Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

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

Thank you.

This is for the officials: Did you provide the minister with any advice to include this type of amendment in Bill C-3?

[Uyen Hoang]

We provided analysis of this amendment, if that answers your question.

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

Prior to your receiving notice of this amendment, did you provide the minister, in the drafting of Bill C-3, with any advice to include this type of content?

[Uyen Hoang]

There was analysis in terms of the Citizenship Act and the framework for adoptions. As you know, the structure of Bill C-3 is to mirror it as much as possible for the adoption cohort. In other words, those who are adopted abroad beyond the first generation, as long as their parent can meet a substantial connection requirement, would be able to have access to the direct grant through section 5.1. This is talking about those who are adopted on or after the coming into force of the bill. Those who are adopted prior to the coming into force of the bill would be able to have access to the direct grant through section 5.1 without having to meet a substantial connection requirement. This was put in place—the way the bill is structured—to align the cohort of those who are born abroad to a Canadian parent with the cohort of those who are adopted abroad by a Canadian parent.

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

Said differently, it was a purposeful decision to not include this particular structure within the bill as it was drafted. Would that be a correct characterization?

[Uyen Hoang]

I would say that's a correct characterization.

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

To be clear, the minister made a decision to not include this in this bill at the advice of the department due to the harmonization and other considerations you just raised. Is that correct?

[Uyen Hoang]

We provide advice, but really, yes, it is the minister who takes the decision—and cabinet.

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

We didn't hear.... I wasn't on the committee listening to it last time, but it has come up in various provisions. I haven't heard any testimony from either the minister or other witnesses to date suggesting that this is needed. I'm going to assume that the minister didn't include it in the revised draft due to advice. I guess I want to ask a couple more questions with regard to what my colleague said.

As members of Parliament, we all have casework that comes into our offices, and the most difficult cases are often adoptions. They're often.... I've had a couple in my tenure as an MP in which I've had a couple who have gone abroad to adopt a child. They've worked through what they considered to be legitimate agencies. They've gone through all the processes, and then there are questions about the child's parentage and whether the child is who they say they are or has been, for lack of a better term, trafficked. Those are the most heart-breaking cases because they hurt everybody. In those cases, it's very difficult for the minister or for the Canadian government to intervene because, on one hand, you have a couple who have formed an attachment to a child and, on the other hand, you have a family who's had their child trafficked. In the middle, you have a child.

What I worry about if we move this with no testimony—the minister hasn't said that this is needed—and essentially outside of the advice of the department is that we're going to create a potential situation where a child who could be human-trafficked might automatically get Canadian citizenship, which creates a very difficult diplomatic situation. Would that be a concern that we would be correct to worry about?

[Uyen Hoang]

When a parent who is adopting a child accesses section 5.1 to seek citizenship for that child, the department does conduct an assessment in accordance with the Hague convention. Part of that assessment is to be satisfied that the adoption meets the requirements of the Citizenship Act before the adopted person can become a citizen. Some of those criteria include its being in the best interest of the child, its creating a genuine parent-child relationship, that it was done in accordance with the—

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

Could I interject?

With all due respect, the screening processes within Citizenship and Immigration lately have been somewhat suspect. I was just up in the House of Commons talking about a case where a man who was on the U.K.'s registered sex offender list was allowed into Canada. Potentially, just granting Canadian citizenship automatically, without hearing the minister and knowing that there are significant screening problems within the immigration department right now, is a concern. I don't have confidence that the department can manage these situations, and there could be a diplomatic situation.

The other thing, colleagues, is just to say that we have not had the minister or other witnesses here to speak to these very real concerns. I appreciate the member being here and taking an interest in the bill. He is not a permanent member and doesn't come to all the meetings. If he would like to put a private member's bill forward or make these cases with GAC officials and international adoption agencies to look at these harder cases and try to figure out safeguards, I would be open to that. However, when there could be significant consequences, it is problematic to try to amend a bill outside of the advice the department provided to the minister and after the minister made a decision not to include this.

I understand where his heart is, but I think it would be prudent for members on this committee to take a step back and ask for a bit more information. Perhaps he should table a private member's bill in this regard, as opposed to moving it here at committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Thank you, Ms. Hoang.

Go ahead, Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have two quick questions for the officials or for Mr. Erskine‑Smith.

How many people would be affected if the committee were to pass this amendment? Do we have an approximate figure?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'll speak first and then pass it to the officials.

International adoptions are tracked. They were higher in 2010. As I said, in the last year that I saw—I think it was 2022 or 2023—the number was under 700, and less than half were by direct grant, which is what we're talking about here. I want to emphasize that because Ms. Rempel Garner is seeking to litigate intercountry adoption wholesale. That's not what it is. There is an argument that because human trafficking might be part of intercountry adoption, what we shouldn't do....

