Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will give new options to Minister Sajjan. He's not available on the 24th. We are waiting for an answer from Minister Mendicino also. We have given him two options, the 24th and the 1st. We will try to confirm these dates as soon as possible .

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Alternatively, Madam Chair, if, for example, Minister Sajjan said, “No, that's the only date. I don't have any other availability at any other time”, then we should say to Minister Fraser, “It appears we have a conflict on the 26th, so do you have some other availability in May so we can accommodate your appearance?”

My point is that we should actually be flexible to see how we can adjust for both of these ministers to find the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. We'll do that.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I agree with that. I would just suggest that we use our executive committee, even informally through email or phone calls, to confirm amongst ourselves that we're all in agreement with that. We have a two-week break coming up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes.

That is fine. I will check with the ministers on schedules. The clerk will work on that. Then once I get any updates, I will update the members.

For May 3, Marc Garneau has agreed to come for one hour. Is it all right to schedule the officials from DND for the second hour? That was also in the motion.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Which officials were those?

[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]

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Before we start, can I confirm that we are going to do an hour now? What's the timing going to look like for this meeting? Is it going to be an hour panel with these two?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We started at 3:42, so we have two hours from 3:42. Is that okay?

The sponsors of the bill will have five minutes for their opening remarks.

Please begin, and then we will go into the rounds of questions.

[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]

Thank you, Senator Martin.

We will now go to our round of questioning. We will begin our first round of six minutes with Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Kmiec, you can please begin.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for your patience while we conducted committee business.

I'm going to ask you to wait a bit longer, because I have a notice of motion I want to give verbally to the committee. Then, I'll have a few questions to ask.

I'm providing a verbal notice of the following:

That, the committee report the following to the House: that Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is facing political persecution in the Russian Federation including a show trial with high treason charges following his public condemnation of the unjustified and illegal war by Russia against Ukraine. That Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two assassination attempts by poisoning including in 2015 and 2017, and that he is currently imprisoned in Russia and his health is failing. That Vladimir Kara-Murza is the recipient of the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and is a Senior Fellow to the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Therefore, the committee calls on the Government of Canada to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza and demand that the Russian Federation set him free.

I have it in French and English, for the clerk's convenience.

Colleagues, that is the last bit of administration I want to cover off.

Senator Martin, perhaps I could ask you first.

This is the second time this bill is coming through here. Can you talk about the sense of urgency in having this bill pass? We are so close to completely closing this legislative hole created by Parliament inadvertently. This is an issue that's now lasted several decades, so perhaps I could start with that.

How close are we to completing this bill? If amendments are considered, it will get sent back to the Senate and cause further delay. I'll start with that.

[Yonah Martin]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, this is the second iteration of the bill. The first one, Bill S-230, died on the Order Paper. I don't even remember the year, but it was a few years ago. This is the second attempt, and it has reached this committee. I'm very pleased we are here, at this stage, and I thank all members for their attention to this bill.

The lost Canadians issue is decades old. As I said, I came across an individual, Don Chapman, with whom, I'm sure, some of you also met. He's quite a champion, because he was a lost Canadian. From that point of view, he has been very tireless. I've been educated through my meetings with him and in looking at some of the details of how we have groups of individuals who became lost and who need to be reinstated.

There are other categories of lost Canadians, for sure. To look at that separately would require government legislation, perhaps—other bills put forward. I know there have been piecemeal attempts in the past as well. For this specific bill, I decided to start with a very small cohort. It made sense, as they had already turned age 28 by the time Bill C-37 came into effect. Therefore, even though it was grandfathered to those who hadn't yet turned 28, those who did were left out.

That seemed like a natural group to address first. I looked at all the other categories, but this one seemed, I'd say, the least contentious or most obvious. That's why, I think, in the Senate, with my Senate colleagues, and before committee, the first time around, we didn't have any officials raising concerns. They just couldn't answer how many people would get captured, should this bill be adopted.

We don't know the exact numbers. The officials before the committee, last week, attempted to answer some of that. That's why it's very focused. I hope this committee and the House can get behind this bill. We are very close.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

As you said, Senator, I'm a naturalized Canadian from communist Poland. I know my dear friend from Calgary, just north of me—who's taking 40% of my riding—is a naturalized Canadian as well.

You talked about the fact that it's probably a few hundred people. There are varying numbers. The department said that approximately 130 individuals are affected by the 1977 act with retention requirements to receive a grant of citizenship through the Citizenship Act, subsection 5(4), as a discretionary grant. Since then, it could be a few hundred more.

We have another colleague, Robert Kitchen from Saskatchewan, who was one of the impacted Canadians. Thankfully, his grandfather told him this was going to be the case.

Do you think that, in this case, because it's a few hundred Canadians—some of whom may not know they have lost their citizenship—there's a sense of urgency in passing this bill as quickly as we can, before another election is potentially called?

[Yonah Martin]

Absolutely. Imagine if you go to renew some formal process that requires proof of citizenship and suddenly discover that you are not Canadian, or find out when you're retiring and need to collect your pension. It is a matter that's quite dire for those who are impacted by this. I would absolutely urge the committee to look at this very focused bill on this particular cohort and lend its support to the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kayabaga.

Ms. Kayabaga, you have six minutes.

[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]

As I read the Evidence from last week's committee, I saw the issues that were raised by the officials. The official was asked on what basis the application may have been denied with regard to those who applied to get their citizenship after the adoption of Bill C-37. There were several reasons that applicants were denied Canadian citizenship. The officials you heard from were not able to quantify what those exceptions were or why people were excluded decades ago.

For me, I would say that focusing on those who did not realize that they could apply, on the age 28 rule and on those who had not yet applied.... With regard to those who did and were rejected, those reasons could be serious. We don't know what they are. I'm not sure that we should open that door. I would just say that, if we adopt it as is, it would cover those who have been impacted by the age 28 rule.

[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?

[Yonah Martin]

This is a very narrow bill that is specifically targeting those who have been impacted by the age 28 rule. I know there are other categories of lost Canadians, as you've mentioned just now and for whom stakeholders are asking. It is something that could be done separately, perhaps in a government legislation or in another separate private member's bill from either the House or the Senate. It does go beyond the scope of what I have crafted, which is a very concise, focused bill to capture those caught up in the age 28 rule. I can be supportive, but it's not something that I can address right now because it's beyond the scope of this bill.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

When you've spoken on this bill in the past, you've also identified that you want to keep it narrow in order to try to avoid unintended consequences. Last Monday, IRCC officials were in this committee, and they told us that granting a large number of people automatic citizenship would almost certainly lead to unintended consequences.

Do you agree that this could potentially cause these unintended consequences as the bill is written right now? What are some of the problems and the revisions that need to be amended for this bill? Could you comment?

[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'm sorry, Senator. I really do have to ask one last question before my time is up.

I want to go back to a similar question that I had asked you earlier. This is just for clarification. Bill S-245 proposes to move the application date of the first-generation limit rule to 2015, making it so that anybody born abroad between 2009 and 2015 would automatically become citizens by descent, regardless of generation. It does seem incongruous that you don't want to expand the bill to a very small group of additional people impacted by the former section 8 provisions, yet you seem to have no issue with the fact that this bill would see an untold number of people born abroad between 2009 and 2015 acquire citizenship, even though they may not have a connection to Canada.

Could you explain this inconsistency, please?