Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

They're both very important. In practical terms, though, the timeline makes an important difference for the reason that the member has mentioned.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm still looking at the subamendment. I'm trying to grasp why....

You are saying the right versus grant is important, but in the description you gave, because of privacy legislation, you can't disclose to a province or provincial agency that's communicating with the department.... They can just confirm the status—yes, the person is a citizen—and as of what date they were a citizen. I'm still uncertain how grant versus right is important in a situation like that, because that's in this subamendment. I'm trying to grasp why that is important.

The dates I understand. I just don't understand this difference between the two. If you don't disclose it to the provincial agencies, why is it important in the subamendment?

[Nicole Girard]

I'd like to come back to a different example. As discussed in the committee before, a person who is naturalized in Canada who immigrates and who's granted Canadian citizenship is able to pass on citizenship automatically to their child born abroad, who is considered the first generation born abroad, whereas currently, someone who's a citizen as of right—generally, that's someone who is born abroad—cannot.

That is an important distinction. It doesn't have to do so much necessarily with provincial benefits administration, but it is one of the very important reasons that it's important for the law to be clear and why this transitional provision, consistent with similar provisions in past remedies, is important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I'm good. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Seeing no further debate on the subamendment, we will go for a vote. We will be voting on the subamendment tabled by Ms. Lalonde.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Now we have NDP‑5 as amended. We'll go to Ms. Lalonde.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As I explained at the beginning, I would also be bringing another subamendment to NDP-5. I would like to propose a second subamendment.

I move that NDP-5, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 18 on page 1, be amended at paragraph 7.1 of subclause 4 by striking the the text after the words “subsection comes into force, a person” and inserting the words “who was born after April 16 of 2009 but before the coming into force of this subsection and who is a citizen under paragraph (1)(b) is deemed to be a citizen under that paragraph from the time that they were born if (a) at the time of the person's birth, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (g.1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs; or (b) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs (3)(b)(i) to (viii); or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those provisions.”

Again, Madam Chair, as you know, these are very technical and complicated subamendments. This subamendment clarifies that a child born since 2009 who receives automatic citizenship due to the fact that their parent has a substantial connection is deemed to have been a citizen retroactively from the time of their birth, as opposed to only starting from when the bill comes into force.

This subamendment also ensures that the new (g.1) category, the former section 8, is correctly included wherever it should be in the amendments for consistency purposes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

We will have to suspend the meeting for a few minutes because the legislative clerk has a question. There is some issue between the text he has and the text you read, so I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that we can work on that.

Thank you. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you have the floor.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Chair, I want to commend the officials for the great work that they have done and for the intelligent answers that they bring forward to us. I'm sure that they will continue to do so until June 15 and that we'll be able to pass this bill.

Madam Chair, I see my watch is almost at 5:45, so I ask for adjournment of the meeting, please.

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

Let me just correct the record, please.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

You can do that next time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

You'll have more time.

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

No, please.

Madam Chair, just for the purpose of this exercise, I would like everybody to have a copy. I need to read it properly, if that's all right with my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

I think that would be good, so that everyone has it. Let her read it, because there was some confusion about the text she read earlier. I will ask Ms. Lalonde to read the text, and then we'll be coming up to two hours at 5:56, so we can adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Lalonde, can you read the correct text for the subamendment?

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

Yes. Thank you very much. I apologize to all my colleagues for this confusion.

I would like to move a second subamendment to NDP-5. I'll read it.

I move that motion number 12307559, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 18 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the text of the proposed subclause 4: (4) Section 3 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection 7: “(7.1) Despite any provision of this Act or any Act respecting naturalization or citizenship that was enforced in Canada at any time before the day on which this subsection comes into force, a person who was born after April 16, 2009 but before the coming into force of this subsection and who is a citizen under paragraph 1(b) is deemed to be a citizen under that paragraph from the time that they were born, if (a) at the time of the person's birth, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph 1(b), (c)(1), (e), (g), (g)(1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs: or (b) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs 3(b)(i) to (viii); or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those provisions.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. We have a subamendment. Just one second.

Thank you, Ms. Lalonde. The legislative clerk has just one quick question. I'll pass it on to the legislative clerk.

Please go ahead.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Mrs. Lalonde, in the wording of the subamendment, you replaced all the text in section 4, meaning 7.1a), b) and c), with the text you proposed, which is 7.1a) and b). So, subsection c) would disappear.

Did you want to keep subsection c) or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mrs. Lalonde, you have the floor.

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

No, we would strike subsection c).

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I hope everyone is clear on the subamendment she has tabled.

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Is proposed paragraph 3(7.1)(c) in or out? I understood it was out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It is out.

I'll make sure that the clerk distributes the exact text of the subamendment proposed by Ms. Lalonde to all members in both official languages.

With that, we have come to two hours in this meeting.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.