Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, as I commented during my previous appearance, the department can't speculate on how many persons who could benefit from these provisions will come forward in the future.

However, it's fair to say.... As a frame of reference, we could refer to the current number of Canadians born abroad applying to the department for what we call a “proof of Canadian citizenship”, which tends to be between 40,000 to 60,000 such Canadians per year. It would be reasonable to assume there could potentially be thousands of applicants coming forward should these changes be passed by Parliament.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Could you give the committee a sense of what the delta is between how many people would be affected by what the original bill proposed and what this potential change we're now debating could mean, in terms of additional applicants?

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for the question.

As I believe I referenced in previous comments to the committee, there were two main aspects of the original bill, in terms of impacting volumes, that the department could be called upon to process should the bill be passed.

The one was the very small cohort of so-called “lost Canadians” under section 8. Then, there was the second provision of the bill, which was from the perspective and analysis of the experts at this table, including my colleague from the Department of Justice. That was impacting the first-generation limit and moving the line on the first-generation limit. From our analysis, which I mentioned, this could impact tens of thousands or more persons born abroad.

During clause-by-clause, we'll see what transpires with that second part of the bill. I think it would be fair to say the motion proposed by the member here is certainly one that could extend to thousands of Canadians born abroad in the second generation and beyond. However, the number is dependent on the number who come forward. That is something we can't know in advance. I'm estimating to the best of my ability based on what we know at this time.

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

Thank you.

I understand it's dependent on what actually passes or doesn't, but was that potential additional number of people you're referring to now—which could be several thousand or more—accounted for in this year's immigration levels plan and targets?

[Nicole Girard]

The immigration levels target—while outside of my remit, I'll be clear—relates to the number of permanent residents who immigrate to Canada. It's the target for that in the year.

This cohort being discussed now is about persons who would be considered Canadian should the connection test outlined be met. Those persons would be eligible for a proof of citizenship as automatic Canadians, so they would be outside of the level's process, if I can put it that way.

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

My understanding from reading the testimony and the original intent put through the other place on this bill was to keep the band of focus to a very narrow cohort, such as the scope of the private member's bill.

What I'm concerned about is that we are now amending the bill significantly out of scope, which to the testimony here, could impact unknown thousands of persons. It perhaps hasn't been given thought in the broader context of Canada's immigration goals and policies. For that reason, I think that it should be brought forward in government legislation as opposed to amending a private member's bill through a process that, frankly, was.... We had to go through a motion in the House of Commons to extend the scope.

I understand that as Canadians we want to be an open and welcoming country, that immigration is a core and vital part of who we are as a nation and that the government has an onus to welcome people, but we also have to do it in such a way that we are coordinated and thinking about all the resources we need to address appropriate integration and ensure fairness and equity.

My concern is that by amending a private member's bill in a way that is very much out of scope to what was first approved, we are now.... The department is saying that we don't know how many people could be impacted by this. For us to consider this just at clause-by-clause without having a fulsome analysis from the minister and whatnot, it doesn't fit within the responsibility of what we've been tasked with here. By amending this without further diligence or without the government putting forward a bill on this—or another private member's bill—it sets a poor precedent.

My argument, Chair, just based on the testimony from the department is that we don't know how the test would be applied. We don't know how many people it would be applied to, but the estimate is in the thousands. It hasn't been talked about in any way in the levels plan. Now we are going well beyond the scope of the initial mover.

For all of those reasons, I would implore my colleagues to either withdraw the amendments or to vote against them. Then perhaps we could issue a report as a committee, after we go through clause-by-clause on this, with recommendations to the government on other things that they should include in future government bills, like the things that are being proposed here.

I would be more comfortable with that, as a legislator. Otherwise, I would just implore colleagues to think about this precisely and rationally, as opposed to essentially putting forward government legislation through a private member's bill from a senator. I think it's grossly irresponsible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

I have a speaking list. Mr. Redekopp is next.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the record, to what my colleague just said, I would say, “ditto”, instead of repeating it all.

