Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

I'm not sure that I would comment, but what I could point out is that the 1,095 days is the same connection test that a newcomer to Canada needs to demonstrate. Therefore, from that perspective, it is consistent in terms of the policy that Canada currently has on demonstrating attachment.

The other consideration, in terms of what the member was outlining, and my understanding of the motion, is that it's backward-looking. It's addressing the concerns of parents and of stakeholders who have come forward to this committee to express that parents, in their lifetimes, have demonstrated an important connection to Canada through their studies, their work history or some combination thereof. If they've already demonstrated that connection of three years, then my understanding of the motion is that the child, who was born abroad in the second generation or beyond, would be considered a citizen, whereas now that's not currently the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

The next person I have on the speaking list is Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm worried that Mr. Dhaliwal, by voting for this subamendment, would cause himself family strife at the dinner table, and I really don't want to do that.

Just to the officials, I have a quick question.

About a decade ago, the department used to do what was called “day counting”. You would get these large applications to prove the three out of five years—it was four out of six at one point—and you would provide passport pictures of the stamps inside it. Now it's all digital and electronic. You would provide utility bills or whatever for proof, literally day to day, if you were travelling for work while a PR.

Has that been totally discontinued now? Is it only a declaration that you click on?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, as I have mentioned, and just further to the member's question, things have changed, I think, to some extent since then in terms of the different tools that are available to officers. However, I don't have the information at hand today.

I'll be pleased to provide the committee with the guidelines that support that kind of decision-making and how those assessments are made.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

That's a pretty substantial answer to get because, if we're creating an administrative burden for the department, especially 1,095 days that could be parsed out over many years.... For example, the older the person, and the more series of days, weeks, months or years they could be in Canada, if they travel back and forth for whatever reason, then they could make an application through the system. If it's just a declaration, the government, after the fact, would have to demonstrate...so then it's a different administrative burden to figure it out.

I think it would be much easier to say “consecutive”, “successive” or something like that. Then it would take, basically, someone living here, going to school here and working here and having established themselves for several years.

It would be an easier thing to prove to the department if you were in Canada for an extended period of continuous time and, therefore, have that substantial connection. That is easier to prove, so the department would have an easier way to understand it.

That information is actually really critical for us to understand. If that “day counting” is not being done anymore, and it's just an attestation, then the government would have to spend more time on the back end double-checking everybody's declarations when they submit them. I think that would be problematic without another subamendment to this. I know you can't move another subamendment to say something like “continuous” or “successive” so it's three continuous years. You could go to school here for three years, like high school or elementary school, or something like that.

I was just thinking out loud, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Next is Mr. Maguire.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you.

I think Mr. Kmiec read my mind. In regard to the 1,095 days, I believe Ms. Lalonde indicated that it could be cumulative as opposed to consecutive. The more you have that, it seems to me, if you're trying to keep track of it, it's a much more difficult thing to do.

In regard to my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner's first question about how much more this could complicate a situation, that's what first came to my mind. I'll ask the officials if they can expand on exactly what it is now, what this change would make and how much more difficult that might be. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

Ms. Girard, go ahead, please.

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are many who have made representations since 2009—and, I believe, to this committee as well—about having grown up in Canada, yet not having access to the kind of mechanism outlined in MP Kwan's amendment. One of the most often-cited examples of people who make these representations is that they did their schooling and university here and worked here.

Typically for individuals for whom that's the case, if they have a degree from a Canadian university at which they've done a three-year or a four-year degree, it will be fairly straightforward and will typically be one piece of evidence to demonstrate a three-year physical presence in terms of a connection test. There will certainly be circumstances outside of that, but there may be other ways and other things to look at in those other kinds of cases.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Rempel Garner, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you.

I have a question to build on one of the answers that just came up here. Going back to the previous answers you've given the committee, I understand that this amendment would essentially confer citizenship on certain persons if they come forward to request it and if they meet the criteria outlined in the bill. Is that correct? Okay.

Would the typical screening process for an application for somebody to immigrate to the country through other means also be applied in this situation?

[Nicole Girard]

No, that wouldn't be the case, because my understanding of the criteria and the motion put forward is that the person has to have a Canadian parent. That has to be established, just like in the case of any proof application that's submitted to the department now.

In addition, in order to access Canadian citizenship, the connection test will have to be demonstrated, such as through the example I gave in my previous comments. That is more akin to a proof of citizenship process in that what the department processes now doesn't relate to the immigration process example.

Thank you.

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

Thank you for that clarity.

