CIMM#62 Debate on Bill S-245

 This amendment aims to address the second generation cut-off rule. Committee members will know that in 2009, under Bill C-37, the right for Canadians to pass their citizenship on to children born abroad was taken away. As a result, it has created a new class of lost Canadians. That's been extremely problematic. That was done back in 2009 by the Conservative government.
This amendment aims to restore that right to those individuals by establishing a connections test to Canada. I'm proposing that we establish the connections test in four ways. It says:

(i) the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days,

(ii) the person has been registered as an elector or a future elector under the Canada Elections Act,

(iii) the person has studied at an elementary, secondary, post-secondary or vocational school in Canada, or

(iv) the person has been employed by the Government of Canada, or has been a representative or delegate of Canada, at an international organization, summit or forum.

I'm moving this amendment, Madam Chair, because I think it is important to recognize those lost Canadians. If they meet any one of those connections tests that I've highlighted, I think they should be able to have the right restored to them.

Madam Chair, at this point I'm just wondering if I should I read out the content of the amendment as it is drafted by the legislative council. Can I just say that I move NDP-1?”
Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 1st, 2023
Evidence of meeting #62 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session.
 



Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I have one further question of clarification before I move the first amendment.

In the event that we don't finish these amendments today, so that is to say that we don't finish the package for Bill S-245 to be referred back to the House, then this debate will carry on to Wednesday. Former minister Marc Garneau is supposed to come before the committee on Wednesday. That would mean, then, that the clerk would try to reschedule the Honourable Marc Garneau.

Am I right in understanding that process?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

In regard to Bill S-245, we already had one extension. We cannot get any further extensions. In our motions we have said that the legislation takes priority. If we are not able to finish clause-by-clause for Bill S-245, we will have to take this up on Wednesday and then reschedule the meeting with Mr. Garneau.

What we have scheduled right now is one hour with Mr. Garneau and one hour with the DND officials. We will have to reschedule them.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I'm sorry, but I just have another question. I just want to get all the Afghanistan witnesses' issues....

Can we get a quick update on the other ministers who were supposed to come before the committee? Do we have dates scheduled for them? How would they be impacted with delays?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

In regard to the motion passed and the meetings that have been scheduled, the only missing minister is Minister Marco Mendicino. We have not received any notification in regard to the date he can come. All the others have been done.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I assume the clerk will continue to work to get the minister before the committee.

With that, I'd like to move my first amendment, if I may, Madam Chair.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Let me just begin.

We have new clause 0.1, amendment NDP-1.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This amendment aims to address the second generation cut-off rule. Committee members will know that in 2009, under Bill C-37, the right for Canadians to pass their citizenship on to children born abroad was taken away. As a result, it has created a new class of lost Canadians. That's been extremely problematic. That was done back in 2009 by the Conservative government.

This amendment aims to restore that right to those individuals by establishing a connections test to Canada. I'm proposing that we establish the connections test in four ways. It says:

(i) the person has been physically present in Canada for at least 1,095 days,

(ii) the person has been registered as an elector or a future elector under the Canada Elections Act,

(iii) the person has studied at an elementary, secondary, post-secondary or vocational school in Canada, or

(iv) the person has been employed by the Government of Canada, or has been a representative or delegate of Canada, at an international organization, summit or forum.

I'm moving this amendment, Madam Chair, because I think it is important to recognize those lost Canadians. If they meet any one of those connections tests that I've highlighted, I think they should be able to have the right restored to them.

Madam Chair, at this point I'm just wondering if I should I read out the content of the amendment as it is drafted by the legislative council. Can I just say that I move NDP-1?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

You don't have to, but if you want you can.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Okay, I won't read it. I will spare everybody the pain.

I think I've explained what this amendment is purported to do.

To that end, Madam Chair, I'll move amendment NDP-1.




The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Ms. Lalonde is next.



Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll just respond very quickly on the subamendment.

I would prefer to have broader categories of someone establishing a connections test such as the items that I had initially included in my amendment.

That being said, in the spirit of collaboration, I understand that the government wants to limit it to only applying the 1,095 days of physical presence. While I don't like it as much as the amendments that I tabled, I will support it because I do want to see this package move forward. I think it is important to restore the birthright of these lost Canadians and, because it's a birthright, it is not an issue that would impact the levels plan, Madam Chair.

With that, I will support the subamendment as tabled by the government, although I like it less than what I had tabled myself.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Mr. Dhaliwal, you raised your hand. Please go ahead.


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Madam Chair, when the Conservatives brought in this second class of citizenship, there was an uproar in many different communities. I still remember that, and there were people who lost their citizenship because of this particular class that was brought forward.

Now, putting 1,095 days.... I still am not very happy, but I will be able to support the subamendment. The way I see it is this. Canada is a knowledge-based economy. Let me say, one professional—and it's perfectly known in my own home—an engineer, a doctor, an accountant or a consultant, goes and works for a Canadian company overseas for many years, and their child is born there. How will that child be able to come back and prove that they were able to live for three years in Canada? Basically, we still consider them second-class citizens. The child can't leave their parents until they are an adult.

I can give you a perfect example in my home. My brother is a professional engineer who works for a Canadian company. He has worked in many countries, and his son was born in Suriname. At that time, this law didn't exist, so he became a Canadian citizen right away because his parent was a Canadian citizen. My brother is still a Canadian citizen, and he's been stationed in different places by that engineering company to manage their offices.

I'm sure that there are many others like that, and it still bothers me that we are considering 1,095 days. Even though I will be able to support this, at the same time, it comes off to me as second-class citizenship. Can someone respond?


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Mr. Dhaliwal, would you like the officials to respond to it?

Ms. Girard, would you like—


Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
Liberal

Either the officials or Ms. Kwan, who brought this forward as well, and Ms. Lalonde as well.


4:05 p.m.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Okay.

Ms. Girard, would you like to comment on it?


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


I'm not sure that I would comment, but what I could point out is that the 1,095 days is the same connection test that a newcomer to Canada needs to demonstrate. Therefore, from that perspective, it is consistent in terms of the policy that Canada currently has on demonstrating attachment.

The other consideration, in terms of what the member was outlining, and my understanding of the motion, is that it's backward-looking. It's addressing the concerns of parents and of stakeholders who have come forward to this committee to express that parents, in their lifetimes, have demonstrated an important connection to Canada through their studies, their work history or some combination thereof. If they've already demonstrated that connection of three years, then my understanding of the motion is that the child, who was born abroad in the second generation or beyond, would be considered a citizen, whereas now that's not currently the case.

Thank you, Madam Chair.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, I would like to move this amendment.

This amendment is to recognize citizenship retroactive to birth for people born abroad between 1977 and 2009 who were not recognized as citizens at birth because of one of the discriminatory rules that Canada had in place such that the parent was not recognized as a citizen at the time of the person's birth. I am moving this amendment to rectify that.

From my perspective, I think it is important to do this because Canada has had a series of discriminatory policies in place. Some of them were gender based. For example, if you were a women with a child, you were not able to confer your citizenship to the child. However, if you were a man, you were able to. That has now been deemed by the courts as discriminatory.

The legislative changes did fix that for people going forward but not going back in time. I feel that we should be consistent with that concept and go back in time to recognize those who were not granted citizenship based on their birthright because, as an example, women faced discriminatory rules.

To that end, Madam Chair, I would like to move this amendment.



Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Chair, I don't have anything else to add.



The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan, and then I will have to end the meeting at 5:35.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I was just going to say this is not related to the age-28 rule.

That's it.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

Okay. Seeing no further debate, we can vote on NDP-2.

Before we vote, I want to let everyone know that if NDP-2 is defeated, amendments NDP-7 on page 16, NDP-10 on page 22, NDP-11 on page 23 and NDP-13 on page 29, cannot be moved since they refer to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1[See Minutes of Proceedings])

As I said previously, if NDP-2 is defeated, NDP-7, NDP-10, NDP-11 and NDP-13 cannot be moved since they refer to proposed paragraph 3(1)(s), which would have been created by NDP-2.

With that, this meeting comes to an end.

Do I have the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?


Some hon. members

Agreed.


The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal

The meeting is adjourned.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/immigration/44-1/62/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#115: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required.  I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream.  Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening.  I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that.  The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status.  Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.

CIMM#114: Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Aside from looking at patterns of potential violators—the groups and organizations taking advantage of students with these fraudulent letters of acceptance—will you be including in the analysis what types of institutions are being utilized for these fraudulent letters? In other words, is it private institutions versus public institutions, colleges versus universities and so on? Will that be part of the analysis?

Bronwyn MayDirector General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

CIMM#113: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
All right. Thank you.
Hence, we have this problem. You have the Canadian government, which created this lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law. The government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, created this lifeboat scheme that only provides for temporary residence by way of a work permit or a study permit. Then these people have to go to the queue to make an application for permanent residence, and we know that there is a huge backlog and delay in processing.
In the beginning, there was swift action, but as time has passed, it's been lengthened by way of the delay, to the point where the former minister even made an announcement to further extend people's work permits and study permits for another three years. That is to say, a person could be here for six years—as long as six years—under this current scheme without getting permanent residence. This is because the minister anticipated that people would not be able to swiftly get their permanent resident status. That is the reality.
As a result of that, people are not able to provide proof of permanent residence, because the application is in process. To make it even worse, the government—the minister—just made an announcement about the levels plan, cutting levels to the tune of 105,000 permanent resident status applications.
You can imagine how long the wait-list is for Hong Kongers as they continue to wait. Now, these Hong Kongers have zero intention of returning to Hong Kong, because they know that they would be persecuted if they did. People know that. I think the Canadian government knows that.
This is my question, then, to you as the manager of their pension, which, because of this rule, they're unable to access: Would your organization be willing to write to the regulator to ask for consideration for these applicants who are in a prolonged period of waiting for permanent resident status, to ask that their declaration indicating that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong be accepted as proof that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently so that they can access their pensions? Is that something that your organization would consider doing?

Maryscott GreenwoodGlobal Head, Government Relations, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
I think I understand the question.
The basic premise of your question has to do with the period of time it takes for the Government of Canada to determine and provide permanent residency or citizenship. It seems to me that this is a function of the Government of Canada, as opposed to a regulated entity. That's how I would answer that.

Laura HewittSenior Vice-President and Head, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc.
Yes. I would say that it's not within our authority to change the criteria.
However, our numbers show that once that permanent residency does come through, we're able to process the applications and approve Canadian permanent residents.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates