Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madam Chair, I don't have those statistics at hand. I'm not sure if we have a record of persons who didn't appear. We will take that back, and if statistics are available, we will endeavour to provide them to this committee as soon as it is feasible.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Through the chair, thank you for the question with regard to what is currently the online citizenship test, which began to be offered during the pandemic so that the citizenship application process could continue for the many thousands of citizenship applicants in process. I can say that any allegation of fraud is taken seriously and is looked into.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Could the member repeat the question, please? I only heard part of it.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you for the question. The amendment in question did not propose to replace in-person ceremonies. I want to be very clear about that. The proposal is to give the applicant a choice, either to take the oath as required at an in-person ceremony, as is currently the case, or to take the oath through technology and then participate in a ceremony later.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madame Chair, as it stands under section 23 of the Citizenship Act, a delegation of authority must be done by the minister “in writing”. Those are the key operative words: that the delegation must be done “in writing”. I would further note that in general those delegations are done in writing to various members in the department selected by the minister, under formal written delegation instruments.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madame Chair, I cannot say with certainty, but I am not aware over the course of my 30-plus years' work in government of any circumstance of a minister of the department making such a delegation in writing to anyone other than a member of the department.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madam Chair, a simple summary of the intended impact of this more technical amendment is to ensure the consistent application of the first generation limit, and it is impacting the descendants of the section 8 persons who are restored their citizenship by the bill. That is a concise summary.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madam Chair, this amendment, as I mentioned, is ensuring the consistent implementation of the first-generation limit for the descendants of the section 8 restorees, and that would include international adoptees. However, as we discussed in committee yesterday, the section 8 restorees would also have available to them the connection test, whether their child was born abroad or was adopted abroad in the second generation or beyond.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The impact of the first-generation limit is that only the first generation born or adopted abroad have direct access to citizenship, if I can put it that way in summary terms. The benefit of the connection test amendments that have been voted on by this committee to date is that a Canadian parent who is already the first generation born abroad and is therefore not able to automatically transmit citizenship to a child born or adopted abroad under current legislative provisions would be able to do so in the future under the amended provisions of this bill, whether the child is born abroad in the second generation or beyond, or adopted abroad in the second generation or beyond, because the parent is already considered first generation.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Madam Chair, the retroactive element of this revised amendment is more useful for circumstances in which countries may have laws on the books with provisions that may be automatic. For instance, if another citizenship is taken out, it can cause a loss or have a negative impact on another citizenship that someone has, as an example, or have an impact that may be negative for the person in terms of legal, professional or other reasons.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  My understanding is that the previous version was providing a safety valve to enable persons becoming automatic citizens through the amendments to the bill, but who did not wish to be citizens, to be able to opt out back to the time of the coming into force of the bill. The significance of that is if they have another citizenship or reside in another jurisdiction where dual citizenship is problematic, they can be left with a gap in time, whereas this current version for the committee's consideration makes it clear that persons availing themselves of this opt-out provision would be deemed never to have become Canadian citizens under the provision of the bill, leaving no room for interpretation by another jurisdiction.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I believe that's probably a fair understanding or assumption. I do not have any detailed breakdown as to why applications may have been withdrawn.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It's not possible to estimate with any certainty, but the numbers that I've quoted for those five years are not very significant by any stretch. It's reasonable to anticipate that we may have less or have similar volumes and that the volumes would remain in the hundreds per year.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That was the total processed. Of those 1,362 applications to renounce processed, 1,262 were approved. Nine were refused, and 91 were withdrawn. My colleague confirms to me that these are statistics that we've recently shared with the committee.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The renunciation applications are covered under section 9 of the Citizenship Act. The first thing is that someone who wishes to renounce their citizenship has to be a citizen of another country, or if their application is accepted by Canada and our department, they will become a citizen of a country other than Canada.