We live in a time of rising global uncertainty. It is more important than ever that the Canadian immigration system can respond to arising global crises in an expedient and flexible manner. Alarmingly, this is not the case.

Even before major global refugee crises such as the Afghanistan, and Ukrainian crises, IRCC has been struggling with massive backlogs in all the immigration streams. Delayed immigration application is the most common request for assistance at my office, with some applications delayed for years! Behind the delayed applications are separated families, missed opportunities, and in some cases, immigration is a life-and-death situation for people who need to leave dangerous situations.

To start, IRCC should stop the practice of returning applications when there are minor mistakes and missing information and documents that can be easily provided by applicants. IRCC must also end oppressive immigration policies such as the inhumane cap on parent/grandparents’ sponsorship applications, closed work permits for migrant workers, and the unfair treatment of caregivers and domestic workers.

Lack of resources for IRCC is the major root cause of delayed applications. I will continue to advocate for adequate resources for IRCC to process applications in consistently reasonable timeframes and for immigration policies that are more just.

"First off, I'd like to touch on the issue around the overall strategy because that seems to be the central issue here. Right from the beginning—and I'll repeat it again at this committee—I engaged with stakeholders all the way through to talk about Bill S-245 and what amendments needed to be made. Through that consultation, it was clear to me that the groups wanted the lost Canadians issue addressed once and for all, and not just as it related to the narrow category that was established under the bill itself.

There were a variety of areas that we needed to address, including those who had lost their right to pass on their citizenship to children born abroad. There were issues around what I loosely call “war heroes”. Those are individuals who fought for Canada, went to war for Canada, for example, died for Canada and never came back. However, at the time they did that, because Canada was not formulated as a country—Confederation had not taken place—they were not recognized as citizens in a technical sense. Part of the goal, of course, was trying to address those people and to make them whole, even though they may have passed on. Their descendants have already had access to Canadian citizenship. It's just really a symbolic thing.

Another category that needed to be addressed, for example, included those who faced discrimination because of Canada's immigration laws and citizenship laws over the years. I was trying to capture those individuals and make them whole.

Anyway, there are a number of these kinds of categories. Right from the get-go, I made it clear that's what I was trying to do.

In that process, it was determined, through the stakeholder consultation, that they would like to see the government address this by way of conferring those rights back to them. In that process, I came up with a number of suggestions to address those. For example, being in Canada for 1,095 days, consistent with what the Citizenship Act outlines by way of the number of days, was one connections test.”

Before I speak to the motion, I want to first touch on an issue with your decision.

What you found is that the matter raised relates to a matter of privilege. However, it is my understanding, Madam Chair, that you have not found that privilege was violated at this committee. I just want to make sure that was the case.

With respect to the motion from Mr. Dhaliwal, I certainly support the motion to call the witness to come before the committee to provide clarity on the question of privilege. To be sure, if that motion passes, the motion is to call the witness to speak before the committee on the question around privilege and not to revisit, I assume, the issue around Bill S-245. If I'm incorrect, I would like to have some clarity on that. I think that's an important motion from this perspective.

I had the chance to review the Hansard from Mr. Kmiec that was made at the last committee meeting. He seemed to indicate that he believed a breach of the committee's privilege has occurred. I will quote from it:

What I have heard about the Liberal NDP compromise is that they will offer subamendments—

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I will move NDP-3.

This amendment is really related to the package on the second generation cut-off rule. It extends citizenship to the second generation born abroad and subsequent generations, and restores those impacted since the second generation cut-off rule was enacted back in 2009.

Included in this, I should just point out that it also recognizes the connections test and that it would apply to both the parents and the grandparents.”
 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?”
Jenny Kwan, MP for Vancouver East and the NDP critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, said Ottawa needs to review the program as the program’s limitations barred many Hong Kongers from seeking permanent safety here.

“The scheme is fraught with problems and barriers,” Kwan said. “Many people would have graduated more than five years ago, and they are not able to get into the scheme.”
Kwan said Ottawa should “have a reality check” and overhaul the program by extending the deadline and expanding its eligibility.

“I raised concerns to the minister (Sean Fraser) about the looming deadline,” she said. “The government must make a decision quickly. there will be people left out otherwise.

“The Canadian government said we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Hong Kong,” she said. “If that’s the case, they need to take action, otherwise it’s meaningless, then the policy is not worth the paper that is written on.”

Asked by The Globe on Parliament Hill Thursday to clarify what he said, Mr. Sajjan declined to answer questions, saying he was late for a meeting.

During Question Period on Thursday, NDP MP Jenny Kwan called the revelations shocking. “Does the Prime Minister really think this is acceptable?” she asked.

Neither the Prime Minister nor Mr. Sajjan were at Question Period, leaving Immigration Minister Sean Fraser to respond. He defended the government’s response to the crisis in Afghanistan, saying Canada helped to save thousands of lives through its evacuation efforts.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates