CIMM#54: Inquiring with IRCC officials about Bill S-245 and the Lost Canadians issue

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to the officials for being here today.

For sure, this Citizenship Act is a complex file, with so many changes over the years that amendments brought to the table often require amendments to the exception to the exception and so on. It's extremely confusing.

From my perspective, first off, I'd like to say that we have before us Bill S-245, and I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Yonah Martin for bringing this before us, because it gives us an opportunity to look into this issue and see how we can fix some of the problems. Maybe it will never be possible to fix all of the problems, but I think it will be important and incumbent on all of us to do our very best to try to fix as many problems as possible.

I appreciate the briefing in terms of your highlighting some of those areas. On the question around unintended consequences, I'd like to probe a little bit deeper into this issue around other countries, where, if you were to confer citizenship to the individual, it might cause them a heap of trouble, because in whatever country they might be in they may not be allowed to, for example, have dual citizenship.

Of course, conferring citizenship automatically in this way was done before. It was done under Bill C-37, it was done under Bill C-24 and so on. Somehow it was dealt with in those previous scenarios. I get it that times might have changed. There might be more people living globally, but nonetheless the premise of that has not changed.

Can you advise us on how officials addressed those issues back then? Why was it okay then to confer citizenship without these concerns of unintended consequences, but now it is a key concern?


Nicole Girard
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

Thank you for the question.

The member is correct in the sense that the risk of unintended consequences, then or now, will continue to be there. For the consideration of the committee, one thing we've become more aware of—certainly I've become more aware of—since 2009, in working on lost citizen issues, is that it is right for there to be a remedy. The principle of the bill is something that the government can support. The question is on the mechanism.

As the other member mentioned, the first part of this bill is looking to address a narrow cohort. A limited number of individuals are left who were affected by the former section 8 and lost their citizenship automatically. In some sense, it makes sense in terms of the provisions of the bill to restore those individuals their citizenship. At least, that is what the bill is looking to do.

We've become a bit more aware since 2009 of concerns in the international community of experts about the issue of unintended consequences, especially where there could be countries that may still have laws on the books where people who take out another citizenship could automatically lose the citizenship they have. They could be working in a profession where dual citizens may be barred.

It's not a theoretical issue. There were media reports of a dual citizenship crisis in Australia in 2017. More than 12 members resigned from their position when it was found that those individuals were in circumstances where they had dual citizenship. Australian law was not permitting dual citizens to be members of Parliament.

I think the question for this committee is on the remedy for those—other than the section 8s—who are described in this bill. What is the mechanism?

There is a reasonable argument that a mechanism could be made available, potentially through an amendment, for those born abroad in the second generation or beyond who can demonstrate a connection on application, so as to minimize this kind of unintended consequence. For that provision in the bill, we're talking about very large cohorts. We're not talking about the narrow group of section 8s who would be restored automatically.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Alternatively, we can do it in reverse. That is to say that, for those who might be in the international community and do not wish to have Canadian citizenship conferred on them, for whatever reason, this could be made to happen. If all of the sudden they realize that somehow they got Canadian citizenship that they didn't want, they could say they would actually like to have that rescinded, retroactive to the day the bill was passed.

Then, that small cohort of people who might be impacted has a pathway to ensure that they will not be impacted. That could be done.

On the suggestion where you are saying that everybody who should be able to get citizenship and wants to get citizenship should apply to get citizenship, to my good colleague MP Brunelle-Duceppe's comment, as it stands, immigration is inundated with a backlog and more applications are coming in all the time. Why would we create a scenario where we have more work for officials and for people to go through? Minimize the number of people who might be making an application and still keep them whole, and then do a reverse onus. That may be a better option.

Can I just get a quick comment from the officials on that?


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Your time is up. We'll come back when you have a second round.

We will now proceed to Mr. Redekopp.

You can please begin. You will have five minutes.

NDP

Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.

Maybe I can get a quick answer first from the officials to my last question.


Nicole Girard
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Could the member just repeat the question?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Yes. It was, very quickly, around those who are outside of Canada and the issue of doing the reverse onus. Instead of having people apply to have their citizenship conferred to them, we would actually get the people who don't want their citizenship conferred to them to apply, and it would be retroactive to the day of the passing of the legislation.

It's to save IRCC resources by not having them deal with a larger number of applications.


Nicole Girard
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

There is a provision under the bill to allow for simplified renunciation for those who don't wish to have it. I can't speak to whether the bill would provide authority for retroactivity or not, but perhaps my colleague from the Department of Justice may have some comment on that.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

The bill doesn't provide for it, but if an amendment were made to the bill to provide for it, I'd love to here what Justice thinks about that.


Alain Laurencelle 

Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

If I understand the question, it's about an opt-in versus an opt-out.

Anything can be done with a bill, subject to the will of the committee, the House of Commons and Parliament. There are very few restrictions on legislating retroactively. There are some constitutional restrictions.

I think the question is perhaps more from an operational point of view. Both an opt-in and an opt-out would require an application. In terms of managing the workload, I guess that would be more for the department to determine, but you would have applications for both of the scenarios you've mentioned.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

That is correct.

From Justice's point of view, are you not concerned that if we were to do the opt-out scenario, the unintended consequence would therefore not be addressed? That is my question.


Alain Laurencelle
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

It would be a policy call for this committee and the House of Commons to decide.

I would just note that we have to be careful. For example, for the opt-out, one would have to look at the nationality legislation of the other country in question, because there might potentially still be issues of unintended consequences. Those countries might not recognize retroactivity, for example, as a concept.

It might do away with that problem, depending on the legislation of the country in question.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I think there are a number of ways to skin that cat, so to speak. A person can apply to opt out, or alternatively, for those who wish to opt out, the application of this automatic conferring of citizenship would not apply to them. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure there are lawyers who can figure out the language of how that could be done to prevent those kinds of unintended consequences. I just want to note that this issue or concept existed previously and was never really an issue. There are ways to deal with it.

I hope we don't take the perspective that this might be a problem, so we're not going to do anything. If we take that approach, what is the purpose of existing in life, generally speaking? Everything needs to be addressed in one way or another, including getting up to get dressed in the morning.

On a separate piece related to this, one of the issues I hear a lot about is that this bill is not comprehensive enough. That's a major concern among the series of concerns that have been listed. If amendments were to be tabled to broaden the scope of the bill, even though they were deemed to be out of the bill's scope, there is still a provision or way to get around that, which is to go through a royal recommendation, if the minister were in agreement.

If that were done, would the department be opposed to looking at measures that would expand and try to capture those lost Canadians so that we would not be constantly dealing with issue of lost Canadians? At least we could make an attempt to try to catch as many as possible through amendments to this bill.


Nicole Girard
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

I can't speak to the procedure, but as already mentioned, because the bill is benefiting some born abroad in the second generation and not others, from this vantage point it would be preferable during the amendment process to see if it would be possible to have a more equitable approach and solution in the amendments, as the member has mentioned.

As mentioned, there would be ways to come at it and different risks, but rightly, as you mentioned, that is for the committee's consideration.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

That is the time, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I'm sorry. Can I just finish the sentence?


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

I was indicating that the time was up. We will have to go the next member.

Mr. Maguire, you will have five minutes.


Larry Maguire Brandon—Souris, MB
Conservative

Thanks.

Jenny, I will give you time to finish your question.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

One way to address this situation as comprehensively as possible is to rescind the provision that came in to say that those who are second-generation born would not have their citizenship conferred to them. That would be an easy way to actually deal with it. Is that something the department thinks is advisable?


Nicole Girard
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

I'm not sure I can advise or comment on that, but another way to come at it would be to leave the first-generation limit as is and have a mechanism that's equitable for those who were born abroad, second generation or beyond, to access with the demonstrating a connection test.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

What we're talking about then is an application process, which already exists by the way. People can apply in this onerous and ineffective process, but people are saying, don't go down that route.


Larry Maguire Brandon—Souris, MB
Conservative

I'm just going to—


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I would think that we don't want to repeat history and do want learn from that experience. Maybe it's a safe way to do it, but I don't think so.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Maguire is asking for his time.


Some hon. members

Oh, oh!


Larry Maguire Brandon—Souris, MB
Conservative

I meant that you could ask your question, but....


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

I apologize. I'm sorry. I misunderstood.

Liberal

If all of the members are saying they are in favour, we will proceed. We have the amendment on the floor.

