Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 1st, 2023

[Nicole Girard]

Madame Chair, I cannot say with certainty, but I am not aware over the course of my 30-plus years' work in government of any circumstance of a minister of the department making such a delegation in writing to anyone other than a member of the department.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much. That's most helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you.

I agree that this should be a no-brainer for all of us. I don't think anyone here would think that we have the authority to do this. However, we have just spent, in what I would say was a fairly non-partisan conversation, several committee meetings examining and unravelling a situation in which a parliamentarian believed she had delegated authority to undertake action.

There are now multiple court cases that will hinge on the premise that she had delegated authority. Those might succeed. I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set, because I think it undermines the integrity of Canada's immigration system being at arm's length and non-political. I think we should be availing ourselves of the opportunity, whenever we have it, to specify that parliamentarians—I agree with and will be supporting the amendment—do not have the authority to make these decisions.

Again, we are now in a situation in which a sitting parliamentarian is alleging that she did have authority to make decisions. There is correspondence that her consultant had, corresponding with people who I believe are now litigants in a case, stating that this letter will get you into Canada.

I think we need to be very clear. I would like to take action, after hearing all this testimony over the last several months—and, frankly, after being given the runaround for two years on one of my constituent's cases—and actually clarify in legislation that parliamentarians do not have the ability to make these undertakings.

Many times, we as legislators will add extra clarity in law to specify something, either to give added protection or send a message to the public. It is over a decade now since enshrining gender identity into the various legislative documents in Canada came up and was first being debated. Arguments were being made that this was already protected under certain categories or whatnot. Parliament decided, and rightly so, that this was worthy of protection in a certain area and to underline that.

What we're doing here is clarifying. There are many precedents of this in the House of Commons. We're giving extra clarity that this is something that parliamentarians should not do. There are also many times when parliamentarians amend the Standing Orders in the House of Commons or add additional clarity. I think particularly about when parliamentarians have broken the rules in the past, even though they shouldn't have done that; then we add extra regulations in the Standing Orders or whatnot to clarify that this is something you should not do. It's like a code of conduct.

The reality is that we have seen multiple instances of this with this certain parliamentarian over the last year. Now that we have the opportunity to amend the Citizenship Act, I want to clarify that parliamentarians do not have the right to do this unless it is carried forward in a manner that is set forth in this amendment.

I do support the subamendment, because it does cover all parliamentarians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Kmiec, go ahead, and then Ms. Kwan.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would just like to add that the subamendment I'm proposing is to ensure that no parliamentarian can do what was done by a senator and what the committee heard in testimony. It specifies that only members of Parliament and senators appointed as members of the King's Privy Council could benefit from a delegation of authority. That would be the only way for them to get delegated authority to send or fill out visa forms. We have all received examples in various emails that were sent to us after Senator Marilou McPhedran's testimony.

I think the proposed subamendment provides greater clarity in that regard.

I know that some members and senators have sometimes done so under some legislation. I just want to make sure that the public and members of Parliament, but also those who can do legislative work, know that they aren't allowed to write a letter for any visa anywhere.

As my colleague mentioned, we heard testimony that a senator thought that the minister, through his chief of staff and other people in the government, had delegated to her the necessary powers to perform certain tasks, even though she wasn't a member of the King's Privy Council.

So I just want to make that clearer. In the future, parliamentarians won't be able to say that they didn't know that they didn't have the right to obtain delegated authority if they aren't appointed to the King's Privy Council.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

What the officials provided to us is important to note. I think the act is actually very clear in saying that you will not have delegated authority unless you have been given written authority by the minister.

I don't know; I'm not that smart, but I would never think that I have the authority to do things that only the minister can do, under any circumstances. It just wouldn't even cross my mind that I would have that kind of authority.

From what we understand, apparently it has never happened that authority has been given to a parliamentarian in the way that it's suggested or might be understood to have been given. That written authority from the minister has never been given to parliamentarians, as far as the official could recollect from her last 30 years or so with the department.

This situation is a matter that is being dealt with in the court. By the way, it's also a situation that this committee is studying, and we have not completed that study.

From my perspective, the language is very clear in the act. People should abide by what is in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Maguire is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would agree with Ms. Kwan in regard to any of us thinking, as parliamentarians, that this would be possible for us to do, because it isn't. She's quite right on that.

