Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The clerk has sent an email, so it's coming to everyone.

Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

While we're waiting for that to come in writing, just so that everyone has the right story on what's going on here....

This is very complicated, and it's hard to understand. If anybody questions why we're asking questions, it's that we want to make sure we get it right. We want to understand what's going on. We want to make sure you guys are in favour of this because, ultimately, it's you who have to make this work.

It's a lot of “(iii)”s and things like that to understand. Just to be clear, we're not trying to slow this process down. We're trying to make sure it's done correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Chair, I can only agree with my colleague Mr. Redekopp.

We're dealing with a very complex bill and we have subamendments before us. We are working to produce a good bill. So I just can't understand why these subamendments were not sent to all members so that each party's research team could have the opportunity to carefully examine them. The fact that they are written up means they have been for some time. The Liberal Party didn't write them up 15 minutes before the meeting started. It would have been nice and proper to get these subamendments to us beforehand.

It's unfortunate. This isn't how we normally do things. It means that the next few times, the Bloc Québécois might introduce complicated subamendments during the meeting. I don't know, but I'm raising the issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Next we have Mr. Kmiec and then Ms. Lalonde.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm going to ask the officials some questions.

I'm just following the notes I took on the amendment when Ms. Kayabaga was speaking. I want you to correct me if I'm wrong and to tell me what the correct answer is, just so I understand.

It would be parents pre-April 17, 2009, but it would also apply for the substantial connection test for those pre...I heard 1977. That is what's really confusing me—those who were not born in Canada and cannot, or were not made to, prove a substantial connection to Canada pre-1977.

It sounds like there are two things at play here. It would really help if you had an example of how this would function, because this is all over the Citizenship Act. Could you just help us understand?

[Nicole Girard]

As the member was mentioning, this is an amendment intended to provide equal access to the connection test to children born since 2009 and who were impacted by the first generation limit, where only the parent is given access to demonstrate the connection test.

The issue for the subamendment is, which parents will have access? We think that, through a drafting issue, there may have been an oversight. It was drafted in a way that covered only parents born since 1977. You could have a family with one parent whose kid was born abroad in 1976 and grew up in Canada. They wouldn't have access to the connection test for their child born abroad in the second generation, but the other sibling, who was born in 1978, so after the 1977 dividing line, would have access.

All this amendment is looking to do is to say, “Regardless of when your parent was born, if your child is born abroad from 2009 on, you can access the connection test via your parent.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Lalonde.

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

I'd like to make two comments.

We can all agree that this clause-by-clause consideration is complex. I would just like to thank the folks who are helping us clarify this.

Esteemed colleague, I certainly understand that you're very disappointed that you didn't have access to some of the documents earlier, but we couldn't introduce a subamendment until the amendment itself had been moved. As has already been said, the amendments have been introduced, but they cannot be debated until they are moved to the committee. It's a matter of confidentiality, that's the reason.

That said, I'd like to thank the folks who are helping us navigate through all this complexity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We have Mr. Redekopp, then Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

It appears to me that this subamendment is actually not related to anything Ms. Kwan's amendment brings forward. This is something that has been an oversight in the existing legislation. It's just that, since we're here, we're going to fix it.

Is that the right way to understand this?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, that's not correct.

It's related to Ms. Kwan's amendment in the sense that it's introducing a connection test accessible to those born abroad in the second generation and beyond. It's a mechanism that doesn't currently exist.

As the member mentioned, it's a minor adjustment to address a drafting issue, which was probably unintended. It cut out some parents, when it was intending to be inclusive with regard to the proposed connection test to be met by parents of these children born abroad since 2009, if I can sum it up that way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question about my colleague Mrs. Lalonde's last comment.

Am I to understand that the parties never discuss amendments and subamendments with each other before committee meetings, and that there have never been any such discussions prior to introducing subamendments?

I don't mean to belabour the point, but I don't want to be thought of as any less intelligent than I am.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I want to clarify some of Mr. Redekopp's questions with the officials.

Through you, Madam Chair, to Ms. Girard, you mentioned it was a drafting error. However, it wasn't a drafting error with the bill, as originally received by this committee. It was a drafting error with the amendment.

Is that correct?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, it was with the motion. That's correct.

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

Okay.

I would look myself, but are you aware of any debate on this issue that came up when the bill was in the other place?

[Nicole Girard]

Since the issue was not addressed in the original form of the bill, I don't believe it was an issue that came up at that time.

Thank you.

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

Perhaps the legislative clerk....

Again, I'm trying to understand where this fits in the grander scheme of things. Would this amendment have been ruled in the scope of the bill had the House not passed the motion to expand the scope?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I will ask the legislative clerk to clarify.

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner, for your question. As per the advice of the legislative clerk, it is admissible right now, in the present situation.

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

Okay.

To build on what my colleague, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, said, I'm going to state this as a blanket reservation to qualify how I think I'm going to be making my mind up on how to vote on some of these amendments, just for the record.

My concern is that the bill in the original form went through the Senate fairly quickly. There wasn't a lot of debate beyond this. I haven't seen data on the implications of some of these amendments. This is not a slight on the department. What would be the cohort that was impacted by this? Are there resourcing issues? Are there administrative issues that may come up with this? We don't have that in front of us.

Procedurally, part of the reason we try to keep clause-by-clause amendments within the scope of the bill is that typically, in the legislative process, you'd have testimony, have a study, have data to review as a legislator. What we're being asked to do here, as Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe said, is to consider on the fly substantive amendments that were considerably beyond the scope of the initial bill, trying to listen to subamendments (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), when this actually has significant implications for how many people can have the right to claim citizenship to this country.

I'm now sitting here and not really feeling like I have the resources and tools as a legislator to consider this carefully. That really concerns me. This is why there's procedure. We typically don't do business this way.

I think I understand what my colleagues on the governing side are trying to do. I think they're trying to fix an amendment that was put forward by the NDP. However, based on what we just heard, there's a drafting error in the amendment from the NDP that would potentially be quite out of the scope of the original bill.

I just want to reserve that I think we could have some significant unintended consequences here. I understand we're trying to fix a situation and keep it tighter, but my preference would be that we stick to the original scope of the bill as much as possible in order to make good decisions that have already been reviewed in other places, in debate in the House and whatnot.

I just want to qualify that when I'm voting on this, I'm trying to do as best I can with limited data under a programming motion that I don't think was in the best interests of this bill. I worry that I'm going to make mistakes here, and I just wish I wasn't in this situation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Again, I'm trying to understand everything.

If this subamendment passes, it will apply only to parents, not grandparents, regardless of the age of the parent and the place of birth. The only test will be the 1,095 days, non-consecutive, as long as you can show it, for all children born after 2009. Good. Everybody's nodding. I'm still on the right path. It's parents of any age.

How many people do you estimate this could potentially affect?

This is a question I will ask often, the estimate of how many people would be affected.

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you.

That is correct and a good summary, first off.

Second, I'd just like to reiterate that while it's difficult to estimate with any precision, it's likely to benefit thousands in the future—those children of the first generation born abroad, for whom we already receive in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 requests for proof of citizenship per year, as a kind of a frame.