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

I would like to move a subamendment, but before I go to that, there was a lot of talking going on and I didn't quite hear exactly what the amendment was. I apologize. Can we just hear again what the amendment is?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Mr. Redekopp, could you please repeat it?


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

I move that we replace every instance of “March 31” with “April 30”, and that we add the word “former” in front of the reference to MP Garneau. Effectively we're moving it by a month.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kwan, are you clear now?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Yes. Thank you for this.

I guess I'm technically supposed to speak to the amendment. I don't have trouble amending the timeline as proposed, but I would like to move some subamendments to the motion. I would like to move that we delete paragraph (c), which calls for Dr. Lauryn Oates of the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan group—


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Can I have silence in the room so everyone can understand what subamendment she's proposing?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm moving, Madam Chair, a subamendment to delete “(c) Dr. Lauryn Oates, of the Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan group, be invited to appear individually before the Committee prior to March 31, 2023, for one hour, to discuss matters related to the current study”. I would like to move to delete item (d) as well. Finally, I would like to move a subamendment to change, in item (e), the word “summonses” to “invite”.

Let me just explain why I have moved these subamendments, Madam Chair.

First off, Dr. Lauryn Oates is a representative of the NGO doing incredible work in very difficult times in Afghanistan. I know that she also has staff who work in her organization who are actually in jeopardy at the moment. They need to get to safety but are unable to do so. Of course, I have a lot of questions for the government about its inability to bring these individuals to safety. On this question, she is the only person from an NGO who has been asked to come.

I think, at this point, given the situation that we're dealing with, it would be appropriate to have these various people listed under item (b) come before the committee. I think it is entirely appropriate for that to happen. However, I don't think that Lauryn Oates should be required to come unless she wants to come. I would move that we actually strike that item out. The clerk can invite Dr. Lauryn Oates to send in a submission, if she wishes to do so, in terms of her perspective and views on the matter for the committee's consideration.

With regard to item (d), I'm generally not opposed to having former ministers—or ministers, for that matter—come before the committee. In fact, I think accountability rests with ministers. If it is a former minister and the matter was related to them at the time they were minister, then they should come before the committee to answer these questions.

In the case of former minister Maryam Monsef, it is my understanding that she just had a baby. Being a new mom can be a difficult time in so far as it is so new. It's a happy time as well. Having been a new mom so many years ago now—it was 19 years ago, to be more precise—I remember those days. There were days when I could barely get up. Literally, all of the day would go by, and I would not have brushed my teeth yet. I was just scrambling, trying to do all of the stuff that I was supposed to do as a new mom.

Anyway, it's a bit of a thing. I want to just extend that courtesy to her because I think it could be difficult for her to be away from her baby. I know it's a short period, perhaps, even saying that it's just for two hours. Still, maybe there's another time we can invite her that would be more convenient for her. We can certainly entertain that.

With respect to former staffers Laura Robinson and George Young, I will say this at this time: There may be times when I think former staffers would be appropriate to speak. We're hearing that, in fact—although not a former staffer but a current staffer from the PMO—on the foreign interference question. The NDP actually supports a move.... My colleague Peter Julian actually did move to have Katie Telford come to that committee on the foreign interference issue.

In this instance with these former staffers, what I would like to do first is to have their former bosses come before us. That is, the ministers should come before us to answer pertinent questions. After that, if there's a determination that it is deemed to be necessary or appropriate, then we can call and invite these former staffers to come before us. I think we still have an opportunity to do that. That's why at this point I'm suggesting, Madam Chair, for us to remove clause (d).

Finally, on the words around “summonses” in clause (e), I don't know. I think we had this discussion at some other time with respect to having individuals come before the committee, including ministers. I was told that we're not really able to summon them and rather it's really for the House if the matter is such that they don't come. In this instance, I'm talking about the ministers on the Afghan file. We were frustrated as a committee that those ministers were consistently unavailable and never offering a date. We were frustrated with that process.

I wanted to summon them, and I was pretty well told, no, you can't summon them. You can ask them to come and if they don't by a certain date, then the committee can report the matter to the House, and then the House can take further action, including summoning them to come before the committee. In the spirit of that, that's why I'm proposing that we, instead of using the word “summonses”, use the word “invite”.

That's my thinking behind this, Madam Chair. Otherwise, I'm fine with the change to April 30. I'm fine with the “former” MP Marc Garneau piece as well because that just reflects the current reality of things. I'm looking forward to having these witnesses come before the committee, because the Afghan file is an important one and people's lives are at risk at the moment. It's something that I really want to have our committee work on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

You mentioned it's like a subamendment, but it is not related to the amendment that was proposed by Mr. Redekopp in regard to changing dates. Therefore, I would seek the committee members' consent as to whether we should deal with what Ms. Kwan is proposing first, and then go on to changing the dates, which Mr. Redekopp proposed. If that's the will of the committee, we can proceed that way.

Ms. Kwan has moved some amendments, so that's what we will get into.

Ms. Rempel Garner.


Michelle Rempel Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Conservative

Thank you.

On the subamendment, I would agree with my colleague on her assessment of paragraph (c). The reason why Dr. Oates was included in the original motion is that Dr. Oates is referenced in an article from, I believe, November 2021, where she speaks about an unnamed senator essentially assisting her organization, people who were affiliated with her organization, with documentation, which is the subject of this. I think it would have been material to know if she had received some of these documents from the senator, because that does say that the process was circumvented for some groups and not for others.

I understand her hesitance, though, in not wanting to be here. On the other hand, in that article, I will point out to my colleague and put on the record that she is cited as saying that—it was either her or someone else in the article—they knew this senator went too far. It bothers me that we potentially had people who were probably very well intentioned and do great work right now working on a process that they may have had suspicions was not legitimate. That's not how we do business in Canada. We should be working to change policy, not circumvent policy, even in the toughest of situations, because that's how we keep processes fair and equitable for everyone.

I do have to take issue with my colleague's suggestion for point (d), and I want her to listen why. I refer her attention, through you, Chair, to an article published by The Globe and Mail on February 17, 2023. The headline of the article is “Sajjan unclear on whether top adviser told him he was sharing Canadian government travel documents with senator”. This article refers to Mr. George Young. Mr. George Young is at the centre of this entire matter. This is the former defence minister's former chief of staff.

This entire article talks about how Minister Sajjan couldn't recall or maybe recalled giving this person a potential document. I'm going to read from the article for my colleague, through you, Chair. This is from an interaction that Mr. Sajjan had with the reporter:

Mr. Sajjan further confused the matter on Thursday. In a brief interview with The Globe, he dodged 10 different questions about whether he knew Mr. Young provided what are called visa facilitation letters to Ms. McPhedran.

I would argue that Mr. Young is material to the committee's study of this matter, given that Minister Sajjan has already had a long interaction with the press wherein he has tried to obfuscate on whether or not he knew or had given permission to Mr. Young for the use of these facilitation letters. I would also point out to my colleague that Mr. Young has used the excuse that he might be invited to this committee as a rationale for not commenting to the press or providing further public comment on this matter.

For me, the most important person out of anybody to attend this committee hearing.... Frankly, the two people are Senator McPhedran and then George Young, as our first starting place, because my understanding, based on everything that has come out in the press and on my understanding of the files, is that Mr. Young is at the heart of this. We need to know whether or not the former minister of defence authorized a workaround process through his chief of staff. If, in the media, Minister Sajjan is already dancing around the issue, then it behooves us as a committee to have Mr. Young here to give his side of the story.

I would argue that any attempts to delete Mr. Young from this, I would say.... I don't want to ascribe motive to my colleague, but I would look to her to seek to amend her motion again to include Mr. Young. Any concerns otherwise, I would say, are trying to perhaps gloss over or perhaps brush the involvement of Mr. Young under the rug, given that there are several media articles, including the one I cited from the Globe, wherein Mr. Sajjan already danced around the press on what he knew when. I just want to get to the bottom of this so that this doesn't happen again.

We're looking at major humanitarian crises around the world right now. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again right now, so that other people aren't impacted by that.

I wish she had separated her subamendment out. I can't support it without having Mr. Young here. I think what will happen without that is that we'll have these ministers maybe come or maybe not, and they will dance around the issue. I'm sure Senator McPhedran will come, though. That will be interesting, but not having Mr. Young here will actually materially change the committee's ability to investigate this matter and I would ask her to consider that.


