It is a separate legislative idea. Maybe there could be changes to the Standing Orders someday.

I know there is at least one member from Winnipeg who would agree with me that members of the House of Commons should be the ones legislating the most often, and senators should not do so as often or as quickly. Now we have a lottery system, and the Speaker drew the numbers. I am going to remind the Deputy Speaker of this, because I think I drew third from last when he was doing the draw. I really think there should have been a recount. I see another member from Montreal, from one of my alma maters, Concordia, saying that she drew a much better number than I did.

Timing is an issue in this matter. This is a group of lost Canadians who could have their citizenship restored. They would be made whole. If we made no amendments to the bill, once passed through the House of Commons, it would receive royal assent from the Governor General and be made law.

Any amendments we make at committee would then return to the House, and any report stage amendments would delay the passage of the bill. The bill could then go again for another set of reviews. I am sure that senators, when they agreed to pass this bill on an expeditious basis, were passing the original bill, Bill S-230. They were passing a bill they had already considered and debated.

They are going to consider the debate that took place in the House. They are going to review why, for example, government officials before the committee in the House of Commons provided different information than some other government officials, though some of them were the same, at the Senate committee two years ago. They will wonder why the advice was slightly different and why they now have a problem with some of the wording in Bill S-245. They say it does not address the issue as well.

When I looked at the titles of these government officials, they are the exact same positions. Some people have been promoted and some have moved to different positions.

I am sure senators will review the bill. That would be months of extra waiting. As the Senate considers the bill, it will have more witnesses come before the Senate committee, and then with whatever potential amendments the Senate might have, it will send the bill back to the House of Commons. I know I am supposed to call it “the other place”, but I feel Canadians at home should know that this might delay and potentially kill the bill. The bill may not become law if this does not get done.

How did we get to this particular situation? We have a terrific vice-chair on the immigration committee, the member for Saskatoon West, who has been negotiating with the other parties in good faith. It is what I hope the government is doing during the public service strike by PSAC and at their negotiations at the table. The member has been negotiating in good faith and providing information to other parties, such as what our voting position is, what our concerns are and what type of subamendments we would consider.

We were considering some amendments that would strengthen some of the ideas we had heard and had talked about before the committee. The motion that was passed at committee, over our objections, broadens the scope beyond section 8 amendments to Bill S-245. The way I interpreted the motion was that it would mean anything in Bill S-245, the Citizenship Act, and that would be concurred in on a vote in the House of Commons. This sounds to me like a statutory review of Bill S-245, so anything in the Citizenship Act could be done.

There are many things I have heard in my travels across Canada in meeting with both new Canadians and people from families that have lived in Canada for generations. They have issues with the Citizenship Act, such as how citizenship ceremonies are organized, and whether they are done in person or virtually, at a click. Some of those are also around the rules of specific lost Canadians. Is it right to put citizenship ceremonies on certain holidays, which were maybe not as major 40 years ago? Those are all issues that members should be mindful of.

When reading this motion, and I am not burdened by a legal education so I read it like a layman would read it, with the words as they are, and it says that it would go beyond section 8, which means that anything else in the Citizenship Act should be eligible for an amendment. We have an opportunity to help lost Canadians. We also have an opportunity to ensure there are no future lost Canadians, who might have missed a citizenship ceremony because of a holiday, travel or any number of other reasons.

We have come here because other parties have not been forthcoming in explaining their position. At committee, I moved a very reasonable amendment that would have provided more time for to consider new out-of-scope amendments. We have no in-scope amendments because we agreed with the contents of the bill.

It would have been good to have more time on out-of-scope amendments, and then we could have provided the amendments. We could have all had time to consider them within our caucuses. That is what our side does. We have a fulsome debate in our caucus where our members of Parliament and senators come to an agreement on different amendments that we might consider, especially if they are major amendments, such as this seems to be, a statutory review of the Citizenship Act.

We can now take a moment to talk about the mover of this bill, Senator Yonah Martin. I think many members of the House of Commons, and I hope of the other place, the Senate, would say that she is a very non-partisan member, a member who is able to work with all members, regardless of political affiliations, on any number of issues.

She has a big heart for the Korean-Canadian community and for the battle of Kapyong. She is mindful to remind us of the battle of Kapyong and how important it is to Canadians of Korean heritage every single year. She has been of huge assistance not only to Conservatives, but also to Canadians of Korean heritage all over Canada, by connecting them with their civic officials, with Canadian political and civic life, and with community organizations.

She has a bill, which she successfully negotiated through the Senate with no amendments. That is unusual. For many of us, when we put together private members' bills or motions, there is always that potential for amendments to come forward that we were not aware of, or were not considering.

This is a member who, at committee, specifically asked that we not make amendments because of the timing issue I mentioned right at the beginning. This is why I want to bring it up. She specifically said, when asked, that she did not want an expansion of the scope of the bill if it would delay the bill. That is what would happen here. There would be a delay of the bill.

She offered a solution, which was new pieces of legislation. The government can always table government legislation to help these Canadians, which they have identified through our witness process, through the submissions the committee received. That would be entirely okay. We could consider the merits.

The House of Commons has expedited bills in the past. We just did it last week. Portions of the budget were expedited through the House of Commons. It is possible to do these things, especially when there is consensus and we work collaboratively, which I heard a parliamentary secretary talk about.

Many members on that committee will agree that our vice-chair and the Conservatives work collaboratively. We were doing that when this was moved. We were working on a draft report in a committee, and at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration no less. We are more than happy to do that. The immigration committee has done a lot of work exactly in that manner, collaboratively, by everybody being upfront about the positions they will be taking and the concerns we have with amendments and different policy issues, as well as where we are coming from. That is another one.

I wanted to make sure I brought up Bill S-230, which was the original version of the bill, in the previous Parliament, because I want to highlight the fact that, the committee on Bill S-230 in the Senate had one meeting to consider the details of the bill. We are going to be adding on basically new sections on lost Canadians. What I have found about the Citizenship Act, and I know many members will agree, especially those on the immigration committee, is how complicated it is. It is easy to make a mistake on dates, years, months, days and specific words, where we could have individuals lose their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children or grandchildren or not be able to retain it in cases of marriage.

I was born in Communist Poland, a country I always say does not exist anymore. It is a footnote in history. As a Canadian who was not born here, I know that the Citizenship Act is something to be mindful of. All my kids were born in Calgary, so they are not affected directly for things like the first generation rule, but others are. I absolutely recognize that, but there is an opportunity to legislate.

Another senator could put forward another Senate bill to address individuals, and we could again have an expedited debate to push it through the House if we could get to the terms and the words we all agree on. Like I said, in Bill S-245, there were government officials who came before the committee in a previous Parliament to say that this wording is the exact wording to address the issue the senator is concerned about. The same government officials, at least with the same titles from the same department, said it actually needs to be changed because it might not do what one says it would do.

Now we are left with not knowing what types of amendments are going to be brought forward at the committee if this concurrence of the report passes of the motion that came out of the immigration committee. We just do not know. Nobody knows now what amendments will be brought forward, except for the mover of the amendment, who will be at the table behind closed doors, potentially in camera, considering these amendments. It will hopefully all be done in public.

It is important to remember none of the parties will be obliged to provide any new amendments out of scope to be considered. Like I said, there are lots of different situations we could look at.

I always have a Yiddish proverb to share. I was in Montreal at a synagogue on Saturday, a very observant one, and there is a great Yiddish proverb: Hope for miracles, but do not rely on one. It is unpronounceable for me in Yiddish, but it is indeed a good one. I always hope for miracles. I hope we can come to some type of consensus that this bill should be expedited in its current form.

I want to vote for it the way it is right now, and I think those on my benches want to do the same thing. We want to help these lost Canadians and restore, rightfully, their citizenship. There is an opportunity to help others, and that is what I hope this place would be good at. I hope it would be able to come to a consensus on new pieces of legislation that address certain things.

I am serving in my third Parliament, and I think this would set a bad precedent. To go into another member's bill, and over their objections, say that we are going to change their private member's bill or their Senate Bill, the idea they put forward, is a bad precedent.

I know it has happened off and on in the past 10 to 20 years. In those particular cases, the individual members have brought it up to me that it should not have happened that way. I really believe that for members who have an idea that they are bringing forward, we should honour their requests and have a simple up or down vote.

Even Senator Yonah Martin said that, if there are particular technical amendments to the way this legislation is worded that keep the intent and the principle she is trying to address, which is helping this particular group of lost Canadians have their citizenship regained, which is in the summary that is provided for the bill, and it uses the term “regain”, then she was okay with that. However, what we have talked about so far, and what I have heard from the parliamentary secretary and the member of the New Democrats, are things that are potentially far out of the scope of the original intent and principle of the bill. Here I have concerns.

I have expressed those concerns. I have made forceful promises. I intend to keep my forceful promises. I have done so at other committees, which I have been on, whether it be at the PROC committee, where I remember serving with other members to ensure that the intent of motions and bills was retained. Members would have a straight up or down vote on particular subjects, and that made it very clear what we were voting for and against.

Again, I see this as an opportunity. We do not know when the election could come. I do not want to send this back to the Senate. The Senate already has had its say on the matter. It has reviewed this piece of legislation. What I want to do is expedite this bill. I was ready to do that at the first meeting on Bill S-245.

We could have maybe considered some particular amendments that were perhaps on the edge of what would be permissible. Looking to my vice-chair, I think it is fair to say that we were willing to consider them.

We had that conversation with the Liberal benches, and we were forthcoming with what our ideas were, what our concerns were and where we wanted to go. My expectation was that we gave it due consideration. We had received valuable insight, information and ideas from Canadians, both overseas and here, who had expressed concerns with different groups of lost Canadians.

We could have addressed those in other pieces of legislation, and then a senator could take up the case, or a member of any party could take up the case in a private member's bill, although probably not me, because, like I said, the Speaker drew me third from last, I believe. I still remember that, so I will probably not be one of those members.

The House can work collaboratively. I will give another example. On bereavement leave, the Minister of Labour was kind enough to work with me before Christmas, and this was 2021, to insert part of my private members' bill on bereavement leave straight into Bill C-3 and then expedite it through the House.

To the parliamentary secretary's saying that they were hoping we could work collaboratively, well, of course we can. There is even an example where we have done that. It was our shadow minister for labour at the time, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who did it. It can be done, when people come in good faith at the negotiating table and we hammer out a deal. That deal was done before Christmas and Canadians in federal jurisdiction had bereavement leave provisions provided to them.

Those types of situations can happen. I call them legislative miracles, getting back to my Yiddish proverb. Legislative miracles can happen when people want to make change. That was a private member's bill that likely would have never passed. It had drawn such a high number that it would not have been able to pass. I would not have been able to have the opportunity to have it debated.

With that said, I have laid out my case of why we should vote down this report, and I move:

That the House proceed to Presenting Petitions.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a situation with the cut-off rule for first-generation born Canadians has been in place for 14 years now, and many families have suffered during this period. It is true that the government could have brought in legislation to make that change, but that has not happened. With that being said, we now have an opportunity before us through a Senate bill, Bill S-245, to fix the lost Canadian rules once and for all.

If we all care about this issue as we say we do, should we not then seize this opportunity to expand the scope of the bill, fix the lost Canadian community that has not been addressed in this bill and fix those issues once and for all?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a specific question for the member. It is more of a commentary on what I heard her read to the House to provide the perspective of her party.

I will mention to those listening at home that the member is a parliamentary secretary. The government has known for almost eight years that there were these different groups of lost Canadians. There is always the ability to table government legislation, and I think we will find that a lot of members of this House are willing to consider plugging holes in legislation.

That is exactly what Senator Yonah Martin has been doing in two Parliaments. She was able to convince the Senate to move Bill S-230 through the Senate with one committee hearing to consider the exact same bill we have today, Bill S-245. She was able to do so because she is widely considered to be a non-partisan member and widely considered to be well informed on the subject of the Citizenship Act. Members at that committee voted against my amendment to suggest, if we are going to go beyond the scope, that we give ourselves more time to consider what groups of lost Canadians we could consider and what different situations lost Canadians might find themselves in. I will tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberal benches voted against my amendment to the motion that brings us here today to debate this concurrence report.

This is about process. We do not know when the next election will come in a minority Parliament, and it very well could be that lost Canadians will have to wait again for another Parliament before this particular group of lost Canadians will have their citizenship restored to them, as it should be.

This is not a question about whether it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. It is about process. We have a bill and an opportunity to fix something for a particular group of Canadians. We all agree on that, and by doing this, the bill will be sent back to the Senate, and the Senate will thereafter make further considerations and call more witnesses to the committee. That is simply the legislative process.

I know that is difficult for the government to understand. I know it is difficult to have such a thin legislative agenda. However, this situation could have been avoided.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to wrap up my comments, I will share the last thoughts of the stakeholder who wrote to the committee. She said:

If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding immigration cloud an issue that is very clearly about citizenship policy....

We are Canadians since birth looking to return home, not immigrants desiring to move to a new country. We may be lost, but we are proud and hopeful.

See us for who we are so that you may help us. Kindest Regards, Jennifer Johnnes.

I think the words speak for themselves and show how deeply painful the subject of lost Canadians is and how traumatic it is for them. I would add that the amendments in 2009, in essentially creating a situation where families would be separated, where they could not be reunited and where almost a two-tier system of who is Canadian has been created, is something we should be addressing.

While Senator Yonah Martin may have put this bill forward with one intention, I think it is a unique opportunity for us to correct the path to make sure everyone who is eligible for Canadian citizenship by birthright, by the right of their parents and by the right of their families to raise their children here or their desire as Canadians to raise their children here is contemplated. We must take this up with the utmost urgency.

