Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 27th, 2023

[J. Randall Emery, Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council]

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Randall Emery. I am a regulated Canadian immigration consultant and the executive director of the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, which stands for democratic, equality, multicultural and mobility rights.

We applaud Senator Martin and MP Hallan for sponsoring Bill S-245, which would address one of several inequities in citizenship law for children born abroad. We also call on them, and all parties, to champion amendments to address more lost Canadians.

As we balance competing concerns, we should think about three things: our constitution, international considerations and the human cost of continued inaction.

First, Canada should respect equality and mobility rights when addressing citizenship by descent. I've met many of you personally, and I understand the concern for people passing through Canada. However, just as people pass through Canada, Canadians pass through other countries. Moreover, some Canadians have genuine connections to Canada and other countries at the same time. If we employ some connection test, we should apply it equally to all three groups. Failing that, we should at least give impacted Canadians the same deal we afford government workers.

Current law forces some Canadians to choose between mobility rights and the legal and moral duty to care for their children. For example, as described in the ongoing charter challenge, a Canadian parent has been exiled with her children on multiple occasions since 2017, with the child now experiencing suicidal ideation. This is unjust and unfair.

Second, Canada should follow other countries to avoid the worst unintended consequences. Canada ranks dead last on family unity when we compare ourselves to the G7, our European trading partners, Australia, New Zealand and other continental American countries. Half of these countries ensure unlimited citizenship by descent by simple operation of law. Another quarter ensure citizenship retroactive to birth provided the birth is registered. We are the bottom of a cohort dominated by English-speaking countries, which creates its own problems for us as a shared culture.

The counterpoint to concerns about job restrictions abroad due to automatic citizenship is the concern for family separation due to lost citizenship. Some countries revoke citizenship if you voluntarily apply for another. Examples include Japan, Spain, Germany and Austria. To avoid the more serious consequence to a much larger group of people, we recommend that citizenship be opt-out with renunciation versus opt-in with a grant application.

Finally, we must consider the human cost of continued inaction. In addition to the charter challenge, stories submitted during this study clearly illustrate the harm to individual families. One mother has three daughters, two are Canadian and one is not, simply because of the year of her birth. One family has ended six generations of Canadian heritage, because the mother was born abroad in the eighties, lived in Canada for nearly 30 years and then went on to have children in the U.K. The problem also impacts my children, who are seated in this room today.

Officials told you last week that the scope includes untold numbers of children, possibly in the tens of thousands. In other words, the law inflicts severe harm to Canadian families in vast numbers. The egregiousness of the issue calls for an immediate response.

Let me conclude by, again, thanking Senator Martin and MP Hallan for sponsoring this bill. We implore them to champion amendments with members of all parties to address as many lost Canadian issues as possible, including the many historical ones.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Don Chapman, founder and head of Lost Canadians.

You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Don Chapman, Founder and Head, Lost Canadians]

Thank you.

When Canada stripped me of my citizenship in 1961, many of you had not been born. I was six, so I relate to the lost Canadian children of today. They're watching you, and, by not including them, you're compounding their rejection and pain. They're not stupid. They know that Canada doesn't want them. It's akin to being booted out of your own family. I know the agony and the gut-wrenching feelings both as a child and as an adult.

With Bill S-2 in 2005, I could be Canadian again but my minor-aged daughters weren't welcome, and I was born in Canada.

Canada must practice what it preaches: fairness, compassion, inclusion, peace, order, good government, equal rights and, above all, human rights. With lost Canadians, Canada has failed miserably.

As an airline pilot, I'd never ditch an airplane and willingly leave my passengers behind. As a Canadian, I can't leave fellow lost Canadians behind, particularly children and babies, and neither should you. Without amendments, you'll be condoning forced family separation, tiered citizenship, statelessness, women having fewer rights than men and booting out 111,000 of Canada's soldiers.

“To stand on guard for thee”—is that just hyperbole?

Canada is contravening three UN human rights conventions, the charter, the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rule of law. Are you okay with that?

