Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you for the question.

Generally the citizenship program is a facilitative program. The amendment moved by the member is to the effect that these are individuals who would be considered citizens by law. Within this program, we would be approaching that and looking at how we can facilitate a person's access to their documentation, because the law is telling us that person is a citizen. From time to time there may be a circumstance such as the member described, in which we have to go that extra mile, and the program does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll go to Ms. Kwan and then Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Chair, I don't have anything else to add.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I just want to build on some of my colleagues' questions but explore a concept. I want to see if the amendment actually fixes the problem.

I want to explore the concept of “responsible parent”, because admittedly, I'm not familiar with the history of that term. I probably should be. Could the department give us a brief overview of what that concept was, how it was applied to programming and what has changed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Girard, go ahead.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, thank you.

Effectively this was the legal concept or regime for access to citizenship if your child was born abroad to a Canadian under the 1947 act. These were requirements that applied up until the law changed in 1977. For all of us who were born abroad—and I can include my own example in that if it is useful to illustrate—it means that the Canadian parent had to demonstrate that their child could legally be considered a Canadian and have access to that proof of citizenship, having been born abroad in the circumstance of fitting within that definition under the law at the time of “responsible parent”. That meant that if your father was Canadian, your parents had to be married for you to be considered a Canadian citizen. If you were born abroad to a Canadian mother, then your parents had to be unmarried. If the converse were true, you were not considered by law to be a Canadian citizen or to have access to Canadian citizenship.

That created many lost Canadians. Those provisions were changed in 1977 and were removed to make it equitable regardless of who your parent was or whether or not they were married.

The issue was that in 1977, when the law was changed, there were no remedies for those who had been excluded previously. Those remedies came only many years later, in 2009. Many of us know people who have benefited from those provisions in 2009 to restore citizenship to those who were born to what we would describe as the “wrong” responsible parent, the unmarried Canadian father or the married Canadian mother in cases where the child was born overseas.

I hope that's a reasonable summary. Thank you.

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

With regard to the amendment my colleague proposed, I'm trying to understand the scope change it would create from the bill that was originally proposed. I'm not sure whether the department is prepared or could comment on that. I'm just trying to get a sense of what the purpose is.

[Nicole Girard]

I think the legislative clerk is more of an expert on the question of scope.

However, for consideration, I would simply mention that the narrow provisions of the bill are addressing those born abroad in the second generation or beyond, the restoration of the section 8s. The committee has just dealt with others born abroad since 2009. This is a different cohort, but one defined in time and particular circumstances.

Thank you.

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

That was immensely helpful.

Could the department build on that and specifically define what the cohort would be and perhaps its size as well?

[Nicole Girard]

Someone can correct me if I'm not summarizing correctly, but I understood the amendment is referring to those born abroad between 1977 and 2009 in the second generation. They could be automatically considered citizens under this motion.

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

Just to clarify, it would essentially be grandchildren. It would be the second generation. As my colleague Mr. Kmiec said—I was valiantly trying to follow his train of logic—what is being proposed is the expansion of the cohort in the original bill beyond first generation to second generation for those who were impacted by the “responsible parent” issue.

Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's correct. It is addressing those born abroad in the second generation within that time frame.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan, and then I will have to end the meeting at 5:35.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I was just going to say this is not related to the age-28 rule.

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. Seeing no further debate, we can vote on NDP-2.

Before we vote, I want to let everyone know that if NDP-2 is defeated, amendments NDP-7 on page 16, NDP-10 on page 22, NDP-11 on page 23 and NDP-13 on page 29, cannot be moved since they refer to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1[See Minutes of Proceedings])

As I said previously, if NDP-2 is defeated, NDP-7, NDP-10, NDP-11 and NDP-13 cannot be moved since they refer to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2.

With that, this meeting comes to an end.

Do I have the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The meeting is adjourned.