I humbly ask members of the House to consider the importance of expanding Bill S-245 so that it can be improved and ultimately better meet its objective of addressing more lost Canadians.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to the motion to concur in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with regard to expanding the scope of Bill S-245, which seeks to address lost Canadians.

While the bill is well intended in its aim to address the remaining lost Canadians, as drafted, it falls short of correcting what I see as the key challenges on this file. As a matter of fact, it is something that I spoke to in our first debate on this bill when it came to the House.

Before outlining the concerns that I have with Bill S-245 as written, I will briefly touch on the circumstances that led to the emergence of lost Canadians. The requirements and complexities of the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, and former provisions of the current Citizenship Act, created cohorts of people who lost or never had citizenship status. They are referred to as “lost Canadians”.

To address this issue, changes to citizenship laws that came into force in 2009 and 2015 restored status or gave citizenship for the first time to the majority of lost Canadians. Before the 2009 amendments, people born abroad beyond the first generation, that is, born abroad to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad, were considered Canadian citizens at birth, but only until they turned 28 years old. This is sometimes referred to, as my colleague mentioned previously, as the “28-year rule”. If these individuals did not apply to retain their citizenship before they turned 28, they would automatically lose it. Some people were not even aware they had to meet these requirements and lost their citizenship unknowingly. These people who lost their citizenship because of this rule are often referred to as “the last cohort of the lost Canadians”. Since we began this debate in the chamber, many of them have written to me and other members of the immigration committee.

To prevent future losses, the age 28 rule was repealed in 2009. At the same time, the law was changed to establish a clear first-generation limit to the right of automatic citizenship by descent. This means that, today, children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent are Canadian citizens from birth if they have a parent who is either born in Canada or naturalized as a Canadian citizen. Unlike the former retention provisions of the Citizenship Act, those children do not need to do anything to keep their Canadian citizenship. Those born in the second or subsequent generations abroad do not automatically become Canadians at birth. This first-generation limit is firm on who does or does not have a claim to citizenship by descent.

I would like to lean into this with a personal experience I have had with this, with my own two daughters. As is well known, I am a citizen of two countries, born Canadian but raised in Israel. At a certain point in my early adulthood, I chose to return to Israel to be with my family there. I got married and had my eldest daughter. She was born there, and upon her birth I applied for Canadian citizenship for her. Subsequently, we returned to Canada, in approximately 2008, and my second daughter was born here in Toronto, where we live today, in York Centre. She also obviously has Canadian citizenship, having been born here. However, if my eldest daughter chooses for some reason to live elsewhere in the world, such as in Israel, where she is currently living this year, and if she has children, my grandchildren will not be Canadian, even though she has lived here the majority of her life. Although her core ties to Canada are clear and well committed to, she has lost the ability to confer that citizenship onto her children as a result of the Bill C-37 change that was made under the Harper government in 2009. Ironically, if my younger daughter, who was born here, were to have children abroad, they would automatically be Canadian, as she would be able to bestow upon them what I was able to bestow upon her. Herein lie some of the problems we have been discussing as colleagues in this House.

I can appreciate the work of Senator Martin in wanting to narrow it down to a specific group of individuals, but, frankly, as my colleague from the Bloc said, this is about dignity, compassion, and a sense of heritage and connection that is being stripped away from many, so I will continue to talk about this. There are many people who are born abroad or adopted from abroad to a Canadian parent beyond the first generation. These individuals are not citizens, but still feel they have a very close tie to Canada, just like my daughter does, and also see themselves as lost Canadians.

Currently, these individuals can only become Canadian citizens by going through the immigration process. That is to say, they must first qualify and then apply to become permanent residents. Then after the required time, they must apply to become citizens. In some specialized cases, people born abroad in the second generation are eligible to apply for a grant of citizenship, but only in exceptional circumstances.

Turning back to Bill S-245, though it is well-intentioned as written, it does not address some of the remaining lost Canadians. Bill S-245 is targeting only the lost Canadians who lost citizenship because of the age 28 rule for those who were born abroad after the first generation and had already turned 28 years old and lost their citizenship before the law changed in 2009.

The bill as written excludes people who applied to retain citizenship but were refused. This is an issue because those who never applies to keep their citizenship would have their citizenship restored by the bill as written, while those who took steps to retain their citizenship but were refused would not benefit from this bill. Recognizing that the age 28 rule was problematic for all, it is my hope that the committee will consider amendments to restore the citizenship status of all those impacted by the former age 28 rule, which has since been repealed.

The committee heard compelling testimony from witnesses that precisely highlighted the problem with excluding one of the cohorts impacted by the age 28 rule. As I understand it, the committee for immigration also received dozens of written submissions from stakeholders both inside and outside of Canada. As a matter of fact, some of those stakeholders have also written to me in light of my previous interventions in the chamber on this matter. It would seem that there were many people watching Bill S-245 closely, like me, as parents. What is interesting is that almost all of the written submissions point out the challenges that exist for people born abroad in the second generation or beyond.

Given the call from stakeholders, I feel strongly that the committee should be empowered to at least consider solutions for some of the other people who consider themselves to be lost Canadians. This is the subject of today's debate. Does the House support the request from committee to expand the scope of the bill to see what could be done for the other lost Canadians? I think we must support this.

My story with my daughters is really not unusual for many of the constituents I represent in York Centre whose children go back and forth between Israel and get married here or in the United States. The Jewish community has very close cross-border ties, and these families, like many Canadian families, sometimes have some fluidity due to faith, culture or language and have other strong connections. They are watching this closely as well.

That is why I think we should be supporting this, because those who were born to a Canadian parent abroad beyond the first generation, including those adopted from abroad, are not Canadian citizens but feel they should be because they have a strong connection to Canada, similar to my older daughter. To address these other lost Canadians, the bill could be amended by introducing a pathway to citizenship for people in this exact situation.

I was really disappointed to hear about the reaction by Conservative members when the motion to expand the scope of Bill S-245 was presented at committee. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but rather than give serious or substantive arguments about why the scope should or should not be expanded, some members took the opportunity to make threats about what they would do if the scope is expanded. This is actually very disappointing. The member for Calgary Nose Hill stated:

...do we really want to have the immigration committee all of a sudden drop into a broader review of the Citizenship Act? If we are opening up this bill beyond the scope of what is here right now, I will propose amendments that are well beyond the scope of this bill. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Citizenship Act. I will come prepared with those things, and we will be debating them.

I really take issue with this approach. I am not a member of the committee so I do not know what confidential amendments the members have already put on notice for the bill, but the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill absolutely does not have that information. We do know that. When she made these comments, she was fully aware of what members were going to propose.

Furthermore, the member for Vancouver East was pretty clear in her comments on the motion that she was not trying to make changes to some completely unrelated section of the Citizenship Act. As a matter of fact, she said that today as well. It is quite something for a member to threaten to overwhelm committee processes by trying to propose amendments that are, in her words, “well beyond the scope”.

I am disappointed, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are closed off to the urging they heard from stakeholders and that all members heard at committee from witnesses. I am not alone in having been put off by that fact, and I want to read into the record a communication that I understand was sent to committee members after the motion to expand the scope was moved at committee last Monday. I think it has a lot of meaning for all of us listening to this debate today. It says:

Dear Members of the Citizenship and Immigration committee of the House of Commons,

First I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to reflect on and discuss Bill S-245. Although the current language of the bill will have no effect on my status as a Lost Canadian, I am hopeful that this bill will help to pave the way for a path to citizenship for myself and others who are lost.

My story is like that of many other Lost Canadians. I live a life unfairly exiled from the country that my mother lives in. She lives alone in Haida Gwaii, and as she grows older, I wonder how I should be able to care for her, when it is illegal for me to live in the same country as her. I will not at this time speak to the immense pain, suffering and grief I live with every day.

I am not writing to you to tell you another story of a Lost Canadian. I am here instead, asking that the language you use while discussing Canadian citizenship be more sensitive and fair to those with ancestral ties to Canada. I do not believe it is the members intention to further marginalize those Canadians who have been stripped of their ties to Canada and it is for that reason that I make this plea to you all.

Time and time again, when discussing citizenship and lost Canadians, House members use the words “immigrant” and “citizen” as if they are interchangeable. The intent of Bill S-245 has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with citizenship. As a Lost Canadian, when I am referred to in the same sentence as someone looking to immigrate I am astounded. I am heartbroken. Above all, I fear that if we are constantly grouped together with those individuals looking to immigrate to Canada, that we will never be seen for who we really are—individuals who have been unjustly stripped of our birthright to Canadian Citizenship.

From an outside perspective it seems that the members inability to separate these two concepts—citizenship vs. immigration—while trying to address the issue being studied in bill S-245 is creating divisiveness over expanding the bill to make it fair and just for those of us who have been unfairly stripped of, or denied our birthright to Canadian citizenship.... It is disingenuine to speak of this as if it were an immigration issue. [Such language]...continues to reinforce the emotional damage and trauma we experience daily living in exile.

It goes on:

The intent of bill S-245 is to extend Canadian citizenship. To threaten amendments to Bill S-245 such as mandating in person citizenship ceremonies, is not only ridiculously out of scope for this bill, it is insulting to the masses of Lost Canadians simply looking to return home.

I understand that the complexities surrounding this issue of Lost Canadians and second generation born abroad Canadians make the situation difficult to understand. But until the members of this committee, those with the most influence on legislation regarding citizenship can themselves make the distinction between “Citizenship” and “Immigration” there will be no clear path forward for those of us who are lost.

So I beg of you. Lost Canadians are not immigrants. We are Canadians. The language used by the members should reflect that. The words spoken in this moment have much weight for those of us who are suffering. Please see us for who we are so that you may more fully open your minds and hearts, and let us in.... If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion before the House, the concurrence motion.

What we are dealing with is essentially seeking authority from the House to expand the scope of Bill S-245. Bill S-245 is a Senate bill that is before the House to address the situation of those who are commonly known as “lost Canadians”. Bill S-245 would amend the Citizenship Act to allow Canadians who previously lost their citizenship due to the age 28 rule to regain their citizenship. The age 28 rule means that second-generation Canadians born abroad were subject to the laws of citizenship under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, which required them to apply to certify their citizenship before they turned 28 years old.

In 2009 the Conservatives repealed this section through Bill C-37. However, the legislation did not restore citizenship to those who lost their citizenship prior to 2009. This oversight created major problems for many Canadians, as they somehow could lose their citizenship status as they turned 28. Many of them actually did not even know that was the situation they were faced with. It was only when applying for their passport, for example, that they realized they had lost their citizenship.

Bill S-245 seeks to fix the age 28 rule. However, the rule does not address other situations where Canadians have lost their citizenship. The archaic provisions of the Citizenship Act have resulted in many other lost Canadians, and New Democrats seek to actually fix this problem.

Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, Bill C-37 passed in this House and came into force, and as a result of that, many people lost their citizenship rights. In fact, it created a scenario where Canada's Citizenship Act, for this group of lost Canadians, in many ways was not charter-compliant. For decades some Canadians have found themselves even to be stateless due to a number of these archaic immigration laws.

In 2007, the UN's Refugees magazine listed Canada as one of the top offending countries for making its own people stateless. In 2009, as I mentioned, the Conservatives said that they were going to fix the lost Canadian issue with Bill C-37. Sadly, this did not happen. Worse still, the Conservatives created a brand new group of lost Canadians, and today we have an opportunity before us to fix that.

Bill S-245, the bill that was introduced by Senator Martin, is now before the committee for citizenship and immigration, and the bill aims to address this group of lost Canadians, lost due to the age 28 rule. I want to be very clear that the NDP wholeheartedly supports ensuring those who one day woke up and found themselves without Canadian status are made whole. This absolutely needs to be done. However, it is the NDP's strongest view that the scope of Bill S-245 is too narrow. The NDP wants to seize this opportunity to fix the lost Canadian issue once and for all.

Currently, there is a large group of Canadians who are deemed to be second-class citizens, due to the Conservatives' first-generation cut-off rule brought on by the Harper administration in 2009. Bill C-37 ended the extension of citizenship to second-generations born abroad. By stripping their right to pass on citizenship to their children if they were born outside of Canada, the Canadian government has caused undue hardship to many families. For some, it means separating children from parents. Some even find themselves stateless.

I spoke with Patrick Chandler. He is a Canadian who, while born abroad, spent most of his life in Canada. As an adult, he worked abroad, married someone from another country and had children. He was later offered a job in British Columbia. When he moved back to Canada, he had to leave his wife and children behind because he could not pass on his citizenship to his children. He had to go through an arduous process to finally reunite with them a year later.

There are many families being impacted in this way, and it is wrong. We should not put Canadians in those kinds of situations, yet here we are and that is what they have to suffer through. There are many families being impacted.

Another family faced with this situation is the family of Emma Kenyon. In fact, Emma lived here in Canada, as did her husband. However, they worked abroad and they met abroad. They had a child abroad. That child is stateless because neither Emma nor her husband has status in that country. They are now in a situation where they have a stateless child born to a Canadian. This is so wrong, and we need to fix this problem. Immigration officials said to them at the time that, before their child was born, they had a choice. They could actually travel back to Canada and have their child be born in Canada.

This, of course, did not make any sense. It was during the COVID period, when, basically, it was unsafe for her to travel. If Emma did travel back to Canada, she would be without a family doctor or a gynecologist to care for her pregnancy. None of that made any sense, but that is what she was told to do. Of course, she did not risk the birth of her child in that situation. She did not risk her own health either. As a result, her child was born abroad and is now in a stateless situation. It should never have been this way.

