Evidence of meeting #70 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
The clerk has emailed it to all of the members, and everyone has received it. The hard copy is going to the officials. I will keep a speaker's list.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe.
8:35 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
We've just received this amendment. I'll have to check with my team to determine whether or not we can accept it. Can we suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes so that I can look at the amendment?
8:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Go into your email. Mr. Redekopp is speaking; you can have a look meanwhile.
Mr. Redekopp.
8:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
I will endeavour to do my best.
I think that the intent of this amendment is to ensure, for those who need it—it was mentioned, I think, a few minutes ago, Ms. Girard—who may have issues with accessibility or whatever the circumstance might be, that they have the opportunity to have some alternate way of doing the citizenship ceremony.
The purpose of this clause is to make that option available. We need to be compassionate. There certainly needs to be the ability to have your citizenship ceremony if there are issues. That's where the compassionate grounds of this come from.
At the same time, we do not want this to be abused. We want it to be there for that purpose, and not there for somebody who doesn't need it.
8:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I just want to be sure that this amendment is in order. There is no definition here of compassionate grounds. Perhaps the legislative clerks could give us some information on this. I'm sorry, I know we are in a break, but can someone help me understand more clearly? I just want to make sure that the amendment is in order. We could then debate it afterwards.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, it is in order. This amendment, CPC-8, is in order.
Mr. Redekopp, you are next.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you.
That is a very good point that my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe brings up. It's important that we be clear what we mean by compassionate grounds. I think this is very important. I can think of some examples of this.
If a person was sick for a long period of time, to me that would be a good example, a good case, because they were unable to travel. We just came through COVID, when you weren't able to be with other people because you were concerned about catching something, particularly if you were an older person. We all experienced that through the last number of years. I think that would be one example of what would be compassionate grounds.
We want to make sure, for those people who can't travel for legitimate reasons, that they can have an in-person citizenship ceremony. We need to give them that ability.
Another example I can think of is if you were simply unable to get off work. If you had the kind of job that didn't allow that, and if you were a great distance away from the citizenship ceremony, this could potentially be a reason for being granted the ability to do this.
We're not asking for a big, onerous process here. At the same time, we don't necessarily want people to be able to just choose to do this because of all the things that have been said tonight. I won't repeat them all, but the most important elements of this are being able go to that citizenship ceremony, being able to bring your family and your friends, being able to walk across that stage and shake the hands of the officials, being able to receive your certificate and being able to pose for photos with the RCMP officer and other officials.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Redekopp. This point of shaking hands and taking the certificate has been raised a number of times. Please avoid repetition; repetition should not happen. What has already been said should not be repeated.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
As a point of clarification, Madam Chair, those were said on previous amendments. This is a different amendment. I'm just curious to know if we cannot speak about things on this amendment.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Were they repeated on this amendment? That's my question.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
They weren't on this amendment, but the same point has been raised more than four or five times already.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
8:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I understand that you need to interrupt from time to time, but for the interpreters, you have to turn your microphone on for them to hear your magnificent voice, Madam Chair.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
As I was saying, the reason people want to go to ceremonies is the excitement and thrill of being there. That's what we're trying to avoid here. We're trying to avoid the person's not being given the privilege of doing that.
Part of the logic on this, too, goes back to the backlogs in the system. I believe the department is trying to shorten the time it takes to get your citizenship at the citizenship ceremony. However, the problems that are coming in the department and the problems there that are causing these very long times—these many months of delays and waiting to get your citizenship—are not primarily because of going to that ceremony. They're because of other things. They're because of things earlier in the process. They're problems within the department and issues that need to be corrected.
However, the solution seems to be essentially to penalize those people at the end of the process. It's probably the most meaningful part of the whole process to that person. The person doesn't necessarily.... There's no particular meaning inherent in the work that goes on—from the person's perspective—in IRCC. It's important work, absolutely, but it doesn't mean much to the person, because they can't see it. They don't see what's going on. To them, it's a big, black box. Things are just happening.
