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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Kurek, please keep your comments on the amendment, otherwise I will have to cut you off.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Absolutely, Madam Chair.
The reason I bring that up, and I won't get into the details, is to ensure that there is that ability for where exceptions need to be made. I think for all of us around this table—and quite often I think in Parliament—it's exceptions that become the debate point that defines the direction of public policy, whereas I think that the general trends are far better as the determining factor for what public policy should be, and exceptions need to be noted so that they can be accommodated.
Specifically when it comes to this amendment, we see a very pragmatic option: that the minister—and I have no doubt the processes that the minister would be able to create surrounding where the requirement for an in-person citizenship ceremony could be waived—would be entirely reasonable.
We have a democratic infrastructure in this country that ensures that there is the ability for the government, given the mandate to govern by the people, to ensure that something that can and should be taken as seriously as it is—that idea of citizenship.... When an exception is required, there would be that very straightforward ability to ensure that, without undue strain on an individual or a family, or whatever the case is, whether it be because of an illness or an economic circumstance, or a global pandemic.... We would see that those options can be offered in those circumstances as requested, because it gives the minister that ability. That's key, Madam Chair, because the minister is—
Liberal
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Absolutely not. The reason, however, that the minister's involvement is so significant comes to the actual last two words of this amendment, and the last two words are “as requested”. This is because it's the minister's involvement as the keystone of the democratic involvement of a government related to specifically, in this case, a department.... I won't go into any more details of the governance structure of executive government.
However, it's the “as requested” that really sits at the...why this amendment is so reasonable, because we are talking about welcoming individuals into the Canadian family, taking the oath. They are being entrusted with a great level of responsibility. That's the nature of what citizenship is—it comes with responsibility.
In the midst of everything I've shared, I'll just conclude my comments with this, Madam Chair. It's ensuring that there are reasonable grounds for exceptions where required, and that the minister's involved, but then it ultimately comes down to those who are asking and engaging in the process to join the Canadian family. That truly gives the grounds for why this so reasonable. It's that beginning stage of responsibility, and then, of course, the full responsibility of citizenship, whether that's voting, political involvement, or paying taxes—the whole deal that comes along with that. It's signalling the responsibility associated with what that looks like in the very nature of what this amendment is meant to, I think, reasonably accomplish.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, let me help my friend, Mr. Redekopp. Perhaps he will be able to vote against his own amendment.
The IRCC very well knows that our office is the busiest office in Canada. There are far more cases than any other MP has across Canada. I see the compassionate cases that come forward as well. Now it's taking them about 34 months.
Being a professional engineer, I'm also very practical as well. This bill is giving every individual an opportunity, as Madam Girard explained earlier. If an individual wants to have a ceremony in person, they can go and take the oath in person; if they cannot do that, they can do it online. We are already giving that option that my dear Conservative friends are looking forward to, but when we get into these compassionate grounds, there are 350,000 cases every year—350,000. People are going to come out and say they can't go in person for certain reasons. Everybody is going to think that their case is the compassionate case, and then they will take it to the minister.
In fact, this will cause more delays and more backlogs in the system. Instead of reducing the backlogs, in fact, we will be creating more backlogs, and I would like to ask officials if they would agree with me on that particular issue, when the compassionate cases are already taking 34 months. It will put more pressure on the department.
Liberal
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
On a point of order, Madam Chair.
My colleague Mr. Dhaliwal concluded his comments with a question, and Ms. Girard was about to answer it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry. I was just pouring water, so I couldn't put on the mike.
Yes, go ahead, Ms. Girard, before we go to Mr. Redekopp.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The member is correct. The proposed amendment would require an assessment by the department and resources to put behind that, and that would potentially have an impact. It would certainly have an operational impact, and it could have an impact on processing times.
I'd like to also take this opportunity to note that the term “compassionate grounds” is not defined. I'm quite open with people who know me that I'm a cancer survivor. In 2016, I was extremely ill for a period of a year. I went through cancer treatment and was functionally disabled. During that time, I would not have been able to make it to an in-person ceremony, or even a virtual one, because I wouldn't have felt very dignified sitting up in a hospital bed to participate in a virtual ceremony.
The proposal we spoke about earlier—which is a regulatory proposal at this time—that would offer people the opportunity to attend a ceremony, as now, to take their oath, or to take their oath online and celebrate their ceremony at a later date, could account for many compassionate scenarios, including ones where people may be extremely ill and have to go through very taxing treatment. They would still be able to become citizens at the same time as other members of their family without having to go through a laborious decision-making process about whether their individual circumstances and their illness qualify as compassionate circumstances. If, down the line, they feel that they're able to participate in a ceremony at that later date, then that would be possible under that kind of proposal. It's not clear that the proposal that is on the floor for debate would allow that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Girard, for sharing your personal challenges. I, myself, have gone through stage 4 cancer, and I know exactly what you mean. I really appreciate your sharing it. Thank you.
