Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 12th, 2024

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm happy.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.

Thank you to all members who are here. I hope you all had a good summer.

Personally, it was a fantastic summer for me. I'm happy to be back to work for the citizens of Markham—Unionville, who elected me to be here to do the good work of government.

On saying that, I want to get back to the Afghan letter, which we stopped on June 17 when I last spoke about it. Last time when I was speaking on it, I was speaking about the following letter:

Ambassador Sirrs provided further details about the government's contingency planning and the core assessments that were informing decision-making at the time. He said:

“Up until a few days before the decision to temporarily suspend embassy operations, Canada and the international community were expecting difficult times in August and September, but not a complete takeover of the capital. In fact, we expected the Afghan military to defend the city until the onset of winter, allowing time for negotiations to continue.

“With this in mind, we were considering options to maintain a skeletal presence throughout the fall so we could continue essential programming as well as support possible evacuation efforts. With the support of a special advisory team from the Canadian Armed Forces we were able to continually update our concepts of operation for maintaining a presence in the country to a temporary suspension of operations and implementation of a non-combatant evacuation operation. This team was also instrumental in securing space in the air bridge that became an essential bridge for getting so many people out of the capital.”

Commenting on the extent and pace of evacuation efforts that Canada had carried out prior to the collapse of the Afghan republic, Ambassador Sirrs indicated that planning for a special immigration measures policy “went back into March [2021].” He also commented that the republic's authorities had “started barring people who did not have passports or the Afghan tazkiras—national identity cards—on the planes.” Those constraints reflected a larger political context, according to Ambassador Sirrs, wherein the president of the Afghan republic “did not want Afghans leaving because he felt that there would be a brain drain, and we retorted that we needed to have part of the brain come with us so that they could come back and build the country later on.” Minister Anand echoed this point, noting that the “former Afghan government was concerned that a mass exodus of people would signal a lack of confidence among its citizens.”

Looking back on these events, testimony and information provided by other witnesses suggested that signs may have been missed and time to evacuate people, when more options were available, may have been lost.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) was asked about the contingency planning it was doing for Afghanistan and the region, which was completed in December 2020 and shared with governments—including the Government of Canada—in early 2021. The document noted that the situation in Afghanistan, “including a complex peace process and the withdrawal of international forces and a volatile security environment has given rise to an unpredictable trajectory.” The UNHCR was preparing for two possible scenarios. The first was increased internal displacement caused by escalating conflict, political instability, and a stalled peace process. The second scenario was heightened conflict and a breakdown of the peace process, which would saturate the absorption capacity of communities, “resulting in exponential internal displacement and outflows of Afghans seeking international protection in neighbouring countries.”

When asked whether action should have been taken earlier, Stephen Peddle—who retired from the Canadian Armed Forces as a senior intelligence officer with the rank of major—replied:

“The moment that President Donald Trump announced to the world that America was leaving Afghanistan, I think anyone who was in Afghanistan knew the writing was on the wall as to what was going to happen. The question was when, and then President Biden gave a date.

“There were lots of opportunities long before July or August 2021 to bring all the Afghans who helped us, who we had records of, over to Canada. There is no excuse whatsoever for us to have waited until August 2021, when we knew that Afghanistan was folding. There's no excuse whatsoever for waiting [so] long.”

Wazhma Frogh, founder of the Women & Peace Studies Organization—Afghanistan, told the Special Committee that the collapse of the Afghan republic and the fall of Kabul to the Taliban “didn't just happen overnight.” In her view, the 2020 agreement between the United States and the Taliban, and not 15 August 2021, was “the start of Afghanistan's political surrender.” With the Doha agreement, she said, legitimacy was given to the Taliban, while representatives from the Afghan republic were not included as signatories. That was, she said, “when things started getting much worse in local communities.”

Major-General (retired) David Fraser referenced a letter that he and others sent in early July 2021 “to the implicated ministers asking them to create a pipeline to evacuate vulnerable Afghans.” In his view, “[i]f three retired generals without access to intelligence saw this coming in July, there could have been a lot more people evacuated out of Afghanistan before Kandahar fell and before Kabul fell.”

