Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 27th, 2023

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have no other motions to table or to give bullet points for, so I'll go straight to questions.

Mr. Hallan, I have a follow-up on Ms. Kwan's question.

Are you in favour of amending the bill at this stage, whatever those amendments are, to include other groups of lost Canadians not considered by the Senate or the House of Commons at the second reading vote, or were you saying that we should pass this bill and that it can be reconsidered by either a private member's or a government bill?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Through you, Madam Chair, it's the latter—exactly what you said. It's working against time at this point to be able to address some of the hardships that those people face that are specific to this bill. Sometimes, when we open the scope with more amendments, it will open up debate further. We're working against time before our next election, as we're a minority Parliament. We may destroy all that work and leave out everybody if we don't get to this point and pass this one the way it is today. That's my fear.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you for that.

Senator Martin, I was going to ask you, if there are amendments made to this bill, and some of them I believe would be perhaps out of scope to the original intent when it was brought here.... Because the Senate didn't consider them—Bill S-230 at the time was considered and was studied at committee, and Bill S-245 was expedited through the Senate because it was the same bill—do you believe senators, your colleagues, will want to do a full review at a Senate committee before passing the bill?

[Yonah Martin]

Yes, there is that possibility. I did speak to my critic when I was going to be appearing here to say that there is talk of amendments and going beyond the scope. She just looked at me with, well, that will change how we respond in the Senate. Again, I would just urge the committee to look at this very narrow focus. We can get this done.

I started specifically with the small group we can all get behind. With the other lost Canadian categories we can look at them afterwards. I would urge the committee to support this bill as is.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay.

Do you think there will be any concerns expressed by senators at the fact that this committee heard one version of testimony saying there are issues and then two years ago at a Senate committee government officials of a higher or more senior rank, including an assistant deputy minister, expressed no concerns with the content of the bill?

How will senators react to that? Are they likely to call more witnesses just to ensure that they get a fulsome answer to explain why the department's position seems to have shifted over two years?

[Yonah Martin]

It was curious to me when I read the Evidence, in fact. I'm assuming other senators will also have questions.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay.

I wanted to ask this question about those who applied in that small window and who were rejected. They are not included. We talked a little bit about that.

Do you have any concerns or have you heard concerns from senators that this is an issue—those people who applied and were rejected at the time when they were making the application?

[Yonah Martin]

We did not address that in the Senate. We were looking at just those who will be captured by the age 28 rule.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You are satisfied that those individuals, although not captured in this bill, have had a possibility of redress under previous legislation and that it is not an issue for Bill S-245.

[Yonah Martin]

I don't see that as an issue. Again, I just put forward the bill in its very narrow and specific form, and I hope the committee will support the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

That's all the questions I had, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

We will now go to Mr. Dhaliwal for four minutes.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Martin, I want to thank you for thinking about the lost Canadians.

I want to thank you for helping me. I'm sure you recall, when I brought in a private member's bill and one of the Conservative senators took an adjournment. You were the deputy leader. You were there and Senator Ataullahjan was there to help me with my bill on April as Sikh Heritage Month. I see the passion on your side, as well, to get it through.

On the other hand, I have some questions here that I am sure you and Mr. Hallan will be able answer. I'm also one of the people who came to Canada in 1984 as an immigrant in Calgary. I got my citizenship at the very first opportunity in 1987.

Senator, I know you have done significant research into the changes made to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015. We know those changes came into effect on a delayed basis with a coming into force provision.

Considering all the complications highlighted by IRCC officials, do you think a coming into force provision might help ensure that Bill S-245 doesn't lead to unintended consequences? If not, why?

[Yonah Martin]

Yes, I have no issue with adding a coming into force clause. I hadn't thought of that, but having heard from the officials, if that will provide some stability, I would be open to that clause.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

I will go to Mr. Hallan because I love Calgary and Forest Lawn of course. I used to go every day.

Mr. Hallan, you were saying to MP Kwan that you aren't against ultimately recognizing other lost Canadians, understanding that there are big groups. We have talked about a very small group of former section 8 people. Why would you disagree that this bill should scope those other people in?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I am not at all opposed to getting those other people recognized, but my fear is that we're running against time right now.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you've been around here much longer than I have. We know that time sometimes works against us in these bills. I'm afraid that the bigger this scope gets, the more complicated it will become and the more debate will take place. My friend, Hon. Yonah Martin, was very specific to this group in order to get it this far now. If an election were called, all that good work would go.

