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.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, I'm referring to the experts at this table before the committee this afternoon.
Thank you.
May 10th, 2023 / 6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Were you involved in the Bill S-230 drafting or the internal debate within IRCC when you learned that the bill was provided to the Senate? Because the two bills are identical, at that point did you raise concerns with Bill S-230, or did you raise them and they never got to the level where they were considered by more senior officials? Was that work caught only later?
I don't have the exact people who were there at the time. Are you all new in these roles? It was a few years ago, and people do move around.
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, to respond to the question, no, I was not involved.
We too have reviewed that testimony the member is referring to. My understanding of that previous testimony is that officials were called to speak in general to lost Canadian issues. They were not questioned with regard to any technical aspects of the bill. That may be why the member is noticing a difference.
I'm not aware that there was a previous deeper analysis of the technical drafting elements of that previous bill. What I can say is that, in preparation for these hearings, the department, in consultation with Department of Justice colleagues, conducted that analysis and on our first appearance before the committee outlined a number of key concerns with the drafting of the current bill.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
In a previous response, you said there was a potential that, if we don't eliminate the section, there would be future lost Canadians. We would create another group of lost Canadians.
I've done this before on other sections. Can you give me an example of what you mean? It's a lot easier for us to work with examples. You were really good on the previous amendment, where I actually grasped the implications of what we were going to do once it was three times amended on the subclauses. Can you give an example of whom we're talking about when there's a potential for future lost Canadians?
6:05 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Since the first-generation limit was put in place in 2009, those born abroad in the second generation to a Canadian parent, as this committee is aware, are not automatically Canadian citizens. A Canadian parent needs to sponsor their child for immigration to Canada. Once the child becomes a permanent resident, they can obtain a grant of Canadian citizenship.
With this drafting issue with the bill, the provision is moving the application of the first-generation limit out to 2015, which means that those children born since 2009 who have been granted citizenship automatically become Canadians from birth. It's converting them from a grant of citizenship to citizenship by right.
When you obtain citizenship by right, you are impacted by the first-generation cut-off and cannot pass on citizenship to your future child born abroad. That is the impact of what this provision would do in the absence of the subamendment that's being discussed.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Just so I understand this, you're saying that, if you receive citizenship by right, you are affected by the first-generation.... I'm going to call it the FGL; it's just shorter. If you get it by grant, though, you are not affected by the FGL for 2009 or this new FGL that would be moved to 2015.
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, the member is correct. If you're receiving citizenship by right, if you're born abroad and you're the first generation, you cannot transmit citizenship automatically to your child born abroad.
If you are granted citizenship—typically, the scenario is that someone is naturalized in Canada and is granted citizenship—you are the same as someone who was born in Canada for the purposes of transmitting your citizenship to a child born abroad.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I talked about that example. I'm going to use myself as an example, because I'm a naturalized citizen. I'm not affected, then, is my understanding.
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that's correct.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'll use my daughter as an example. If my daughter, then, left Canada after secondary school, studied abroad and had a child there, the FGL rule would apply to her child, and then that child, if they came back to Canada and applied for a grant of citizenship, because they don't have it by right, would be affected?
If we don't eliminate this section, is that what will happen?
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not clear on the location of the birth of the individual being described, so the example is not clear to me, but the member is correct. If this provision is not removed, those children born abroad between 2009 and 2015 will become citizens automatically from birth, even if they were already granted citizenship, and they will no longer be able to transmit their citizenship automatically to their future children born abroad. Therefore, lost Canadians will be created in the future.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I will try to make this my last question, but I feel as though I could have another one, because you said they would automatically get citizenship by right even if they were granted citizenship.
We've talked before about how the department actually has very deep records of everybody's citizenship that's been obtained. I brought my citizenship card this week because I wanted to show it to my staff. The old cards were plasticized, and I have that kind. There's a number at the bottom.
You've granted it to some, but now some will have it by right. How does the department then treat that? Would they be issued a separate number, or is it the number you receive on your document of citizenship? Does that cause an administrative problem?
6:10 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes. The member is correct. We issue documentation, but the department doesn't issue the cards anymore. We issue a certificate of citizenship.
We have different application forms for different purposes, as the member knows, whether someone is having to apply for a grant of citizenship, in terms of those children born abroad since 2009 who were affected by the first-generation cut-off versus those who are being born now or who will be born in the future. Those in the first generation, who are citizens by right, would apply for a proof of citizenship. Because they are citizens automatically, it's just an issue of obtaining the evidence from the department, as I have described previously.
Thank you.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I know some of my colleagues have questions too.
The cards were better. I'm just going to say that. The cards were better than the document, the big certificate, because you can put a card into your wallet. Frankly, I don't think I could prove I'm a citizen without that card.
Thank you for the explanation.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Kram Conservative Regina—Wascana, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
For the benefit of those of us on the committee who are new, and that includes me, I wonder if you could offer an explanation as to the significance of the date of June 11, 2015. Was that the last day that Parliament sat before the election? Was that the anniversary of some particular event? Why do you suppose the drafters would have chosen that particular date to insert into the bill?
Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I believe that may coincide with the date of the last round of legislative remedies for lost Canadians, because there were two recent sets of remedies for lost Canadians through different amendments. There was one set in 2009, which remedied the majority of lost Canadians, as we've mentioned, and a subsequent set in 2015.
Thank you.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Like Mr. Kram, I'm new to the committee. I'm pleased to be here. I'm subbing in for my colleague Michelle Rempel Garner.
That being the case, Madam Chair, I would like to move that we resume the debate on the motion that was tabled by my colleague on May 8.
That motion, if I may read it, was:
That, should any relevant emails between Randall Emery and Members of Parliament or their staff exist, these emails be submitted to the the committee prior to the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, May 10, 2023.
That was tabled by my colleague at the last meeting, and it was provided in both English and French at that last meeting.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli.
Mr. Baldinelli has moved a motion that is non-debatable, so we will go to a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
(On clause 1)
I have a hand raised by Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Kmiec.
Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Just to return to the grant versus right of citizenship, because again, officials have said they've gone through the testimony on Bill S-230. I'm just wondering why it has taken two years to get to the point where a problem was identified with the drafting.
Mr. Attfield, who was the director general, was asked questions by Senator Ataullahjan on the grant of citizenship, and Mr. Attfield responded:
It’s worth noting that the discretionary grant of citizenship also then allows that individual’s child to also pass on citizenship. The grant of citizenship allows that person to extend their citizenship so that basically the first generation limit will not apply to their child as a result. It resets the person’s generational clock for passing on citizenship if that person has a child born abroad.
That was Mr. Attfield's understanding of Bill S-230, and now there's a problem with Bill S-230's drafting. Is this your understanding? This is the crux of the problem, that some people will be treated differently because of the way they have obtained citizenship. He talks here about resetting a “person's generational clock”—I'm not sure if this is the right terminology, but that's what's here—“for passing on citizenship if that person has a child born abroad.”
We've talked about the difference between “right” and “grant”, and that's the crux of the problem with this section. I seem to remember understanding Mr. Attfield's saying that's the way they want it to work here.
If I'm misunderstanding it, then please correct me.
