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.