I would encourage, just like my friend did, that any one of us as parliamentarians, and even someone in the Senate, can bring forward another bill much like this one that could address other people who fall into different categories. That's another option that can be brought. I'm afraid that if an election gets called, because we're in a minority Parliament, this group of lost Canadians will, unfairly, not have the justice they deserve, and we'll start from scratch all over again.

We've gotten this far. It's taken a lot of work from the good people on this committee and in Parliament, my good friend Yonah Martin, and Don Chapman, who's been an absolute champion in getting things this far. It would be wrong for us to not right the wrong for these people who lost their citizenship unfairly.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Hallan, I totally understand. When an election is called....

I too had my bill go through a minority Parliament. I can see—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Dhaliwal, but time is up. Your three minutes are gone.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

They went by so fast.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will have to end this panel. We will now proceed to the second panel.

I want to thank Senator Martin and MP Hallan for appearing before the committee and for all the work they have put into this bill.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes, so we can allow the next panel to come.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

On behalf of the committee members, I would like to welcome our witnesses for this panel.

Today, we are joined by Randall Emery, executive director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council; Daniel Bernhard, chief executive officer, Institute for Canadian Citizenship; Don Chapman, founder and head of Lost Canadians; and Amandeep Hayer, Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia immigration law section.

After the opening remarks, we will go into rounds of questioning.

Mr. Hayer, please begin. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Amandeep S. Hayer, Lawyer and Secretary, Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Immigration Law Section, The Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you very much.

My name is Amandeep Hayer. I am the secretary of the Canadian Bar Association's B.C. immigration law section, and I appear today on behalf of the CBA national immigration law section.

The CBA is a national association of 37,000 members, including lawyers, judges, notaries, academics and law students. We have a 120-year-old mandate to seek improvements in the law and the administration of justice.

Thank you for having me address the committee from Surrey, B.C., which is the traditional and unceded ancestral territory of the Katzie, Semiahmoo, Kwantlen and other Coast Salish first nations.

My purpose for being here today is to, first, express our support for the bill and the goals advanced by the bill; second, suggest an amendment to the bill to clarify when citizenship will be restored to; and third, address two specific concerns the CBA section has with the state of citizenship law today.

The section supports the goals advanced by this bill. The bill allows another group of lost Canadians to reacquire the benefits of Canadian citizenship, but we note there is an omission. It does not state when citizenship will be restored to. Will it be the date the bill comes into effect, or the date citizenship was lost? These are important questions, because they will have implications for the subjects of the restoration.

If the restoration is the date the bill is approved, it could impact the legal rights they have in other countries. For example, in a country that does not permit dual citizenship, acquisition of citizenship after birth may be grounds to revoke their citizenship in that country.

Previous amendments to the act designed to restore citizenship on those Canadians who had lost it intentionally specify to what date citizenship will be restored. See subsection 3(7) as one such example. Our recommendation is that the bill be amended to clarify to what date citizenship will be restored.

The next issue is the forgotten Canadians. Citizenship law has evolved over time. As the values that underpin the social fabric of our nation have changed, citizenship law has followed suit, but echoes of former laws and values still reverberate through the current legislation. One such example is a group of Canadians related to the subject of this bill who were denied access to Canadian citizenship from the outset.

Between January 1, 1947, and February 15, 1977, a person born outside of Canada could only inherit Canadian citizenship if their parents were married and their father was a Canadian citizen or, if their parents were unmarried and their mother was a Canadian citizen.

On February 15, 1977, the current act came into effect. For those born before that date, the act continued to apply the old law under paragraph 3(1)(e). However, under subsection 5(2), a provision existed for people to be granted Canadian citizenship if they could not qualify for it under paragraph 3(1)(e) because the wrong parent was Canadian.

However, the grant had an issue. For those who qualified under section 3(1)(e), their effective date of citizenship was their date of birth, while for those who qualified under subsection 5(2), it was the date the grant was approved.

Since citizens by descent are only citizens if they were born after their parents became Canadian, there was a direct implication on their children. For those who were approved under subsection 5(2), only those children born after the date of approval would be Canadian. For those who were approved under paragraph 3(1)(e), their effective date of citizenship was their date of birth, but the children would be subject to the section 8 retention requirements that are the subject of this bill.