Next on the list is Mr. Redekopp.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To both of you women, I appreciate your sharing that. I highly respect you, and I'm really glad you're here participating in this tonight.
There have been some great questions from Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and from Mr. Dhaliwal, as well. I just want to speak to the issue that was raised by Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, which I think is this: Why is this amendment even here, and what's the reason for this amendment? I think it's really important to remember why this particular amendment is here.
When this bill was started, the intent was fairly narrowly defined. Then, through a long story that I won't repeat, there were ideas to expand this. Ultimately, it ended up in the House, where—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Mr. Redekopp, I'm sorry for interrupting. This has already been mentioned.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
You have raised this issue of why or how the scope was expanded and all that. You have already spoken on that.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I have a point of order.
Madam Chair, you know how fond I am of you. Truly. But the interpreters have mentioned several times that you need to turn on your microphone so that they can translate what you're saying. I know the pace is often fast, but what's involved here is the welfare, health and safety of our employees, for whom we have the highest regard and who are working overtime this evening.
It's just a short “reminder”, as they say in Ontario.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
It will not happen again, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. I'm sorry for that.
Mr. Redekopp, the discussion on the scope and the expansion has already happened. I would request that you please keep your comments on this amendment, CPC-8.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe raised this issue of scope, and I haven't had a chance to speak to it on this amendment, so I need to respond to his question and his thoughts on the issue of scope as it relates to this amendment. It's about why this amendment is here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Redekopp.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe had a question about whether this was in order or not. I checked with the legislative clerk. It is in order. That's why we are debating it. That was his question, and that was already answered. Please....
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
He further asked Ms. Girard, I believe, about the.... Maybe we need to go back and look at it, but his question had to do with why this is here, because it has nothing to do with the original lost Canadians. I believe that was the question that was loosely asked. That's my loosened paraphrase of his question.
I'm speaking about this because it's a very good question, and it does specifically get to why its here. In order to answer that question, it needs to be through the lens of scope. That's why I'm speaking to that. I haven't had a chance to speak to that on this amendment, not since Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe asked the question. That's why I'm mentioning that.
The point that's important to understand here is that the original scope was very narrow. This scope has been widened. The government purposely widened the scope. This gets to how an amendment like this in a bill that has to do with lost Canadians.... The government specifically amended this bill to allow it to be wide open so that they could do more than just what the original intent of the bill was. The original intent of the bill was fairly defined, fairly simple. It would probably have passed through here quite quickly, but as we now know, as you add things to this bill, it becomes more complicated and takes longer. Why do you do that? It's because you don't have a lot of opportunities to actually make changes to the Citizenship Act. This is an opportunity to make changes to the Citizenship Act.
Just as the originator of this bill had an idea to change the Citizenship Act, the NDP and the Liberals got together and decided there were some other changes they wanted to make. It's totally within their right to suggest that, and they have the power through their grouped majority to actually make it happen, so they did.
Then we ended up in a different place. We're no longer just looking at the lost Canadians bill. We are looking essentially at a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, because this is the one opportunity we have to suggest and make those changes that we believe are important and will improve the Citizenship Act for all future Canadians. That is the reason we are looking at some of these different ideas here.
This is our chance to go into the bill and to make those changes that we've discussed and haven't had an opportunity to make. We hadn't had a vehicle, so to speak, to make those changes. It's the same logic the government used when they decided to add some of the amendments they added.
I don't think it's fair to accuse one person, one member on this committee, of adding an amendment when someone else on this committee has added an amendment to do something that expands the scope of the original bill. That's the better understanding of why this is here. I hope that helps Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe understand that a bit better.
We certainly want the best outcome for Canadians, and we want the Citizenship Act to be the best possible regulation and law that it can. That's why we've done this, and that's the reason this particular amendment is in here.
I just wanted to make that clear, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB
Thank you. I'm going to change the questioning to Ms. Girard.
In the existing bill that is proposed, S-245, how does this amendment speak to what we already have? Do we have a mechanism to deal with the situation where compassionate grounds are a fact?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, as in my response to another member of this committee moments ago, I would reiterate that those who are benefiting from this bill are generally receiving citizenship automatically by operation of law, so they are not required to go through a citizenship ceremony. That would be the first point.
The second point is that the flexibility already exists where citizenship applicants may need accommodation. As I mentioned, we already have the possibility of virtual citizenship ceremonies. If someone misses their ceremony through no fault of their own, they can be rescheduled. If they have circumstances that may require them to have their ceremony at a later date for reasons of illness and so forth, the citizenship program is facilitative and looks to accommodate those different kinds of circumstances.
Thank you.