CIMM#56: Committee discussed the Lost Canadian Senate Bill

 Thank you to the senator for bringing this important bill forward. I appreciate its giving us an opportunity to look at the issue of lost Canadians. As you've indicated, Senator, the scope of the bill is very limited. That means that many people will still be left out in the situation of lost Canadians.
You were just mentioning the suffering that people have to endure as a result of that. What we do know, of course, is that the second-generation rule cut-off from the previous administration took place in 2009. Consequently, a class of people—Canadians—all of a sudden lost their right to be Canadian and were deemed lost Canadians and second-class citizens in that way.

That said, we have an opportunity to fix this. I get that the scope of the bill only deals with the 28-year rule. Do you have any objection to the idea of fixing the other lost Canadians on the second-generation rule where people have been cut off? That's one piece.

The other piece is to fix the rule for those who were born before 1947—the war heros, if you will, who fought for Canada and died for Canada and were never recognized as Canadians.

Would you agree that we should actually try to fix those? Would you have any objections to that?”
Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 27th, 2023
Evidence of meeting #56 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's just a question on clause-by-clause. I understand that April 17 is slotted for that. Then the whole thing needs to be done by April 26. The 19th is already scheduled for a different piece with the senator. What happens if on the 17th we're not done the clause-by-clause?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Ms. Kwan, that's a very valid question. I was going to come to that.

We have to report it back to the House by the 26th. Based on the schedule, if it's the will of the committee members that we finish this legislation, if we don't ask for an extension and extend the date for the motion, what we can do is this. If we don't finish it on the 17th, then we can go to the 19th and do that. We would reschedule Senator McPhedran.

Right now, for Wednesday, April 19, Senator McPhedran is scheduled. If we cannot finish the clause-by-clause on the 17th, and the will of the committee members is to finish this legislation and report back to the House before April 26, then we can schedule another meeting on the 19th.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Why don't we proceed this way? We obviously want both ministers to come before the committee. I think for the main estimates it's important for the minister to come before us. I also think it's important to have Minister Sajjan come before us. Why don't we then try to switch whomever, in order to ensure that we can secure a different date for whichever minister? For example, let's say, if, on the 26th, we're going to have Minister Fraser, and if we're able to secure a date with Minister Sajjan, let's say, in May, then we should move him to May.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

We'll request that. That's based on today's discussion.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Yes, based on the availability....


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

We will give new options to Minister Sajjan. He's not available on the 24th. We are waiting for an answer from Minister Mendicino also. We have given him two options, the 24th and the 1st. We will try to confirm these dates as soon as possible .


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Alternatively, Madam Chair, if, for example, Minister Sajjan said, “No, that's the only date. I don't have any other availability at any other time”, then we should say to Minister Fraser, “It appears we have a conflict on the 26th, so do you have some other availability in May so we can accommodate your appearance?”

My point is that we should actually be flexible to see how we can adjust for both of these ministers to find the time.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Okay. We'll do that.

Mr. Redekopp.


Brad Redekopp Saskatoon West, SK
Conservative

I agree with that. I would just suggest that we use our executive committee, even informally through email or phone calls, to confirm amongst ourselves that we're all in agreement with that. We have a two-week break coming up.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes.

That is fine. I will check with the ministers on schedules. The clerk will work on that. Then once I get any updates, I will update the members.

For May 3, Marc Garneau has agreed to come for one hour. Is it all right to schedule the officials from DND for the second hour? That was also in the motion.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Which officials were those?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

It's part (c), “That, invites be issued for the appearances of senior departmental officials from the Department of National Defence to appear before the committee....” Is that okay? That's good.

Now we can proceed to Bill S-245.

You have my apologies, Senator Martin and Mr. Hallan.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, June 23, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, regarding the granting of citizenship to certain Canadians.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to welcome the sponsors of the bill, the Honourable Yonah Martin, senator, and Jasraj Singh Hallan, member of Parliament for Calgary Forest Lawn.
4:15 p.m.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the senator for bringing this important bill forward. I appreciate its giving us an opportunity to look at the issue of lost Canadians. As you've indicated, Senator, the scope of the bill is very limited. That means that many people will still be left out in the situation of lost Canadians.

You were just mentioning the suffering that people have to endure as a result of that. What we do know, of course, is that the second-generation rule cut-off from the previous administration took place in 2009. Consequently, a class of people—Canadians—all of a sudden lost their right to be Canadian and were deemed lost Canadians and second-class citizens in that way.

That said, we have an opportunity to fix this. I get that the scope of the bill only deals with the 28-year rule. Do you have any objection to the idea of fixing the other lost Canadians on the second-generation rule where people have been cut off? That's one piece.

The other piece is to fix the rule for those who were born before 1947—the war heros, if you will, who fought for Canada and died for Canada and were never recognized as Canadians.

Would you agree that we should actually try to fix those? Would you have any objections to that?


Yonah Martin
Senator, British Columbia, C


First of all, I want to thank you and recognize the work that you have done on this issue for years.

The two groups that you mentioned—the second-generation cohort and those before 1947—I am aware of these groups of lost Canadians. It's very important to look at them. I would say that as a committee.... I'm not sure if this committee has studied the lost Canadians issue in great length. Maybe those could be looked at together, whether it's the government of the day or yourselves or maybe even me from the Senate. We could work together and look at these categories separately.

This bill, which is very narrow in scope, was purposely designed that way so that everyone.... For all the other groups you're talking about, there will be much debate about these categories. I know that in the Senate, the bill was unanimously adopted. These are all things that will have to be looked at carefully.

I would say that I support it in spirit and it's something that we could do afterwards, but for the purpose of this bill, keeping it narrow is the what I would recommend.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Of course, luckily, we will actually have experts who will come after this panel. Don Chapman, as you mentioned, has spent his entire life, virtually, fighting for this issue. He has actually brought, to share with all of us, this nifty little thing to tell us all about it. The matter, of course, has actually been looked at by committee at different times, with Bill C-37, Bill C-24 and so on. This has been debated over and over again.

What we do know is that there is a group of citizens who lost their “Canadianness” because of Bill C-37 repealing their right, so we need to make them whole. In fact, as a result of that, a group of Canadians are suing the government at the moment. As we speak, people's lives are being destroyed because of being separated from their loved ones. They can't come to Canada to live their lives.

I appreciate that we have time, but really we don't because people's lives are being impacted. I feel the urgency of the families who want to bring this forward.

What I'm hearing from you, though, is that you don't object to trying to fix this. Therefore, I certainly hope we at the committee will try to do that, because I think it is important to try to fix things so that people's lives are not being destroyed.

With respect to the age 28 rule, with the amendments you have brought forward there are still a couple of gaps, which the officials indicated when they presented to us last week. If the committee members were to bring amendments to fix those gaps for the age 28 rule, would you have any objection to that?


Yonah Martin
Senator, British Columbia, C


I'm not sure what amendments.... First of all, in terms of this bill, I would urge the committee to look at it in its current scope and to look at the other issues separately.

In terms of whether the amendments are going to clarify what's in the bill specific to this cohort, I am open to hearing what that will be. As I said earlier to the question from one of the members.... Regarding some of the gaps that have been pointed out, I did answer to one regarding those who have applied who were rejected. We don't know what those reasons were, so we should leave it to those who haven't yet applied.

Regarding the other issues that were raised by the officials, if the amendments themselves clarify the bill, then I would be open to that.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Yes, I believe there will be amendments required to address specifically the age 28 rule. Then I think it would be important to bring forward amendments to address the second-generation cut-off and their descendants, and to address the issue around the war heroes and recognizing them. Hopefully the committee will get to that.

We will have opportunities. By the way, Senator, I think you might have copies of it. If you don't, I would ask the clerk to pass it on to you. We have received a giant stack of submissions from people on this issue, so—


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan. Your time is up.

We will come to you in the second round.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Madam Chair, can I just ask if the clerk can pass on the information that she has received to the senator?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Yes.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC

Thank you.
4:35 p.m.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'd like to turn for a moment to Mr. Hallan, who cares deeply about this issue and has been working closely with Don Chapman and others.

Would he be opposed to amendments or changing the laws to ensure that those who are second-generation born who have been affected as a result of Bill C-37 are able to have citizenship conferred to themselves and to their children? Would Mr. Hallan be opposed to that?


Jasraj Singh Hallan Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Conservative

Thank you, Madam Kwan.

I want to thank you as well for all your work on this.

I would reiterate what the senator said. I think that, if we want to address any of these other issues, they should come in the form of a separate bill, with this one being so narrow and the scope of it being to recognize a group of lost Canadians and all the work that's been poured into it now. We know that, when there are bills with amendments, it takes that much longer to get them debated and passed. We have time working against us now. As I said before, this is the closest we've ever come with this bill to recognize that small group—


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

What I'm hearing from you is that you're not opposed to those kinds of amendments and that you're not opposed to the idea of recognizing war heroes as citizens because they were born before 1947.