Given that this amendment could potentially impact thousands of persons who wouldn't be going through a typical screening process for a new Canadian and who would just have citizenship conferred on them, has there been any sort of impact analysis or potential risk assessment done, like the sorts of assessments that would be done prior to announcing a new immigration program or a pathway to enter Canada? Has there been any sort of analysis done within your department on the type of process that's being put forward in the subamendment?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm not aware of any such analysis. However, what I—as someone who is, for the third time, supporting parliamentary consideration of measures intended to restore citizenship to additional lost Canadians—could offer the committee is that, each time, there is maybe a bit of risk of overestimating the number of people who may come forward. As I mentioned to the committee during a previous appearance, between the 2009 and 2015 amendments that were similarly conferring citizenship to a number of cohorts of lost Canadians, we had just under 20,000 persons come forward to take up that opportunity to apply for a certificate of Canadian citizenship.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

You just mentioned an interesting point, and I'm trying to get a sense of whether it applies in the situation of the subamendment here. There have been previous attempts to clarify lost Canadians. It seems to me that any time there's a bill or a measure put in place to clarify lost Canadians, there seems to be another class of lost Canadians who come in on the back end.

Have you given any advice to the government or has the government asked for any advice in terms of, instead of continually amending the lost Canadian component, perhaps having a broader, more definitive class of what would constitute this and then drawing a line?

[Nicole Girard]

Currently, I'm not aware of any such advice. The consideration is up to this committee's deliberations, as we know. The last rounds were done in 2009 and 2015. However, at that time, the focus was on eliminating the problematic aspects with regard to the previous section 8 provisions, which caused the second generation and beyond to lose citizenship automatically from age 28 if they didn't take measures to retain it and replace it with a clear first-generation limit.

The discussion now is beyond the first-generation limit. What is the view of the committee today with regard to this motion on those who have parents who can demonstrate a strong connection to Canada with regard to those second-generation descendants and a pathway or access to citizenship?

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

Based on what's being proposed in the subamendment here, does your department foresee...? Could you perhaps clarify for the committee any potential additional people who would then come forward and ask for extensions on this?

How do I phrase this differently? What I've seen since the original fix that was put forward is that the definition keeps moving forward. Any time there's one group that gets fixes, it's, “Oh well, now there's another cohort over here that could apply.” I would rather we take a position on just having a more concise and clear definition on where to draw the line, so that we can be fair and equitable in our immigration process.

What I'm concerned about here with the subamendment is that we are essentially conferring citizenship without having to apply for citizenship to an untold number of persons, while there are literally tens of thousands of persons, hundreds of thousands of persons, in a backlog trying to come to Canada even just to immigrate as PRs.

I'm just concerned that with this amendment, we are automatically conferring citizenship to a group of persons, while at the same time there are tens of thousands—I don't know what the backlog is now—of people trying to come to the country in other ways.

Do you have a sense in the department of how many people who would be affected by this subamendment have already applied for citizenship through another stream?

[Nicole Girard]

I'd have to check which statistics we may have to subsequently provide to the committee. However, as I referenced previously, we have about 40,000 to 60,000 applications for proof in any given year for children born abroad in the first generation who are currently citizens. The question is about the numbers beyond that. They are likely in the thousands.

Currently, as this committee knows, applicants have to go through the immigration process, which means they will need to be sponsored by their parents, become permanent residents and then go through the second process of applying for citizenship. From a certain perspective, the amendment put forward by MP Kwan could be seen as a more efficient process, because, essentially, it's looking to extend citizenship to the same cohort without having to go through the immigration process first, on the main condition that the parent demonstrate the three-year connection test under the subamendment proposed by MP Lalonde.

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

Ms. Girard, with regard to your last comment, have you given advice to the government to that effect, perhaps prioritizing.... How to put this? Would allowing people to show proof of citizenship through this potential route being proposed in this amendment be more efficient than encouraging people to apply for residency through other immigration pathways?

[Nicole Girard]

When asked about the impact of this proposal, yes, we have observed that, since 2009, families in this situation have been required to go through the permanent resident route because there is no immediate pathway to citizenship for the second generation born beyond. That does mean that under this proposal, there is a step that's saved. That's accurate.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Would it be fair to say, given what was just presented by the department, that if this amendment passes, we are prioritizing citizenship for access to Canada for a cohort of persons that we hadn't previously prioritized over people who are perhaps in the queue already for other immigration pathways?

[Nicole Girard]

It's not accurate actually.

Before 2009, the second generation and beyond were automatically citizens, but lost their citizenship automatically on their 28th birthday if they failed to retain it. The issue was that those of us who were born abroad didn't know because there was no centralized register to advise us. As testified by others in front of this committee, it led to all kinds of problems, which in turn created the drive for this proposal.

While the first-generation limit in 2009 eliminated that problematic regime—if I can put it that way—and put a clear regime in place, it still left out the second generation born abroad whose families had a significant connection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We have a subamendment on the floor, so we can vote on the subamendment. Is everyone okay with the subamendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

Now we have NDP‑1 as amended.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I would like to propose another subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Just to clarify, we have NDP‑1 as amended. I will just read it so that everyone knows.

Motion 12263633, which proposes adding clause 0.1 to Bill S‑245, is amended by substituting the following for that clause:

0.1 Subsection 2(2) of the Citizenship Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):

(d) a person has a substantial connection with Canada if the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.