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.
9:35 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm convinced that this would be an unintended outcome of the proposed amendment, even though I think it was well-intentioned. Practically speaking, however, implementing this amendment would have the effect that was just described.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Girard, if we were to vote in favour of amendment CPC‑8, and this provision were added to the act, what difference would it make?
We are speaking hypothetically once again. All kinds of hypothetical scenarios were raised during the debates and the work on this bill. As there are a lot of singular circumstances with respect to lost Canadians, we have to look at specific cases.
If this amendment were implemented, what difference would it make?
Let's take a hypothetical case, about which I've spoken before. Let's look at what would happen if Quebec were to become an independent country in a few years. What would happen to children who are born in Quebec afterwards? Logically, given that Canada recognizes dual citizenship, Quebeckers born in Canada would have Quebec and Canadian citizenship, but the first and second generations of children of Quebeckers born in an independent Quebec, and hence outside Canada, would have Canadian citizenship.
If we were to adopt this amendment, what would change if Quebec were to become a country? The next two generations born outside Canada would have Canadian citizenship and could vote in Canadian federal elections, even though they are living in an independent Quebec.
9:35 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I can't comment on a theoretical scenario with respect to Quebec, but I can confirm two things.
First of all, based on the amendments to the bill that have already been adopted by the committee with respect to Canadian children born abroad, meaning outside of Canada, the second and subsequent generations would have access to citizenship provided that the Canadian parent meets the connection criterion established by the committee. The member could apply this consideration to a scenario.
Secondly, the amendment currently being discussed would not affect this cohort, which would benefit from new provisions, because there wouldn't be a ceremony for them. They would automatically become Canadian citizens. Those born abroad, meaning outside of Canada, would not need to take part in a citizenship ceremony.
9:35 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
That's the answer I was really looking for. I asked the question in a roundabout way.
When all is said and done, this amendment would change absolutely nothing in terms of first‑ or second-generation citizenship for children born outside the country.
June 5th, 2023 / 9:40 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That's right.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Madam Chair, I would like to propose a subamendment, using some common sense here.
Where it says, “Should a person be unable to attend an in-person citizenship ceremony, the Minister may waive this requirement”, strike “only on compassionate grounds”, and start over again with “and a virtual option”. Then strike “should” and replace it with “be offered in those circumstances as requested.”
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I will repeat that.
The change that he is requesting is that it will read as, “Should a person be unable to attend an in-person citizenship ceremony, the Minister may waive this requirement and a virtual option be offered in those circumstances as requested.”
That is the subamendment.
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, go ahead.
9:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Could we have it in writing in French, please? I wouldn't want our interpreters, who are working very hard, to be put under even more pressure. It's not up to them to come up with the wording for a subamendment or an amendment in the other language. I would therefore like to have the official version in French.
Thank you.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I will ask Mr. Mazier to please read it again and, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, I hope you can get the translation.
Yes, Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe...?
9:40 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Chair, I am truly sorry to have to say this, but the interpretation of a subamendment or an amendment is not considered the official wording. That's not something interpreters have in their job description.
I'm sorry, Mr. Mazier, but that's how it works. There are two official languages in Canada, my dear friend. If you want to introduce a subamendment or an amendment, it has to be provided in writing in the official French version. That's how things work if you want to comply with your Canadian statutes.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I will read the text as it will stand after the subamendment so everyone can hear the translation. Copies are not being provided.
It reads, “Should a person be unable to attend an in-person citizenship ceremony, the Minister may waive this requirement and a virtual option be offered in those circumstances as requested.”
It strikes off “only on compassionate grounds” after the word “requirement”, and also the word “should” after the words “virtual option”.
We have a subamendment on the floor.
Go ahead, Mr. Mazier.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this really does strike a nice balance, given everything that's been said.
For the department, they have very clear directions that we have a compromise there. Even if someone doesn't have access to anything, there is an escape hatch, and I think this is one of the more concerning things I have seen in any type of legislation we write. Many times people in rural Canada are forgotten and it's not on purpose. I know it's not, but that flavour, that ability for a citizen, a person, to be able to appeal the process and be able to work with the government and work with the department, this clause, this phrase, would allow them to do that. I think it's an important thing to do, especially when it comes to citizenship. You're still dealing with a new person in this country, and they're very unfamiliar. For heaven's sake, they'd be very intimidated in dealing with the government.
They've been questioning everything they were doing anyway, and I think this would show a nice balance to the intent of this legislation, and I would hope that the committee can support this one amendment. It would really address and put some calm over the whole process and over the whole bill.
Thank you.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Mazier for what I think is really getting at the heart of both what the Conservatives are trying to accomplish with this amendment but also, in light of the feedback received from other parties and other officials, to make sure that it gives the discretion required while maintaining the heart of what we're endeavouring to accomplish, and that is to ensure that the value of that process of joining the Canadian family is in fact preserved.
I think, actually, if one looks at this amendment in the context of the larger conversation and specifically the subamendment that takes in some of that feedback—and we're endeavouring to be constructive here—it accomplishes and checks all the boxes required to ensure that what would be passed as part of Bill S-245 actually accomplishes the stated objective.
I won't get into some of the details about the scope being opened up and some of the debates surrounding Senator Martin and some of the past elements of what got us to this point. I won't go there, but I would hope that members of this committee would see that we're certainly willing to be constructive and collaborative and get to a point where some of the concerns that have been raised are addressed. I think this will be a step forward, both for this amendment but also for the bill itself.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
So my understanding is that if the subamendment were adopted, the proposed wording in the amendment would become: “Should a person be unable to attend an in‑person citizenship ceremony, the Minister may waive this requirement and a virtual option be offered in those circumstances as requested.”
Ms. Girard, if we were to adopt this modified version of the amendment, what change would it make in comparison to what we have now?
9:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Speaking for the officials here today, we are not sure that there would be much of a difference between this wording and the existing provisions in terms of future citizenship ceremonies.
On the other hand, as I said earlier, it does not reflect the regulatory proposal with respect to a third option for people who are unable, for a variety of reasons or circumstances, to take part in a ceremony in person or virtually. These would likely have to be good reasons, whether temporary or permanent. In fact, it's for a future proposal.
I have nothing more to add.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I understand, but if we were to adopt this amendment, it wouldn't change anything with respect to the third option.
At the moment, when someone wants to take part in a citizenship ceremony virtually…
I'm waiting for people in the room to stop talking, Madam Chair.
9:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Madam Chair, could the member repeat his question?
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I may in fact have been the one to have misunderstood. Did you say that if we were to adopt this amendment it would change the third option you mentioned?
9:50 p.m.
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm going to clarify the regulatory proposal. In addition to allowing people to decide whether to take part in a ceremony in person or virtually, as is currently the case, the proposal is to allow those applying for citizenship to select an option that would allow them to take the oath online and attend a ceremony at a later date.
This wording does not clearly indicate that this possibility is available. Indeed, the wording before us seems to mainly reflect the current state of affairs, which is that you can choose between an in‑person ceremony and a virtual one, but it does not reflect the intent of the regulatory proposal, which is that people can choose to take the oath online and participate in a ceremony afterwards.
9:50 p.m.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I understand precisely what you're saying. Nevertheless, I'm not the one who came up with that wording; it was the Conservatives who proposed a subamendment to their own amendment.
The English version says “virtual option”. In French, “option virtuelle” could be a reference to responding online to the connection criterion—