Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, they're similar, but the parameters we're operating under in the Citizenship Act are informed by the statelessness convention that Canada's a signatory to. There are two. Off the top, I'm not able to quote the correct year of which one it is.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

This will be my last question on this. You mentioned these treaty obligations. It's hard to tell whether this would be compliant with our obligations. Can you mention what our international obligations are? What are the treaties or commitments we've made to other countries, if you have those on hand?

Kind of related to that, is it possible for the department to provide us with...? I hope this passes, because I think it's reasonable. Very few cases would be affected by it. Those are usually the best types of examples. Could we get the department to maybe give us some analysis on whether this would be compliant? If we produce more amendments on the floor that are similar in nature, I'd like to be assured that we don't pass legislation with a clause that could be found in contravention and where a court will then rule that this contributes and just knocks it down. That would take litigation for someone to prove it. In these particular cases, it would likely be someone who doesn't really have the means to do it. They would need to get a pro bono lawyer or a foundation to take it on.

Is it possible for the department to provide that type of quick analysis on whether this would be compliant with our treaty obligations—for a future meeting and not necessarily this one—in the case of future amendments that are in the same vein and have the same content principle, let's say?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, my colleague has helpfully reminded me that it's the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. In response to the first part of the member's question, generally, the obligation we have and take very seriously is not to render our own citizens stateless. Hence, there is the subsection 5(5) grant and safety valve available to a stateless child of a Canadian, as we discussed.

With regard to any analysis, I can't say at this time, Madam Chair, how long that may take. I am mindful that we have been reminded on a few occasions that there are some time considerations for the committee's consideration of this particular lost Canadians bill.

Thank you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

To that point, you mentioned this statelessness conference of 1961. Just for my information, how many other conferences on statelessness have we had since then? Are these annual events or decade events?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I was referring to the 1961 convention on statelessness. It's not so much a conference as an international legal instrument.

Thank you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Yes, “convention” is the word I meant, because that's what you used. I apologize.

Have they had other conventions since then?

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, there is one other I'm aware of, but I forget the year for that one.

My colleague here tells me that it's the 1954 convention, but Canada is not a signatory to that one, as far as I'm aware.

Thank you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I was pretty sure it might have been since 1961, but it was 1954. Thank you very much for that.

We've had 62 years without another convention on that particular topic, so it's very relevant that we follow the guidelines from the 1961 convention and deal with that in our own legislation here.

We have some of the situations listed under proposed paragraph (f): “charged with, on trial for, convicted”. It's those types of areas. Is there any other area you think we could have included in this amendment?

[Nicole Girard]

I'm not aware of any at this time. As we've only had this amendment tabled during this session, we haven't had the opportunity for a deeper study.

Thank you.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That's all I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Very quickly, Madam Chair, I want to give a notice of motion. It is a notice of motion verbally.

Here it is, and I will give it to the clerk afterwards. It is that the committee report the following to the House: that international students who are victims of fraudulent admission letters deserve to be heard and their testimony is of critical importance to a future investigation by this committee, and therefore stays of deportation must be issued for the victims of this fraud until the committee can hear their testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will go to a vote on the motion.

Go ahead, Ms. Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Chair, I just want to make sure that the amendment that was just read will be forwarded to us.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It is a notice of motion.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Will you pass it on to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Ms. Larouche, he has just put it on notice. It will be circulated.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you.

I have one more quick comment for Madam Larouche, whom I am very glad to see at our committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Didn't you see me before?

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

No, I did. It was nice.

I also want to re-emphasize the comments of the department.

My understanding is that the scope this would apply to is very narrow. I understand her question: Would it apply to broader pieces of legislation? It would not. To give her an example, we have already qualified some of the other parts of the provisions in this bill with things called a “substantial presence test”. There are rules in place, so it wouldn't just.... There are rules for when it would apply, but it would be very narrow in scope.

I just wanted to make sure her concerns were taken care of prior to the vote being taken here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate on this, we will go to a vote. We are voting on the amendment moved by Mr. Redekopp.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now proceed to G-6.

Ms. Lalonde, would you like to move G-6?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Next we have NDP-10. I'll let everyone know that NDP-2 was defeated. It makes a reference to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2 had it been adopted, so we cannot move that.

Next is NDP-11. That also, as NDP-2 was defeated, makes a reference to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2 had it been adopted.

Next we will go to NDP-12.

Ms. Kwan, would you like to move it?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have a new NDP-12, which has been provided and circulated to all of the members. Effectively, the NDP-12 amendment I am moving provides for an exemption to the automatic conferring of citizenship for those who don't want it, and includes a mechanism for people to be able to provide written notice to the minister that they are exempt from the application of the new provisions of the act under which they would otherwise be citizens.

We had some discussion during committee with witness's and, I think, officials' concerns as to how we ensure that people who don't want this automatically conferred to them are addressed. I believe that the amendment that I've tabled addresses that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

This is just to remind everyone that this is a new NDP-12, which was circulated to all the members. New NDP-12 is reference number 12456801.

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.