Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2023

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Yes. It's further to the remedy that the committee voted on and agreed to in the last session, to add those section 8s as citizens but creating a new category for them, (g.1), and at the same time confirming in the scheme of the act that their descendants are subject to the first generation limit.

There's no transmission unless the family member meets the connection test that's under discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion....

Yes, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm sorry. Again, this is so complex and involves so many subparts of the Citizenship Act now.

So far, with the amendments that have been accepted, with this subamendment to the NDP-3 amendment, this means that the 1,095 rule will apply to people who are seeking the right, not the grant, of citizenship if one of their parents is a Canadian citizen in those cases. Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

That's correct. It's for the descendants of those remedied in that narrow category of section 8s. It's a minor amendment to ensure that the descendants of those who are remedied in that category will be subject to the first generation limit and can also access this.... There's no pathway to citizenship for the descendants unless the connection test is met—the 1,095 days. The member is correct.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

This just makes it more consistent with other parts of the act. This is the substantive connection test of 1,095 days. Is that correct? That's the only requirement.

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, it's consistent. The member is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

To clarify, in no amendments we've made yet is there an obligation for consecutive residency or time in Canada. Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

That's correct.

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

Is that consistent with other usages of the rule in other parts of the act, as well?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, I believe that's correct.

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

Just to be clear, what I'm asking is this: Any time there's a presence test required in other parts of the act, there's no obligation for the time to be consecutive. Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's correct, in the sense that for a grant of citizenship, the current requirement is to accumulate three years of physical presence at any time within the qualifying window of five years. There's no requirement for it to be consecutive.

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

Okay.

Based on the amendment that was just made, is it clear that it still has to be within the five-year window, or is that not clear now, with these amendments?

[Nicole Girard]

The five-year window doesn't apply to this cohort, because in this case we're talking about the descendants of citizens for whom the connection test on the family member is three years of physical presence. It's a slightly lower threshold, if I can put it that way, because there isn't a specific window.

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

Does the department have any concerns about there being a discrepancy between other parts of the act, in terms of the window and the provisions we're building here? Is that going to create a legislative dissonance, if you will? Are there any concerns about that?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm not aware that any concerns have been identified at this point in time.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just remembered that on Monday, one of the questions we asked was how many people this change would affect? This particular section, with this amendment and subamendment.... Do you have those numbers, and do you also have the numbers from Monday for those questions about how many lost Canadians would be encompassed by the amendments passed so far in this committee?

[Nicole Girard]

As I mentioned on Monday, depending on which legislative remedy—in terms of which aspect of the bill is under discussion—the department doesn't have a specific estimate or a way to have a precise number. Those remedied by section 8 are a relatively modest cohort, as we discussed before. We see in the order of 20 to 30 such cases come forward every year.

Those who could benefit from the second generation connection test could potentially be in the thousands, I think, as we discussed in the previous session, although it depends on how many come forward to the department to request a proof of their citizenship. There's no way to know that in advance.

I think that covers your question. I apologize if I left a part out. I'd be happy to cover it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Actually, the 20 to 30 gives me an idea...and potentially thousands.

If this subamendment passes, just so I'm perfectly clear, this is by right, not grant, citizenship. Is that correct? Do paragraphs (g), (h) and (g.1)—this is by right citizenship—apply the same rule?

[Nicole Girard]

That's correct, though this subamendment is targeting the descendants of the narrow cohort. One would anticipate that those numbers are likely to be more modest, though it's difficult to know in what range they may be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.