Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. My understanding is also that the amendment includes a number of cross-references to previous amendments that were already passed, so it's sort of a coordinating amendment.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for the question. As we've said, in general it is open to Parliament to legislate however it sees fit. The scheme of the act, for example, currently has an interpretation section, which is definitions that apply throughout the act. It's my recollection that this specific substantial connection definition is included in that interpretation section or that it will be.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madam Chair, I would just reiterate my previous comments from our last session, which is to say that it's open to Parliament to legislate retroactively, but it's inherently complex because you're talking about a law currently applying to facts in the past. It can be difficult to predict the effects of that, particularly in a case where you're looking at facts quite far in the past—80 years.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for the question. What I would just add, perhaps, is the framing of citizenship in the Citizenship Act currently, in that we have citizenship by grant and citizenship by operation of law. Generally, with citizenship by operation of law, we're recognizing citizenship as a status that was acquired sort of inherent to you as a person, and I think there's something sort of conceptual there as well.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  On that specific question, I don't think I have anything to add. My colleague has given I think a fulsome response. Thank you.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  My understanding of the amendment is that it is related to derivative claims. That's my understanding; I'm not confident.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think the question about proposed subsection 3(8.2) would be related to claims of citizenship by descent, the way it's currently worded. I think perhaps it would be a question for the member from the NDP.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I think that mostly covers it, but I'd just say that the act as it's structured currently envisions citizenship attached to living persons. That's all I'll add.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I have nothing to add. Thank you.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would perhaps return to my earlier point on this issue of interaction between the current amendments and the previous legislation to say that as that interaction is sort of an unknown, it's again difficult to say how descendants of those persons may be affected.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I will echo my colleague's comments just now and say it's of course open to Parliament to legislate retroactively, but it is inherently complex, because we're talking about applying new laws to facts that have occurred in the past. Particularly if we're talking about a period of time some 80 years in the past, it's very difficult to say precisely what the consequences might be.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for the question. I would just say again that it's very difficult to say with certainty. What I can say is that in general, there's typically one scheme that operates in legislation on citizenship or nationality. Nationality is one thing; if we have two different pieces, it would be somewhat novel, I think, to try to predict how those two pieces would interact.