Lost Canadian children face depression, anxiety, loss and suicide. They suffer no differently than the residential school survivors. Did you know that lost Canadians include indigenous people and that the Catholic Church sold Canadian babies? Did you know about the murdered butter box babies and the pre-1947 Chinese Canadians? Should they be remembered as only stateless, registered aliens?

Bureaucrats talk about unintended consequences and of creating future lost Canadians. Well, that ship has sailed. Let's talk about intended consequences. By not adding amendments, you'll be creating far more lost Canadians.

Thirteen years ago, I gave a detailed report to Nicole Girard. Nothing happened except that the issue got exponentially worse. We're here today because of intended consequences. Bureaucrats want subsection 5(4) grants. It's a cruel and awful solution. An IRCC director general recently explained how the 5(4) process has become political, with the outcome being at the whim of a bureaucrat or politician. It should be by operation of law.

The children of one family have been denied five times in 14 years. From newborns to teenagers, all they have known is rejection. There's a 12-year-old Canadian citizen, an orphan boy, currently in Syria. IRCC cancelled his caretaker aunt's citizenship without a hearing or judicial review. One day she's Canadian; the next she's not. IRCC encouraged her to apply for a grant. It was approved three years ago, but two citizenship ministers won't sign off. This Canadian child is currently in an earthquake war zone. His twin sister and father were killed by a random terrorist bombing. If anything happens to this boy, Minister Fraser, by his inaction, makes Canada an accomplice.

Remember Alan Kurdi? Are you ready for that negative press from around the world? I have 28 other horror stories of 5(4) grants, including my own.

Sometimes individuals got deported. For example, Pete Geisbrecht, a 28-year-old, was given by IRCC 30 days to voluntarily get out of Canada. If he didn't leave, he would be shackled with bracelets. The authorities threatened him in front of his wife and child, and they will never forget.

Lost Canadian Roméo Dallaire called IRCC's process “inhumane” and “bureaucratic terrorists”. Bureaucrats are consistently inconsistent and make lots of mistakes. Case processors often don't know the laws, and they come and go. There have been four citizenship ministers just under Mr. Trudeau. What's needed is a dedicated citizenship ombudsman.

Since 2009 CIMM has done 128 studies. Only six were on citizenship, so obviously, citizenship is not your priority.

Canada is supposed to turn immigrants and refugees into good Canadian citizens, and I can show, with me, that they often turn Canadian citizens into immigrants. They do it the wrong way. After one of our court cases, Monte Solberg said the decision could cost tens of billions. That's a lot of money just to keep Canadians out of their own country.

There's another charter challenge. It's going to be heard next month. The government's arguing against equal rights; we're arguing for equal rights. If the government wins, out goes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as you know it.

Without amendments, there will be many more charter challenges. With amendments, that becomes moot.

As for derivative claims or conferring citizenship to people unknowingly or any other concerns, I can help you. I want to fix the issue once and for all, and I hope you do too.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Chapman.

We will now proceed to our rounds of questioning. We will begin our first round with Mr. Redekopp.

Mr. Redekopp, you can begin, please. You have six minutes.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for sharing their valuable testimony today.

What's the value of Canadian citizenship? I believe that's the question we have to look at. Seven days ago, a week ago, we began our study of this legislation. At that time, I gave notice of a motion regarding citizenship ceremonies, which are the backbone of our immigration system. My motion basically calls on the government to prioritize in-person citizenship ceremonies—but allow virtual ceremonies if those are specifically requested—and, most importantly, not allow people to get their citizenship by clicking a mouse. Newcomers I talk to really value these citizenship ceremonies, but the government seems to be trying to downplay and even eliminate these ceremonies.

My first question is for Mr. Bernhard from the Institute for Canadian Citizenship.

Your organization puts on many citizenship ceremonies. Do you see the inherent value of in-person ceremonies?

[Daniel Bernhard]

Yes, absolutely. Any deviation from that is like going through a university degree and not having the opportunity to graduate in public and reflect on the significance of that moment.

