Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 8th, 2010

[Andrew Griffith]

When you get to effectively the third generation, they would not be able to pass on their citizenship to other children, unless of course they either marry a Canadian or moves back to Canada.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Because obviously, if you're talking about three generations of living outside of the country, even if the original grandparent was a crown servant, there is less and less attachment to Canada. Is that where you felt the cut-off needed to be?

[Andrew Griffith]

That seemed to be a reasonable approach to take, yes.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Borys? I'm fine. Did you want to...?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure.

I'd like to return to your having pointed out that crown servants are actually considered residents of Canada. What that in fact seems to mean is that the employment confers this status: that you are in fact considered in law a resident of Canada. So it's actually the residency that becomes the determinant.

The question, then, is this: is it strictly for the employees or would that same premise of residency apply to family members of employees serving abroad? So if the child is in fact born abroad, but the parent is considered to be a resident of Canada, is there a consideration that the child of this employee who is abroad, but considered to be a resident of Canada, also be considered to be a resident of Canada?

[Andrew Griffith]

I'd want to do a bit more digging into that one to...I mean--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think you probably see where I'm going with this. It almost makes some aspects of this redundant, because if in law the employee is considered to be a resident and the family members are with him or her and the same applies, then, in fact, this first-generation child born to these employees would meet those residency requirements. How does that impact on what we're trying to do here?

[Andrew Griffith]

When we say that they are deemed residents, it's really from a tax law perspective. That's really the connection. As always, with the different kinds of laws and legislation we have, the interplay becomes a bit complex. So it doesn't necessarily automatically translate in terms of citizenship.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So it's not a legal....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In your presentation, you talked about adoption and the fact that the citizenship application process is a mechanism to protect children. That is the first time I have heard that.

Could you explain how requiring adopted children to apply for citizenship protects them?

[Andrew Griffith]

The current legislation sets out a safeguard in terms of the international adoption process, which involves verifying that the family in Canada is able to care for the child and ensuring that the process respects all laws in the home country, as well as international adoption standards.

So all of that is reflected in the current procedures on adoption, either directly, through the citizenship system or through the permanent resident process.

Upon closer examination of the text of the bill, we discovered that the bill had a loophole, which, in our opinion, could be interpreted to mean that international adoption standards were not respected. That is more of a technical issue, but that is what we found.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

The way I see it, despite being very interconnected, adoption and citizenship are two distinct issues.

Provinces administer adoptions. They check whether the parents are fit to have children and to deal with the psychosocial effects that adoption involves. A series of conditions need to be met.

Once the adoption goes through, it artificially creates a connection similar to that between a biological parent and their child. Then the adopted child obtains their citizenship, either through the expedited process or the regular channel.

I cannot wrap my head around how granting citizenship to that child safeguards or protects against human trafficking or abuse.

Would that not happen at the previous step, that is, during the actual adoption validation process?

[Andrew Griffith]

Perhaps I did not explain it clearly.

It is not a safeguard in and of itself, but the manner in which the bill is....

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

...drafted.

[Andrew Griffith]

...drafted, yes, it may give the impression that we no longer have an obligation to follow all the necessary steps to ensure that the best interests of the child are protected. It is not citizenship that does that, but the actual process.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

When you say that it gives the impression that we no longer have an obligation to meet all the requirements, who do you mean by “we”? The CIC?

[Andrew Griffith]

The CIC; abroad, it is us. At the national level, it is the provinces.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

But it is the immigration side of the department that does that, not the citizenship side.

[Andrew Griffith]

Exactly.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Okay, I understand.

The bill deals with a pretty specific issue. It does not cover a whole lot of cases, but all the same, the committee has already studied it.

Why has the department never considered, in previous reforms, the bill before us today or some other measure, making the residence requirement much more important when granting citizenship, rather than focusing almost exclusively on the place of birth requirement, as is the case right now?

We have seen other countries take the residence requirement into account when determining whether to pass on citizenship by descent. Canada does not take that requirement into consideration. Why did the government exclude that consideration?

Do you think that is something the committee should pursue further?

At the end of the day, could we not solve all those cases simply by giving more weight to the place of residence, without having to worry about who the person's employer was while they were abroad?

[Andrew Griffith]

That is a good question. Actually, we are considering that. There are a number of possibilities.

In the past, we tried applying a connection test, but we found that it was a bit too complicated to administer. Not only was it complicated for us, but it was also complicated for applicants. And, to some extent, it resulted in quite a few lost Canadians, precisely because the rules were too complicated and people did not apply within the prescribed time limit.

Furthermore, many countries are having the same debate we are, in other words, whether to take a residence-based approach or a generational one. Two countries did what we did and opted for the generational approach because it is easier for everyone to understand. It is clear and simple.

Other countries, including Australia and the United States, took a residence-based approach. In overall comparisons, we generally find our approach, which implements the first generation limit and allows parents to apply for citizenship for children born abroad, to be more flexible in certain regards, and the approach taken by other countries to be more flexible in other regards. So it is constantly a matter of finding a balance.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Basically, simplicity was the main objective of this approach.

[Andrew Griffith]

There is a big advantage to keeping things simple, not only for us, as civil servants, but also for Canadians and those we serve. If we make the rules too complicated, we make it very hard for people to apply.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I recall that discussion very clearly. The basic rules are very simple, but that meant we had to introduce a whole slew of exceptions, to prevent situations like the one before us today.