That was not the only letter that was sent or appeal that was made. Wendy Long, Director of Afghan-Canadian Interpreters, had started writing letters in November 2018 to Canada's then Minister of Immigration, Ahmed Hussen. She told the Special Committee:

“As the Doha peace talks progressed, the pleas for an immigration process mounted and concerns started coming in from veterans worried about those left behind. Some veterans had spent thousands of dollars in attempts to get interpreters here, without results, adding to their mental anguish.”

After compiling files on Afghans who had been part of the Canadian mission, Wendy Long's organization and 15 other international advocacy groups sent an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on 1 June 2021, as well as to then Minister of Immigration Marco Mendicino, then Minister of Foreign Affairs Marc Garneau, then Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan, and other NATO leaders. The letter warned that time was “running out to protect NATO's local Afghan allies.” Furthermore, the signatories suggested that....

In addition to the people who had played a direct role supporting military and diplomatic missions, there was also growing concern for people who were associated with the larger project of building democracy and advancing women's rights in Afghanistan. These concerns were reflected in a letter that was written to Minister Mendicino on behalf of the Afghan Women's Organization Refugee & Immigrant Services. Asma Faizi, the organization's president, explained that they had been approached “by women parliamentarians and activists from inside Afghanistan” concerning “the dire situation they were in.” Dated 26 July 2021, the letter urged the Canadian government to “take immediate action to protect Afghan women and girls” since the situation had taken “a dark turn with the withdrawal of US and NATO military forces.” Furthermore, the letter communicated the organization's understanding that the Taliban had “reoccupied more than half of Afghanistan and the gains that have been made in the past 20 years, particularly by women, are now at dire risk.”

Next is “Evacuating Canada's Afghan Allies and the Process Involved”:

During a meeting in June 2021 with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Wendy Long's organization,

“stressed that we needed a fast and effective means to get people assessed initially and then more completely processed in either Canada or elsewhere. We stressed that there was no time or money for passports if people didn't already have them, and we recommended a refugee-type approach. Most applicants had no access to laptops or printers, and any process would have had to be cellphone-based, since any other method would expose the applicant to identity theft, fraud or death.

Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

The motion on the floor to adjourn the debate is non-debatable.

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

I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you. I'll ask the clerk to take the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

Thank you.

I have a speaking list with Mr. Chiang, Madame Kayabaga and Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Chiang, the floor is yours.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to introduce a motion at this time.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Which list are you speaking about? Mr. Chiang just gave up the floor, so somebody has to follow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

I see hands up.

There is Mr. Chiang, Ms. Kayabaga and Mr. Kmiec.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I thought the clerk told us at the beginning of the meeting that there was a list following this motion—a list of people who were on the speaking list.

Am I incorrect?

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

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I suggest we start off on the right foot. We have fantastic interpreters who need to do their work safely. If everyone is talking when the microphones are not really off or not really on, it makes it very hard for them to do their work. It is thanks to these fabulous interpreters that we can do our own work.

I ask that we show respect for the people who are working with us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

One person at a time....

Mr. McLean, you have the floor.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I think I've made my point. Is there a speaking list that superseded after the adjournment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I thought there was a speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

No, this is a new list, and these three honourable members are on the list: Mr. Chiang, Ms. Kayabaga and Mr. Kmiec.

Is there anyone else? They can raise their hand, and I'll put them on the list.

Go ahead, Mr. Chiang.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, members across, for your participation.

I would like to take this time to read a notice of motion:

Given that:

The former Conservative Government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, amended the Citizenship Act to impose the first generation limit.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice found this legislative amendment unconstitutional as it violates Charter rights, specifically on the grounds of mobility and equality rights.

The Leader of the Opposition stated that he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance.

The first generation limit is another example of the Conservative Party stripping away rights of Canadians.

The Immigration Committee has extensively studied the topic of Lost Canadians.

The Member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn, who is the sponsor for the Senate Public Bill S-245 as well as the former Conservative Immigration Critic, recommended the introduction of a Private Members bill or a Government Bill to address the remaining cohort of Lost Canadians;

That the Chair report to the House of Commons that, notwithstanding any standing 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 this committee.

I move the motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Is there any discussion?

We have Ms. Kayabaga, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, Mr. Kmiec, Mr. McLean and Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have the floor.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would also take the opportunity to welcome my colleagues back to Parliament. As I said to some of them, I'm very excited to be here and to do the great work our constituents have sent us to do.

In terms of the motion my colleague eloquently moved, I just want to stress the importance of it. I want to talk about the importance of Canadian citizenship. It provides all Canadians with a deep sense of belonging in the diverse and democratic country that we get to call home.

I want to point out that in 2009, and I think earlier in the House, when we were debating this motion, one of my colleagues talked about why she ran. I want to circle back on that, because that is one of the reasons I turned to politics, as an avenue for advocating for my community members and the many people who do not get the opportunity to be here, to take part in legislative activities and to make sure their voices are heard.

In 2009, there was a legislative amendment made by the Harper Conservatives creating the Citizenship Act that currently restricts citizenship by descent for the first generation born abroad. There were many Citizenship Act changes made that prevented many Canadians from acting as Canadians and they fell into a system of second-class citizens. Many of us were revolted by the idea. If I can speak for myself and other colleagues who have expressed the same sentiment, we ran because we did not want to see the Conservatives continue to make double classes of citizenship in Canada.

Not only does this leave out those who have a genuine connection to Canada, who are born from Canadian parents, but it also has unacceptable consequences for Canadians whose children were born outside the country. We introduced this legislation to remove the first-generation limit and extend Canadian citizenship to the lost Canadians.

Talking about who has the right to identify as a Canadian actually goes against our charter rights. Therefore, I'm pleased to see my amazing colleague move this motion and for us to debate it and talk about why it's important to restore the status of lost Canadians, to eliminate the first-generation limit and to remove this second class of citizens. Left to the Conservatives, many Canadians would find themselves in a second-class citizenship sector. That's why we were elected and that's why we're here: to advocate on behalf of many Canadians who don't have the opportunity to speak for themselves. We've worked quite extensively with a lot of community members who are impacted by this legislation, which was passed by Harper's Conservatives, and actually the leader of the Conservatives right now, Pierre Poilievre. We've worked to make sure we can restore the sense of citizenship, the sense of belonging and the diversity to our democratic country.

I'm very happy to see this motion moving forward. I'm very happy to hear many colleagues from the different parties. Whether it's the Bloc Québécois, the NDP or the Green Party, they've all been advocating for making sure that Canadians remain Canadians, Canadians are Canadians, without having to have a tier level of who's considered a good Canadian or not a good Canadian. I'm happy to continue to hear the thoughts of all of my colleagues.

I just want to point out this was moved by the Harper government in 2009, with the current leader as a member who adopted this legislation. I think it's important we highlight that point because, if left to him, he would want to continue to create second-class citizens. Unfortunately for him, he's going to continue to create more politicians like me, who are going to fight to the end to make sure that Canadians' rights, their charter rights, are protected.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Ms. Kayabaga.

We have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and then Mr. Kmiec afterwards.

[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?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. To answer your first question, this was brought forward on Monday, June 17, 2024. That's the date you asked me for.

The second thing is that, because the committee determines its own business, the motion is in order and it's here. It's up to committee members to study this motion, because we cannot control what's happening in Parliament. We can only control what's happening here in committee.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

Pardon me.

Does Mr. Chiang accept my friendly amendment? As I was saying at the end of the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Would you read that, please?

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

Yes, I can reread it.

We will send the text of the amendment to the clerk in both official languages.

At the end of the motion, after “deemed read a second time and referred to this committee”, I suggest adding “after the committee has completed”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You can send it to—