Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 15th, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, that's correct.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have questions about the numbers now. So that I understand it, because you used “hundreds” and then you used “thousands”, when you were talking about hundreds, whom did you mean, and was it annual or total? When you were talking about the thousands, did you mean total or did you mean annual?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, in each case, my remarks with regard to the section 8s were that we see 20 to 30 such cases per year. With regard to those who could receive citizenship automatically when a parent meets a connection test, that could benefit in the thousands, again, per year.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Then now I'm going to ask.... On May 1, though, there was a number of 40,000 to 60,000 used. Does that refer to the total expected persons who could be impacted by Bill S-245 in the way it's originally written, or is it based on the amendments we had done until then, or is that total lost Canadians? I guess it could be three different options.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, that's a different number. We were having an exchange at the time about the current number of persons who apply for a proof of citizenship annually, and as a frame of reference, I gave that 40,000 to 60,000 annual number in terms of the number of such applications the department already receives. These numbers that we're discussing at this moment would be over and above those.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Has the department ever considered using an outside expert to come in and provide an estimate to the department—depending on what the changes are on the public record so far, versus what was there before—on the potential workload going into the future? It would be somebody who just crunches numbers—that's all they do—based on whatever input you provide them.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, no, we have not sought or considered outside help. We have our own folks who crunch numbers, as the member referenced.

As I mentioned before, even if we estimate that several thousand per year may come forward and make applications under this bill if it is passed by Parliament, there can be a bit of a tendency at times to overestimate the numbers we may see. This is particularly so when we consider that since the first set of comprehensive remedies in 2009 were passed and up until around now, just under 20,000 persons have come forward who benefited from those previous amendments.

It's a good number, but I don't think anyone would say that it's a huge number by any stretch, when you consider that we receive 40,000 to 60,000 applications for proof of citizenship per year.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

The committee received a letter, and I want to make sure I credit this person. It was Carol Sutherland-Brown. We got information. Some numbers were provided.

There is this court case going on right now. This is before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. I can't pronounce the name. It's Bjorkquist et al. v. AG Canada. Hopefully, I pronounced that correctly. The co-counsels are Sujit Choudhry and Ira Parghi.

It refers to such data prepared by Dr. Doug Norris, a highly regarded retired senior Statistics Canada executive. I didn't know he worked there, but I trust the data. It goes on with the methodology.

They identify a group, using Statistics Canada data from 2016, from what I can see. In it, they have a low, a medium and a high. Their numbers are drastically lower, actually, than the numbers you've provided so far. It might be just the way they're calculating it. It's who would be impacted.

It reads, “Even by the highest estimates, by 2045 the numbers of children born abroad to Canadian parents would still be only just over 1% of the total number of immigrants that the Government claims we need. These numbers would represent only approximately .01% of the total population of Canada. These numbers do not represent a floodgate, by any means.” Those are her words.

At the beginning, in the parameters of the estimation, I guess she was trying to address the concerns some of us have expressed at the committee, the concerns “by several MPs that a change in legislation would give rise to a potentially increased workload for IRCC officials, and that there would be a floodgate of many thousands of applicants”.

The numbers they provide here show that by 2049, at the absolute maximum, it would be about 7,000. At the low end, it's 234. In a reasonable future—and I would use 2030—they thought it would be 3,877 as a pool of potential applicants.

Do you think those numbers are credible or reasonable, compared to the ones you've provided, and that they could be a low point, or do you feel that IRCC's numbers are better because you have more informed data?

I would like to know, because this is evidence that's been provided to us by a member of the public. This is part of a court case, so I assume it's credible. The judge accepted it.

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I really can't comment on the validity of the methodology used in the example that the member has provided. Nevertheless, I would propose to this committee or remark to this committee that I have made the point that since 2009, just under 20,000 people who were remedied by previous lost Canadian legislative remedies have come forward since that time, and that does suggest that the numbers, while in the thousands, could be manageable.

I've also provided the estimates for the section 8s who could benefit. It could be in the range of 20,000 to 30,000 a year, or it could be more. With regard to the second generation children born abroad to Canadians, it could be in the thousands, but it's difficult to know the range, and it may not be a huge number.

In terms of the point the member is making, I'm not sure I particularly like the term “floodgate”, but I think that's consistent with the point I've shared with the committee, which is that there is a risk of overestimating what the numeric impact would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Continue, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Yes, I don't like the word either, but that's the word that was used in the communication from the department.

Actually, they provided a link to an estimation model in Excel Workbook with all the source data—the assumptions, the calculations—that were used. Handily, they also provided a password so that we can open it and play around with the methodology.

Are we able to provide that link, Madam Chair, to the officials? This is a public document, is it not, as a brief provided to committee by a member of the public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You would like to provide it to the officials.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It's been provided to the committee as a brief, so I assume it's public information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's public, yes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I just think it would be highly useful, because in the details Dr. Norris provides a breakdown of the methodology. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but in the steps he took in estimating on different worksheets the total number of persons that could be impacted, there are multiple steps. There's step five, with multiple substeps, just to get at the diaspora group that could be impacted by this, just as a total amount, and then, working backwards, how many persons might want to apply in the future. It goes into a great deal of detail in trying to estimate those numbers.

We've asked for that information from the department, obviously. I just think that this would help us to get to an actual number that we could find defensible. If it is as low as this table says—as I said, it was 7,031 on the high end and as low as just a few hundred people on the low end by 2049—then we're not talking about a large group of the population. We're talking about a very, very small group of people who would be impacted. Potentially, you could use this worksheet in the future when estimating other groups of lost Canadians that could be covered off by other pieces of legislation.

I just think it's an opportunity. As I said, there's this court case going on right now in which all this information is being considered. It was provided to them. Hopefully, we can have the officials deal with it then.

That's all I wanted to say, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

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

I think, Tom, that once we read—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Dhaliwal—

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

—the whole document, that will be helpful for us as well.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Do you want me to read it into the record, Sukh?

Would you rather I read it in French or English?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Can I can request members to have conversations through the chair?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Seeing no further debate on G-5, I will ask the clerk of the committee to please take the vote on G-5.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment G-5 is carried.

I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.

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

I just want to check if my mic is working.

It seems to be working, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We are on NDP-4 now. Ms. Kwan, would you like to move it?