Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Mr. Redekopp is next.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is very complicated stuff and, in my simplistic mind, I just want to understand. The way I understand this is that the original wording in Senator Martin's bill, under her subclauses 1(1) and 1(2) is being replaced by these words, essentially to accomplish what she was trying to accomplish, but with wording that the government and the government lawyers are more comfortable with. Is that a fair characterization of this?

[Nicole Girard]

I would agree with that statement in the sense that this is proposed to be a more inclusive remedy, one that's more equitable and, to some of the concerns that were expressed by members previously, ensures that all of the lost Canadians in this limited cohort have a remedy.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

You say “more equitable”. I believe that one of the things in here that wasn't in Yonah Martin's bill is that it includes those who were previously rejected for citizenship. Now they're allowed to have it. Is that what you mean by “more equitable”?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that is correct. They came forward and applied, so presumably could demonstrate in some sense that they had a connection to show, whereas for persons who never came forward, we don't know whether they were in a position to demonstrate a connection test.

If you follow that through to its logical conclusion, the bill as drafted—extending citizenship and a remedy automatically to those who never applied—may be benefiting persons who may or may not have had a connection but excluding, we would suggest, perhaps unintentionally, those who could demonstrate some form of connection but were unsuccessful with their original application.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Okay. I think I'm good with that.

Essentially, generally speaking, we're following the intent of what the senator intended in her original bill with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, we will go to the vote on G-3. Before we take the vote, I just want to let everyone know that, if G-3 is defeated, amendment G-7 cannot be moved since it refers to the proposed paragraph 3(1)(g.1) that would have been created by G-3.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. Now we will come to NDP-2.

I would like to ask Ms. Kwan if she would like to move it.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, I would like to move this amendment.

This amendment is to recognize citizenship retroactive to birth for people born abroad between 1977 and 2009 who were not recognized as citizens at birth because of one of the discriminatory rules that Canada had in place such that the parent was not recognized as a citizen at the time of the person's birth. I am moving this amendment to rectify that.

From my perspective, I think it is important to do this because Canada has had a series of discriminatory policies in place. Some of them were gender based. For example, if you were a women with a child, you were not able to confer your citizenship to the child. However, if you were a man, you were able to. That has now been deemed by the courts as discriminatory.

The legislative changes did fix that for people going forward but not going back in time. I feel that we should be consistent with that concept and go back in time to recognize those who were not granted citizenship based on their birthright because, as an example, women faced discriminatory rules.

To that end, Madam Chair, I would like to move this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I'm just looking to the department.

My colleague who has the moved the motion said that there was discrimination based on gender of parentage. Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

The position of the department is that the legislation is compliant. However, the former legislation had a concept called “responsible parent”. What it meant was that citizenship was derived from the Canadian father if the child was born abroad, provided that the Canadian father was married, but there was no access to citizenship if the Canadian father was not married to his partner. Conversely, citizenship would derive from a Canadian mother if the child was born abroad but not if she was married. There were individuals who were born abroad to a Canadian parent in either of those scenarios who did not access citizenship. It was not limited to the descendants of women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, it will be a question to the officials.

Is it fair to say that this is a different group of lost Canadians than the ones in those 50 months, or is this group connected to them? In the Senate testimony, one of the stakeholders who presented said there were about 15 groups of lost Canadians. Is this a different group, or is it a subgroup of those 50 months?

I'm just reading some of these sections here, and they make references to paragraphs going all the way to (s). It's hard to tell exactly which groups are being affected.

Can you just clarify whether it is a different group of lost Canadians or a subgroup of lost Canadians of those original 50 months that Senator Yonah Martin was trying to address?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I'm not sure about the reference to the 50 months; however, this is a different cohort than the ones we've dealt with thus far. I believe that the member is correct that there was testimony. It may have been from the member from the Canadian Bar Association who referenced this cohort, if memory serves.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

This is a different group that goes beyond what Senator Yonah Martin asked to do. That's why we were willing to vote on the previous amendments; those were basically following the spirit of what our colleague from the Senate wanted to do.

I would like hear from the officials as to how this would function. You've explained somewhat who these groups would be, but how would this function and how many people do you estimate could be impacted by this?

[Nicole Girard]

It's difficult to estimate. A reasonable assumption would be thousands born abroad, but because the time frame is fairly long—between 1977 and 2009, if I heard the member correctly—I think the concern, and it's one I've referenced before, is that this particular amendment is looking to extend citizenship automatically to some in the second generation but not others. That is the distinction we would point out for the committee's consideration.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

One of the points here is that the first part of the amendment is to give citizenship to second-generation individuals who have deceased parents who were previously lost Canadians but regained their citizenship through a previous version of the Citizenship Act. Have I captured it there? Okay. Will this be by right or by grant?

[Nicole Girard]

This is by right. This confers citizenship automatically on a cohort who could be described as the descendants of those who were remedied by previous legislative changes in 2009 and 2015, but that only covered the first generation born abroad. This is a proposal that relates to a certain cohort of second-generation, born-abroad individuals.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Back to administration of this, say this passed and this became law. How would someone in the second generation prove that they were eligible for it? They would need a substantial amount of paperwork. Would the department have to create a new process for this to be done, for these potentially few thousand or tens of thousands of people or more?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, it would be a proof of citizenship application, which is a process that exists. In this case, because it's the second generation born abroad, I would imagine that you would be demonstrating that your parent is an individual who was born abroad in the first generation known to the department, or that the grandparent was born in Canada or naturalized in Canada, like someone who immigrated to Canada and became a Canadian citizen. It's not that far off from what transpires in a proof application today. It would just be one generation removed.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Can you make it clear, the one generation removed? If I'm a naturalized Canadian, would one generation removed be one generation behind me?

[Nicole Girard]

In the case of a naturalized Canadian who has a child born abroad, that child is the first generation born abroad and is automatically a Canadian today. It would be the child of that child who's born abroad in the second generation demonstrating that their parent is first generation born abroad and known to the department, in many cases, because those of us who were born abroad have had to get proof.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

In preparation for this, I went to go find my citizenship card. You used to do these citizenship cards; now you do these big certificates. The cards are way better. Everyone I meet prefers the cards just generally because they can carry them with them.

If my children had children overseas and they were impacted by something like this and had to prove it, I would then be their proof. My question to you, because you've now said it twice, is this: Does “known to the department” mean that you know you've issued a card or a document of citizenship at some point?

All of those documents are digital. Is that correct? Is there a digital database of all Canadian citizenship ever issued? This is something new to me, so I'm asking whether that's the case.

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, we have those records. I believe in some cases they're actually on microfiche. I too have a card and a certificate somewhere in my files. Yes, those records exist for the purposes of making those verifications. Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Just as my last question here, what would happen in this case? As you just said, you have microfiche, archival documents. What would happen in a situation in which there was a disagreement between a document provided by a person overseas trying to retain or regain their citizenship and the department saying, “Well, our microfiche is not clear enough” if it's damaged or whatever, or the document cannot be found for whatever reason because there have been so many different versions of the act, changes at the department, movements among buildings and changes of staff? What happens in those types of situations?