I agree with the proposal from my colleague to change it by adding “Any parliamentarian”, as opposed to “Members of the Senate”. Who would have thought that any member of the Senate would have ever tried this before? As far as I know, it hasn't been done. It's a situation, as a Manitoba member of parliament.... I'm speaking about Ms. McPhedran, who is the senator from Manitoba, and the situation that she took part in at least.

I think that this clarifies the situation, because unless there's precedent I'm not aware of, a member of the Senate has never done this before. It could have been done by a parliamentarian, perhaps, the same way.

I would indicate that I would support this amendment, as well as the subamendment to Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment that my colleague Mr. Kmiec has brought forward. I think it's just a matter of clarification. We should just move on with this unanimously.

As far as I can see, I don't think there's any harm in putting the “any parliamentarian” part in there, and it certainly does clarify it for any future exchange of this type that might take place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will go for a vote on the subamendment. Just to clarify to all the members, we are voting on the subamendment moved by Mr. Kmiec.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Now we come to new clause 1.4, which is amendment G-9.

Ms. Lalonde, would you like to move G-9?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, we gave notice earlier that we have amendment CPC-4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Is it before new clause 1.4?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. CPC-4....

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

CPC-4 is on new clause 1.4.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Who will move it?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 1, the following new clause—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Give me one second, please, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Please go ahead.

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

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 1, the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding “at an in-person citizenship ceremony” after “oath of citizenship”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

This will be circulated to all members. I can suspend for two minutes so that all the members can get that amendment, and then we will come back to it.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We have CPC-4.

I hope everyone has it.

Ms. Larouche, I will come to you after Ms. Rempel Garner. She had the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This amendment follows the news that the government had decided to make room for online oaths of citizenship, as opposed to trying to accommodate everybody by in-person citizenship ceremonies.

The rationale for this amendment, I think, is best described by my former colleague and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, who I think is in Ottawa today. I saw him meeting with former mayor Jim Watson, so if he's here, hello.

He tweeted on February 28, after this news emerged, that this—and by “this”, he means removing the in-person citizenship ceremony—is without question a terrible idea. He said that the ceremony is deeply meaningful and the reasons for removing it given here are bureaucratic and puerile and don't solve the actual problem. Then he tweeted to the Minister of Immigration to please put an end to this now.

I have done many in-person citizenship ceremonies. They are very beautiful events. At a time when our country is becoming more divided in different areas, I think that preserving traditions and ceremonies that unite us in common purpose and common values is exceptionally important. We are a pluralism, and we need to be looking for more ways to bring people together to celebrate that, not fewer. I really firmly believe that. Saying that it's too hard to make in-person ceremonies happen—I can't buy into that.

I want to say that Mayor Nenshi and I have locked horns on numerous occasions. I do have respect for him, and the times when I can say that I had great respect for him were when he was participating in administering or being part of in-person citizenship ceremonies, because these are moments where we come together across party lines, across political stripes and across regions and countries to say, “We are all here and glad to be citizens of our country.” It's a unifying moment.

When the department gives excuses like “We're trying to make it more flexible”, what they're really saying is “We're trying to make it easier on our ourselves”, and that's not right. It's just not. This is something worth fighting for. I think all of us need to look deep within our hearts and start finding reasons to fight for the things that unite us as a country, and this is one of them. I don't accept that citizenship ceremonies should be checking a box on a web form in a lonely room. I just don't accept that. I think that's the antithesis of what it means to be a Canadian.

I had the great fortune of being born into my Canadian citizenship. I want to read very briefly the perception of this government change, as expressed by Mansoor Ladha. He wrote an opinion piece in the Toronto Star on April 10, 2023. I present it as argument and to deeply implore my colleagues to support this amendment. The title of the article is, “I'm horrified by the suggestion of cancelling in-person citizenship ceremonies”.

I want to re-emphasize this is the Toronto Star. This isn't a right-wing Conservative rag. This is the Toronto Star.

The subheading is, “I am horrified Canada is proposing to abolish the welcoming in-person citizenship ceremonies and replace it with an administrative online box”. He writes:

Citizenship ceremonies are emotional and personal experiences, especially for those of us who have had the privilege of participating in one. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is contemplating an end [for the] in-person citizenship ceremonies in favour of a “secure online solution.”

I still remember the citizenship ceremony I had to attend when I proudly became a Canadian citizen in 1975. I was with my wife and my son, all dressed up in our finest...lined up with new Canadians of all backgrounds, happily showing off the Canadian flags.