Am I hearing that correctly? Give just a yes-or-no answer.


Jasraj Singh Hallan Calgary Forest Lawn, AB
Conservative

I just want to say that there's no opposition to recognizing those people, but not in the form of the bill in its current state.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

Yes, the form of the bill in its current state does not address it. Of course, what would be required would be amendments to the bill to address those properly.

I get it. We can always wait and wait, but as we wait people's lives are being destroyed.

I know, Mr. Hallan, that you would not want people's lives destroyed and that you would want them to be able to be united with their loved ones. Some of them are separated from their loved ones right now and are unable to come to Canada, because they are immobilized because of the bill changes from C-37. We would want to fix that expeditiously, one would assume.

I want to turn for a moment to this bill on the age 28 rule. The age 28 rule also meant that for people who applied before age 28 but were denied because they were not able to meet the residency rule due to the grant process and the residency rule, those people's lives have been destroyed. This bill does not—


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Is that two minutes?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Your time is up, Ms. Kwan.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.
5:35 p.m.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I want to make a distinction about lost Canadians versus immigrants. With lost Canadians, we're talking about when Bill C-37 came in and took away the right of passing your citizenship on to your descendants for second generation born and on. It's the loss of those individuals' birthrights. Immigrants are people like me, who immigrated to Canada, and through the naturalization process became a citizen.

I just want to hear from the witnesses on the distinction between those two things. What are we talking about here when we're talking about lost Canadians? Are we talking about people's birthrights that have been taken away from them?

The question is to both Mr. Chapman and Mr. Emery.


J. Randall Emery
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council


Yes, we're talking about Canadians who lost their birthright. In my own family, we came in the 1800s and this has been a recurring pattern for a long time.


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


This should be a birthright and it has nothing to do with immigration. By the way, when they did take away rights, that goes against what's called the Interpretation Act, which says you cannot obliterate rights, and that's what happened in Bill C-37.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

We heard and you both heard from the previous panel: Senator Martin, who brought this bill before us, and of course, the sponsor of the bill in the House of Commons, MP Hallan. Both said that we should not be advancing amendments to Bill S-245.

Would you agree with that and, if not, why not? If yes, you can expand.


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


This is a tough question because again, as I mentioned to Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I wanted this to be done 10 years ago, but it's not. It's a gamble, really, that's what it is. Do I turn and say, okay, I'll take the bill as is in case there is an election, or do I put it off? To be honest with you, I want the children.... They're the ones who are suffering with suicide, mental problems, families being torn up and forced family separation where they can't even live together. That, to me, is the most important, so I would gamble on this bill just to get those amendments in because I want the children in first.


J. Randall Emery
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council


I concur, also. Just to give you a very personal example, my oldest daughter was one year old when the after first-generation exceptions were first put into place and she's a young woman now. In a couple of years she could have children of her own. How much longer do we have to wait?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay, so—


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


Can I just mention, when Bill S-230 died, it was brought back in the Senate and passed third reading in five days. It was sent to the House and in the first month it was passed. Really, I don't see, if there's an election, that it's going to be any different.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

It's not necessarily the case that we can't shepherd this through. If there's the political will to do so, we can do so. I heard comments about bureaucrats and bureaucrats do their thing, but what happened here with lost Canadians is this. Under Bill C-37 it was the politicians of the day who stripped the rights of Canadians of passing on their citizenship with the second-generation rule cut-off. It's the politicians who did that.

Here we have a situation where we have an opportunity to make changes for the better, to restore the people who've had their rights taken away. Should we not take every chance to make them whole, as was indicated through the impact of the families and how children have been impacted and left languishing because they've lost their rights and been rejected? Should we not take every opportunity, right now, to actually make them whole and to address this question?


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


Every opportunity—thank you.


J. Randall Emery
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council


Yes, absolutely.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

On the question around the stripping of rights, one perspective is to say, give them a grant process so they can apply. Another perspective, as I think has been mentioned by both of you, is to say to do the reverse onus. For those who do not want it, which is their right, they can say they don't want it if they don't want it. Then if they notify IRCC, upon notification could we not then put in changes to say that upon notification their citizenship would be of no force and effect, that is to say, the bill would be of no force and effect for them, for those who do not want the citizenship conferred to them?


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


Absolutely.

Think about it. If you're Irish, you have the right to Irish citizenship. If you're Israeli, you have the right to Israeli citizenship. It doesn't mean you're a citizen.

If two Canadian parents have a child born in the United States, that child is not Canadian until they apply and get it. Just because you have a right, it doesn't mean you are....