Families are so frustrated with these archaic immigration laws, especially with the stripping of the rights of immigrants having children born abroad. Those rights were stripped because of the Conservatives’ Bill C-37. Families are now taking the government to court to address this inequity. The Conservatives deemed first-generation Canadians born abroad to be less worthy and less Canadian, even though many had grown up in Canada. The implications are so serious that people are taking the government to court.

At the citizenship and immigration committee, when the opportunity arises, I will be moving amendments to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. The NDP amendments would ensure that first-generation, born-abroad Canadians would have the right to pass on their citizenship rights to their children based on a connections test. They would also retroactively restore citizenship to persons who have not been recognized as citizens since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009.

The same principles would apply to adoptees as well. We need to make sure that individuals and families that adopt children are not going to be caught in this bad situation. For those who do not wish to have citizenship conferred upon them, upon notification to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, these changes would not apply to them.

This will mean that people like Patrick, whom I mentioned, and people like Emma and her family would not have to suffer the challenges they face as a result of Bill C-37’s stripping of their rights.

In addition to the amendments related to the first-generation cut-off rule, I will also be moving amendments to symbolically recognize those who died before citizenship was conferred upon them. For example, many of Canada's war heroes fought and died for Canada. However, they were never recognized as Canadians. The NDP amendments would also honour them and recognize them as citizens, retroactive to birth.

The situation with what I call “war heroes” is this. The first Governor General of Canada, in 1867, right after Confederation, said that Canadians were a new “nationality”. However, according to Canada's immigration laws, Canadian citizenship did not exist prior to January 1, 1947. That means that no soldiers who fought and died for Canada in battles like Vimy Ridge or D-Day are deemed to be Canadians.

Bill C-37 was supposed to fix this, but it did not happen. Don Chapman, who has fought for so long on the issue of lost Canadians and trying to rectify those concerns, indicated that “the government has confirmed they're leaving out all the war dead [pre-1947]. So, the war dead in Canada were really just British. We might as well just scratch the Maple Leaf off their headstones.”

Symbolically recognizing those who fought for Canada and ensuring that they are recognized as citizens would have zero implications, no legal consequence whatsoever or liability for the government. It is really a strictly symbolic gesture, and it is an important one, especially for family members of loved ones who fought and died for Canada. I see some of these family members on Remembrance Day every year. Many veterans went to war and fought for Canada, and never came back. We should remember them as Canadians.

Beyond this, there are a couple of other categories of lost Canadians, who, due to one of the discriminatory rules, such as the gender discrimination rule that existed in Canada, were not recognized as citizens. The NDP's amendments would aim to fix that as well. Suffice it to say, there are long lists of people who have been hurt by this set of rules, and successive governments have said they would fix it. However, it never came to be. Now we have a chance to actually do that work. It is important we do that work now.

I fear that the Conservatives would not support this effort. At committee, when the senator and the sponsor of the bill were before us at committee to talk about this bill, the Conservatives indicated they wanted to just ensure the bill would be left as is and address only the 28-year rule, not deal with the other categories of lost Canadians. To me, that is wrong. Their argument is that it is too complicated, that we do not have time and that if the matter goes back before the Senate, then an election might be called and the bill might just die. That is, of course, if the Conservatives want that to happen.

We could actually work together, collaboratively, to say that we are going to fix this problem once and for all, for lost Canadians. We want to make sure that people like Emma Kenyon, whose child was born stateless, would never be in that situation. We could actually make that happen by amending the bill.

I know that Conservative members, even their leader, would say that they support the immigrant community and that they are there for them. If they are there for them, first, I would say that Bill C-37 should never have stripped of their rights the immigrants who became Canadians, such as myself. If I had a child born abroad, my child should have citizenship conferred upon them. The Conservatives took that away. We have a chance today to fix that, to say that immigrants, such as myself, would be able to have the same rights as those who were born in Canada, and be able to pass on their citizenship rights to their children born abroad.

To be sure that there is a connection between individuals like that, we could put forward a connections test, such as, for example, having been in Canada for 1,095 days. This happens to be the same number of days required, through the Citizenship Act, for people getting their citizenship. We could put in provisions like that to ensure there is a clear connection between them and Canada. There is no reason to say that we are not going to do any of this and that we are just going to strip them of their rights and not recognize them. Let us fix this once and for all.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:21 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration concerning the extension of time to consider Bill S-245.

Call in the members.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

In relation to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians, I have the honour of presenting the 14th report. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.

I also have the honour of presenting the 15th report. The committee has studied the bill and 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.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to reiterate some of the things that have been said here in regard to that and maybe add some personal views to this.

For certain, we had witnesses come before this committee in regard to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the granting of citizenship to certain Canadians. That is the focus of the bill. It was the intent of Senator Yonah Martin, who brought it forward. It was made very clear at this committee that her intent was to have a specific, narrow focus for this particular bill, so that we can at least help someone. There have been years outstanding in this regard.

There are other areas, as my colleagues have just said, and there are other means of dealing with those. We dealt with that at the committee when Ms. Martin was here. I don't know why we're trying to extend it to do this now. I get the fact that we were extending it for 30 days. If the intent is not to bring in anything more than the wording changes that my colleague, the vice-chair and critic in this area, indicated, that's one thing. However, 30 days is a long time when you already have a bill that's very focused on what was requested to be done by the person who brought the bill forward.

I've been on this committee now since fall. I was on it five years ago when we went through a whole list of things. I didn't know my colleague was going to bring up the report today on the 300,000 workers needed in the agricultural industry as well. I come from the agricultural industry, Madam Chair. I can assure you that we dealt with this back in the days of TFWs and the shortage of labour in the agricultural industry then, trying to get people into activities here that could fulfill those spots. A lot of these people we're trying to help are already in Canada. We want to get them their citizenship as quickly as we can.

I would also agree that I'm not very enthralled with the idea of getting citizenship through the click of a button. I really believe that ceremonies mean something. They certainly do. At the citizenship ceremonies I've been at, the people there take them very seriously. They phone my office. We spend about half of our time dealing with citizenship issues in the Brandon area. We're very thankful to be one of the 15 places in Canada, with the Westman Immigrant Services in Brandon, that has been able to focus on the citizenship opportunities that are arising from the rural and northern initiative.

We want to make sure we keep this particular bill. There are lots of other ways of expanding it to those outside of this bill who are not included in it. This is very specific to a certain group of individuals. I think it's very important, even though we've extended it for 30 days, to certainly not use that amount of time to deal with it, when it can be done.... If it it is just wording and corrections to the bill, we can do it somewhat more accessibly. This bill is ready to go, as I say.

The idea of vandalizing the bill is not a threat. I mean, it's about precedent. It's not about whether we like the idea or not, as my colleague and critic from Calgary just indicated. It's about the precedent of what could happen to anybody's bill in the future.

I brought my own bill, Bill C-208, forward about two years ago, I guess. It was in regard to family farm transfers and family business transfers. We did get that consensus through Parliament, but there were talks about changes. The government decided to do that through regulatory mechanisms. We're still studying those because it was just brought in through the budget. We're very thankful that the bill has moved forward. It is active. People are able to use it across Canada.

With the type of bill that's before us, if we don't do this in the manner that has been put forward by the mover of Bill S-245—Senator Martin, herself—then it will likely end up doing what my colleague indicated, which is going back and forth with amendments and ping-ponging back and forth.

Everybody sitting here knows full well that the Senate agreed on this specific wording of this bill. It was the only way it passed the Senate to get here in the first place. I think we should honour the fact that all of the Senate indicated that's the way it should be. It's not just Ms. Martin, even though it's her bill. She was very diligent in making sure she got the consensus of the Senate to bring this bill forward in this manner.

I would say that it's not about the motivation to pass the bill or the motives in passing it. It's about the setting of this precedent for all future private members' bills in the House of Commons.

I think we know what she said and indicated in the bill itself.

There are a number of other issues in areas I pointed out—from the past experience I've had on this committee—that we could be dealing with. My colleagues mentioned some of them already. I've outlined a few more. We travelled extensively in Canada at that time, in order to look at the types of individuals who would be affected by some of the changes required from revamping the whole immigration act.

We're not suggesting we need to do that with this bill. In fact, we're emphatically saying we don't need to do that with this bill. This bill is very well written and focused on its requested outcomes. Therefore, Madam Chair, I'll be voting against the idea of the motion to put forward further amendments to this bill, which may allow for amendments that would be out of the scope of this bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I'm looking at the wording of the motion. It says, “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.” When I look at this.... It means we could then propose to amend anything in the Citizenship Act in the consideration of this bill.

I have very strong opinions about things like citizenship ceremonies being done in person and not having the “click for citizenship” option. Are those the types of table-drop motions members want to open themselves up to? I think it is a good legislative idea. I would like to work on a private member's bill for that to be the first and only option, and then have very strict conditions under which it could be considered.

There's also the question about “substantial connection with Canada” and how that should be defined. Again, I have very strong views on what it should be, but I am not proposing to insert them into this bill, unless you pass this motion and expand the scope. Then, I may be so gifted as to write it out. Then, we will have debates endlessly on how it should be considered. You've also given an extra 30 days, possibly, to do this. If we're just going to review the entire Citizenship Act.... Let's do a fulsome and complete review if we're going to go completely beyond the scope of the original intent of the bill.

Again, it's a warning. I don't think this is the right direction to go. I'm willing to put in whatever work is required to get Bill S-245 back to the House in as clear a legal language as the government believes it needs and with members of the public service here to explain what the effects would be of the different pieces of legislation we would be amending.

The way we would be amending it here.... As I said, the original intent and scope were very specific. Senator Yonah Martin was extremely direct and honest about what she was trying to do. My warning goes back to this. If you expand the scope of this bill, this is an idea: Do it to every single private member's bill from members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Some of us have long memories. We're like elephants. We will do it to every single other bill when we feel there is an opportunity to insert partisan agendas into them.

I don't think that was the intent here. On government legislation.... That is a different story. I think we all accept that things are done to amend them, but on private members' and Senate bills.... We know these are the initiatives of members. They are not driven by parties. They're driven by individual members who have one issue they really care about. We would leave that intent intact. It would allow members to legislate for themselves and persuade fellow parliamentarians that it is a good idea.

Again, it's a fair warning: Everything in the Citizenship Act becomes eligible for us to consider. There would be a lot more public servants here from the different branches explaining the impact of different changes we could potentially do.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm now going to move a second motion, a copy of which has been sent to the clerk, also in both French and English.

The motion is as follows:

That, the committee report the following to the House: 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.

Madam Chair, we've had extensive discussion about this, particularly with witnesses who came before us. As we know, there are many categories of lost Canadians. Bill S-245 currently deals with the category of lost Canadians pertaining to the 28-year-old age rule. However, it leaves out many other categories of lost Canadians. Most notably, the current situations are such that many families are faced with forced separation because of the first-generation cut-off rule that came about with Bill C-37 back in 2009.

We've heard from witnesses who urged us—the committee, the government—to make amendments to this bill, which would be out of scope for this bill, to address those lost Canadians. There are other categories as well for which we can get into the details when we get to the clause-by-clause, but in order for that to be considered, this motion is required.

I'm therefore moving this motion so that we can follow the procedure absolutely, as has been advised to me by the head clerk and the legislative clerk sitting at the table, to make sure that we do not end up in a bad situation with this effort.

To that end, I hope committee members will support this motion I've put forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan has moved a motion to request an extension regarding Bill S-245.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm happy to see everybody back after a constituency break of two weeks.

Related to Bill S-245, given the tight timeline of the requirement for the bill to be reported back to the House, I'm going to move the following motion, Madam Chair, a copy of which, in both French and English, has been sent to the clerk for distribution to the committee members. That motion reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee request an extension of thirty (30) sitting days to consider Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), referred to the committee on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, to give the Bill the consideration it requires and that the Chair present this request to the House.

Madam Chair, as indicated, we're kind of a little bit down to the wire here with the timeline. To ensure that the committee has the opportunity to do all the necessary work related to this bill, I therefore move this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Good afternoon, everybody. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 58 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2023, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the granting of citizenship to certain Canadians.

Ms. Kwan, you have the floor.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

We heard and you both heard from the previous panel: Senator Martin, who brought this bill before us, and of course, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons, MP Hallan. Both said that we should not be advancing amendments to Bill S-245.

Would you agree with that and, if not, why not? If yes, you can expand.

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

Thank you again.

Could you explain to this committee the difference between someone who has received a grant of citizenship versus someone who has had their citizenship restored through a change in legislation, such as what is proposed through Bill S-245, please?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

For that, I would like to put the schedule in front of you.

The Honourable Marc Garneau has accepted the date of May 3. He will only appear for an hour. He has confirmed that date.

We have to get through Bill S-245, if we are not looking for an extension from the House. We will finish the clause-by-clause on the 17th. Five meetings cannot happen on that motion before April 30.

I would request the members to please allow to extend the date beyond April 30 to work and fit in those five meetings. Is that okay?

Ms. Kwan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just to give a little glance of the upcoming meetings and the budget and some dates we need to be mindful of, this coming Wednesday the Minister of Justice and Minister of Defence will appear with officials for one panel each on the Afghanistan study. That is the meeting on Wednesday, March 29.

We go into two break weeks, so the next meeting after March 29 will be April 17. In order to respect the deadline of April 26, clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245 is scheduled for April 17, 2023. We have to take it back to the House before April 26. Amendments must be sent to the clerk by March 31, 2023. That will be this Friday.

Is everyone okay that we do this clause-by-clause on April 17, so that we respect the deadline Parliament has given to us? Good.

Senator McPhedran has accepted the committee's invitation to appear on Wednesday, April 19 for two hours on the Afghanistan study. She is already scheduled in. For Monday, April 24, Minister Harjit Sajjan is unavailable, but he has confirmed his availability on Wednesday, April 26. On Monday, April 26, we are already scheduled with Minister Fraser and officials. They confirmed that they are available to appear on April 26 on the main estimates.

How would the committee like to proceed?

I would like to get the committee's guidance on which study to prioritize. Minister Fraser was scheduled to come before the committee for the mains, but Minister Sajjan has also given the date of April 26.

Mr. Redekopp.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 56 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Before we resume the consideration of Bill S-245, I would like to ask for the committee's approval of the study budgets and discuss the calendar briefly so we can schedule the studies.

The first thing I need to ask the committee members is this: Is it the will of the committee to approve a budget of $7,250 for the study of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding granting citizenship to certain Canadians?

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

I tend to agree with my colleague.

I think we all had good intentions when we came here to listen to the officials who had to give us technical information, given the complexity of Bill S‑245. I also thought that we, the committee members, had agreed to work in a rigorous manner. So I want to apologize to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I had no idea what the Conservatives were going to do to hijack this meeting, which we had previously set up.

Had I known, I would have never said that I shared the view that it was better for us to meet in camera at the end. I would have said that we should do it at the beginning, as you mentioned, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Unfortunately, the Conservatives still find ways to disrupt our committee's work.

To go back to my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner's motion, the amendment and the subamendment, I think my colleague Ms. Kwan has raised some good points. We hear some justified hesitation here about whether or not to proceed. We want to see the people who will testify, as we know that it is important to know their point of view. I believe that the ministers will be coming to see us, in accordance with a previously passed motion.

There was one thing I was proud of, Madam Chair. Just before the break last Thursday, the government made a very important announcement about the humanitarian aid that people need in Afghanistan. We know how important that is. I was very proud to be part of that announcement as parliamentary secretary, but it was even more wonderful to hear from the Red Cross, which could be an agency that will be—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that assurance that committee members will be able to send in written questions to officials related to Bill S-245.

Getting back to Dr. Lauryn Oates, I had an opportunity to speak with her after the motion was moved, and she expressed her concerns with respect to that. With that as an aside, it may well be.... As much as I appreciate the media and their reporting, there may be times where things that are reported by the media may not necessarily be 100% accurate. There might be nuanced information that might not be captured in the article.

To that end, I think it would be important, given that Dr. Lauryn Oates was referred to in the newspaper, that she be given the opportunity to provide a written submission to us. Of course, as always, committee members can consider at a later time whether they want to invite people back if it's deemed that the information provided was deficient and further work needs to be done. If that's the case, we can all take that into consideration.

I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Given that this motion has interrupted our proceedings, and given that Bill S-245 is going to be a bill that we will need to deal with in a timely fashion, because it has to go before the House, and committee members did not get a chance to ask their round of questions, can we have the committee's support to say that committee members can submit written questions to the officials so that we can get those responses back for our consideration as we move forward on this bill?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Kwan, if I can interrupt you for a second, I want to let the officials go. I see a speaking list, so I don't think there will be an opportunity to go back to Bill S-245. After you, I have two other members who would like to speak.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming today. I'm really sorry we were not able to utilize your time well and that we had to get into the discussion of other motions. If you want to leave, you can. Again, on behalf of all the members, thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee on important legislation.

I'll give the witnesses a second to leave, and then—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you for the great presentations and for the questions and answers that are going through.

Even though you are explaining it very well, I represent a riding with people from over 100 countries. People from 100 countries have migrated to Canada, and many of them this bill will either help or not help. I'm going to ask you a few more questions.

Going back to the first generation, I'm sure people like Mr. Laurencelle will understand it better than engineers like me when it comes to this complex legislation. When I read this bill and the presentation you made, my understanding was that this legislation, S-245, would automatically confer citizenship on two relatively small groups of people, some of those impacted by the former age 28 rule. Now it sounds like there's potentially a much bigger number of people that it will affect.

Do you have any idea how many people might be granted automatic citizenship if the first-generation limit date is moved?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

I just want to stay on the topic of how citizenship is important. It's an essential part of this country. I hear from a lot of newcomers in Saskatoon and throughout the country that they're proud to come to Canada, proud to settle here, get a job and make a life for themselves. They're contributing to our country, for sure. They don't take citizenship lightly. They're not coming here to get welfare or the Canada pension plan. They're not coming for some dream of basic universal income where they don't have to work. Newcomers cherish citizenship.

Likewise, some have lost citizenship because of government errors. That's exactly what we're talking about here. Bill S-245 will fix that for a certain small group of people.

Of course, as Conservatives we value citizenship. We're not going to extend citizenship just to anybody who wants it. On the other hand, the Minister of Immigration has announced a plan to devalue citizenship by replacing in-person citizenship ceremonies with a one-and-done click on a website. There would be no ceremony, no physical connection. In fact, you wouldn't even necessarily need to be in Canada to click that button.

Madam Chair, at this time I'd like to just give a verbal notice of motion. I believe this has been sent around. It reads:

That the committee calls on the government to prioritize granting citizenship to new Canadians through in-person ceremonies; allow virtual ceremonies only if specifically requested by the individual when in-person ceremonies are impractical due to health or safety concerns; cease citizenship by “self administer a digital oath by signed attestation” (as announced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on January 31, 2022); have department officials appear at this committee for one hour to answer questions on this topic; and that the committee report this to the House.

I put that on notice.

My question for the officials is about this idea of a self-administered digital oath signed by attestation, as the minister described it. If you agree that newcomers feel a sense of pride and joy when they take that oath of citizenship with other immigrants at an in-person ceremony, why is the government moving in the other direction?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to the officials for being here today.

For sure, this Citizenship Act is a complex file, with so many changes over the years that amendments brought to the table often require amendments to the exception to the exception and so on. It's extremely confusing.

From my perspective, first off, I'd like to say that we have before us Bill S-245, and I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Yonah Martin for bringing this before us, because it gives us an opportunity to look into this issue and see how we can fix some of the problems. Maybe it will never be possible to fix all of the problems, but I think it will be important and incumbent on all of us to do our very best to try to fix as many problems as possible.

I appreciate the briefing in terms of your highlighting some of those areas. On the question around unintended consequences, I'd like to probe a little bit deeper into this issue around other countries, where, if you were to confer citizenship to the individual, it might cause them a heap of trouble, because in whatever country they might be in they may not be allowed to, for example, have dual citizenship.

Of course, conferring citizenship automatically in this way was done before. It was done under Bill C-37, it was done under Bill C-24 and so on. Somehow it was dealt with in those previous scenarios. I get it that times might have changed. There might be more people living globally, but nonetheless the premise of that has not changed.

Can you advise us on how officials addressed those issues back then? Why was it okay then to confer citizenship without these concerns of unintended consequences, but now it is a key concern?

[Nicole Girard]

I wouldn't say it will be complicated.

A lot of work was done to modernize programs during the COVID‑19 pandemic, and processing times are improving. We definitely still have work to do, but we still welcomed a record number of new citizens in 2022, which was 374,000.

To reiterate some clarifications, I want to say that, when Bill S‑245 comes into force, people who have regained their citizenship who are covered by former section 8 of the Citizenship Act would automatically be granted Canadian citizenship.

They would have to get proof from the department. That is the application that we are dealing with, finally. So it's not the processing time for their citizenship application that is long, it's the processing time for the proof of citizenship application. Also, processing times are constantly improving.

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

Yes, absolutely.

You know how long the processing times are for many Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, programs right now. I'm thinking of temporary resident visas, but also of foreign worker programs, foreign student programs, and so on.

There are some structural issues. I understand that the minister is trying to improve things by increasing resources, but, what we are hearing right now, at least in the members' offices, is that it is very difficult to process immigration cases. Constituency offices are currently spending about 80% of their time on these cases.

Given the problems that IRCC is currently experiencing, if Bill S‑245 is passed, do you think the goals will be met quickly? Will it be complicated for officials to implement the bill? Will new officers be needed to respond to the current situation?

[Nicole Girard]

One of the concerns with the bill as drafted is that there is no provision for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to make the necessary preparations to facilitate the implementation of this aspect of the act.

Normally, the necessary preparations would take a year, as regulations must be created and system changes made in order to process applications. Once the act or Bill S‑245 comes into force, so will the provisions, depending on how the bill is currently drafted. So these people would become Canadian citizens again once the bill comes into force.

One of the other concerns raised, particularly by the Canadian Bar Association, is that the date for resumption of Canadian citizenship is not specified in the bill. Therefore, we are asking the committee to propose that an amendment be moved to clarify that a person who has lost their citizenship should have it restored on the date that occurred. This should be clarified in an amendment.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Okay.

I would like you to elaborate on something that I found very surprising in your presentation. You said that Bill S‑245 seemingly looks to push the application date of the first-generation limit from 2009 to 2015.

Can you add some comments to that?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

If these two groups are under the former age 28 rule, will they both see their citizenship restored if S-245 is passed?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Members, good afternoon. Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge that I work on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

We are pleased to be here today to support the committee's work on Bill S-245, which seeks to address the remaining lost Canadians. While the bill is well intended as drafted, the bill would not address all remaining lost Canadians and would have some unintended consequences if passed in its current form.

Before outlining these concerns, I'll provide a brief overview of the bill and then touch on lost Canadians, past legislative amendments and the first-generation limit, as these are relevant to the committee's consideration today.

In terms of a description of the bill, Bill S-245 is seeking to address the remaining lost Canadians by doing three things.

First of all, it would amend the Citizenship Act to automatically confer citizenship on some persons born abroad in the second or subsequent generation who lost their Canadian citizenship because they did not take the required steps to retain it under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act.

Second, the bill also amends the citizenship legislation regarding automatic citizenship for those born abroad to a Canadian parent and seems to attempt to delay the implementation of the first-generation limit to automatic citizenship by descent, by moving the date from April 17, 2009, and pushing it out to June 11, 2015.

Last, for those who would automatically become citizens as a result of the bill as drafted but who may not wish to become citizens, the bill would allow for regulatory amendments to extend access to what's called a simplified renunciation process to renounce or give up Canadian citizenship.

Before touching on the specific issues with regard to Bill S-245, which I will come to in a moment, I will briefly summarize the former provisions of the Citizenship Act that led us to the emergence of lost Canadians, which the committee will be discussing in further detail today.

As I am sure you are aware, the requirements and some of the complexities of the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 and former provisions of the current Citizenship Act created cohorts or groups of individuals who lost or never had Canadian citizenship status. These individuals are known to us as “lost Canadians”. Changes to citizenship legislation that came into effect on April 17, 2009, and June 11, 2015, restored status or gave extended citizenship for the first time to the majority of lost Canadians up to the first generation born abroad to a Canadian parent. Before the 2009 amendments, a person born abroad in the second or subsequent generation to a Canadian parent were considered Canadian citizens from birth, but only until they turned 28 years old, unless they met certain conditions to comply with the former section 8 “retention of citizenship” provisions.

The conditions for those impacted included a requirement to have lived in Canada for one year before submitting an application to retain their citizenship or having established a substantial connection to Canada. If they did not meet the conditions and apply to retain their citizenship before they reached their 28th birthday, they would automatically lose their citizenship. Some were not even aware they had to meet these requirements and lost their citizenship unknowingly.

These section 8 retention requirements were repealed as part of the amendments to the citizenship legislation in 2009. The 2009 amendments also established a clear first-generation limit to the right to automatic citizenship by descent. This means that today any child born outside Canada to a Canadian parent is automatically a Canadian citizen from birth if they have a parent who is either born in Canada or came to Canada as an immigrant and subsequently became a Canadian citizen. That child does not need to do anything to keep their Canadian citizenship. However, those born abroad in the second or subsequent generation do not acquire automatic Canadian citizenship from birth, as the committee is aware. Instead, they have to apply for a grant of citizenship. The first-generation limit now makes clear who does not have a claim to automatic citizenship by descent and needs to instead apply for a grant of citizenship versus those who've obtained it automatically.

On the impacts of Bill S-245 as drafted, as mentioned, the past provisions of the Citizenship Act led to the emergence of lost Canadians. There is a risk that passing Bill S-245 as is will have unintended consequences.

As drafted, the bill would have at least three unintended consequences of concern as it would, first, create new distinctions, as it only remedies some of the lost Canadians who lost their citizenship due to the former section 8. Second, the bill as drafted would create more lost Canadians. Third, it would automatically give citizenship to some for whom dual citizenship may be problematic for legal, professional or other reasons.

The issues with the bill are such that they would have negative impacts for lost Canadians and other Canadians, if not addressed through the consideration of remedies in the form of amendments to the bill at the committee stage.

First, Bill S-245 aims to restore citizenship to persons who lost it as a result of the former section 8 retention provisions. However, the bill as drafted does not restore citizenship to all those lost Canadians, since it only restores citizenship, as drafted, to those who never applied to retain it. The bill excludes those who took steps to retain their citizenship by making an application but were unsuccessful. This would create a distinction by not addressing all of those affected by the former retention provisions and not fully addressing these lost Canadians.

Second, the bill as written is unclear as to the effect on the first-generation limit but could be interpreted as moving the limit for anyone born between April 2009 and June 2015. Moving the date for the first-generation limit from 2009 to 2015 would have a significant impact on untold numbers of persons born abroad in the second generation or beyond, who would automatically acquire Canadian citizenship by descent from birth. Though well intentioned, this is problematic, as some would be negatively impacted and not everyone would benefit.

Specifically, those born abroad to a Canadian who have obtained a grant since 2009 would automatically become citizens by descent under the bill, meaning they would become the first generation born abroad, and thereby lose their ability to pass on citizenship by descent to their own children, if born abroad, which would create more lost Canadians. In other words, these children, who are not yet born, would lose access to automatic citizenship because of the shifting of the first-generation limit under the bill as drafted.

The bill would still exclude anyone born outside Canada beyond the first generation after June 11, 2015, from citizenship by descent. As such, the bill gives citizenship, or seeks to give citizenship, to some persons born abroad in the second or subsequent generation but not to others, which is a concern and would create more distinctions.

Third, in addition to these issues, some persons who become citizens automatically under the bill may find this problematic for legal, professional or other reasons, depending on the country where they live or work or other circumstances. The bill does provide for a regulation-making authority to allow for simplified renunciation in such cases where folks were born under the former section 8. However, regulations take time, and the bill lacks the necessary provisions to allow for the time to address implementation issues such as this one, which is important to mitigate impacts and concerns.

Finally, Bill S-245 is well intentioned and can be supported, but several amendments would be needed to remedy these issues with the bill as drafted. Amendments would be necessary to ensure that the bill better meets its intended objectives, to ensure more equal treatment of similar cohorts affected by the former section 8 retention rules, to minimize the introduction of new distinctions and to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences such as creating more lost Canadians.

With this, Madam Chair, I conclude my remarks. We would be pleased to address any questions that the committee members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 54 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 3, 2022, today the committee will commence consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to provide their opening remarks. Today, we are joined by Nicole Girard, director general, citizenship policy; Uyen Hoang, senior director, legislation and program policy; and Alain Laurencelle, senior counsel, legal services.

Before we go into the opening remarks, I remind you that all amendments to the bill must be submitted to the clerk by Friday, March 31, 2023, at noon. That is the deadline for submitting any amendments to Bill S-245.

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thanks a lot.

Yes, the analysts and the clerk do an amazing job. Thank you for all the work you do.

Before we end this meeting, I want to let everyone know that the draft for the Roxham Road study will be sent to you on Monday, February 6. Once you have it, we will then try to schedule the consideration of the draft report sometime in the second week of February. We will have to work on the calendar.

We also have on our agenda the study of Bill S-245. The witnesses for Bill S-245 are due March 10 and amendments are due on March 31 at noon.

Clause-by-clause can be completed on April 17. We will begin consideration of the Afghanistan draft report after that.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.

Citizenship Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-245 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not take up too much time today. I want to thank all of my colleagues who rose and spoke in favour of Bill S-245. It is a very important bill. Although we all recognize that it pertains to a small number of people who want to become Canadian, it is very important that we get this done.

I want to again thank my Senate colleague, Senator Yonah Martin, as well as Don Chapman and many others, not only for advocating for this bill, but for their hard work and perseverance to get the bill to this stage today.

I want to say that Bill S-245 is very important for the many who were stripped of their citizenship because of administrative errors and government failures from the past, when all they wanted to do was renew their passports, but I will keep it short.

I encourage all my colleagues to support this. Let us get it to committee stage. Let us get it done.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy being recognized as the member for Ottawa Centre, because those are the great people who have given me the opportunity to serve them in this place. As always, every single day it is an honour to represent my community.

I am thrilled to speak on Bill S-245. I heard the comments of members who spoke on it and I too speak in support of the bill. I am a proud Canadian and very much like my friend from Calgary Shepard, I was not born in Canada. I came from a country where my parents were also politically persecuted and had to find a new place to live where they could live freely. My family and I came to Canada in 1988 and one of the greatest attractions of Canada was the rights and freedoms that are protected in Canada, especially by virtue of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an incredibly important constitutional document that protects all of our rights.

I will be honest in saying that I stand here today with a heavy heart as a Canadian citizen, one day after, in my home province of Ontario, those rights were taken away from hard-working education workers by the invocation of the notwithstanding clause in back-to-work legislation by the provincial government, led by Premier Doug Ford. That is not the country my parents wanted to come to, where rights, in such a cavalier manner, could be taken away by the majority members of a Parliament. Rights are sacrosanct. They should always be protected. That is what makes us truly Canadian.

I want to give a big shout-out to all education workers across the province of Ontario who are picketing right now, demanding that their rights be restored so that there can be collective bargaining in a good-faith manner with the government, so that they can be in classrooms and so that all children can be in classrooms getting the best education they deserve from our system.

Bill S-245 is an important bill. As I mentioned earlier, I am supportive of the bill, but it really deals with a very small segment of “lost Canadians”, as has been described by other members, through the age 28 rule. There are many other new classifications of what I would say are lost Canadians as a result of changes that were made to the Citizenship Act in 2009.

The one that is really close to my heart, the one that I have heard about from quite a few constituents, is the rule that says that a child born outside of Canada after April of 2009 to a parent who is a Canadian citizen is not a Canadian citizen at birth if their parent was born outside of Canada and inherited their own citizenship because one of their parents was Canadian at the time of their birth. Imagine that. For example, I was not born in Canada but I became a Canadian citizen. If I became a parent again and that child was born outside of Canada, that child would not be entitled to Canadian citizenship. That creates a whole new set of lost Canadians, and it is something that we need to really look at and consider. That speaks to the first-generation limit that has been created in the Citizenship Act.

I want to tell a quick story, because I think it really brings into perspective what we are talking about. This is a story about somebody I know quite well, a close friend of mine who is a Canadian citizen. Her parents immigrated to Canada, became Canadian citizens, lived here, went to school here, worked here and just before this friend of mine was born, her mother went to her home country of Tunisia so she could have the support of her parents when she gave birth. This friend of mine was born outside of Canada in Tunisia.

However, in a matter of weeks, they came back to Canada, where their home was. Of course, my friend is a Canadian citizen. She lived here, went to law school here in Ottawa, worked here, and then, eventually, as many Canadians do, decided to go and work abroad.

She went to Europe. She went to England, where she got a legal job and where she met her future partner and got married. They live in France now and, in 2013 and, I believe, 2015, she had two daughters.

Unfortunately, although she is a Canadian citizen, she is unable to pass her Canadian citizenship to her two daughters, who were born after April 2009. In my view, that is a lost Canadian generation.

It is a first-generation limit that really needs to be addressed. I am sure that if we looked around in our respective communities, we would find many people in the same position. It is a situation that creates an unequal model of Canadian citizenship. Really, in essence, we are saying that a Canadian is not a Canadian by virtue of where they are born.

It is really of paramount importance, even now, because so many people who become Canadian citizens are immigrants. They are coming from different parts of the world. I am really excited that the Minister of Immigration, just a few days ago, announced that we will be bringing, by 2025, about 500,000 people per year into Canada, which is absolutely necessary. We are a big country with a small population base. We are growing, and we need more people.

All of those people who will come as immigrants to Canada are born somewhere else, and many of them may end up, after becoming Canadian citizens, living somewhere outside Canada. They may have families there and may want, of course, to come back to Canada. We need to make sure those children, who are born of parents who were born outside Canada, remain Canadian citizens.

It is creating an unequal model of Canadian citizenship and Canadian identity that needs to be resolved. It is also, arguably, a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by virtue of sections 15 and 6 of the charter.

By having this rule in place and not rectifying it, we are also marginalizing women, in particular, who are Canadian citizens who may not have been born in Canada. Many of these women go outside Canada for professional reasons, because they want to work in different parts of the world, which is fantastic, because we Canadians are known to travel the world, to live in other parts of the world and to contribute to the well-being of this great planet that we are part of.

By having this rule, though, we are basically asking these women to put their careers on hold and come back to Canada in order to have children.

I really want to say that Bill S-245 is a step in the right direction, but it is only resolving a very small part of the problem. There are some other glaring holes in the Citizenship Act by virtue of the first-generation limit rule.

We need to look at those rules in a holistic manner so we can truly give expression to the idea that “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, which I fundamentally believe is one of the greatest strengths of Canada. Our diversity and our inclusive society exist because we have this really well-defined pathway to citizenship. When people come to Canada as immigrants, they come fully knowing that if they meet certain rules and requirements, they will have the opportunity to become Canadian citizens and contribute fully to this great country.

We undermine their capacity and we treat them unequally if we have different rules by virtue of, as an immigrant, where they were born. That is something we need to rectify. I look forward to working with members in the chamber to fix these rules so that, truly, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people of my riding of Calgary Shepard, I am pleased to speak to Bill S‑245. It is always a great honour and privilege for me to be able to speak on behalf of Canadian citizens.

I am not like everyone else in the House. Like 23% or 24% of Canadians, I am an immigrant to this country. I was just talking about that with my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who was born in Dubai.

As someone born in Poland, Canadian citizenship is extremely important to me. Canada is not only my homeland, but it is also the country that accepted my father, my mother, my brother and me when our country of origin, where I was born, did not want us. My father was a member of Solidarnosc. He was a worker, a labourer, an engineer for the Gdansk shipyards when Poland was communist. My father left Poland in 1983 to come to Canada, and it was Canada that offered him the opportunity to stay. He started working at a shipyard in Sorel. It was in Sorel, where I lived with my father in 1985, that I learned French.

Poland let us leave the country, but it did not let us take our passports with us, because the Polish workers at the Gdansk shipyard, the Lenin shipyard, and their families were not allowed to return to that country. As I said, Canadian citizenship represents my homeland as well as the great honour of becoming Canadian in 1989. Now I have the great honour of representing my constituents as a Polish immigrant to this wonderful country that has given us so many opportunities.

I must admit that I did not know a lot about the so-called lost Canadians, the people who lost the Canadian citizenship they had at birth or did not qualify for citizenship even though they should have been entitled to it by virtue of their presence in Canada. That is the result of a whole raft of laws and attitudes, and many MPs have talked about this and debated it since 1945. The laws changed again in the 1970s. Finally, along came Bill C‑37, passed by a Conservative government that wanted to solve the problem for good and reduce the number of lost Canadians as much as possible.

Despite the many bills that have been introduced to reform the legislation in this century and the last, despite the fact that parliamentarians studied this issue and were meant to receive witnesses to explain to them how these things happened, despite the fact that the government has tried to change the legislation several times to ensure that this does not happen, no one noticed that there would be a gap of 50 or so months during which there would still be lost Canadians.

Where are we at today?

I would like to thank Senator Yonah Martin, herself an immigrant from Korea, who sponsored this bill in the Senate. In the House of Commons, it was sponsored by the member for Calgary Forest Lawn. It is Senator Martin who proposed this bill to try to fix this problem for lost Canadians. Apparently, there are hundreds of Canadians in a situation that I would describe as extremely shameful, despite the fact that parts of the legislation have been changed over the past 100 years. Several different governments have tried to fix this legislative problem.

Before, the problem was that Canadians born outside the country to Canadian parents had until their 28th birthday to notify the Canadian government that they wanted to retain their citizenship. However, there was no form or simple way to confirm this with the government. It was not easy to do.

Even within the Conservative caucus, our colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, would have been one of those lost Canadians, had it not been for his father tipping him off. I do not know how his father knew that Parliament was amending the Citizenship Act, but the amendments could have made him one of those lost Canadians.

In debate, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said that he would be forever grateful to his parents who made sure to let him know, otherwise he would not have been able to serve in the House of Commons and represent the people of his riding in Saskatchewan.

This is the second time that we have tried to fill this legislative void by introducing Bill S‑245. I greatly admire author Franz Kafka. We have here the perfect example of a Kafkaesque or bureaucratic government that creates problems for ordinary citizens. This great German author who penned The Metamorphosis, In the Penal Colony, The Trial, The Castle and Amerika, spoke about these major organizations that have far too many rules and far too many people trying to enforce them and about how an ordinary citizen can end up before them for making a mistake they were not even aware of.

Many people have lost their citizenship this way. However, those people can be proud because there are many parliamentarians, including Senator Yonah Martin, who are working to ensure this legislative void is filled.

We are now debating this bill to try to correct the error in Bill C‑37, which was introduced and debated in 2009 and 2011, if memory serves.

At the time, Bill C‑37 sought to amend the Citizenship Act to address this legislative gap. The period covered by the bill was approximately 50 months for second-generation Canadians. I am a first-generation Canadian. My children were all born in Calgary and are first-generation Canadians because they were all born in Canada. There was a legislative gap for Canadians who were born abroad to Canadian parents during those 50 months between February 15, 1967, and April 16, 1981. These Canadians were to inform the government before their 28th birthday if they wished to keep their citizenship.

As I said, there is hope, because we all agree that a Canadian is a Canadian and has the right to Canadian citizenship. It is a source of great pride and a great honour and privilege to be able to say that I am Canadian and always will be. In any event, that is my hope, unless the government makes another legislative mistake in the future and something happens to those of us who received their citizenship in 1989. I am hoping it will not happen, but one never knows.

In this bill, I think that Senator Yonah Martin found the right words to legislate on this issue. I have sponsored many bills in the House and I have had to talk to the jurilinguists and lawyers who work in the House to find the right words to achieve a goal. Sometimes, the problem is finding the right words and the right dates in order to ensure that legislative voids are properly filled while addressing the initial problem we sought to solve by introducing legislation in the House.

I thank Senator Yonah Martin, but also all of the other members and senators who worked hard on this bill. I am thinking of the former Speaker of the Senate, Noël Kinsella, and of former senators David Tkachuk and Art Eggleton, who worked hard to ensure that these Canadians get their citizenship.

During debates in the House, I always share a Yiddish proverb. Today's is this: “When you sweep the house, you find everything.” I hope that this legislation will make it possible for us to find all of the lost Canadians so that they can get their citizenship.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-245. I want to extend my thanks to my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois who just spoke.

The New Democrats vote in favour of policies that are good for Canadians and will, of course, oppose those that do not. This is one of the bills that the New Democrats do stand in favour of.

This bill would fix a very old problem in Canada that has contributed to the pain and suffering of families on a really basic question of who they are and of their identities. It is a shame that our country has done this, and it is now time that we remedy it. However, the bill must go much further.

Indigenous people in Canada have long welcomed folks from other parts of the world so that they may find refuge, peace and prosperity here in our lands. That has been the promise of indigenous people to others for generations. However, that promise is foregone and broken when policies, particularly of this place, break that solemn commitment and force people into the worst states they can imagine. Sometimes they are deported or, worse, pass away.

Today we are talking about those lost Canadians, individuals who have been stripped of their Canadian citizenship because of arcane provisions. That is not to say this bill would fix all of Canada's immigration problems, of which there are many. It is simply a fix for an amendment that took place in 1977.

The Prime Minister has said, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” However, this is sadly not the reality for lost Canadians. Our laws continue to enforce a tiered approach to citizenship. According to the United Nations, Canada is a leading offender of making citizens stateless, and this is simply unacceptable.

It is long past time for Canada to right these wrongs by fixing our laws so that nobody is forced to once again lose their Canadian citizenship. Bill S-245 is a step in the right direction. It is a step that the New Democrats have called for and fully support. However, this legislation leaves many behind and does not go far enough. What we need is to fix the issue of lost Canadians once and for all.

Bill S-245 seeks to fix the long-standing issue of the age 28 rule. What is the age 28 rule? The age 28 rule was introduced, as I mentioned, in 1977 in the Citizenship Act, and it meant that second-generation Canadians born abroad had to reaffirm their citizenship status before their 28th birthday. It seems simple enough, but here is the catch: The government never published a retention form. It also never instructed those individuals that they had to reaffirm, and those affected were never told a retention requirement even existed, which is a shame.

Imagine someone who has been a Canadian citizen for their entire life. They shop in grocery stores in their community, send their kids to school, go to community plays and do all the things that everyone else in the community is doing. However, terribly enough, they are sent away to a police station and are informed they no longer have citizenship. This in fact happened here in Canada.

In 2015, Pete Giesbrecht of Manitoba was sent to the police and informed that he had just 30 days to leave the country or he would be deported. This caused shock and disbelief. Even when reading the words today I am shocked. He had carried his citizenship for 29 years and had lived in Canada since he was seven years old. However, because he was born in Mexico to Canadian parents who were also born abroad, the age 28 rule applied.

To regain his citizenship, his Canadian-born wife sponsored him and spent thousands of dollars on legal fees. No one should ever have to go through this. However, because of convoluted and arcane provisions in the Canadian immigration laws, people in this country have been unjustly stripped of their citizenship, an injustice that must end.

New Democrats have raised this issue for years, but successive Liberal and Conservative governments have failed to address the issue. The Conservatives have even managed to make the situation worse. The Conservatives said they were going to fix this issue when they were in government and introduced a bill entitled Bill C-37 over a decade ago. The bill did remove the age 28 rule. That was very good, but it was not applied going forward. Therefore, it did not allow Canadians who had already lost their citizenship to regain it. Those who turned 28 prior to 2009 were simply left behind.

When Bill C-37 was introduced, the Conservatives had an opportunity to help lost Canadians and fix this problem, the problem we are debating here today. However, the bill failed to close the gaps in our laws for thousands. Even worse, it created a two-tier system of citizenship, with second-generation born Canadians losing their ability to pass on citizenship to their children altogether. It was a shame. This is simply discriminatory and wrong.

In fact, today's legislation is the subject of a charter challenge calling on the government to change these discriminatory practices. Bill S-245, as presented, would leave these Canadians behind again. New Democrats will be putting forth amendments to finally address these outstanding issues, and I call on my colleagues and members of the House to look at these amendments and to truly help us fix this system and to stop the second generation cut-off so that second-generation Canadians born abroad can continue to pass on their citizenship to children, a very basic part of their family's identity and reunification.

There are also war heroes who have been left out. The first Governor General of Canada in 1867, right after Confederation, said that they had just created a new nationality called Canadian citizenship, yet according to Canada's immigration laws, Canadian citizenship did not exist prior to January 1, 1947. That means no soldiers who fought and died for Canada in battles like Vimy Ridge or D-Day are Canadian. Bill C-37 failed to fix this. In reference to Bill C-37, Don Chaplain said, on February 7, 2014, “And the government has confirmed they’re leaving out all the war dead [pre-1947]. So, the war dead in Canada were really just British. We might as well just scratch the Maple Leaf off their headstones”. It would be fitting to recognize these hero soldiers as having been Canadian soldiers, especially when, in law, they were.

It is time that we truly address the backlog of over 1.8 million applications. It was just mentioned in this debate that, when we are talking about immigration in Canada, we have to take a sympathetic and compassionate approach to ensure families and communities, and particularly children, are protected. When we talk about making sure our immigration system is robust and strong, it also means looking at and addressing the issues of the past. These hundreds of Canadians who no longer have their citizenship deserve to have the dignity that comes with being Canadian, and that includes the protections of our Constitution and our charter.

To be a Canadian citizen is truly a blessing, and one that indigenous people for generations have fought to ensure is a right that is strong and recognized. This has to be protected for all persons, and particularly those lost Canadians who continue every day to struggle without these basic human rights.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, since these are the last speeches before we go spend a week in our ridings and many members have already left the House to go be with their families and constituents, I would like to commend all those stalwart members who are sticking it out to the end. There are not very many of us, judging by the number of empty spaces there were in the parking lot this morning and by how easily I was able to find an EV charging station. There are very few of us here this Friday, but I would say that what we are lacking in numbers, we are making up for in quality.

The last thing we are talking about today before leaving for our last week in our ridings before Christmas is Bill S‑245. I do not really have any kind of an inside scoop to share since my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean already announced just two weeks ago that the Bloc Québécois would be supporting this bill. I like to contradict my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean from time to time just to tease him, but I will limit my teasing to his clothing choices rather than a bill that has such a significant impact on some people's lives. In short, I will also be supporting Bill S‑245.

I think my colleagues have already realized that the Bloc Québécois does not tend to be overly partisan. If a bill is good for Quebec, we vote for it, no matter who introduced it. If it is not good for Quebec, we vote against it. We always explain the reasons for our decision.

Bill S-245 does not really fit in that framework. It is about Canadian citizenship. It affects people who may live in Quebec, our constituents, but it also affects people who may live elsewhere in Canada or even elsewhere in the world. This bill is fundamentally connected to a person's right to Canadian citizenship. While it may seem a little counterintuitive for a Bloc member to defend Canadian citizenship, the principle I am defending today in supporting Bill S‑245 is that no one should have their citizenship arbitrarily taken away just because they have reached the not particularly venerable age of 28.

I would like to start by outlining the contents of this bill and its purpose, but I also want to offer two brief editorial comments about this bill's predecessor, Bill S‑230, and the immigration file in general because no bill should ever be analyzed in a vacuum without context and broader considerations. If we take too narrow a view of this bill in debate, we are likely to miss opportunities to improve not only this bill but also future bills.

Now back to Bill S‑245. What is this bill all about? Bill S‑245 seeks to close a gap, a loophole in the Citizenship Act. The bill concerns a small group of Canadians who lost their Canadian citizenship or have actually become stateless due to government policy changes over time. This small group of Canadians is called “lost Canadians”, and there are about 100 to 200 of them.

Here is a little background information. The federal Parliament passed its first citizenship legislation in 1947, but it was flawed from the beginning. Citizenship was not considered a guaranteed right at the time, but rather a discretionary power of Parliament. For instance, although it was set out that the children of a Canadian parent would also be Canadian, under this system, when the responsible parent took the citizenship of another country, his or her children lost their Canadian citizenship.

Furthermore, the legislation provided that children born abroad would receive citizenship only if their parents registered them within two years of their birth. It also included an obligation for these children to be domiciled in Canada on their 24th birthday if they were born to a Canadian parent who was born outside Canada. This meant that many individuals, even if they lived in Canada for part of their lives, may have unknowingly lost their citizenship status.

Finally, the legislation discriminated against certain children based on the circumstances of their birth. In order to have Canadian citizenship under the law, a child had to be born to married parents. The main purpose of the 1977 amendment was to simplify the citizenship regime. Once again, however, the amendments were far from perfect.

Although the new legislation did away with the requirement to file an application for a child within two years of their birth and stopped discriminating between children born to a married couple and those born to a common-law couple, it continued to differentiate between children born to a Canadian parent who was born in Canada and those born to a Canadian parent who was born abroad.

Under the 1977 legislation, Canadians who were second-generation or more and were born to parents who were born abroad were required to submit an application in order to keep and confirm their Canadian citizenship.

The legislation required these Canadians to apply by their 28th birthday or they would automatically lose their Canadian citizenship. One of the problems was that, having repealed the requirement for parents to register their children before they turned two, the government no longer had a list it could use to inform the citizens in question that they needed to confirm their citizenship before their 28th birthday. Some of these people who were born abroad returned to Canada, grew up here, worked here, raised a family here, and paid taxes here, all while oblivious to what they needed to do before their 28th birthday in order to avoid losing their citizenship.

Some criticized the government for not doing enough to publicize this requirement both here and abroad, so that citizens would be aware that their citizenship could be taken away. It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but that does not mean that a citizen must be familiar with all existing laws. Immigration laws are particularly impenetrable.

In short, many people born while the 1947 law or the 1977 law was in force were at risk of losing their citizenship at some point in their lives without even being notified. They might only find out when they applied for a passport. They are the ones who came to be called the lost Canadians.

This situation came to light largely through the efforts of Don Chapman, a former United Airlines pilot who brought their plight to the attention of the public. Don Chapman discovered that he had lost his citizenship when his father had emigrated to the United States. He demonstrated that this problem affected many Canadians, even some as well known as Roméo Dallaire, and forced the government's hand.

If we think about it, these people suffered the same fate as those whose citizenship is revoked, which happens only if someone committed fraud, made a false representation or knowingly concealed information material to an immigration or citizenship application. This same extreme punishment was being meted out to people who had committed no offence whatsoever.

To remedy the situation, Canada adopted a series of legislative reforms in 2005, 2009 and 2015. Those three attempts notwithstanding, some people still slipped through the cracks. Despite being reformed three times, the act still requires people born between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, to reapply for citizenship before they turn 28.

I am confident that this bill will pass unanimously, and at this point I would like to offer my first editorial comment on the bill's background. In the last Parliament, an identical bill, Bill S‑230, was passed unanimously in the Senate, but it did not have time to get to the House because the government called an election in the summer.

When the election was called, what I told my constituents who complained about the cost of the election, which members will recall was estimated at over $600 million, is that there were even more serious but lesser-known costs associated with the election and that was the cost of all the work that was done on a whole pile of bills in the House and committee that ended up being for nothing. Unfortunately, Bill S‑245 is another glaring example of that.

My second editorial comment is about the government's management of immigration in general. As we see here, many reforms were necessary to solve the problem and many citizens have been left in the dark for years. Nothing has changed, and the machine is still broken.

Despite all that, the government is announcing that, because of the labour shortage, it wants to increase the number of newcomers to 500,000 a year, when it is already incapable of managing passports, when applications for permanent residency are piling up and taking forever to be processed, and when it is almost impossible to get a work permit in 12 to 13 months.

When I ask businesses in my riding what would really help them with their workforce issues, the answer is not for the government to add 500,000 people to the waiting list. The answer is for the government to start managing the applications that are already in the pile more effectively.

Simply put, there is no shortage of problems for the immigration department to fix, and Bill S‑245 addresses one of them.

I would like to conclude by humbly inviting the government to finish the work of fixing and improving the immigration department before even considering getting involved in any new project.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to second this important bill that is being sponsored by my colleague, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

Bill S-245 is one key step towards ensuring the inclusion of Canadians as citizens who have fallen through the cracks due to a gap in legislation. This group, commonly called the lost Canadians, is actually one that I was nearly a part of, so I feel that I am uniquely placed to be able to speak about this issue from a first-hand point of view.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their work on this file. This issue has been championed by many over the years, not just by politicians, but also by advocates for the affected individuals and families. Most Canadians are completely unaware that this has even been an issue, aside from those who have been directly impacted by it. I know when I talk about this subject to my friends, they look at me strangely as if they have no concept of what I am talking about.

I deeply appreciate the efforts that have been made in the political sphere to close up this gap and to ensure that everything possible is done so that no more Canadians fall through the cracks and become lost going forward.

The Canadian identity is one that comes with many implications and connotations, almost all of them being overwhelmingly positive. Canada is known across the world for many things, and one of the most common things is the kindness of our citizens and a willingness to help out whenever it is needed. This alone makes me proud to be a Canadian, and I feel strongly that my citizenship in this country has actually become a very formative part of who I am as a person and how I view my community and those who live within it.

Canadian citizens have rights and responsibilities which date back over 800 years to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 in England, and they are as follows: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of speech and of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. These rights that every Canadian citizen is entitled to are key factors when looking at what exactly encompasses a Canadian identity.

