Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 62 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Before we begin, I have just a few housekeeping notes.

You will notice that our regular clerk, Stephanie, is not with us today. She has taken an indefinite leave, and I hope she will be back with us very soon. Until then, Keelan Buck will be filling in. Members can reach him via the general committee email.

Welcome aboard, Keelan.

In regard to scheduling, for Wednesday we have scheduled former member Marc Garneau for one hour and DND officials for one hour on the Afghanistan motion. We intend to begin consideration of the draft report on application processing times next Monday. I will note that, as the committee has prioritized legislation, these meetings will be moved back, as needed, until we have finished Bill S-245. Also, regarding today's meeting, I have verified with the House administration, and they have informed me that the resources are not available to meet for more than two hours.

Today we will be going through Bill S-245, an act to amend the citizenship act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Before we begin, I will just read some instructions so that all members understand how this meeting will proceed.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk of the committee. Members should note that amendments should be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. I will try to go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly.

Each amendment has been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted it. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

In addition to having been properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown. A ruling of the chair is non-debatable, and the only recourse is to appeal that decision. If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes, not to propose an amendment to delete it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

Thank you. I hope everyone is clear.

Yes, we have Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, you said we can't move new amendments, but at the table of every committee I've ever been on, with clause-by-clause, if an amendment does come to a member's mind, they can still read it into the record. Then it can be distributed to the rest of the committee. It goes beyond the package.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Yes, the amendments can be moved on the floor.

Are there any questions before we start?

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I have one further question of clarification before I move the first amendment.

In the event that we don't finish these amendments today, so that is to say that we don't finish the package for Bill S-245 to be referred back to the House, then this debate will carry on to Wednesday. Former minister Marc Garneau is supposed to come before the committee on Wednesday. That would mean, then, that the clerk would try to reschedule the Honourable Marc Garneau.

Am I right in understanding that process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

In regard to Bill S-245, we already had one extension. We cannot get any further extensions. In our motions we have said that the legislation takes priority. If we are not able to finish clause-by-clause for Bill S-245, we will have to take this up on Wednesday and then reschedule the meeting with Mr. Garneau.

What we have scheduled right now is one hour with Mr. Garneau and one hour with the DND officials. We will have to reschedule them.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm sorry, but I just have another question. I just want to get all the Afghanistan witnesses' issues....

Can we get a quick update on the other ministers who were supposed to come before the committee? Do we have dates scheduled for them? How would they be impacted with delays?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

In regard to the motion passed and the meetings that have been scheduled, the only missing minister is Minister Marco Mendicino. We have not received any notification in regard to the date he can come. All the others have been done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I assume the clerk will continue to work to get the minister before the committee.

With that, I'd like to move my first amendment, if I may, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Let me just begin.

We have new clause 0.1, amendment NDP-1.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This amendment aims to address the second generation cut-off rule. Committee members will know that in 2009, under Bill C-37, the right for Canadians to pass their citizenship on to children born abroad was taken away. As a result, it has created a new class of lost Canadians. That's been extremely problematic. That was done back in 2009 by the Conservative government.

This amendment aims to restore that right to those individuals by establishing a connections test to Canada. I'm proposing that we establish the connections test in four ways. It says:

(i) the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days,

(ii) the person has been registered as an elector or a future elector under the Canada Elections Act,

(iii) the person has studied at an elementary, secondary, post-secondary or vocational school in Canada, or

(iv) the person has been employed by the Government of Canada, or has been a representative or delegate of Canada, at an international organization, summit or forum.

I'm moving this amendment, Madam Chair, because I think it is important to recognize those lost Canadians. If they meet any one of those connections tests that I've highlighted, I think they should be able to have the right restored to them.

Madam Chair, at this point I'm just wondering if I should I read out the content of the amendment as it is drafted by the legislative council. Can I just say that I move NDP-1?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You don't have to, but if you want you can.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay, I won't read it. I will spare everybody the pain.

I think I've explained what this amendment is purported to do.

To that end, Madam Chair, I'll move amendment NDP-1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Lalonde is next.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

I'd like to thank my colleague for the proposed amendment.

I would like to propose a subamendment to limit the definition of “substantial connection”.

I move that NDP-1, proposing to add clause 0.1 to Bill S-245, be amended at proposed paragraph (d), after the words “connection with Canada”, by adding “if the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days”, and by striking proposed subparagraphs (i)(ii)(iii) and (iv).

The explanation of my reasoning is that this subamendment changes NDP-1 so that the definition of “substantial connection” can only be met through a physical presence of 1,095 days, equivalent to three years in Canada.

The time spent in Canada does not need to be consecutive.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Now we have a subamendment on the floor.

I have a speaking list. Next is Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll direct some questions to officials with regard to the subamendment.

Does the department have the resources or a system to determine physical presence per the description in the subamendment? If so, what mechanism would that be?

Would it be consistent? How would someone verify substantive presence in this situation? Would you be looking at tax records or receipts? What would somebody have to do to provide a substantive connection should this amendment pass?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

We have a speaking list.

Thank you, Ms. Kwan. If you can respond to that—

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

It was a question for the officials. I'm allowed to ask questions of the officials.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Who would like to respond to Ms. Rempel Garner?

Please go ahead.

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

When legislation is passed by Parliament, we begin the implementation preparations, including developing changes to policy guidelines for decision-makers on the range of types of proof that could be accepted for the purposes of demonstrating things like a connection test and the types of evidence that the member was mentioning.

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

Thank you. I'll continue.

Has the government asked you for any advice on how a substantive presence test could be proved should this amendment be passed?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm not aware that any advice on this question has been provided at this point. As I mentioned, the implementation preparations begin once legislation is passed by Parliament.

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

Thank you.

Is it fair to say that at present there isn't a system to prove substantive connection per the way the amendment is laid out? Is that done in any other similar legislation right now? If so, how is that done?

[Nicole Girard]

As the committee may be aware, currently citizenship applicants are required to demonstrate three years of physical presence in Canada for the purposes of fulfilling requirements to become Canadian citizens. We would build on those systems and processes that we currently have in place with regard to any new legislative requirements that we may be implementing down the road.

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

Thank you.

I guess what I'm not clear about with this amendment.... My concern is that I'm not sure how many people it applies to and if perhaps it's broadening a scope beyond what was intended in the original intent of the bill.

Does the department have a sense of how many people the amendment would apply to? Is there any data to that effect, or for how many people it could apply to...?