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Go ahead, Mr. Emery.


J. Randall Emery
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council


In addition, there are countries I mentioned, before, as examples, where, if you voluntarily apply for another citizenship, you will lose your citizenship. Anyone who comes by multiple citizenship through their parents and has family in more than one country would lose the ability to see them and lose their rights.

That is a much bigger issue to be concerned about, when we talk about unintended consequences.


Don Chapman
Founder and Head, Lost Canadians


The other thing is that citizenship is not a right in Canada. It's a privilege. Anybody at this table could have their citizenship taken. I've dealt with members of Parliament who, all of a sudden, showed up one day and they weren't Canadian anymore.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

On the question—


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

I'm sorry for interrupting, Ms. Kwan, but your time is up.

With that, this panel comes to an end. On behalf of the members of this committee, I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee and providing their input on this important legislation.

The meeting is adjourned.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/56/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#93: Closed Work Permits and Temporary Foreign Workers and Briefing on Recent Changes to International Student Policy and Plans for Future Measures

On the question around student housing, I absolutely think that it is essential for institutions and provinces do their part and I think that the federal government should show leadership and perhaps initiate a program wherein the federal government contributes a third of the funding, institutions provide a third of the funding, and the provinces and territories provide a third of the funding towards the creation of student housing, both for international students and domestic students. That way you can have a robust plan to address the housing needs of the students.

I'm going to park that for a minute and quickly get into the students who were subject to fraud. We have a situation in which students have now been cleared and found to be genuine by the task force, but they have not gotten their passports back yet. I don't know what the holdup is, and I wonder if the minister can comment on that.

Second, there are students who are still waiting to be evaluated by the task force, and the task force work can't proceed because they might be waiting for a date for the IRB to assess the question on their permit on whether or not it was genuine or whether or not there was misrepresentation. They are consequently in a situation in which people are just chasing their tails and they can't get to the task force.

On that question, will the minister agree that instead of making people go through that process with the IRB, the task force evaluation can move forward first so that they can be found to be either a genuine student or not a genuine student?

 

CIMM#92: Closed Work Permits, Temporary Foreign Workers and Committee Business

I want to thank the special rapporteur for joining us today at committee. I also very much appreciate your coming to Canada and looking into this issue.

As many of the witnesses have said to us, the issue around the immigration system as it's set up, with the closed work permit approach, is that it actually sets these workers up for exploitation. From that perspective.... It's not to say, as the Conservatives would suggest, that you were alleging that all employers abuse workers. I don't believe you said that at any point in time; rather, I think the issue is about the immigration system that Canada has.

Instead of having this closed work permit situation, what would you say is the remedy to address the exploitation that many of the migrant workers you spoke with directly experienced?

 

Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, United Nations, As an Individual
Tomoya Obokata

My recommendation is, certainly, to modify the closed nature of the program. If the workers are able to choose their employers at their own will, that reduces the instances of abuse and exploitation.

More importantly, whether it's closed or not, employers have to comply with the relevant legal obligations. I accept that a large number of employers already do. It's those others who do not who require further attention from the provincial and federal governments to see whether they can take appropriate law enforcement actions against those who breach labour standards legislation.

 

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

With respect to exploitation, one of the issues that migrant workers are faced with is that they don't have full status here in Canada; they have only temporary status. One issue that has been identified is the closed work permit. The other issue is in terms of having rights. Being able to have their rights protected also means that they have to have status here in Canada.

How would you suggest the policy side of things should be amended to ensure that these migrant workers have their rights protected?

CIMM#91: Government's Response to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Afghanistan and Committee Business

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the committee members for supporting the last motion.

I have another motion that I'd like to move at this point. Notice has been given for it. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and relevant officials together for two hours, or invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with relevant officials for two hours, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to appear separately with relevant officials for one hour to update the committee on:

(a) the work of the task force addressing the exploitation scheme targeting international students as many students are still reporting that they are in limbo and have not heard back from officials about their status;

(b) the measures taken by IRCC and institutions to help prevent and protect international students from fraud schemes;

(c) the justification to increase the financial requirements for international students by more than 100% to $20,635;

(d) the justification for putting a cap on international study permits; and

(e) the plans to address the housing crisis for international students and efforts made to collaborate with provinces, territories and post-secondary institutions.

I think the motion is self-explanatory on all elements, and I think we would benefit from having the two ministers appear before our committee. We've also deliberated this issue at length at another meeting, so in the interest of time, I won't revisit all of those points.

I hope committee members will support this motion.

 

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates