Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 17th, 2023

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm speaking to the main motion, Madam Chair, so I'll wait for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Seeing no one for debate, we can take the vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Kmiec.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The amendment proposed by Mr. Kmiec is defeated. We are back on the motion proposed by Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Rempel Garner, please go ahead.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I just wanted to respond to the assertion made by one of my colleagues that the citizenship ceremony change to online was something that was taken very seriously or supported by many Canadians. In fact, there was an article published in the Toronto Star on Monday of this week by Mr. Mansoor Ladha. The title of the article is “I’m horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”.

He says:

Citizenship ceremonies are emotional and personal experiences, especially for those of us who had the privilege of participating in one. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is contemplating an end [to] in-person citizenship ceremonies in favour of a “secure online solution.”

The government is in fact considering this option.

He goes on to say:

I still remember the citizenship ceremony that I had to attend when I proudly became a Canadian citizen in 1975. I was with my wife and son, all dressed up in our finest (Hugo Boss suit for me), lined up with new Canadians of all backgrounds, happily showing off the Canadian flags.

When the time came to sing the newly memorized national anthem, I was so emotional that my eyes welled up with tears. Every Canada Day, I still have visions of my heartbreaking citizenship ceremony experience.

I am horrified the government is proposing to abolish this special welcoming in-person citizenship ceremonies with an administrative online box and do away with a group singing “O Canada.”

The fact that Canada, the most friendly and welcoming nation in the world, would resort to a computer-oriented system to announce its citizens is appalling. Ceremonies in everyone’s life, be it a birthday or a retirement party, play an important part, signifying milestones in their lives.

Now, this is a really interesting part, Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

One moment, please. I have Mr. El-Khoury.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I don't believe anyone ever proposed any change in citizenship to be in person....

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Actually, Madam Chair, that's exactly what the government is doing, and it's why there is an article in the Toronto Star that I am reading for the record. That's exactly what the government is doing, and I'm stating this as a justification that, if this motion is passed, I intend to propose an amendment to the Citizenship Act to prevent this from happening.

Also, for all the people who are mentioned in this article, I intend for them to testify in front of committee to explain to my colleagues why it is so terrible that the government is proposing to do away with in-person citizenship ceremonies.

Just to reiterate and to assuage my colleagues' fears, the article says:

A former minister of immigration under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien was so upset that he [also] wrote an op-ed for this newspaper, calling [this proposal by this federal government under Prime Minister Trudeau] “an insult.”

This is from a former Liberal cabinet immigration minister himself, who said:

For years, my parents would recount how momentous and meaningful (the ceremony) was. Why would government want to rob future citizens of this feeling of attachment?

Next, we have another prominent defender, and this is really going to shake some of my colleagues on the other side:

Another prominent defender, former Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, also a former refugee and presided over a few citizenship ceremonies herself as an Officer of the Order of Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Rempel Garner. There's a point of order.

Please proceed, Ms. Kayabaga.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

I'm just interested to know, Madam Chair, if we're still debating the motion at hand or if we have decided to venture into other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The amendment was defeated. We are back on the motion proposed by Ms. Kwan.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Can we go back to the motion proposed by Ms. Kwan? I think the conversation that my colleague on the other side is having has nothing to do with the motion that we're debating right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I have Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes, on the same point of order, the whole point of the motion is to be able to introduce and expand the scope of the bill. I think what my colleague is trying to do is, number one, suggest something that would be a very legitimate way to expand this bill, if that's what we're trying to do, and I think she also is trying to give some background into what that might be.

I think the subject of expanding the bill is exactly what we're talking about right now, and my colleague is talking about one potential way to do that. There are many others that we could talk about, just to make sure that everybody understands what we're talking about in terms of expanding the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

On the same point of order, Chair, again, for my colleague opposite, we are debating a motion regarding expanding the scope of a bill that is entitled “An Act to amend the Citizenship Act”, so I am giving my colleagues an example. If we expand the scope—if we vote to accept Ms. Kwan's motion to expand the scope—there are no limitations on that. I will be submitting amendments as well to amend the Citizenship Act, and I will be submitting an amendment to ensure that in-person citizenship ceremonies carry on and that Canada doesn't implement the ridiculous and “insulting”—a quote by a former refugee—practice of doing away with these ceremonies.

Therefore, it is in order, because I am giving an example of what I will do should this pass. I am debating the merits of the motion and giving my colleagues something to consider. To carry on and to finish this article, which is just so devastating for the government, it states:

Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee famous for founding the Nova Scotia-based chocolatier Peace by Chocolate, described Canadian citizenship ceremonies as “the magical rituals that bring everyone together (new and old citizens) to celebrate the true meaning of the Canadian dream.”

