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
NDPI'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
LiberalIn 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
NDPThank 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
NDPThank 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
NDPOkay, 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
NDPThank 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
LiberalThank you, Ms. Kwan.
Mr. Dhaliwal, you raised your hand. Please go ahead.
Sukh Dhaliwal Surrey—Newton, BC
LiberalMadam 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
LiberalThank 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
NDPI was just going to say this is not related to the age-28 rule.
That's it.
The Chair Salma Zahid
LiberalOkay. 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. membersAgreed.
The Chair Salma Zahid
Liberal
The meeting is adjourned.