Let's talk about what we're actually doing. Citizenship is already granted to kids who are adopted. That's not what we're talking about. On the concern that there is automatic granting of citizenship to the adopted kids, that already happens once they go through the rigorous steps, and I've outlined some of them. That's not what we're litigating. What we're arguing about here is the rights of those children and whether the children are treated as being fully Canadian and can then pass their Canadianness on to their kids. That's what we're litigating here.

Of all the concerns, if you have concerns about human trafficking, why impose the punishment on the kid who knows only Canadian life? That is bonkers to me.

The last thing I'll say is that for someone who just overruled officials with an amendment, which I think makes some good sense, when the idea is that the officials' advice here should be paramount in all that we listen to.... Let's listen to the families who are directly affected. Yes, Parliament has weighed in on this. This committee weighed in on this in 2009, as I mentioned, after studying the issue. If you want me to pass around the committee report, I'm happy to. This has been studied by this committee.

There is no reason why we should treat kids who are subject to international adoption differently. They are as Canadian as the rest of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Erskine-Smith.

We're going back to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, who has two questions.

Please, go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

My question was simple. I find it unfortunate that it has become a debate. I think that both members are acting in good faith and that we shouldn't be attacking each other over this question. I think that Ms. Rempel Garner is acting in good faith and that she cares deeply about certain children who fall victim to human trafficking. It's inappropriate to criticize her for this. Her question was valid. Why didn't the government move this amendment to Bill C‑3? When I look at the amendment, I believe that the Conservative Party's questions are legitimate and valid.

My question was about the number of people. I'm speaking to the officials. In your opinion, is the figure provided by the member moving the amendment correct? If this amendment were passed, would 700 people be affected?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

In the last year—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Hold on, Mr. Erskine-Smith, please. Order, please.

Okay, we have Ms. Hoang.

[Uyen Hoang]

I have statistics that for the last five years, out of a total of 3,440 individuals adopted as minors, 2,055 were adopted in Canada, meaning the parents were residing in Canada, which is the cohort that Mr. Erskine-Smith is referring to.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

If this amendment were passed, adopted children would, like other people, need to comply with the 1,095‑day rule in order to pass on citizenship.

Have I misunderstood the amendment?

[Uyen Hoang]

When we looked at this specific amendment as it is currently drafted, it would actually have no effect, because in actuality it would not apply to anybody.

The amendment modifies subsection 3(3)of the Citizenship Act. That part of the act refers only and specifically to citizens by descent and not adopted citizens.

However, the proposed amendment only refers to and only affects minor child adoptees. In other words, any person who is an adoptee citizen is not subject to subsection 3(3), which only applies to people who are born citizens by descent. Therefore, the amendment is contradictory and would not have any effect since it cannot apply to anyone.

There is a presumption that legislative provisions must have meaning. Intentionally amending the Citizenship Act to introduce a provision with no effect could have unpredictable and unintended consequences.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I must have misspoken. This bill is really quite complicated. I'll try to rephrase my question.

If we pass Mr. Erskine‑Smith's amendment, for adopted children affected by this amendment, will this standardize the 1,095 days required for one of these children to one day be able to pass on Canadian citizenship by descent?

Do you understand my question? Is it clear enough?

The person on your left seems to understand me.

[Uyen Hoang]

I understand it perfectly.

I just want to point out that this doesn't have any effect.

When we look at this amendment as drafted, we see there is no effect to the Citizenship Act. There are no changes to it. We've analyzed and reviewed it. While I understand Mr. Erskine-Smith may have an intention to change the act for adoptees, the way it is drafted has no effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Hold on. I have Ms. Rempel Garner and then Mr. Menegakis.

Ms. Hoang, are you saying that the way it's drafted and if we voted it in, it would not have the effect of doing what Mr. Erskine-Smith would like it to do?

Okay. Thank you.

We go to Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

I just want to respond in case my colleague was giving his rant about me as a clip for his constituents. I say to his constituents that I feel for them. I hope they're working well with their MP.

However, what we have here is a piece of legislation that the government has now twice put forward to Parliament. We have officials saying that this amendment could have negative and “unintended consequences” and/or might not work as it is. We've had no testimony with regard to how this functionally could impact various diplomatic situations.

I just want to be very clear to somebody who may be listening to Mr. Erskine-Smith's misdirected rant. This is about legislators trying to get a very complicated piece of legislation right, and supporting a piece of legislation that I guess is redundant or could have “unintended consequences” is not the way to go.

If they are listening, I would encourage them to talk to Mr. Erskine-Smith about tabling a private member's bill, which can go through proper diligence and review in order to get to the end result.

Thank you.