Evidence of meeting #65 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I will have to suspend the meeting to consult the clerk to see what the rules are on that. I will suspend the meeting.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
It's the same meeting.
I want to be on the record. It is the same meeting right now.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call the meeting back to order.
Mr. Kmiec has moved to resume the debate on the motion for which the debate was adjourned a few minutes ago. Based on the precedents and common practice, once the debate has been adjourned.... When the debate is adjourned.... A member who moves that the debate is now adjourned wishes to temporarily suspend the debate under way on a motion or study. If the motion is carried, the debate on the motion or study ceases and the committee moves on to other business.
Based on the precedents and common practice, the motion cannot be brought back in the same meeting. I will rule that out of order.
Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I have a point of order.
I want to get clarity for future meetings, because this might happen again. On page 1068 of O'Brien and Bosc, in chapter 20, it says, in the middle, that this is a motion that can be moved: “That the Committee proceed to [another order of business]”.
We have another order of business here. This motion results in a matter under consideration by the committee being replaced by the order of business proposed in the motion. If the motion is carried, the committee merely proceeds to the order referred to in the motion. It has footnotes in that about what's happened in other committee meetings, including the foreign affairs and international trade committee from way back in 2005.
I want it to be clear. How is that consistent with the ruling, just so I have it? If you have a page number, Madam Chair, I'd be more than happy to look at it.
I was basically moving a motion to proceed with a different order of business to resume debate on a potential breach of privilege motion I had moved in a previous order of business. I'm just seeking clarity for the future.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Kmiec. Once I have given a ruling, we cannot debate on that.
Are you challenging my ruling?
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
No, I'm just trying to understand it, so I can't make the same mistake again.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
It's not debatable. You can challenge my ruling if you want, but once I have given the ruling....
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Madam Chair, you've been so reasonable so far. I don't have problems with you.
6 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thanks for your co-operation.
We will resume.
Ms. Lalonde moved G-4. Is there any debate on that?
Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
When Ms. Lalonde moved the motion, she mentioned that there could be, I think, legal consequences for the moving of the dates. Could I just have the officials explain what those potential, unforseen, unintended consequences could be?
6 p.m.
Nicole Girard Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, as I mentioned in my initial remarks before this committee, the concern is that this amendment is pushing out the first-generation limit to a later date.
6 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Please pause for a second. I see a hand raised by Ms. Kwan.
Yes, Ms. Kwan.
6 p.m.
NDP
6 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was mentioning, this amendment pushes out the start date for the first-generation limit, which would have the impact of automatically conferring citizenship on untold thousands of individuals who were born abroad, impacting persons who, since 2009, would not have been automatic citizens and would have had to have gone to apply for and obtain a grant of citizenship. In automatically conferring citizenship to untold thousands of such persons, the concern is twofold. The first is that it's benefiting some through automatic citizenship but not others in terms of all of those born after. Second, it's creating the potential for future lost Canadians in the sense that those who are receiving automatic citizenship by the moving of the first-generation limit are impacted by being unable to pass on citizenship to their descendants and their future children and potential lost Canadians.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
6 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just very quickly want to say that I do believe that this is a drafting error that is going to be corrected with this amendment. To that end, I will support the amendment.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
It's been mentioned now that this was a drafting error, but this bill is exactly the same bill as Bill S-230, which was considered by the Senate one Parliament ago. I've gone back through that committee testimony from officials, and nobody identified this as a drafting error at the time. I'm just wondering. When did the department discover that this would be a drafting error, and how did you discover it?
6 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, in the preparation for these committee hearings, we conducted the usual sort of deeper analysis, if I can call it that. At that time, we consulted with citizenship experts as well as with the Department of Justice. This revealed a number of concerns with the drafting of the bill, which have been shared with this committee, including the significant concern with this provision that is impacting the first-generation limit. We did hear the sponsor of the bill indicate that this was not the intent, and I recollect the sponsor indicating, given that this wasn't the intent, her support for the change moved by MP Lalonde.
Thank you.
May 10th, 2023 / 6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'm just concerned here because Bill S-230 was considered by committee, and Bill S-245 was redrafted, I assume, by the Senate clerks and the legislative clerks that they have there. They were drafted in the same manner, and then it sailed through the Senate at all stages with the understanding that the work had been done on Bill S-230 on the previous committee, on June 16, 2021, and that the bill had no errors at the time.
I have two officials who spoke. One was Catherine Scott, associate assistant deputy minister, strategic and program policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. That testimony—and I've gone through it—didn't identify an issue here. The other official was Alec Attfield, director general, citizenship branch, strategic and program policy, IRCC. He did not identify there being any known issue with the wording of the bill. You said that there were citizenship experts since then.
Are these internal to the department, or are they external to the department?