Becoming Canadian is a momentous occasion for individuals and for families, as many of the witnesses today have testified. There's a strong desire to re-establish their Canadian citizenship. For the hundreds of thousands of people who become Canadian citizens every year.... I think one of the fellows mentioned that there were perhaps 10,000 people affected by the current subject. We're talking about 1,000 a day, in some cases, who are eligible to become Canadian citizens through naturalization. If they're deprived of this opportunity to reflect, I think that degrades the importance of Canadian citizenship, not just for them but for all of us who can participate in that celebration.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

If the government continues to minimize ceremonies with this latest idea of, for example, just an online click kind of a situation, does that hurt the overall value of citizenship in Canada?

[Daniel Bernhard]

I think it's a contributing factor. One of the other witnesses mentioned that the committee spends relatively little time studying citizenship. I think citizenship is the forgotten member of the trio of immigration, refugees and citizenship that the ministry is tasked with and that the committee is tasked with. There is a number of factors that I think are leading to this, but the data show clearly that Canadian citizenship is becoming less desirable. The market value of Canadian citizenship is plummeting among permanent residents who are eligible to claim it, and this certainly wouldn't help.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

It's almost like the government is using the pandemic and the backlog they created as a convenient excuse to implement this new plan for people to gain citizenship as though it was nothing more than just clicking—scroll through Facebook, look at some TMZ gossip, watch a cat video, and then click a link and become a Canadian citizen.

Have you seen a change in the way the government treats citizenship ceremonies since March 2020?

[Daniel Bernhard]

They've gone virtual, obviously. I can't speak to the government's motives.

I would just like to point out that there are people who do suffer very real harms as a result of delays in having their citizenship applications processed. Their permanent residency expires. They are waiting for their citizenship application to come through, and it's two or three times longer than the service standard. A relative gets sick in another country, for example, and they can't go and visit them because they're worried they won't be able to come back in.

We've seen that there are real consequences for people. I understand the government's and the ministry's desire to speed up this process. I would just hope that they would be able to find those efficiencies elsewhere.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

We heard some testimony in the last hour about this bill, Bill S-245. The purpose of this bill is really to rectify mistakes that have been made in the past, and it affects a very small cohort of people. We also heard from others who would like to expand this bill and make it a bit larger to include many other people, and that would potentially complicate and perhaps even prevent this bill from going forward.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on Bill S-245, if you have any thoughts on it, if you've looked at it at all.

[Daniel Bernhard]

I have looked at it. I think there are other witnesses who, obviously, have stronger personal and, in some cases, professional connections to the subject. I would encourage you to seek out their opinions.

In terms of the overall prioritization of who is and is not becoming a citizen, I would just repeat what I said earlier: If we're talking about maybe 10,000 people who might be affected by something like this, in the last year alone we put through that many citizens in 10 days. The number of lost Canadians, in some sense, is as a result of the dropping desirability of becoming Canadian. That's far larger and, in my mind anyway, a far more pressing priority for the committee and for the Government of Canada to be looking at than a relatively smaller group of people who are clearly suffering personal consequences from this. The fact that we can refer to them by name suggests that the group is, in many cases, small.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have one last question.

You talk about the percentage of PRs who fail to become citizens. What's a number? What's an idea? What are your thoughts on how we could improve that and encourage more people to become citizens?

[Daniel Bernhard]

In 2001, 75% of permanent residents became citizens within 10 years of arrival. In 2021, that number had dropped to 45%, so there's been a precipitous decline.

There are a number of factors, including factors relating to the cost of applying for citizenship, which is over $600 per person. For a family of four, for example, that's real money. It's also about people's experiences in Canada in getting to the point where you want to apply for citizenship: economic integration, credential recognition, social integration, having fun and having friends. This touches on housing and the availability of our services like health care and child care.

We need to make sure that immigrants have a successful time of it in Canada and that they want to be considered Canadian. I think there are a number of different ways to look at this, but the data have been declining for over 20 years. It's a concerning trend that I think we ought to turn our attention towards—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

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

We will now proceed to Mrs. Lalonde.

You will have six minutes, Mrs. Lalonde. Please begin.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today.

I do have a few questions. I would like to focus my attention on Mr. Hayer for this particular Bill S-245.

In the previous hour, Mr. Hayer, we talked a lot about the scope of people who would be impacted by Bill S-245. In your professional opinion, do you think Bill S-245 is too narrow or too broad, or does it strike a good balance? As I'm going to be asking you more questions, could you briefly elaborate on why you've chosen that option?

[Amandeep S. Hayer]

Yes.

I think that on the question of whether or not the bill is of whatever scope, that is more for Parliament to decide. Our position is that there are others who have been impacted by the loss of Canadian citizenship who should also be considered. Whether that will be within this bill or within a future bill, we would like those people to be considered as well.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

If I could go on, I'll say that basically every speech I've listened to on this topic, sadly, has pointed out that every time someone tries to tinker with the Citizenship Act, we end up with unintended consequences, which typically take the form of a new group of lost Canadians.

Do you have any concerns that Bill S-245 as written may create additional or different groups of lost Canadians? If so, how do you recommend that we stop that from happening?

[Amandeep S. Hayer]

I recognize one in the group. There is a very closely related group of individuals who have similar birthdates and similar sorts of circumstances. The only thing that's different is the gender and marital status of the grandparents, so that is a group that will come up and that I think should be addressed. These individuals just happen to be born to the wrong gender or marital status of a grandparent and, as a result, their citizenship was denied because their parents applied for a grant under subsection 5(4) that was was approved after their date of birth. They just will never be Canadian under the current legislation.

As for improving it, that deserves more study by Parliament. There have been several committee reports, we note, at the CBA immigration law section, that have made recommendations. I would refer to those as well.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I'm going to talk to you about it because you've written articles for the Canadian Bar Association on past changes made to the Citizenship Act. In 2020, you wrote an article entitled “Citizenship Law is Too Rigid for Those Abroad with Family Ties to Canada”, in which you stated: “Arguably the first-generation limitation has merit.”

Could you elaborate on where you can see merit in this rule?

[Amandeep S. Hayer]

The position of the CBA on that is different from my position, so I'd like to refer to the CBA position, which is that we should look into this. One of the reasons we want to look into this is that the CBA does not want a situation where people with ties to Canada are being denied access to Canadian citizenship, and I would like to put it again back to Parliament to figure out how we can expand access beyond the first generation.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I'm sorry to have to come back, but I really want to come back to that article from 2020, Mr. Hayer. You actually identified that the U.S. has a different approach to generational limits to citizenship. Can you explain to us how the rule works in the U.S. and how that differs from Canada's approach, please?

[Amandeep S. Hayer]

I can provide some commentary, which is that in the U.S. the way it works is more based on residential ties after your 14th birthday.

The specifics are basically that, if you have lived in the U.S. for a certain period of time and then you happen to have a child born outside of the U.S., that child would be a U.S. citizen. You just have to make an application to prove that's the case, and part of the application would be the equivalent of a U.S. citizenship certificate.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you again.

Could you explain to this committee the difference between someone who has received a grant of citizenship versus someone who has had their citizenship restored through a change in legislation, such as what is proposed through Bill S-245, please?

[Amandeep S. Hayer]

Another term for a grant of citizenship is naturalization. The date the grant is approved or a person takes the oath of citizenship, depending on how the grant works, is the effective date of their citizenship.

I'm assuming what you mean is what was in my specific submission, which was on the questions of subsection 5(2) and paragraph 3(1)(e).

With subsection 5(2), when the grant was approved, IRCC would send out a letter saying, yes, we agree that your parent was Canadian. They were the wrong gender and therefore, we are going to approve you with a grant. Your effective date of citizenship is the date of this letter.

For somebody whose citizenship was restored afterwards, with restoration they took everyone back. They created a bit of a magic pencil and said they would go all the way back in time to someone's date of birth and deem them to have been a citizen the entire time.

For those individuals I mentioned with respect to subsection 5(2), that's what happened to them in 2009. In 2009, they retroactively cancelled all those grants. They made them all retroactive to the someone's date of birth. In our submissions, it says their children were never put into the system, so under subsection 3(4) there was a transition clause that, if somebody was a citizen, they would be able to continue to maintain their citizenship if they were born in a second or subsequent generation.

With the subsection 5(2) applicants, there was an exemption. They said, if you had a child born in a second or subsequent generation, you would not have your citizenship restored retroactively.