Evidence of meeting #69 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 ceremony.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Before I begin, on behalf of all the members, I want to wish Mr. Maguire a very happy birthday. As soon as we can finish this bill, we will have the cake.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, we can have our cake and eat it too, but that will be later. I understand your birthday is tomorrow.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).
We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill. When we left off, we were debating a new NDP-12 amendment.
Mr. Kmiec had the floor right before we adjourned, so I will let him continue.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair. That is so kind of you.
We were at NDP-12.
I want to make a point about this meeting that was called. We are typically given 48 hours' notice, and I'll note that we had sent a letter calling for an emergency meeting to consider the case of international students. That did not happen, and there are international students facing deportation this week.
I find it terribly unfortunate that we couldn't have had that meeting and done two meetings on Bill S-245 this week. This one could have been dedicated to these international students.
I was a bit tardy getting here because I was doing interviews. It's such a huge case right now, because the deportation inadmissibility hearings have now been done.
With that, I had marked one question to ask the department officials here. It's one I've asked previously when there has been a switch of amendments. One was a floor amendment and one was the one provided with the package. What is the difference between the two, the original NDP-12 and this version of NDP-12? I can't remember whether I had this information. I want to have an understanding of which one I would prefer to vote on.
Thank you.
Nicole Girard Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
My understanding is that the previous version was providing a safety valve to enable persons becoming automatic citizens through the amendments to the bill, but who did not wish to be citizens, to be able to opt out back to the time of the coming into force of the bill.
The significance of that is if they have another citizenship or reside in another jurisdiction where dual citizenship is problematic, they can be left with a gap in time, whereas this current version for the committee's consideration makes it clear that persons availing themselves of this opt-out provision would be deemed never to have become Canadian citizens under the provision of the bill, leaving no room for interpretation by another jurisdiction.
It is to eliminate or mitigate to the maximum any unintended consequences.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I was going to raise this point about other jurisdictions. In my experience, in the few consular issues I have dealt with in the past, I have found that other jurisdictions completely ignore our laws; they just make a claim on someone as soon as they know they are originally from that country.
We've seen this in cases of dissidents in China, for example. I think one of the cases involves Huseyin Celil, who has been held now for over a decade in a prison in China, even though he's a dual citizen. They ignored the fact that he's a citizen of our country and just proceeded to jail him unfairly and deny him consular services as well.
In the opinion of the department, why do you think this change between the original NDP-12 and this future NDP-12...? Isn't it the case, then, that only other westernized countries that naturalize lots of citizens will abide by it and say that it works for them, whereas more authoritarian countries—because typically these are more authoritarian countries—will simply ignore this case and make a claim on our citizens, our people, regardless of the laws we have in place?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, the retroactive element of this revised amendment is more useful for circumstances in which countries may have laws on the books with provisions that may be automatic.
For instance, if another citizenship is taken out, it can cause a loss or have a negative impact on another citizenship that someone has, as an example, or have an impact that may be negative for the person in terms of legal, professional or other reasons.
It's not so much to do with the type of government in place in another country; it's more in terms of the nature of the citizenship laws in place and the impact on the individual in that jurisdiction.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Madam Chair, I want to mention the issue of students.
I want to tell the committee members that the Liberal caucus is also on this thing. We just had an hour-long meeting from seven o'clock, or 10:00 to 11:00 EST. I can tell you that the department, as well as the ministry, is also working hard on this issue. This issue is hurting everyone at home. I just wanted to update the committee members.
Also, I think it would be a wise idea for Conservative members and NDP members to have a briefing from the department as well. Instead of making this a political issue, let's make this a humanitarian issue and deal with it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.
Seeing no further debate, we will vote on the new NDP-12.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we come to G-7.
Ms. Lalonde, would you like to move G-7?
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Yes, Madam Chair.
I move amendment G-7.
I won't use time that is very precious during our session today. You all have a copy. I will explain a little bit, though.
This amendment is another instance of adding the wording of G-1 into the act to represent the former section 8 people. Again, this is being done to ensure that they're being given treatment in the act equal to all other citizens who were born abroad but inherited citizenship from their parents.
In this amendment, Madame Chair, the former section 8 people are being added to the list of those who do not have access to what's referred to as the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees because they were born abroad in the first generation. Again, this is to ensure consistent treatment.
However, due to NDP-8, the former section 8 people being restored by the bill would be able to use the direct adoption grant as long as they meet the substantial connection of physical presence in Canada for 1,095 days.
For clarity, if we don't pass this amendment, it will mean that when a former section 8 person who has spent three-plus years in Canada wants to adopt a child from abroad, they would have to do an immigration sponsorship process to sponsor that child to get permanent residency and then eventually apply for citizenship. Without this amendment, they would be barred from using the simple facilitative grant for adoptees.
Thank you.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'm writing down what Ms. Lalonde said.
Does the department agree with that interpretation of this amendment?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, a simple summary of the intended impact of this more technical amendment is to ensure the consistent application of the first generation limit, and it is impacting the descendants of the section 8 persons who are restored their citizenship by the bill. That is a concise summary.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I've asked this before, but does this amendment treat adoptions completed in Canada the same as adoptions completed internationally? By that I mean that if two Canadians overseas adopting a child in another legal jurisdiction, are they treated the same way in both, like in that previous adoption amendment that we supported, or is this something different?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, this amendment, as I mentioned, is ensuring the consistent implementation of the first-generation limit for the descendants of the section 8 restorees, and that would include international adoptees.
However, as we discussed in committee yesterday, the section 8 restorees would also have available to them the connection test, whether their child was born abroad or was adopted abroad in the second generation or beyond.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Can you explain that last part, “in the second generation or beyond”?