Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Madam Chair, I'm just conferring here with my colleague from the Department of Justice.

No case comes to mind in recent memory. By recent memory, I include my own experience from 2009 working in the citizenship policy arm of the department. I can't say definitively whether there's ever been a case, but not in recent years to my recollection.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have a letter here, and I think all committee members had this sent to them. As we've been doing these hearings—and they've taken a few meetings—members of the public have sent us information. Some of it is very helpful because it comes from Immigration Canada, so it has some content information.

This one is from the executive director, Denise Mildner, who is from Saskatchewan, the Evermore Centre. It provides data on the back end. I want to read it into the record and make reference to it, because it feeds into my next question. It says:

The voices of many parents have gone unheard. Since 2010, 13,791 children were born abroad and adopted by Canadian parents since bills C-14...and C-37...were passed.

That's going as far back as 2007.

Of these, 63% or 8,632 children were adopted through the Citizenship Stream. Unknowingly, by choosing this route, however, these children do not have the same rights as other Canadians and cannot pass on their citizenship. Regardless of which route was chosen, there should not exist any discriminatory laws against an internationally adopted child.

Does this amendment fix this particular situation, or does it address a different issue of just passing it on and the treatment of the children as Canadian children for the first-generation limit?

[Nicole Girard]

From my perspective, this amendment is providing an avenue to address those concerns.

As I understand it, since 2009, some parents of adopted children who have gone the direct grant of citizenship route have been concerned that the first-generation limit applies to them as it does to the natural-born children of Canadians who were born abroad.

As discussed in this committee, this current amendment would be providing an avenue for those international adoptees who are considered the second generation born abroad in line with the previous amendment that was considered by this committee, which is extending an avenue to the natural-born children of a Canadian abroad in the second generation or beyond.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

The letter writer in this case, the executive director, mentions that there are these two streams: the immigration stream and the citizenship stream. Could you explain the difference between the two? Will this amendment then collapse one of these streams so that it will no longer be necessary and will not exist?

[Nicole Girard]

The amendment is not collapsing either of the streams. The benefit that this amendment would have is that, for Canadians who are now adopting internationally, where they're selecting the direct grant of citizenship route, that child who's mentioned is considered first generation born abroad. With this amendment, should that child have their own child abroad in the future or choose to adopt internationally, there would be access to a direct grant of citizenship, provided the parent is meeting the connection test.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have numbers here going all the way back to 2010 for both streams. You're saying that it's not collapsing them. The numbers show that the number through the adoption stream.... This is the header: “New Citizens from Citizenship and Immigration Streams of Adoption, by Citizenship Effective Year”. It goes back to January 1, 2010, and then to April 6, 2023. It shows that adoptions generally are going down in both streams. About 63% are in the citizenship stream, and 37% are in the immigration stream.

These two streams will still continue to exist. They're both still necessary for adoptive parents.

[Nicole Girard]

That's correct. They'll continue to exist.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

How can you know...but I'm going to ask anyway: Is the expectation that these numbers would then be lifted up if you make these amendments and that this would give parents more security in knowing that their children would be treated equally to children who were naturalized in Canada or born in Canada? Is there potential for that, then, for international adoptions, to be more...? Would it just encourage more people to take that step, to take it on as an option?

[Nicole Girard]

From the perspective of the department, international adoptees, since Bill C-14's opening up of the direct grant of citizenship to international adoptees, are considered equal to children born abroad to a Canadian who are Canadians from birth, because those distinctions, any distinctions, are minimized to the extent possible.

As previously discussed, the benefit of this amendment, once again, is that it will extend an avenue out for international adoptees in the second generation and beyond. That may allay some of the concerns that the member is sharing on the part of the letter writer.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I want to correct myself. I said that this letter was from Denise Mildner. Denise Mildner was the person the letter writer was connecting with. The actual letter writer is Marlyn Wall, the executive director of Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada. I want to give appropriate credit to the person who wrote this. I do read these. If anybody's wondering, I do read all of it.

In here, there is mention of what they consider the easiest solution, which is the elimination of the reference to paragraphs 3(1)(c.1) and 3(3)(a). Then they make a reference to another piece of legislation that I'm unfamiliar with, because a C-14 can happen in every Parliament. It says, “There is already Bill C-14 that is specifically for Internationally adopted children for direct grant of citizenship and this should preclude them from being lumped in with other forms of immigration”.

Can you explain to us Bill C-14 and which Parliament this might have been in, or is she in error?

[Nicole Girard]

Before Bill C-14 came into effect, a Canadian parent of an international adoptee needed to sponsor that international adoptee through the immigration route and then apply for a grant of citizenship. What Bill C-14 did was that it removed that requirement to go through the immigration sponsorship route and opened up instead access to a direct grant of citizenship for an international adoptee, thereby minimizing the distinction with the first-generation child born abroad to a Canadian.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Is it fair to say that this legislation and this amendment, as is, right now, would close some of those unforeseen consequences from Bill C-14 back in 2007?

[Nicole Girard]

In 2009, when the first-generation limit was brought in, it was not an unforeseen consequence that the first-generation limit would apply and that it would apply consistently to the natural-born children and the adopted children of Canadians abroad in the first generation. This amendment is providing an access to citizenship to those adopted abroad in the second generation or beyond and addressing a concern that we have been hearing since the first-generation limit was imposed in 2009.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I'm good. I have no more questions on this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Seeing no further debate, we can vote on new NDP-8.

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

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have an amendment that we want to move, but before we do that, I want to return to the issue we spoke about with regard to the Indian students who were given fraudulent acceptance letters, who ended up in Canada for a long time and who recently have been given deportation notices. This is something that's very important.

The reason I want to bring this up again today and the reason this is so important is that these students are facing deportation right now. We can talk about doing something later and having the minister come in or whatever, but I believe we need to actually look at this now. We need to deal with it. Even today, I believe, there are protests going on in Brampton about this. It's a very relevant issue.

Madam Chair, I want to make the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee conduct a study into news reports that international students admitted into Canada with valid study permits were issued fraudulent college acceptance letters by immigration consultants, and are now facing deportation, and that this study undertake at least three meetings; that the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship for one meeting along with his departmental officials to testify; that the committee invite the Minister responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency for one meeting along with his departmental officials to testify; that the committee invite affected international students and representatives from Colleges & Institutes Canada; and that the committee request that the Canada Border Services Agency temporarily suspend the deportation of affected international students until those selected as witnesses can testify before the committee.

I think it's very important that we deal with this issue now. I'd like to hear the committee's will on that. We on the Conservative side are getting a lot of calls. We have a lot of people who we know are impacted by this. I think it's something that is important and that really needs to be dealt with. As we know, time is running short before the end of the year. There are only so many things we can do. This is something that we think could be done relatively quickly. We could get it done and get to the bottom of it. We could get to the real issue of why it happened and why it was allowed to happen. We feel that there are probably some processes or things that need to be looked into, fixed and corrected so that this doesn't happen again.

At the end of the day, these students had no idea that this was going on. They weren't trying to game the system in any way. It was fraudulent immigration consultants who caused this problem. Now these students who have been in Canada and gotten their degrees—many of them have been here for years working, contributing to Canada and doing all these things—are surprised to find out that they can't get their permanent residency and are going to be deported.

That's why I think it's really important to deal with this now, and that's why I'm making this motion.

I think we should deal with this right away, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

I have a speaking list with Mrs. Lalonde and then Mr. Maguire, Ms. Rempel Garner and Mr. Kmiec.

Mrs. Lalonde.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would, in principle, agree on the significance and on the importance of my colleague's request. I think from this side of the House, and I would say for all members of Parliament, we realize how individuals who are fraudulent should never be part of the immigration process for those who are the victims of this.

I also know, with confidence, that the government is taking this very seriously, Madam Chair. However, I am left thinking that we have something here, which we are already discussing, that has a meaningful impact for many individuals. This particular bill we are studying, Bill S-245, is of value also.

Without undermining what I think we, collectively, from all sides of the House, would like to do.... Also Madam Chair, I think a motion was actually requested by my esteemed colleagues a few months ago that legislation should set precedents in this particular committee. It was passed unanimously and was brought by my Conservative colleague.

At this time, I would like to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mrs. Lalonde has moved a motion, which is non-debatable, so we will have to go for a vote.

Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

She did not move to adjourn debate. She said that she “would like to” adjourn debate. She no longer has the floor since you have it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

She said that—

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

It's because I'm francophone.

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

She said she “would like to”—not that she “moved” it.

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

Are you discriminating against my French and my English?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It's just a translation issue. She said that she would move to adjourn the debate.

We'll go for a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The debate on the motion is adjourned.

Mr. Redekopp.