Evidence of meeting #66 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 citizenship.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
The subamendment comes before any of the text of NDP-5 but does not actually delete any of the text of NDP-5.
Am I correct?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Okay. Thank you.
It is difficult, without understanding what NDP-5 does, to try to understand what the subamendment does. Maybe the officials could tell me and the committee what exactly this is doing and why it needs to be there.
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
These proposals once again fall into the category of what we would describe as a transitional type of provision. It's technical, but it's important that it be there for the department to be able to implement the bill correctly and in line with previous legislative remedies.
Our understanding is that the NDP amendment, as shared, is intended to clarify, first of all, that those who are benefiting in the cohort are receiving Canadian citizenship back to the date of their birth, not to the date that a bill comes into force.
Then the element that's added by the subamendment that was just shared is to clarify that if those who are receiving automatic citizenship back to the date of their birth have already been granted Canadian citizenship, it's as though they've never been granted citizenship. They are considered automatic citizens from the date of their birth. It's undoing the grant of citizenship, if I can put it that way.
That is a transitional provision. It's important that it be there. It's also consistent with the legislative remedies that were done in 2015 and in 2009. It's so that the department, when we receive a request for proof of citizenship, can process it correctly. We know that we're dealing with someone who is a citizen from birth. We're no longer dealing with someone who was at some point granted Canadian citizenship.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
This subamendment is only needed if the amendment passes. Is that a fair statement?
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
First we will be voting on the subamendment and then going back to the amendment as amended.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
I understand.
Maybe to put it a different way, this piece of text isn't needed in this discussion today other than if NDP-5 passes. Is that a fair statement?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, the answer is yes, to a point.
Again, we could consider them as transitional provisions. They are necessary for consistency with past legislative remedies that were done in 2015 and in 2009. They are necessary to treat like cases in a like manner, so that we are able to legally treat these persons who are citizens from the time of their birth as never having been granted citizenship, if they were at some point in time.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
If the amendment passed as is without the subamendment, what's the impact?
5:25 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, it's not a desirable situation for the department to find itself in, in terms of administering the bill if it becomes law.
There would be a lack of clarity, especially with regard to those individuals who may be benefiting and becoming citizens automatically and who have already been granted citizenship at some point in their lives. It could lead to confusion.
It is desirable to have a clear legislative rule, similar to what the other legislative remedies in 2009 and 2015 contained, in order to facilitate the administration and processing of the proof applications that would come in the future, should this bill pass as amended.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
To follow up on that, if this doesn't pass, is that just an administrative burden, or is it a legal question of a citizen who got a grant of citizenship and now is automatically, by right, a citizen, and whether those two conflict? Do they basically get an extra citizenship number? Is that the problem, or is it a question of when the benefits of citizenship accrued to them?
Would there be an impact on things like CPP, OAS, and those types of things? I'm trying to understand what the issue is here with the subamendment.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The member is correct. It's both a legal question and a question of administration. The law needs to be clear in order to avoid any kinds of unintended or unforeseen questions or consequences, such as the example given by the member. Also, for consistency with the current scheme of the legislation, you are considered either a citizen as of right, as we've discussed in the committee, or someone who's been granted citizenship at some point. You can't be both.
Therefore, we need this transitional provision in order to reconfirm, if I can put it that way, that you can't be both, and that if you're benefiting from the bill and you had previously been granted citizenship, it's as if it had never happened. You are a citizen as of right and you are a citizen from the time of your birth. It is clear. There's no risk of confusion. There's no risk of unintended consequences for the person, and the department can clearly administer these provisions.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
You used the word “can't” be a citizen by grant and by right at the same time. Is it “can't”? In the Citizenship Act, as far as I know, I don't think it says that. Is it just the interpretation of the department that you can't have it both ways? There are only two ways to get citizenship rights, so is that the problem?
The act doesn't say you can't get it by either way. It just seems that it would cause confusion. Nobody is going to go to court to fight this out, or a government department wouldn't deny someone a service or the right to a pension because they got it by grant versus by right, except for the timelines. I understand the latter part. Is the issue just the timelines?
I can't understand how you could find yourself as a Canadian citizen, having received citizenship through either path, with an issue in accessing a service or a government product provincially or federally. I'm trying to understand where the issue would be, because I don't see that in the act or in any other sections of the total amendment.
I don't see where that issue is. I'm trying to understand whether to vote for or against the subamendment.
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, section 3 of the legislation sets out different circumstances or categories of ways that people are Canadian citizens. A separate section of the act, section 5, sets out ways that people can become Canadian citizens. As I've mentioned, you're under either one or the other. Under the legislation as it currently is, it's not possible to be both. However, in practical terms, the member is correct: The timeline is very important.
I can share with this committee that when I was working on preparing for the implementation of the 2009 legislative remedies, I did have persons in the provinces—I forget which ones—contact me on live cases soon after the implementation. They understood from the person they were working with that they were a Canadian citizen. They said that they had benefited from this legislative remedy that made them a citizen back to the date of their birth, and they wondered if that was actually what had happened.
Of course, we don't disclose any individual's information, but we had to confirm to the provinces in question that indeed the legislative remedies were retroactive and that the remedies were giving citizenship back to the date of birth. Then the other jurisdiction could take that information and could assess how it applied for the purposes of benefits to be extended to those applicants.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you. That's a pretty thorough explanation.
Do provinces and provincial agencies sometimes request information from IRCC on a person's citizenship status and how it was acquired, or do they just ask, yes or no, if this person is a citizen?
5:30 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It happens from time to time. The cases and operations that I am aware of are not in my remit. I'm more concerned with changes to the legislation and the regulations.
The provinces would come to us, especially after the legislative remedies passed in 2009 and 2015 and persons were coming forward who were benefiting from the legislation, to understand whether the legislation was retroactive and to what point. That was because it's not every day that Parliament passes legislation that has a retroactive effect and that could have implications for the other jurisdiction in terms of other benefit applications that were being made.
Because we're constrained by privacy legislation, I wouldn't be permitted to tell a person in a provincial authority the specific circumstances around someone's citizenship acquisition, but it was usually sufficient for them to have it confirmed that yes, the legislation was retroactive for the categories and to what date. In this case, it was back to someone's birth. That's what they needed to know in order to be able to move forward.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
In this particular situation, it's the timeline that the subamendment touches upon that's most important, not the difference between right versus grant. That is not....
