Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 66 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill. When we left, we were on clause 1. Madame Lalonde had just moved amendment G-5, so the floor is open for debate.

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

Madam Chair, the clerk is doing really fabulous work, even in ordering the food. They are very healthy choices, so that's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

That's good.

We are on G-5.

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm looking at G-5 right now, and it is one of the longer clauses. I know we just started right at the back end to it. It's to fix the unintended consequences for a June 15 date, which I guess the G-4 amendment was going to solve.

I would just like to have an explanation of the interaction. What exactly is it solving, just so we have it on the record?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Girard, would you like to...?

[Nicole Girard, Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To pick up on the explanation that was given the last time, this amendment is basically a transitional provision that is necessary for legislative consistency and would enable the department to operationalize the provisions of the bill as amended this far.

The amendment is doing a couple of things. The first is that it's clarifying that those whose citizenship is being restored by the bill are being restored back to the date of their loss, and for those being restored, if they have children, those children are subject to the first generation limit. If they have received a grant, they are now deemed to be citizens by operation of law. That is the first point.

The second point that's important to emphasize with regard to what this transitional-type provision is doing is that it's safeguarding against any unintended loss, in that the amendment is needed to ensure that anyone who's already a citizen when the bill comes into force, including the children of those whose status is restored under the bill, would remain Canadian citizens. That was an important safeguard that was also a feature of the previous legislative amendments of 2009 and 2015.

In summary, this amendment is needed to enable the government's implementation of the bill as amended and to facilitate the department's issuance of proof of certificates of Canadian citizenship.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Just to make sure I understand this, the original Bill S-245, as presented, had just a few words. These words here, which take up more than a few words, are to replace those words and to make them do what the original intent was of the originator of this law.

Is that a fair statement?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes. They are transitional provisions that are required to enable the department to implement the bill and to guard against unintended consequences of the bill, such as.... The bill, as we've discussed, is automatically conferring citizenship on some, and that can have an impact on the children of those people.

One of the very important features of this particular amendment is to ensure that anyone who is a citizen on the day that the bill comes into force remains a citizen even if their parent, for example, in those section 8 loss cases, is becoming an automatic citizen back to the time of their loss.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I think I understand, because that was one of the complaints we heard during the testimony. It was that potentially somebody who was a citizen could get messed up from these words, so that makes sense.

Does this amendment relate to any of the previous amendments we've made, or does it kind of stand on its own?

[Nicole Girard]

In general, this amendment is also relevant to those previous changes. As an example, with the section 8 people, the narrow cohort that the sponsor of the bill was looking to address through the bill as drafted, this committee has voted an amendment to extend that remedy to all section 8s. That will restore the citizenship to those section 8s and may have an impact on the children of the section 8s who were born abroad. As a practical illustration, this transition provision will also benefit that larger cohort.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

I guess another way of asking the question is this: If we had not passed the previous amendments, would this amendment still stand as it is?

[Nicole Girard]

Yes. I believe it would, in terms of the aspect of this transitional provision that speaks to clarifying that anyone who is a citizen on the day the bill comes into force remains a citizen, as an example.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'm just going to go back to territory we've gone over before, because there was a previous version of this bill, Bill S‑230.

You talked about doing a legislative review the last time Bill S‑245 was coming through, and that's when the department identified that the original wording of Bill S‑230.... This is what we have gotten rid of, and now are amending in order to avoid unforeseen consequences, as you just described.

When did the department discover those?

[Nicole Girard]

I can't recall exactly when we began our deeper study of Bill S‑245. I can't recall offhand, but it was some months ago, in preparation for these hearings, that the study was undertaken.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Did something change? Did the department discover that there would be unintended consequences if the wording of Bill S‑245, which was Bill S‑230, was kept as is?

[Nicole Girard]

Nothing changed. It was as a result of the regular unfolding of the legislative process after the testimony of those previous colleagues at that earlier stage as the bill moved forward in the legislative process.

In preparing for these hearings, the department undertook a deeper, more technical study and analysis of the bill with Department of Justice colleagues in order to be able to testify as to the issues regarding the drafting of the bill.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Was it IRCC or Justice Canada that identified the problems?

[Nicole Girard]

Initially it was IRCC experts, some of whom are here with us today. That was a study that was done jointly. We looked for things that the department could generally identify on its own; then we looked to colleagues at the Department of Justice for anything that we might have missed, and also to confirm our own analysis.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

You mentioned earlier that it was in preparation for when the House of Commons would be considering the bill, which was passed in May 2022 by the Senate. I guess the department waited until you saw whether the House of Commons would indeed take it to the committee level before considering it.

Would you be able to provide any of those reviews to the committee? It would just help going forward if we knew everything that you know. It would help with the amendments that are coming afterwards. It would help to know the considerations the department gave and how you went about identifying potential unforeseen consequences and future potentially lost Canadians that we've discussed in prior meetings.

Is that something that can be shared with this committee?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, the issues with the bill, such as they are, are ones that I already took care to outline in my first appearance before this committee in some detail. I think I would consider that those issues, such as we were able to identify, are already on the record with this committee.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Do I take that to mean that I can't have the expert analysis that was done by the department? It's just that it would help me understand the drafting differences between Bill S-230 and Bill S-245 and the thought process for the amendments being proposed at this committee and the future amendments that might be proposed on this bill.

There are lots of different lost Canadians. This is a very complex piece of legislation. I'm just curious as to why we can't have those documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I think Ms. Girard mentioned that the first time she came to the hearing, she outlined the details on that analysis. Maybe you can look at the Hansard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have, Madam Chair, but those are statements based on documentation that the department holds. I'm wondering whether I can have those documents that inspired or informed the speaking notes that were obviously used to prepare the civil servants who are before the committee.

They obviously know more than I do. I would just like to have some of that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.