As a citizen, I know that I am protected by the rule of law in this great country, and that gives me a sense of security and peace of mind as I go about my day-to-day life. For many Canadians who have been left in limbo due to gaps in legislation like the one Bill S-245 is addressing, they may not have this security, and many would not even know it until they went to renew a passport or other federal document.

Imagine someone living their entire life believing without question that they are a Canadian citizen, only to find out much later on that they are not, or that their citizenship has been rescinded through no fault of their own. I know that I would be devastated to think that the only country I have known as home does not see me as a citizen, despite having a career, paying taxes and participating in activities that make up the very fabric of a Canadian identity. This is precisely what has happened to what we call the lost Canadians, who, through a gap in legislation, were not included in changes that were made to try and address this issue.

In 1977, under the new Citizenship Act, children born abroad on or after February 14, 1977 received their Canadian citizenship if one of their parents was a Canadian citizen, regardless of their martial status. If, however, the Canadian parent was also born abroad, the child had until the age of 28 to apply to retain their citizenship, and if they did not, their citizenship would be stripped from them.

Section 8 of the Citizenship Act read:

Where a person who was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 is a citizen for the reason that at the time of his birth one of his parents was a citizen by virtue of paragraph 3(1)(b) or (e), that person ceases to be a citizen on attaining the age of twenty-eight years unless that person

(a) makes application to retain his citizenship; and

(b) registers as a citizen and either resides in Canada for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of his application or establishes a substantial connection with Canada.

This law was passed, and then it seems it was forgotten. There was no follow-up from the government, and no process or instruction was released on how a person could go about reaffirming their citizenship. No forms were created for this. In fact, those who were affected were never even told that a retention requirement existed. This was a massive oversight that eventually led to a number of Canadians becoming stateless without their knowledge.

I was nearly one of those lost Canadians. I am eternally grateful that my father found out about this and contacted me so that I could take the necessary steps to ensure that I would not lose my status.

Again, I cannot imagine the dismay I would have felt if I only realized after trying to obtain or renew my passport that I was no longer considered a citizen of the only country that I have ever known. I was lucky that I was born before the set dates that were put in this additional legislation, but so many who have found themselves in this circumstance were not. This issue needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

One of the reasons I wanted to speak to this bill is that I recall what I went through in 1977 when this issue first came to light for me. What I experienced is not even close to the struggles that the majority of lost Canadians went through.

When I first encountered and heard about this legislation in 1977, I was a young student at the University of Waterloo. I heard about how I might be losing my citizenship if I did not do a whole bunch of paperwork, provide documents and get things all straightened out. As a youngster at that age and not understanding politics, legislation or any of those kinds of procedures, it threw me for quite a loop, especially as I was more concerned about getting my degree. It made me start to wonder what was going on and why it was going on. It was very distracting.

I was born in England to two Canadian parents who were posted overseas. My father was serving this country as a member of the military, so of course my mother was there with him during their time in Britain. That probably does not seem like a big issue. People hear that and say that someone born to two Canadian parents should be able to have citizenship through that avenue.

The problem is that my father was born in India to two Canadian parents. Therefore, when this legislation in 1977 came out, it put a panic in me due to the fact that I could be considered a second-generation Canadian, depending on how that was interpreted. That put a lot of fear into my mind as to what I had to do and the steps I had to take to figure out this whole situation. I was forced to deal with a bureaucracy that I did not understand and did not feel I had the time or wanted to get involved with. I had no idea where to go or whom to talk to, and there was no information that was easily available for me to figure it out and get answers as to what extent it impacted me.

At no point during this time did a bureaucrat or government employee say that I did not have to do this. My perception was that, after 1977, the Government of Canada put out that, by the age of 28, I had to determine whether I was going to reaffirm my Canadian citizenship. If I had forgotten to do that, I could have been in a situation where I lost that citizenship. Unfortunately, many of those lost Canadians had to deal with that exact situation. Furthermore, I was away at university and my mom and dad were not close to me. The reality is that I had to recognize that I was born before the dates proposed and at that time I did not. Lost Canadians lost their citizenship without even knowing because they likely never even saw or heard of the legislation until some time well after the fact when they were applying for a passport.

I know I cannot use props in the House, but I do have a citizenship card that I would like to read from, which I have kept in my wallet for 40 years. On this citizenship card, is my picture and, yes, I did have hair. It has my age and a number, and it has my height, my sex and my eye colour. On the back, it says, “Certificate of Canadian Citizenship”. It has my name and it says:

This is to certify that...is a Canadian citizen under the provisions of the Citizenship Act and as such is certified to all the rights and privileges and is subject to all the duties and responsibilities of a Canadian citizen.

I say that because I have had to have that card and my brothers do not have that card. They did not have to have it. There are many lost Canadians who do not have that aspect because they never even had the opportunity to do that.

This is something that is very unfortunate and it is why this legislation is so necessary. We need to recognize these lost Canadians and get them back the citizenship that they deserve and they are entitled to. The time period that this bill addresses is roughly 50 months. The affected individuals need to have the understanding and reassurance that they are respected Canadian citizens despite this gap in the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, for decades some Canadians have found themselves to be stateless due to a number of convoluted immigration laws. Some have found themselves all of a sudden losing their Canadian status and they do not know why.

In 2007, the UN listed Canada as one of the top offending countries for making their own people stateless. In 2009, the Conservatives said they were going to address this issue with Bill C-37. In fact, Jason Kenney was the minister of immigration then. Sadly, Bill C-37 did not properly address the lost Canadians issue. At the time, even Conservative minister Diane Finley acknowledged that Bill C-37 would not fix all of the cases of lost Canadians.

In fact, Jason Kenney created a brand new set of problems. For the purposes of this discussion, I will not get into the issues of how the Conservatives eliminated people's right to appeal when the government revoked their citizenship. I will simply focus on the issue of lost Canadians.

How did Bill C-37 not effectively deal with the age 28 issue with lost Canadians? When the government of the day did away with the age 28 rule with Bill C-37, in its wisdom it only applied it going forward. As such, those who turned 28 before 2009 were left behind. That means they remained as lost Canadians.

Affected Canadians caught up in this did not even know their citizenship was cancelled somewhere between 11 years and 15 years ago. For many it only came to light when they applied for something that required proof of citizenship, such as a Canadian passport. In some cases, because of Canada's archaic immigration laws, they discovered they were stateless. Others were faced with deportation, even though they were Canadians in every way prior to turning 28. It is just absurd.

I have met many lost Canadians whose lives have been turned upside down because of these unjust laws. Imagine someone who has lived all their life as a Canadian, has voted in elections, and one day wakes up to be told they no longer are Canadian.

I had the pleasure of meeting Byrdie Funk a number of years ago. She was caught up in this. She is a third-generation Canadian and had to fight this. It took her almost a decade to regain her citizenship, not because the law was changed; she had to shame the government to give her a special grant and to give her citizenship back.

Bill S-245 would fix this age 28 rule, and that is a good thing. However, this bill does not address the other issues for lost Canadians. Through Bill C-37, the Conservatives ended the extension of citizenship to second-generation Canadians born abroad, effectively creating two classes of Canadian citizenship. Preventing Canadians born abroad from passing their citizenship to their children if they were outside of Canada means the breaking up of families.

In the case of Patrick Chandler, when he was offered a job in British Columbia, he moved back to Canada, but he had to leave his wife and his children behind. That is the reality he was faced with as a second-generation Canadian who was born abroad. This is just plain wrong.

In another situation, a woman named Victoria Maruyama received her Canadian citizenship through her father as an immigrant from Vietnam. At 22, she moved to Japan to teach English and met her husband, a Japanese national. Her children were born in Japan, and as a result, they do not have citizenship through her, even though she had moved back to Canada. This is their reality.

In another situation, Gregory Burgess, a first-generation Canadian, and his wife, a Russian Canadian, were on a work visa in Hong Kong. Their child was born there and now their son is stateless. They tried to get their son Canadian citizenship, but the Government of Canada would not allow Mr. Burgess to pass on his Canadian citizenship to his baby. The government told them to apply to Russia, to get Russian citizenship through the mother. It is true. The government told them this right now, when there is a war that Putin is waging against Ukraine, an illegal war. It is unbelievable.

The message here is clear. Somehow, second-generation born-abroad Canadians are less worthy. These Canadians lost their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children. That is no thanks to the Conservatives and to Jason Kenney through Bill C-37.

Even though Bill C-37 was meant to fix the lost Canadian issues, many of the issues were not fixed, even though, in another situation, then ministers Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander had both asserted that Canadians were all British subjects prior to 1947.

That means that war heroes who fought for Canada are deemed British subjects, even though in 1943, for example, the Department of National Defence gave them documents indicating that they would be fighting the war as Canadians, as citizens of Canada. That is what was in the documents handed to those soldiers. The Conservatives would not recognize that.

Those war heroes have been left out as Canadians. They have been left behind. Some have passed on, but we should honour them and recognize them and their families. They were very much a part of Canada and should be recognized as Canadians.

Others were being discriminated against because of their age, gender and family status. Another individual, a Surrey resident, Jackie Scott, who was born in 1945 to a Canadian veteran and a British woman, was repeatedly denied citizenship despite having lived for decades in Canada. She was raised in Canada, effectively, and voted as an adult, and yet when she applied for her citizenship certificate in 2005, to her shock, she was told that she was not a Canadian. She had to launch a lawsuit against the federal government before the government would even take action to address the situation. Even though she voted previously and pretty well lived all of her life in Canada, she found herself, all of a sudden, without citizenship.

I could go on with a list of issues. I should note that when asked about lost Canadians in opposition, the now Prime Minister said that Minister Kenney needed to understand that the principles of Canadian citizenship need to be administered with compassion and openness, and that he simply was not addressing these Canadian issues.

The Liberal government had a choice to fix this problem and it did not do it, not since the 2015 election. That is why there are so many people who have lost their citizenship and now are lost Canadians. This needs to be fixed once and for all.

We need to address this issue. I have tabled a private members' bill to this effect. We can take that bill and work from there. We can make amendments to this bill, if they are not deemed to be out of scope or deemed to be out of order.

We do need to fix the lost Canadian issue. We have seen the havoc that it has created in people's lives and it needs to stop.

I want to thank all of the advocates, including Don Chapman, Randall Emery and so many others who have been fighting for Canada to right these laws and do away with these unjust discriminatory practices in our immigration laws.

Let the lost Canadians be recognized now.

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

Madam Speaker, even though I do not always agree with my colleagues from the other parties who sit here in the House, I tend to avoid getting into partisanship. I think I am even transpartisan, and often being transpartisan allows me to do my work properly for the people of my riding, who, since 2019, have allowed me to proudly represent them in my corner of the country, Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

Today I will speak not only for Quebeckers, but also for a good number of Canadians whose files at IRCC have fallen through the cracks for far too long.

Today, as the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and citizenship, I want to talk about Canadian citizenship. Yes, members heard me correctly, because this affects everyone here. More specifically, I want to talk about Bill S‑245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. It is a continuation of Bill C‑37, which was unanimously passed in the House.

That is an example of cross-party co-operation. First, I want to quickly explain what this bill is about for those who are watching at home. Bill S‑245 seeks to correct a historic injustice by allowing Canadians who lost their citizenship because of past changes to the Citizenship Act or little-known regulations to regain it. We are talking about children of Canadian parents who were born abroad and who had their citizenship revoked simply because they failed to meet the requirement to apply to retain their citizenship before the age of 28, which is absolutely ridiculous.

These are people we now refer to as “lost Canadians”, those who were stripped of their citizenship because of an often little-known but truly ridiculous provision. According to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration's estimates, there are still between 100 and 200 people who have still not regained their citizenship. They are referred to as “lost Canadians”.

This bill corrects an oversight in the 2009 act, which missed a golden opportunity to do away with the requirement for people to apply to retain their citizenship when they turned 28. In fact, the main message of Bill S-245 is that we should be giving citizenship back to all of the people who lost it because of provisions in previous Canadian laws that were overly complex, unfair, sexist or even racist.

At the risk of ruining the surprise, I will say right away that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S‑245. If we think about it, this bill is perfectly in line with what our contemporary vision of citizenship should be. Once citizenship has been duly granted, it should never be taken away from an individual, with some exceptions. Only a citizen can freely renounce his or her citizenship.

Like all parties in the House, the Bloc Québécois supports and defends the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It states that “all are equal before the law”. In fact, citizenship is an egalitarian legal status given to all members of the same community. It confers privileges as well as duties.

In this case, the Canadian government has failed its citizens. This is a matter of principle. I do not believe I am alone in thinking that it is profoundly unfair that, even in 2022, people can lose their citizenship for reasons that they probably do not even know exist. These provisions are from another time, a time long ago when there were questionable ideas about what it meant to be a citizen of Canada. Time has remedied the situation and, if the reforms of the past have not been instructive enough, then politics must weigh in.

As we know, the process for recovering citizenship is much too complicated. There is no denying that the federal bureaucracy is not exactly super-efficient when it comes to handling immigration, refugee and citizenship files. I believe we have said quite a lot about this since returning to the House in September.

Just how slow is the government? The act was reformed in 2005, again in 2009 and yet again in 2015. How many reforms does it take? Many citizens were overlooked every time the act was reformed: men and women, soldiers' wives and children, children born abroad and members of first nations and Chinese-Canadian communities. The government did not do a good enough job of fixing the act, so these people were left out in the cold.

