Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a subamendment to that. It's very simple. I'll tell you what I want to do. I want to add the word “consecutive” in between “1,095” and “days”. In other words, it would say they have been “in Canada for at least 1,095 consecutive days.”

Now the logic of this goes back to.... Ms. Kwan mentioned that she liked her amendment with the additional, more detailed criteria, and then what Ms. Lalonde proposed was a much simpler criteria.

This is a little bit in the middle because it does make it a little bit tougher to meet a consecutive clause, but we also heard from our witnesses who said that the most common thing that they hear is that somebody studied here in school. You talked about university or other things and you said that, in those cases, it's very easy and straightforward to prove that.

To my way of thinking, this isn't a difficult test to match. It's also much simpler to prove at the end of the day when it's consecutive. That's why I would move this subamendment to put “consecutive” in there between “1,095” and “days”. I think that would be a stronger test and I don't think it's adding a lot of burden to people. It actually simplifies the department's work on this.

That's my proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

We have a subamendment to NDP-1 as amended. We have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Redekopp. Is there any discussion on that?

There is no discussion. Is everyone in agreement? No, so we will have to take a vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We are back on NDP-1 as amended.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, it just came to me as I was looking at these, comparing them to some of the other amendments, that if this passes, then the only requirement....

I'm just asking the officials a question, Madam Chair.

If this passes, then the only requirement that there will be to regain your citizenship in Canada will be the 1,095 days, whichever way the department administrates that check. What about those with criminal records from a foreign state, where they're convicted for whatever overseas?

[Nicole Girard]

My understanding of the amendment is that it's extending citizenship automatically to those born since 2009 who have a Canadian parent, which is the first requirement, and then where the family member is demonstrating the connection test. Criminality would not enter into the criteria or the assessment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will take a vote on NDP-1 as amended.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 1)

Now we go to clause 1.

We'll go to Mrs. Lalonde and then Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move that Bill S-245, in clause 1, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8 on page 1. As written, the bill only remedies the status of some of those who lost citizenship due to the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, those who never made an application to retain citizenship. This amendment deletes these lines from clause 1 to allow for the introduction of a more inclusive provision through amendment G-3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mrs. Lalonde has proposed amendment G-1.

Ms. Rempel Garner is next on the list.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment that I would like to add prior to clause 1. We're just getting advice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay, so an amendment has been proposed by Mrs. Lalonde—

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

I'd like to add a new clause prior to clause 1, so that's why I had my hand up before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just wait one second. Let me just ask the clerk.

For everyone's information, as per the law clerk, if Ms. Rempel Garner is proposing to go back before clause 1, we need unanimous consent.

Do I have the unanimous consent of the committee to go?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I don't see unanimous consent. There is no unanimous consent.

We'll continue with clause 1 and G-1. Ms. Lalonde has proposed an amendment for clause 1.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

For my clarification, this is deleting lines 4 to 8. Is that right? That's what we're doing.

I heard you say, Madam Chair, that if we're deleting lines from the bill, it shouldn't be proposed as an amendment. It should be dealt with in the vote for the clause.

Is that what you said?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

That's to delete the entire clause. This is not for the entire clause.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I see. This is a part of the clause. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have an amendment proposed by Ms. Lalonde on the floor for clause 1.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing no discussion, we will take the vote on G-1.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

I see Ms. Rempel Garner and then Ms. Lalonde.

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

Thank you.

Chair, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding the following after line 8:

Section 5 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

Waiver by minister for administrative delays

The minister may, in his or her discretion, after having reviewed a person's particular circumstances, waive on compassionate grounds in the case of any person who has waited over five years for a response from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to their application due to administrative delays.

I'm happy to submit that.

Here's my thinking on this one, Chair. In the back-and-forth from the department on Ms. Kwan's amendment and then the government's amendment, we have all heard a lot about the impact of the administrative delays on people trying to enter the country through other administrative streams for which there are backlogs. I believe that there are over two million cases in the system right now, give or take.

There are many situations where persons are waiting over five years. I think what happens too is that, rather than look at how they can get through the regular system in a sensible period of time, they seek to lobby us for changes like we're seeing in this bill or whatnot, as a way to try to get to Canada. What I think is problematic is that when these persons come to us—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, I raise a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Wait one second, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Yes, go ahead, please, Mr. Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but would it be possible to pause for a moment until the paper version circulates around the table? We could then focus on what our colleague is saying and avoid…

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We can do that, but before we do, I need to clarify one thing. The legislative clerk would like to clarify procedurally what we have to deal with first, before we go to Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.

Can I ask the legislative clerk to please speak on how we can proceed?

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment that was moved is on the same line as amendment G-2. Since G-2 was proposed ahead of this one, G-2 should come first, because it's first-come, first-served, when it comes to the same line. It can be moved afterwards, after G-2 is dealt with.