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Since the comments from my colleague were put to me directly, I'm happy to offer my thoughts with respect to them.

First off, I want to be very clear and say that I'm not here to try to protect anyone or slip anything under the rug for anyone. Those who know me will definitely realize that's not what I'm made of. That is an aside.

In general, I will say this. It is my view that elected members—when we're talking about government—and ministers and former ministers need to be held accountable. They need to be open and transparent and they need to take responsibility, because that is their job.

Regarding the potential involvement of George Young, I don't know the details of this case, to be honest with you, other than what I've read in the newspaper. The matter is also—as far as I know, unless something has changed—under police investigation. Maybe that's concluded. I don't know. No one has informed me. Again, all I know is what I've read in the newspaper, but the first order of accountability rests with the ministers and former ministers. They need to be held to account, and they need to explain to this committee and the public what has transpired.

We've seen it over and over again that ministers come before us and they talk as though they have marbles in their mouths, and nothing comes out. It may be that we need to move in another direction to find the truth. If that's necessary, I'm absolutely willing to entertain that, but we don't know at this point what will happen.

Maybe I should know better, but I'd like to give that opportunity to these former ministers to come before this committee to answer the questions of committee members. If they refuse to come—as has been the case with current ministers on the Afghanistan situation including, for example, the Minister of DND, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc.—we have moved the motion and passed the motion for them to come by a certain date. If that does not happen we will seek other means to try to summon them to come. That option is still available to us. If we invite these ministers to come by this date, which if amended successfully would be April 30, and they don't come by then, I would absolutely be happy to come back and say, “Look, they are refusing to co-operate, and we need to escalate things.”

If these ministers come and offer nothing, if, for example, important questions are put to them and the answer is “I don't know. I can't remember. The dog ate my breakfast and my paper and my homework and all the rest of it” kind of thing, then I think that would warrant further consideration as to what action needs to be taken to get at the truth. I'm open to all of that, but following the steps and procedures that are before us, I think we should move forward as per the way I have subamended the item.

I want to take a moment to talk about Dr. Lauryn Oates. I had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Lauryn Oates after this motion was first moved and—


The Chair Salma Zahid

Liberal

Ms. Kwan, if I can interrupt you for a second, I want to let the officials go. I see a speaking list, so I don't think there will be an opportunity to go back to Bill S-245. After you, I have two other members who would like to speak.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to thank you for coming today. I'm really sorry we were not able to utilize your time well and that we had to get into the discussion of other motions. If you want to leave, you can. Again, on behalf of all the members, thank you for taking the time to appear before the committee on important legislation.

I'll give the witnesses a second to leave, and then—


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

NDP

Madam Chair, perhaps I can jump in before the officials leave.

Given that we're pressed for time on this issue and that committee members did not get through all their rounds in terms of questions—


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

They are leaving now. We will proceed with the discussion on—


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Can I finish, Madam Chair, on a point of order?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Given that this motion has interrupted our proceedings, and given that Bill S-245 is going to be a bill that we will need to deal with in a timely fashion, because it has to go before the House, and committee members did not get a chance to ask their round of questions, can we have the committee's support to say that committee members can submit written questions to the officials so that we can get those responses back for our consideration as we move forward on this bill?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes. The officials always try to answer questions from the committee whenever we have requested it. If members would like to proceed that way, they can send questions to the clerk of the committee and that will be done.

Thank you once again.

Ms. Kwan, you had the floor. Please continue.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that assurance that committee members will be able to send in written questions to officials related to Bill S-245.

Getting back to Dr. Lauryn Oates, I had an opportunity to speak with her after the motion was moved, and she expressed her concerns with respect to that. With that as an aside, it may well be.... As much as I appreciate the media and their reporting, there may be times where things that are reported by the media may not necessarily be 100% accurate. There might be nuanced information that might not be captured in the article.

To that end, I think it would be important, given that Dr. Lauryn Oates was referred to in the newspaper, that she be given the opportunity to provide a written submission to us. Of course, as always, committee members can consider at a later time whether they want to invite people back if it's deemed that the information provided was deficient and further work needs to be done. If that's the case, we can all take that into consideration.

I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. Thank you.