Let us look back in history. Don Chapman, a retired United Airlines pilot, fought to bring the plight of these citizens to the public's attention. Don Chapman discovered that he had lost his Canadian citizenship when his father immigrated to the United States. Thanks to his astute demonstration that this was a problem affecting many Canadians, including Roméo Dallaire, he was able to force Parliament to remedy the situation and pass the suite of legislative reforms before us today.

Bill S-245 seeks to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. I would also add one thing. Every time we check, the government backlog is worse. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to prevent problems from occurring in the first place and making us wait once again for the federal machinery to make things right.

What does it mean to “make things right” in this case? It means ensuring for once and for all that the constituents in our respective ridings get what belongs to them. It is not right that in 2022, 17 years after the first reform to correct the situation for lost Canadians, we are not getting anywhere. In a situation like this, it is up to the government to offer a solution to the individuals to regularize their status so that they can have their dignity for once and for all, like every other citizen.

Whether this bill affects hundreds of claimants or thousands makes no difference to me. It is a matter of principle. In no way does that stop us from taking action for the good of the people we are fortunate to represent and who put their trust in us. I will say it again: It is a matter of principle.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to conclude with this. Most of the time when I have the opportunity to speak in the House, it is about suggestions that come from the opposition. I think we are all on the same side when it comes to helping people, and rightly so. When the government listens to us and we all work together, it usually results in better programs.

As parliamentarians, we must tackle the problems facing our constituents with a great sense of duty, and we must set partisanship aside to do so. The people of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, whom I have had the honour to represent since 2019, along with all Quebeckers and Canadians, must be considered on an equal footing.

The situation facing the so-called “lost Canadians” should never have happened. I will say it again: Citizenship must be equal for all. Let us make one last reform, once and for all. We have to get it right this time, for reasons of equality, justice and principle, but also simply because enough is enough.

[Ya'ara Saks, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill S-245, seeking to make amendments to the Citizenship Act and address concerns raised on past citizenship.

I would first like to extend my thanks to Senator Yonah Martin for her advocacy and for bringing forward this bill, as well as its predecessor, Bill S-230. I would also like to thank the member for Calgary Forest Lawn for sponsoring this bill and giving us a chance to speak about it in the chamber.

In 1977, Canada introduced a new Citizenship Act to replace the one from 1947 and amend our citizenship rules. It maintained that individuals born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent or grandparents were citizens as well. However, as was the case since 1947, there were conditions.

Canadians born abroad in the second generation or beyond had to file an application to retain their citizenship. The 1977 act required these Canadians to do so before they turned 28 years old. Failure to do so meant they would lose their Canadian citizenship automatically on their 28th birthday.

The legislation also made another critical administrative change. Canadians who had children abroad no longer had to register their children born outside of Canada for their children to qualify as citizens. This change, removing the requirement for registration of births abroad, meant the government did not collect the names of children born overseas to Canadian citizens. It also meant there was no list of Canadians born abroad in the second generation or beyond who needed to take steps to retain their citizenship.

Some of these individuals born abroad ultimately moved back and grew up in Canada, totally unaware that they had to take steps to retain their citizenship status before their 28th birthday, and because the government did not have a list of who was affected, there was no way to inform a born-abroad Canadian citizen in advance or prompt them to take the steps they needed to take in order to retain their citizenship before they turned 28 years old.

It has been noted that the government of the day could have made more information available in Canada and abroad so that Canadians with children born abroad were aware and could know they needed to take action. When these children turned 28, if they had not taken the required steps, they automatically lost their citizenship and may not have even known it.

The issue of automatic loss of Canadian citizenship for those born abroad in the second generation or beyond would come up only when something would trigger a review or a confirmation of their citizenship. In certain cases, they found it when they applied to work overseas, sought a military commission or a security clearance, or even just applied for a replacement citizenship certificate.

In 2009, the Citizenship Act was amended to address this issue and simplify the rules around citizenship. The 2009 amendments removed the requirement to apply to retain citizenship by age 28 for those born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second generation or beyond.

At the same time, the Citizenship Act replaced those rules with a first-generation limit, something that is quite personal, as I explained here to the member. It is a citizenship by descent, which meant that automatic Canadian citizenship by descent could be passed down for only one generation by a Canadian parent who was either born in or naturalized in Canada.

This first-generation limit remains in place today. Children born to a Canadian parent outside of Canada in the first generation are automatically Canadian citizens from birth. However, children born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second generation, where the Canadian parent was also born abroad or beyond are no longer automatically Canadian. As I mentioned, in families like mine, suddenly not everyone is equal, and this is why discussion, debate and careful thought are really needed on this bill as we go on through the evening.

Citizens like my daughter can apply to come to Canada and become citizens through our immigration and citizenship programs. The 2009 changes also ensured that anyone who was born after the 1977 legislation but had not yet turned 28 when the changes took place was allowed to maintain their status, was not required to file an application, and remained a Canadian citizen.

In 2009, and then again in 2015, the government introduced a number of amendments to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to groups of people who had lost their citizenship or who had never become citizens in the first place because of the rules in the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, which we now recognize was discriminatory.

These people are known as the “lost Canadians”. Between 2009 and 2015 approximately 17,500 individuals came forward and were issued proofs of Canadian citizenship related to the amendments to the act.

From the 2015 amendments, another 600 cases came forward and received proof of their Canadian citizenship as a result. However, there is a remaining group of those who refer to themselves as lost Canadians. Those are persons born outside of Canada in the second or later generations who had already turned 28 before the 2009 changes and had already lost their citizenship due to the old rules that required them to apply to retain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday.

We know this has impacted those who were born abroad in the second generation between 1977 and 1981, but there is no way to tell for certain how many people make up this cohort. We do know it is a limited group. It does not impact anyone born after 1981. Those Canadians could not have yet turned 28 before the 2009 legislation was passed. It does not include anyone born before February 1977, when the changes were made to set the 28-year-old retention requirement. It is only a limited group of people who were born between February 1977 and April 1981 and did not take the steps to retain their citizenship before turning 28 years old and were born abroad to a Canadian parent in the second or subsequent generation.

Bill S-245 represents a remedy for this group of lost Canadians. However, a possible solution already exists for this group. The Citizenship Act provides the minister with the discretionary authority to grant citizenship on a case-by-case basis. It is used to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional nature to Canada. To date, IRCC has granted citizenship to approximately 130 individuals affected by the former age 28 rule through this use of the minister's special discretionary authority. The department receives an average of 35 to 40 requests per year related to the former age 28 rule.

As members of this House review Bill S-245, I believe it is very important that they take the appropriate time, effort and care. Anyone who has spent time in the chamber can likely recall reviewing issues, omissions or oversights that can come from legislation that was drafted with good intentions, but where amendments that were missing a critical detail or consideration led to unintended consequences, such as in my own family.

In particular, on the issue of lost Canadians, history has shown us that making hasty changes can lead to the creation of new cohorts of people who may subsequently consider themselves lost Canadians. As lawmakers, we should ensure that legislation addresses the problem and does not create a bigger issue than the one we are already trying to solve. The legislation seeks to address such an issue. For example, bestowing citizenship on individuals who live in another country descended from a Canadian and who never sought to be a Canadian may create unintended problems for them. I note that the bill includes a simplified renunciation process as a result, which would be a very important element to have in place.

We should put in the required effort to get this right. I encourage the members of this House to be thorough and thoughtful in their work and to speak with legislative experts, department officials and citizenship experts. We should be looking carefully at how the legislation needs to be written and do our homework so that there are no unintended consequences. Rather than compounding one problem with a new one, I hope the House can work together to maintain the integrity of our citizenship system.

Once again, I would like to thank Senator Martin for bringing this bill forward and advocating for lost Canadians, who we all agree should be brought back into the Canadian family. I hope the senator, the member for Calgary Forest Lawn and all members of the House can work together to resolve some of the challenges.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Calgary Forest Lawn. I really enjoy working with him.

The bill before us today, Bill S‑245, seeks to correct an injustice for people who did not deserve what happened to them. It is rare for a Bloc Québécois member to rise in the House on a matter involving Canadian citizenship. We are more likely to rise in the House on a matter involving Quebec citizenship. That will happen one day, I guarantee it.

The matter before us today is Bill S-245. An injustice occurred. IRCC is in the process of correcting it, but is this not proof once again that IRCC is taking far too long to correct the injustices? Is this not proof that IRCC has grown far too big, that there is a problem, that there is sand in the gears or water in the gas?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

moved that Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

I want to thank the hon. senator from British Columbia, Yonah Martin, who brought forward this important bill. She introduced this originally as Bill S-230 in the last Parliament in the other place to address the lost Canadians whose citizenship was revoked without their knowledge and without warning simply because of the wording in the Citizenship Act.

I am excited to hear from the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, who will be sharing his experience of almost being a lost Canadian. If he chooses to do so, maybe he can share a picture of the card he carries around.

While Bill S-230 passed unanimously through the other place in the 43rd Parliament, the unnecessary and selfish election of 2021 killed the bill before it could get to first reading here. That is why I was happy and hopeful to see it pass unanimously once again in the Senate and reach second reading here in this place.

I want to thank Senator Martin for her continued work on this file, along with former Senate Speaker the hon. Noël Kinsella and former senators David Tkachuk and Art Eggleton, as well as Mr. Don Chapman. He has worked tirelessly with our colleagues in the other place to advocate for lost Canadians and this much-needed change to the Citizenship Act.

Canadians who lost their status or become stateless because of these changes to the act are Canadians in every way except technically under the law. They pay their taxes, contribute to their communities and uphold the values of what it means to live in our beautiful country.

From 1947 to 1977, the law of the land was that children born abroad received citizenship only if their parents registered them within two years of their birth. In addition, their parents must have also given birth to them in wedlock, with at least one of the parents being a Canadian.

In 1977, the then government introduced a new Citizenship Act, changing the law so that children born abroad on or after February 14, 1977, received their Canadian citizenship if one of their parents was a Canadian citizen, regardless of their marital status. However, if the Canadian parent was also born abroad, a child had until turning 28 to apply to keep their citizenship. If they did not, it would be taken away.

When the law passed in 1977, the government made no effort to inform Canadians affected by this change. No form was published, no instructions were given on how someone could reaffirm their citizenship and no one affected was told that this requirement even existed.

Finally, in 2009, Bill C-37 was brought in by the Conservative government to make changes to the Citizenship Act to rectify past mistakes. When it came into effect, the rules for citizenship changed for people born outside Canada to Canadian parents who were not already Canadian citizens. The changes saw the age 28 rule repealed, and Canadians caught up in the rule previously who had not yet reached that age were grandfathered into the amended law. However, the wording of Bill C-37 created an unfortunate gap for a small group of Canadians who were born between 1977 and 1981. Those who turned 28 before Bill C-37 became law in 2009 were also excluded.

In the committee review of this bill at the Senate's social affairs committee, senators asked IRCC officials how this could take place, what was being done to inform those who did not know they were lost and why the government was not being proactive in finding them. The answer from the IRCC officials was, “It’s fair to say that given the small number of applications...we are not out looking for Lost Canadians.” In reality, IRCC relies on lost Canadians to figure out they were stripped of their citizenship due to bureaucracy and paperwork.

Some lost Canadians knew about the change and either applied to keep their Canadian citizenship or let it lapse. These are Canadians who in many cases were raised here, who grew up attending school here and who have worked here their whole adult lives. These are Canadians who started families in this country and paid their taxes on time, but for one small change to the wording of the Citizenship Act, they lost their Canadian citizenship. When they turned 28, there was no letter from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and there was no warning. It was just gone.

All of us in this place know that Canadian citizenship is not identified by each person as one tangible idea. On the contrary, it is deeply personal to each of us. It makes up our identity and sense of belonging to a broader idea. For my community and me, Canadian citizenship is a goal. It is a marker for achieving the Canadian dream.

Being an immigrant myself and coming to Canada when I was five, I experienced first-hand the journey to achieving citizenship. My family grew up economically in poverty, lining up in the rain for low-income bus passes and having both parents working jobs just to survive. My family always had that goal to reach for Canadian citizenship. I saw my parents work themselves to the bone for my family. Because of their hard work, my brother, sister and I are where we are today. We achieved our dream of Canadian citizenship after having to work hard day and night, coming from little and knowing that the road is not easy. However, we know that the blood, sweat and tears we experienced on that journey were worth it. We are Canadian citizens.

That is why, standing here as a member of Parliament, I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose one's citizenship arbitrarily, especially for those who worked hard and even served in uniform for this country, to one day lose something they believed so much in. This is not just an issue for the many people this bill would help to reinstate citizenship to; it is an issue for all of us. As Canadians and representatives of Canadians, it is our responsibility to help preserve what it means to be a citizen of this country and fundamentally what it means to be a Canadian.

I ask my fellow colleagues to do the right thing and support this bill to reinstate citizenship for lost Canadians.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

moved that Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to move first reading of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act with regard to granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

I first want to thank my friend, Senator Yonah Martin, for her leadership on this file and for introducing this bill in the other place, where it passed unanimously.

It is an honour to sponsor this bill here in the House and raise awareness of lost Canadians. These are Canadians who had citizenship before they turned 28, but because of a bureaucratic mistake, they lost their Canadian citizenship and the rights that come with being a Canadian citizen. While many amendments have been made to the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to lost Canadians, there still remain many Canadians who have been left without citizenship.

I want to thank my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, for seconding this bill, and my colleagues who have already indicated their support for this very important bill. I hope that all members in this place will also unanimously support Bill S-245 and restore citizenship to lost Canadians.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).