Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 20th, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

There is no provision in the Citizenship Act to that effect.

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

Okay.

How many Canadians have lost their citizenship under these circumstances since the beginning of 2023?

[Nicole Girard]

We don't have those numbers. However, I can say that we are talking about a discrete cohort, people who turned 28 before 2009. That provision is no longer in effect. Those people lost their citizenship just prior to the 2009 amendments to the act.

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

From now on, with the bill as it is currently drafted, how long would it take for people to regain their Canadian citizenship?

[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.

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

I understand.

[Nicole Girard]

I say this simply to fully answer your question, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[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]

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]

I understand.

Deputy Minister Christiane Fox appeared before this committee last fall and explained to us that a program would be put in place, for example for asylum seekers, so that they could get their work permit within a month.

Currently, the processing time for a work permit application for asylum seekers coming through Roxham Road averages between 12 and 14 months. Since Ms. Fox said that, the expected results have still not been achieved. Yet this program was put in place in the fall. So, with your experience—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Your time is up. You will get an opportunity in the second round.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Kwan, you will have six minutes. Please begin.

[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]

Thank you for the question.

The member is correct in the sense that the risk of unintended consequences, then or now, will continue to be there. For the consideration of the committee, one thing we've become more aware of—certainly I've become more aware of—since 2009, in working on lost citizen issues, is that it is right for there to be a remedy. The principle of the bill is something that the government can support. The question is on the mechanism.

As the other member mentioned, the first part of this bill is looking to address a narrow cohort. A limited number of individuals are left who were affected by the former section 8 and lost their citizenship automatically. In some sense, it makes sense in terms of the provisions of the bill to restore those individuals their citizenship. At least, that is what the bill is looking to do.

We've become a bit more aware since 2009 of concerns in the international community of experts about the issue of unintended consequences, especially where there could be countries that may still have laws on the books where people who take out another citizenship could automatically lose the citizenship they have. They could be working in a profession where dual citizens may be barred.

It's not a theoretical issue. There were media reports of a dual citizenship crisis in Australia in 2017. More than 12 members resigned from their position when it was found that those individuals were in circumstances where they had dual citizenship. Australian law was not permitting dual citizens to be members of Parliament.

I think the question for this committee is on the remedy for those—other than the section 8s—who are described in this bill. What is the mechanism?

There is a reasonable argument that a mechanism could be made available, potentially through an amendment, for those born abroad in the second generation or beyond who can demonstrate a connection on application, so as to minimize this kind of unintended consequence. For that provision in the bill, we're talking about very large cohorts. We're not talking about the narrow group of section 8s who would be restored automatically.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Alternatively, we can do it in reverse. That is to say that, for those who might be in the international community and do not wish to have Canadian citizenship conferred on them, for whatever reason, this could be made to happen. If all of the sudden they realize that somehow they got Canadian citizenship that they didn't want, they could say they would actually like to have that rescinded, retroactive to the day the bill was passed.

Then, that small cohort of people who might be impacted has a pathway to ensure that they will not be impacted. That could be done.

On the suggestion where you are saying that everybody who should be able to get citizenship and wants to get citizenship should apply to get citizenship, to my good colleague MP Brunelle-Duceppe's comment, as it stands, immigration is inundated with a backlog and more applications are coming in all the time. Why would we create a scenario where we have more work for officials and for people to go through? Minimize the number of people who might be making an application and still keep them whole, and then do a reverse onus. That may be a better option.

Can I just get a quick comment from the officials on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Your time is up. We'll come back when you have a second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. Redekopp.

You can please begin. You will have five minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I want to go into the numbers a little bit. I'm a numbers guy, so I'm curious about that.

You mentioned the 130 that have been granted subsection 5(4) citizenship by the minister over the past...but I haven't heard much else. I'm sure that as you've looked at this legislation, you've done some work on rough estimates of numbers of people who would be affected.

Could you share some of that information with us?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for the question.

Those affected by section 8 are a limited cohort. We've shared a bit of a backgrounder with the members of the committee to the effect that, in recent years, we've seen, perhaps, 25 or 30 such persons come forward seeking a grant under subsection 5(4). We don't anticipate the numbers to be all that significant, but those are the ones who are coming forward now. There may be more than those. It's difficult to know exactly how many would come forward.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Can I just interrupt? You mentioned the reporting. By the way, that was a good report. I'm assuming you or your department did that briefing. I thought that was very good information, but there were no numbers in there. I find it difficult to believe that nobody asked the question.

Are we talking 10, 100,000 or a million? What's the quantity? There must have been some kind of number work done in the department—or not. I mean, if there aren't any, just say no.

[Nicole Girard]

For the section 8 provision, we don't think that the numbers would be all that significant.

For the other provision of the bill that's moving the first-generation limit from 2009 to 2015, those persons would be getting citizenship automatically. Again, it depends on how many people decide to come forward to seek documentation from the department. That particular provision would affect untold numbers—at least in the tens of thousands. It could be more than that.

Again, it would depend on how many came forward. As a reference point, we did include in the briefing deck that was shared with the committee that the 2009 and 2015 amendments together have resulted in close to 20,000 persons who have obtained a citizenship certificate from the department.

[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?

[Nicole Girard]

As outlined in the regulatory impact analysis statement that's publicly available, the primary rationale is to increase the flexible authorities for the way in which the oath can be administered and to provide an electronic option that people can self-select in the future if they wish to do so.

I think what has not come out as clearly, perhaps, in some of the public commentary is that ceremonies will continue. They're important events to mark a significant and important occasion, as the member has mentioned. Those ceremonies will continue.

However, those who may have this option in the future could face a variety of circumstances. They may be in a remote location. They may need to travel. They may need a form of accommodation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

\I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up for Mr. Redekopp.

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will have to move to the next member.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have five minutes. You can begin, please.

[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?