I have a couple of quick questions to the witnesses.

You had mentioned, Ms. Girard, in talking about the physically present testing, that it was similar in concept to what we are doing right now for PR and other applications. What is the test then that would be used? Presumably some of those methods could then be poured over to this system.

What actually are the methods that are used today for that?

[Nicole Girard]

We have policy guidelines in place with regard to assessing that the applicants have been physically present in Canada for 1,095 days. Initially, an applicant has to do a self-assessment and a declaration. If there are any issues, there are a variety of proofs that can be considered. Those guidelines are a matter of public record and could be provided to the committee, if that would be helpful.

Thank you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

To go a bit further on this, basically you're saying it's an attestation that the person says, yes, I've been here for 1,095 days. Then the department would, after that, maybe come back and review some of those. Is that what you're saying? If so, what's the process that would trigger that and how does that work?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I don't have all of the details available to me and on hand this afternoon, but we could certainly endeavour to provide that information to the committee.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I get that it's a big scope of things here.

Is it fair to say that the process generally is that the applicant signs an attestation and then the government, after the fact, may or may not come back and double-check that and have some methods to prove that? Is that the general idea?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's correct.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I have one other question. If this subamendment doesn't pass, I'm just curious about the Canada Elections Act. Does IRCC have access to that data in order to see and confirm what the electoral status of that person would be?

[Nicole Girard]

There are legal authorities that carefully govern what information we're permitted to have access to, and they have to be for consistent use. It may be that, on the application form, the applicant ticks whether we're permitted to share the information of new citizens with Elections Canada for the purposes of exercising their rights, but it's not my understanding that the information is currently in the other direction, in response to the member's question.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

What you're telling me is that it would be very difficult to implement that because IRCC doesn't know if they've been registered as an elector. That's what you just said. Am I correct?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, I think that's a fair characterization.

Thank you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I'm done, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll just respond very quickly on the subamendment.

I would prefer to have broader categories of someone establishing a connections test such as the items that I had initially included in my amendment.

That being said, in the spirit of collaboration, I understand that the government wants to limit it to only applying the 1,095 days of physical presence. While I don't like it as much as the amendments that I tabled, I will support it because I do want to see this package move forward. I think it is important to restore the birthright of these lost Canadians and, because it's a birthright, it is not an issue that would impact the levels plan, Madam Chair.

With that, I will support the subamendment as tabled by the government, although I like it less than what I had tabled myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you raised your hand. Please go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, when the Conservatives brought in this second class of citizenship, there was an uproar in many different communities. I still remember that, and there were people who lost their citizenship because of this particular class that was brought forward.

Now, putting 1,095 days.... I still am not very happy, but I will be able to support the subamendment. The way I see it is this. Canada is a knowledge-based economy. Let me say, one professional—and it's perfectly known in my own home—an engineer, a doctor, an accountant or a consultant, goes and works for a Canadian company overseas for many years, and their child is born there. How will that child be able to come back and prove that they were able to live for three years in Canada? Basically, we still consider them second-class citizens. The child can't leave their parents until they are an adult.

I can give you a perfect example in my home. My brother is a professional engineer who works for a Canadian company. He has worked in many countries, and his son was born in Suriname. At that time, this law didn't exist, so he became a Canadian citizen right away because his parent was a Canadian citizen. My brother is still a Canadian citizen, and he's been stationed in different places by that engineering company to manage their offices.

I'm sure that there are many others like that, and it still bothers me that we are considering 1,095 days. Even though I will be able to support this, at the same time, it comes off to me as second-class citizenship. Can someone respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, would you like the officials to respond to it?

Ms. Girard, would you like—

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

Either the officials or Ms. Kwan, who brought this forward as well, and Ms. Lalonde as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Ms. Girard, would you like to comment on it?