When the time came to sing the newly memorized national anthem, I was so emotional that my eyes welled up with tears. Every Canada Day, I still have visions of my heartbreaking citizenship ceremony experience.

I am horrified the government is proposing to abolish the special welcoming in-person citizenship ceremonies with an administrative online box and do away with a group singing “O Canada.”

The fact that Canada, the most friendly and welcoming nation in the world, would resort to a computer-oriented system to announce its citizens is appalling. Ceremonies in everyone's life, be it a birthday or a retirement party, play an important part, signifying milestones in their lives.

A former minister of immigration under then Prime Minister Jean Chretien was so upset that he wrote an op-ed for this newspaper, calling it “an insult”. “For years, my parents would recount how momentous and meaningful (the ceremony) was. Why would government want to rob future citizens of this feeling of attachment?”

Again, this is a former Liberal cabinet minister calling this decision “an insult”.

The article continues:

Another prominent defender, former Gov. Gen. Adrienne Clarkson, also a former refugee and presided over a few citizenship ceremonies herself as an Officer of the Order of Canada, said she was “horrified” by the proposed change.

Tareq Hadhad, a Syrian refugee famous for founding the Nova Scotia-based chocolatier Peace by Chocolate, described Canadian citizenship ceremonies as “the magical rituals that bring together everyone (new and old citizens) to celebrate the true meaning of the Canadians dream.”

“We cannot afford to lose the significance of this celebration of belonging nor can we diminish the value of Canadian citizenship,” he added.

Credit should, however, be given to the government for moving a notch forward toward reconciliation of Indigenous Peoples by officially recognizing them.

The new language of the oath reads: “I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, his heirs and successors and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

All Canadians and would-be citizens should protest the proposal to replace citizenship ceremonies with something tantamount to “dial a citizen” method. Becoming a citizen by ticking the “Make Me A Canadian” box from anywhere is an impolite method of becoming a citizen of one's country.

He's right. We should protest this. Each of us should protest this—protest it with everything we have.

This year, in my city of Calgary—and I think this was well intentioned—the city administration came out and said they were cancelling major components of our Canada Day celebration because they were culturally insensitive. I will be the first one to acknowledge that Canada has so much more to do, both to acknowledge and to take real action—not symbolic action—to address reconciliation and the horrors that were imparted on first nations and indigenous persons by colonizers. These actions have had long-lasting generational impacts on our country and have been a stain on our country's social fabric.

At the same time, I am the first person who will defend the fact that Canada is a miracle. It is a miracle that our country exists, that we can live together as a pluralism of different people with different backgrounds, different ethnicities, and very different political backgrounds and thoughts, and somehow manage to coexist in peace without breaking out into civil war, have peaceable transitions of power in our government and respect ourselves, particularly today on the start of Pride Month.

These are all things that are remarkably important and miraculous about our country. I refuse to go into a situation where we who are put forth as leaders are forcing our constituents into a binary choice between addressing wrongs of our past and celebrating the miracle that is our present.

We have so few shared traditions in this country that it is so important that we guard every one of them—every one of them—with every fabric of our being. As we're all sitting here, I want everybody to just pause for a moment and really think about this. I want everybody in this room to feel deeply uncomfortable as I'm saying these words: that as parliamentarians we have a responsibility to protect these traditions and to protect these rights of passage and unity that bring our country together.

I cannot accept bureaucrats within the Department of Immigration saying that we're just trying to make it easier by clicking on this box as a way of somehow justifying the removal of one of our very few shared and celebrated traditions in this country.

We now have an opportunity in front of us as a committee to amend the Citizenship Act based on a motion that was put forward in this committee. This is not me speaking as a Conservative; this is me speaking as a citizen of Canada and echoing the voices of prominent Liberals, prominent far-left people, prominent right-wing people, saying, “Look, across political stripes we need to celebrate this country and we need to have more of those moments when we come together to celebrate that miracle; we shouldn't have less.”

I implore you, particularly ahead of Canada Day, to respect the voices of so many people, including former Liberal cabinet ministers, including Mayor Naheed Nenshi, including refugees, including former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, who have all said not to allow this to happen, to protest it. I sit here and protest and I ask all of my colleagues to do the same by voting in favour of this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Larouche.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is just for the officials. Can a virtual ceremony be detrimental to someone? Is that really a problem? Is there any value added to a ceremony that takes place in person?