Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, in layman's terms, I would explain the department's concern as being.... While the intent of the language that was read is good, we are not satisfied in the department, nor are our colleagues in the Department of Justice, that these provisions intending to serve as a mitigation are ironclad, if I can put it like that, and doing what they're intending. I therefore completely understand the member's question, but I certainly don't want to speculate about what kind of future defence the government may wish to prepare or put forward for such a case.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I don't want you speculate on it. I'm just wondering, in case law, how a section like this.... If I were to clip it and use it in the future, or if it were to be added to any other amendment before the committee.... Can we give people a right or a grant to citizenship and then say they don't have any of the benefits of citizenship? That's the way I read this: It would cause a person to have it but have none of the benefits of it.

“Citizenship by right or by grant” means something. You have the right to vote. You can stand for public office. You are expected, as a duty, to pay taxes. When old age security and the Canada pension plan were created, you paid into them. You have a right to those things you pay into. This would basically imply that you are a citizen but don't have any of those rights. Potentially, a section like this could be applied to any group of lost Canadians out there: They get the citizenship but don't have the benefit of it.

I'm wondering whether this is has ever been done before. The legal opinion of the Department of Justice Canada.... Is this even defensible? To me, it looks as if a judge would knock it down immediately. I don't see how you can give someone citizenship but say they have none of the benefits of citizenship.

Am I wrong?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I think it comes to the point that there's not any precedent for this, as I mentioned, in the sense that none of the previous legislative remedies accorded citizenship to persons who were deceased. This issue hasn't arisen in terms of the question that the member is raising. I don't have any experience to draw on there.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'll move on to my other questions, then. I have the response that I think I needed.

Do we have a register or information on this term “war brides”? How many women pre-1947 would have married but lost their citizenship by these rules here?

I'll be completely honest: I did not that know this was occurring. Pre-1947, there was no Canadian Citizenship Act. Do we have a register? Does the department have such information? Is this information that Veterans Affairs or the Canadian archives would have, or is it information that was never kept, as this was a different era?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, no, the department does not have a registry, but we do have some statistics. As the member was mentioning, the legislative remedies in 2015 that benefited some additional lost Canadians did benefit women who, before 1947, married a foreign national, lost their British subject status, and therefore did not become citizens on January 1, 1947, as others did.

I believe that the statistic I previously shared with this committee was that roughly 600 persons who benefited from those changes in 2015 came forward and applied for a proof of citizenship. We do have that figure, but in terms of this particular amendment that's under discussion now with regard to people who are deceased, we wouldn't have any way to quantify that kind of number.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Because I don't know what the rules were like before 1947, is there any chance that this might create two types of persons, pre-1947, on top of the ones...? There's a group of them who may get it back, but it would be based on....

This is basically everyone, correct? It's just a broad stroke; everyone gets it back. These are all persons who are deceased. They would get nothing extra, but is there any potential for creating two groups of people, one in which a person could have—although it would have been very rare—been either widowed or divorced at some point before 1947 when they would have gotten it back, but then would have fallen through the cracks? Is there potential that some would get it back if this amendment passes, but some will still be excluded? Is it possible that there would be a different group of lost Canadians or a subgroup of lost Canadians?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I think the potential is there as a result of the way the amendment selects a particular cohort. It references women who lost their British subject status prior to 1947. We are speaking of people who are deceased, and we're not talking about any other deceased at other points in time—men, for instance—so I would say that the member is correct that in general this amendment looks to accord citizenship to some persons who were deceased and therefore didn't become Canadian citizens but not to others in that situation.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Again, on this classification that basically confirmed that a smaller subset would still be non-citizens of Canada, in the latter sections of this amendment—it's quite a long one—it says, “For greater certainty, no person has a right to citizenship as a result of any woman being deemed under subsection (7.1) to have been a citizen.”

Can someone explain to me the impact of this particular section?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm going to ask my colleague from the Department of Justice to comment.

[Erika Schneidereit]

My understanding of the amendment is that it is related to derivative claims. That's my understanding; I'm not confident.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I am not burdened by a legal education, so please help me out. What does “derivative claim” mean in this context?

[Erika Schneidereit]

I think the question about proposed subsection 3(8.2) would be related to claims of citizenship by descent, the way it's currently worded. I think perhaps it would be a question for the member from the NDP.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay.

My next question is on proposed subsection 3(8.3), which is the next subsection. It indemnifies the Crown from any potential litigation, but the previous one says there are no “rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties” given. I understand this is to give citizenship, but without any benefits associated with it.

Does this section that indemnifies the Crown occur in other parts of the Citizenship Act or the IRPA? Is it a standard section to indemnify the Crown in case litigation could happen?

I'm just asking if this is consistent with other language used. Has this happened before? Is this something unique being introduced into the act?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.

[Nicole Girard]

Similar language was included in the previous legislative remedies in 2009 and 2015, though I can't say at this moment whether the language is the same or if it might be slightly different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.

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

Thank you.

This is just a small detail. It is a really small subset, I would say, but my colleague has been speaking about war brides and you've mentioned this aspect as well.

We're talking about pre-1947. What about persons or women who came from Britain at that time and were living in Newfoundland, which didn't become a province until 1949? Is there any difference there?

I'm assuming they would have kept their British citizenship when they landed in Newfoundland as war brides. Were they considered war brides if they were living in Newfoundland, which was not a part of Canada at that time? Would there be a change, or were they just all Canadian citizens with everyone else when Newfoundland became a province?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm sorry. Could I ask the member to repeat the last part of his question?

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

I'm wondering about when these war brides came, and we will call them that. Everywhere else in Canada we would have called them that. I'm assuming that the same term that applies to those in Canada applies to those who came to Newfoundland pre-1947.

There's that period of time between 1947 and 1949 when Newfoundland wasn't a province yet. Would they all have become citizens of Canada automatically when Newfoundland became a province in 1949?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's my understanding, Madam Chair.

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

That's my only question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Seeing no further debate, we can take a vote on NDP-4.

Can I ask the clerk to please take the vote?

Go ahead, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

I'm really sorry, but I just thought of a question.

Regarding this amendment, if Quebec became a country tomorrow morning, would that change anything?

[Nicole Girard]

I thank the member for his question.

Given that the amendment targets people who ceased to be a British subject before 1947, I'm not sure this would have an impact on the people the member is talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will take the vote. I will ask the clerk to please take the vote on NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings)]

NDP-4 is defeated.

We will now proceed to NDP-5.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to move NDP-5?