Evidence of meeting #67 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is dealing with cases of adoption, so that, for children going all the way back who have been adopted by grant, they would have it by right, which means that if they have children born abroad they would be able to pass on their citizenship. Am I understanding this correctly? This is the effect of the subamendment too—making that wholly within the amendment being proposed.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, just as a point of clarification, this amendment is actually applying to the natural-born, second-generation children born abroad to a Canadian parent. It is not applying to adoptees. The adoptees are dealt with on a separate front in a different amendment.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Has there ever been a comparative analysis done by the department, then, to examine the citizenship policies and practices of other countries? It just came to me as we're going through this bill and trying to fix up the changes the government made in 2015, in 2009 and back in the 1970s. Has there been an analysis done of the practices of the United States or of other countries that naturalize a lot of citizens of their own to see how we would compare to others?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The first-generation limit was put in place in 2009, and my recollection is that we did some comparative work at that point in time to establish that, when that change was made, as was previously discussed with this committee, Canada's legislation from that point on would be more in line with the legislation of the U.K., and I believe Australia, which similarly has a first-generation limit.
I think it's fair to say, based on the knowledge of the experts at this table, that Canada's citizenship legislation is broadly in line with what we often term the “like-minded”—Canada, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and New Zealand—where Canada, Australia and the U.K., as I mentioned, now have a first-generation limit, meaning that only those of the first generation born abroad are automatically citizens from birth as of right, as discussed in this committee.
What's a bit unique to Canada is that we're not aware that those other jurisdictions, at least not in recent years, have done these kinds of legislative remedies that are backward looking and restoring citizenship to what we've described as lost Canadians. That is more of a novel approach and remedy that Canada has put in place.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Could you repeat the last part? What is the “novel” thing that we are doing?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The thing that's novel is that, in 2015 and in 2009, the legislative remedies that Canada put in place for lost Canadians were retroactive in restoring citizenship back to the date of birth, just as this technical amendment is proposing to do, and recognizing those individuals as though they had been citizens all along, as a policy remedy to this gap.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Typically, when these citizenship act amendments are done in Australia and other jurisdictions, in your experience, does the Canadian legislation follow them or do they follow us? Who is setting the standard for the naturalization of citizens and how our citizenship acts work? Is there a model or jurisdiction that we follow, or are we the model and jurisdiction that other places follow?
When looking at legislation like this—you just said it was novel and something different—are we then setting the standard for these other countries, as legislation goes forward, or is it the reverse? Do we follow them?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In the sense that Canada has taken a novel approach in remedying lost Canadians, I think it would be fair to say it is setting a model for others to consider. There are at least two occasions where I have been invited to international expert fora to speak on this issue for that reason: Legislation that is retroactive tends to be a less frequently taken approach.
It has proven to be a good remedy and a good approach, with a result this committee is aware of. In the past, through these remedies, we've been able to restore citizenship to just under 20,000 persons from those previous legislative initiatives. This amendment under discussion now would similarly look to restore those benefiting retroactively for similar reasons.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
My question is this: If the subamendment passes and the amendment passes—I've asked this question before—how many people would be eligible to regain their citizenship, then?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As I have stated previously in this committee, while we don't have a firm estimate, those benefiting from the legislative remedy to extend citizenship to the second generation and beyond, where the parent meets a connection, could benefit. It's in the order of several thousand persons a year. We estimate the number should be manageable, in recognition—as previously discussed in this committee—that the department already receives in the range of 40,000 to 60,000 applications for proof of citizenship per year, and noting that the member put forward, as well, some numbers in the low thousands, I believe, at the previous hearing.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Those numbers were from the court case given to us by a former Statistics Canada employee who was hired by, I think, the counsel in that case to produce some numbers. I assume they're all correct for the purposes of that court case.
I was going to ask, then, on the administration of this section, how it's been done in the past.
Is this administered all digitally online now, or is this a role where you have to go to an embassy overseas? I'm wondering whether it's all digital now, or if it's partially paper and, therefore, you need to go to an embassy.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, could the member please repeat the last part of the question?
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'm just wondering about the administrative side.
If this passes, becomes law and receives royal assent, how would it work for you to apply to regain your citizenship nowadays? If you believe yourself to be eligible, do you go online and fill out a document digitally in a portal, or is it a digital portal where you download a form, fill it out and then go to a Canadian embassy or a high commission?
I'm wondering what the process to do it looks like nowadays.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Although a number of our applications are now increasingly being made available online and the proof application is available through the website, my understanding is that, at this point in time, the application for proof of citizenship is a paper form. It's currently done on paper. It's sent in to the department for processing. We are making improvements on the processing side all the time.
My colleague reminds me to let the committee know that the applications are available for simpler cases.
Thank you.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Excuse me. I apologize.
I didn't want to interrupt our great public servant, but I'd like to call a point of order on the relevance, Madam Chair. I understand the questions and how important it is to ask them, but this question has nothing to do with the subamendment I'm bringing forward. I brought clarification even before about the numbers—that this subamendment would not change anything in the numbers.
I just want to make sure, through you, Madam Chair, that we see relevancy to the subamendment in the questions we're asking. It is very legitimate that my esteemed colleague is asking questions to understand the complexity of everything, but I think my colleague is asking about processes that have no bearing on this subamendment.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'd like to talk on the same point of order, Madam Chair, when you have a moment.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The reason I ask these more administrative questions is that, when you pass legislation, it has an impact on the civil service and how they administrate. I'm trying to understand what the impact would be of voting yea on the subamendment or nay. I'll then ask the same types of questions on the main question so that I can better understand what the processing times would be like. If you're talking about adding another 20,000 people to the backlog, that will have a material impact. We pass legislation. Civil servants then have to carry out the wishes of legislators of Parliament. It's material to exactly what's going on here. This is a complex piece of legislation. We sometimes have literally the entire alphabet noted in different paragraphs.
I'm not a lawyer. I'm not burdened by a legal education, as I always say, so I think it's valid to ask these types of questions so that we can really understand what the impact will be on civil servants, the people who will spend their entire days having to process applications or to give opinions when there are applications that are maybe right on the line of Parliament's intent. I think it's completely relevant.
But thank you, PMO, for sending that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you for raising your concerns, Mrs. Lalonde and Mr. Kmiec.
Mr. Kmiec, I don't think it was an appropriate comment that you made at the end. These types of things should not be brought here as we go through the legislation and consider clause-by-clause. Let's try to stay on that and focus on that, and let's get this done within our deadline.
Ms. Girard, would you like to comment?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
No. I have nothing to add, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to go back, then...or actually, it was pretty much over. I just wanted to understand the impact on the department. You have a process right now. If this subamendment passes, would the amendment...? It's not an impact that you're not unfamiliar with. You have a paper system right now. Is this one of the ones that will be digitized in the future?
My next question was going to be on this. Right now there is a process by which you can try to regain your citizenship, or there will be a process by which you can regain your citizenship, if you can prove you have one parent, being moved to two parents.... All of that will be done in the current.... How long will it take to implement this? Is this an easy change, or is this something that will take perhaps a year or two to implement?