Evidence of meeting #62 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay.
We will have to deal with G-2 and then go to Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.
As per the member's request to have a break, I would say this: Let's get through G-2 first. Then we can suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that everyone has the amendment proposed by Ms. Rempel Garner.
We will go back to Ms. Lalonde for G-2.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay.
We will now go to the amendment proposed by Ms. Rempel Garner.
Yes, Ms. Rempel Garner.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
On a point of order, I believe you said that once an amendment has been moved, it needs unanimous consent to be withdrawn. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
The notice was given about the amendment. It was in the package, but she has not moved it.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
As per the member's request, we will take a little break so that everyone can have a copy of the amendment proposed by Ms. Rempel Garner. Then we will come back to that.
The meeting is suspended.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
As per the advice of the legislative clerk, right now we are on clause 1, which is section 3 of the Citizenship Act. The amendment that Ms. Rempel Garner has moved goes in section 5. Procedurally we have to deal with a few things before we get into this amendment. Right now we cannot deal with this amendment. This procedurally will fall after NDP-8.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
I would just note that I believe no amendments are public until they have been tabled so we should just be careful about discussing, even, numbers. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
When we come to section 5 with the amendments....
Right now, Ms. Lalonde is not moving G-2. Where we are is G-3. Can I ask the member if she wants to move G-3?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Indeed, I'd like to continue presenting amendment G‑3.
I move that Bill S-245 in clause 1 be amended by replacing lines 11 to 14 on page 1 with the following:
(g.1) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and, before April 17, 2009, ceased to be a citizen because they failed to make an application to retain their citizenship under section 8, as it read before April 17, 2009, or made such an application but the application was not approved;
This amendment introduces a more inclusive remedy to restore citizenship to everyone who lost citizenship status under the former section 8, those who never made an application and those who made an application that failed.
Madam Chair, that will ensure consistency. The people whose citizenship is restored by this amendment are added to the list of those who are subject to the first-generation limit.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you.
I just want to clarify the intent of this amendment.
My understanding is that in G-1 what happened was that functionally the legislation would then make anyone who failed to apply for citizenship in that time cohort between the Citizenship Act and the changes automatically a citizen and that what is being proposed is to limit the automatic citizenship that's being conferred by excluding the second generation of classes of individuals listed in proposed subsection 3.
Perhaps the officials would want to clarify. I want to ensure that my understanding of the amendment is correct.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is the amendment that is looking to restore Canadian citizenship to all who lost it under the former section 8, not just those who never came forward and applied but also those who applied and for whatever reason their application was not approved, in order to have an equitable and inclusive remedy for those lost Canadians.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Through you, Madam Chair, to Ms. Girard, could you give us some sense of whether there was a uniform reason why those persons' applications weren't approved? I'm sorry for not knowing this.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I mentioned, this is a requirement that was required to be demonstrated since 1997, so we wouldn't necessarily have access to all of those reasons going back in time.
What we can say is that these are individuals born abroad in the second generation and beyond, and the main requirement they had to demonstrate was one year of residence in Canada. If the decision-maker wasn't satisfied that the connection test was demonstrated, then the application wouldn't have been approved. That was the main thing they had to demonstrate.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Ms. Girard.
Functionally, if this amendment passes, based on what has passed already, there would still be a residency test that would apply. Is that correct?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
For these, there is not a residence test in the restoration of Canadian citizenship that's being proposed for this limited cohort. The issue is that they were Canadian citizens until they turned 28 and, unbeknownst to many of them, they lost citizenship automatically for those reasons that I mentioned. Often, they didn't know that it was a requirement that applied to them and that they had to apply and meet it, and so on and so forth.
Consistent with previous legislative changes like those done in 2009 and 2015, this is intending to restore citizenship to them automatically, provided that they are described in that limited cohort impacted by the former section 8, which was repealed.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
This is the last question.
What I'm trying to get at here is that, for the cohort that this would remedy and who weren't approved in the first place, would there be any instances where they weren't approved for security reasons or other issues that could be material to Canadian safety? Is this just more of an administrative issue?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, I would agree with that characterization.
Security and background checks were not part of the original criteria. Similar to cohorts that were restored under previous initiatives, this is a straight restoration for those who fall within that limited cohort that lost it at age 28 because of the former section 8.