Since which section applied depended entirely on the gender and the marital status of the parents, we contend that it is contrary to section 15 of the charter, as the Supreme Court held in Benner v. Canada. Therefore, our recommendation is that the act be amended to deem everyone whose parents applied for Canadian citizenship under subsection 5(2) as Canadians today.

Finally, I would like to address the first-generation limit. We note that the first-generation limit has unintended hardships for people who have certain strong ties to Canada but may have be born in the second or subsequent generation. One such example might be a mother who goes into labour while shopping in the U.S. The CBA section encourages Parliament to consider these impacts and possible mitigating measures.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Daniel Bernhard, who is the chief executive officer of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship.

Please begin. You have five minutes.

[Daniel Bernhard, Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Canadian Citizenship]

Madam Chair, Mr. Vice-Chair, and committee members, thank you for having invited me to testify today on the importance of Canadian citizenship.

Even though I'm not an expert on the lost Canadians issue that you are discussing this afternoon, I'd like to situate this conversation within the overall context of Canadian citizenship and its importance.

The Institute for Canadian Citizenship, which I am so honoured to lead, facilitates and encourages newcomers to complete the journey to full and active Canadian citizenship, not just in their passports but also in their hearts.

Our work, therefore, is an act of service not just to immigrants but to all of Canada, because when newcomers decide that this is their place and that these are their people, they contribute their talent, energy and resourcefulness to our shared success. With the best of the world on our team and contributing to their full potential, Canada can be unstoppable. Citizenship, I believe, is at the heart of that promise. It's all about whether immigrants believe they're on our team.

Each of you, of course, is a member of a team—a political team—so you would understand the power of that experience well.

Our organization hosts 60 enhanced citizenship ceremonies per year in partnership with IRCC. I get to attend a handful of them, and I can say without a doubt that this is the best part of my job. Unlike standard ceremonies, we hold wonderful round table discussions where new citizens reflect on their journeys and on the significance of the moment. No two stories are the same, but they are uniformly moving.

From these new citizens I've learned that becoming Canadian is like passing through a one-way door. Behind them lies a long path of hard work and often hardship that sometimes spans multiple generations. Before them, however, lies another path, also reaching deep into the future, but this one is paved with a sense of peace, security and relief, which many of us who are born in Canada may struggle to understand.

I know a bit about this and many of you do as well. When my daughter was born, she was the first person in our family born in the same country as her parents in almost 150 years. For a century, we were on the run. Thanks to my parent's decision to immigrate to Canada, we're now finally home for good.

Today's conversation, however, is particularly important because of plummeting naturalization rates. In February, our organization released new data showing that the proportion of permanent residents who become citizens within 10 years dropped 40% between 2001 and 2021.

These data draw attention to uncomfortable truths about Canada that we have really yet to confront. They compel us to change our perspective from a, frankly, self-satisfied view that we must restrict Canadian citizenship lest everyone in the world pursue it, to a more humble outlook that is centred around a commitment to restore the promise and desirability of being Canadian.

In other words, I urge you not to limit your gaze to the so-called lost Canadians of the past, but also to remember the lost Canadians of the present and future. They are the millions of people who could join team Canada but are choosing not to.

The marked decline in the number of permanent residents who obtain citizenship in their first decade in Canada has deep and serious consequences. For example, imagine a future in which a large percentage of the population did not have the right to vote. It wouldn't amount to an apartheid policy, but the impact would be very similar.

The sense of belonging is very powerful. If people don't consider Canada to be their society, then they won't dedicate themselves to it, or get involved in our culture and contribute their utmost to making our society a success. That's a danger of concern to all of us.

We must roll up our sleeves to restore the value of being Canadian.

The Institute for Canadian Citizenship is leading the way with our Canoo access pass, which today gives over 150,000 newcomers free, VIP entry to over 1,400 of our country's best cultural and nature attractions, making Canada easier to love and harder to leave. With your support, we can continue to grow and become a standard feature of the Canadian immigration experience.

Thanks to Canoo, our cultural access pass, about 1,000 newcomers visit some of the best cultural and nature attractions every day. They enjoy themselves, meet us, discover our culture, and become a part of it.

We need an all-hands-on-deck mentality to restore the promise of being Canadian, not just for the few but also for the many. I hope today's conversation supports, for their own sake, those who were edged out of citizenship in the past but also reminds us about all those who can and should become Canadians in the future, but may choose not to.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Emery, executive director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council.

You can please begin. You will have five minutes.