The meaningful part of getting your citizenship is that very last part, when you go to the citizenship ceremony, take that oath and walk across the stage, as I said before.
8:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Yes.
We don't believe it's fair to penalize that person at the end of the process by not allowing them to do that, by instituting an online way to do this. However, as we're saying, we need the ability to allow those who may have extenuating circumstances to be able to have an option to do that through an online way or through some other method.
We have to be very sure in doing so that we've protected the security of this situation, so that we know who the person is who's doing this. That's where this needs to be done carefully and not too broadly. At the same time, we don't want to make it an onerous process either, because we're not trying to penalize anybody because they happen to be ill, or whatever the case might be.
That's the background and the basis for making this motion. I don't know if my colleagues have any comments they want to make on this. This is something that is important to us and something that needs to be well thought out, but I think it really adds an avenue and a pathway to resolve any issues that may come up for people who are unable to physically attend.
Thank you.
8:45 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry, I was having a bite of pizza. I'm truly disappointed that Ms. Girard won't be able to have pizza with her husband this evening.
I've received some comments on Twitter from people watching us live who are affected by the amendment we are currently discussing, about the citizenship process. These are parents who really want this situation to be dealt with for their children, because it's still in limbo. I'm going to read you one of these comments in English, because I received it in English. I am unfortunately not talented enough to translate it into French. I hope my party will forgive me. It's the first time I have ever said anything here in English.
I answered them by saying that the process was being drawn out and that there were a lot of questions about the ceremony and other matters. That, in fact, is what most of the amendments we are debating are about. They said it was ridiculous. Here's what they told me.
They said there must be something that can be done by the rest of the committee members. They said this is a cruel injustice. They said children born in Canada do not have a citizenship ceremony, and neither should adoptive children. They said the bill is about amending the rights of citizens, not the process for a ceremony.
Do you agree with this comment I just received?
June 5th, 2023 / 8:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I fully agree with it, because the people affected by this bill will not have to go through a ceremony. The debate we are having does not affect lost Canadians or their children, who would benefit much more from the other amendments that were adopted by the committee.
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It's certainly interesting that when you look at the intent of this legislation and ensuring that those so-called lost Canadians are able to be recognized.... I know, for example, in hearing the very touching story, and I'm sure it's hard to hear, because I listened intently when it was debated in the House...ensuring that the process to seize that citizenship is realized.
I know a member, a Conservative colleague, is not specifically impacted by this, but it's a similar type of scenario. Consistently, when it comes specifically to this amendment and how it would strike a very appropriate balance, Madam Chair.... Balance is where as a committee we're able to accomplish so very much, because we are able to ensure that in the midst of what can often be ruckus in the House of Commons, we come to committee. We can take a breath, get to the root of what is important to our constituents and work with other political parties in an environment that is conducive to ensuring that can take place.
I think that's where this amendment specifically really strikes that right balance when it comes to an in-person ceremony, and I don't think it is any surprise to members around this table that Conservatives are very supportive of this. With all due respect to my Bloc colleague, there certainly is a significantly greater value placed on the idea of citizenship and its value by those of us who believe in a united country. Ensuring that we find the right balance that can be sought when there is not that ability to have an in-person, because there are dynamics....
I live in a rural constituency, Madam Chair, and it's 53,000 square kilometres. I heard a number of times of a constituent speaking on the phone with somebody from Service Canada, and they'll say, drop by number one Canada Place and we'll get that sorted out for you. Number one Canada Place in the province of Alberta happens to be in the city of Calgary, and that's a three and a half to a four-hour drive. It's finding that right balance because when it comes to the value of what citizenship is, there is something that is very practical, and then there's something that is less tangible. There's that value and assurance that you're becoming a part of this Canadian family, of those who have come before.
I could go on at length, but I won't. I'll spare the committee my very proud Canadian history and the more than five generations specifically in the Consort area and the farm. I will spare the committee that.