“We cannot afford to lose the significance of this celebration of belonging nor can we diminish the value of Canadian citizenship,” he added.

This article continues, saying that credit should be given to the government for moving a notch forward on indigenous peoples. That's great. That's good.

He talks about the “new language of the oath”, but what he is saying in this article is that the citizenship ceremony should stay in place. If we do vote for this motion, I will certainly be putting forward an amendment to the Citizenship Act to ensure that citizenship ceremonies stay in person. This is something that, again, goes across political stripes, and I would love to see every person in this article come to this committee and be given a chance to talk about how important this is. This is something that should be amended in the Citizenship Act, given that the government is proposing to do this right now. It's ridiculous. It's crazy.

Now, if my colleagues would like me to present a private member's bill to do this, or if perhaps the government would like to do this, perhaps they wouldn't want to vote to open up a private member's bill with a very narrow focus—that we all agree on—to put in place amendments that are out of scope.

Now, I am going to say one thing. I just heard that my colleague from the NDP did a press conference about this prior to this committee meeting. I don't believe that she had talked to Senator Martin about this at all. She certainly didn't talk to us, so I have to surmise that this is now part of the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement and that there's probably some sort of agreement between the House leaders to get this done, which is essentially.... You have to think about this: This is backdoor legislation.

My colleague does not have a private member's spot, as I know right now, so what they're doing through this coalition agreement is that they're saying, “Okay, we'll go way outside parliamentary procedure and allow you to put amendments into a bill that is not in scope, and that's what we're going to do to preserve this coalition agreement.”

That's what I have to surmise here. What I'm saying is that, if that's the game we're playing, giddy-up, because I have a lot of things that I would like to see amended in the Citizenship Act—a lot, years' worth of things. There are years' worth of things that I'm so eager to hold the government to on all their injustices towards.... In fact, I think there are going to be amendments to the Citizenship Act regarding the Afghan refugee crisis and all the things that happened around potentially fraudulent visas, which we're about to look at as well. I'm very excited. I have mountains of amendments for the Citizenship Act. Do you know what? Maybe I will vote in favour of this. Maybe I will. I don't know. Maybe I'm convincing myself that this sounds like a good idea. I'm looking down the table. Do we want to? Are we going to review the Citizenship Act? I don't know. It sounds exciting. Now I'm excited.

I'm not the vice-chair, so I defer to your position, but I'm excited. Let's amend the Citizenship Act and keep citizenship ceremonies in place. That's one thing for sure. I guess I had better get busy. I don't know. Maybe I will vote in favour of this. It depends on what my colleagues in the government do. They won't know what I'm going to do—giddy-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Seeing no further debate, we will take the vote on the motion proposed by Ms. Kwan.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I move a potential next motion, I just want to get clarification from the clerk in terms of a work schedule.

From what I understand, Wednesday would be Afghanistan with the senator. Then, I believe on Monday.... I'm not quite sure where things are at with Minister Sajjan, who's supposed to come before committee. I know there was some potential trading going on with Minister Fraser on the mains. I just wanted to get an idea of what the lay of the land is.

I note that the committee also just got its draft report on processing delays. We have yet to finish the Roxham Road report, which has been sitting in a rock pile there, literally, for us to complete.

I just want to see where things are at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Right now, for this Wednesday, we have Senator McPhedran confirmed for Afghanistan. On April 26—that's next Wednesday—we have availability confirmed for Minister Harjit Sajjan. As yet, we have not heard back from Minister Marco Mendicino. We have given him the option of April 24 or May 1. For Wednesday, May 3, we have the confirmation of one hour for the Honourable Marc Garneau. For May 10, we have a confirmation from the minister of IRCC on the main estimates.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry. That went pretty fast.

Did you say that on April 24 we may have Minister Mendicino? Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, we have given him this option. As yet, we have not received any reply from his office.

We have given him two dates, which are April 24 and May 1. As soon as we get some confirmation—we will find out in a day or so—I will get back with the updated calendar and circulate it to everybody.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

We'll wait and see what the situation is with the minister on the 24th—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, based on the responses we get, I will update the calendar and we will go from there.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

I have just a quick question. When the minister comes to speak on the main estimates, does that include supplementary (A)s at that time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The minister has agreed to come on the main estimates.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

That means we would have to do another meeting for the supplementary (A)s. Is that the idea?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes. Right now, this meeting is scheduled for the main estimates.

Mr. Redekopp.