THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 11:34 a.m. [ET] to consider the subject matter of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024); and, in camera, to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, and welcome. My name is Rosemary Moodie, a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to go around the table and have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Arnot: Good morning, everyone. David Arnot, senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Senior: Paulette Senior, senator from Ontario.
Senator Osler: Flordeliz “Gigi” Osler, Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good morning, Minister. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Welcome. I’m Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Mi’kma’ki, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Good morning. Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
Senator Brazeau: Good morning, everyone. Patrick Brazeau from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Seidman: Good morning. Judith Seidman, Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Saskatchewan, Treaty 6 territory.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: Today, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024). Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome the Honourable Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Minister Miller is accompanied by the following officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC: Pemi Gill, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery; Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship Policy and International Experience Canada Branch; Stephanie Jay-Tosh, Acting Senior Director, Legislation and Program Policy; and Erika Schneidereit, Counsel, Legal Services.
Thank you all for joining us today.
We will begin with opening remarks from Mr. Miller, followed by questions from committee members. Minister, you have five minutes for opening remarks. The floor is yours.
Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Thank you, chair and senators.
To start with, I might get pulled away by my staff for a vote that is happening at some point in the next 30 minutes. You will see me doing what looks like a selfie, but it is actually a vote, as you know, and we’ll get back to business.
I want to thank you and start by acknowledging that we’re meeting here today on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss a crucial bill, Bill C-71, which a number of you are familiar with. It introduces critical amendments to the Citizenship Act. Thank you for dedicating this time for a pre-study, which is important given the time constraints we’re facing with a court deadline looming.
The legislation provides a clear framework for citizenship by descent, with the immediate goal of restoring and conferring citizenship to “Lost Canadians.”
[Translation]
It builds on and, in my view, improves upon the work done in Bill S-245. The amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009 and 2015, it should be remembered, resolved the majority of former cases of lost Canadians by granting or restoring citizenship, and exempting anyone from having to apply to retain citizenship before their 28th birthday.
Since 2009, approximately 20,000 lost Canadians have come forward to reclaim their citizenship as a result of these legislative amendments. However, a small cohort remains affected, namely those who were born abroad to Canadian parents and are part of the second or subsequent generations, especially between 1977 and 1981. These people lost their citizenship before the 2009 amendments came into force and have no clear way of restoring it.
[English]
Bill C-71 establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to “Lost Canadians” and their descendants. It also addresses issues raised by the recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling by providing a pathway to citizenship for those born or adopted abroad beyond the first generation.
This bill will expand access to citizenship by descent in a more comprehensive and inclusive way than before, and it will restore citizenship to the remaining category of people we call “Lost Canadians”. It also proposes that all individuals born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent before this legislation comes into force will be citizens by descent, including those previously excluded by the first-generation limit.
After this legislation comes into force, children born or adopted abroad to Canadian parents who themselves were born outside Canada will be able to access citizenship if their parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada, proven by having a cumulative total of three years here before the child’s birth or adoption as the case may be.
[Translation]
Bill C-71 also responds to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision that key provisions of the first-generation limit on citizenship by descent are considered unconstitutional and infringe on equality and mobility rights.
The court agreed that the limit was too strict and failed to take into account the important connections that many descendants of Canadians have to Canada.
Through Bill C-71, we aim to address the court’s concerns by replacing the first-generation limit with the substantial connection test, to ensure that people with close ties to Canada can pass on their citizenship to future generations.
[English]
Another feature of this legislation is that it continues to minimize the differences between children born to or adopted by Canadian parents outside of Canada. Once the law is in force, children adopted abroad in the second generation and beyond after the bill’s coming into force will have access to the direct grant of citizenship for adoptees provided, of course, their adoptive parent meets the same substantial connection test.
Finally, Bill C-71 will offer access to the existing simplified renunciation process for individuals who automatically become citizens under the new rules but do not wish to hold it for a variety of reasons. This is particularly important for those who are working in countries where dual citizenship is not permitted or where holding another citizenship could create legal or professional complications.
[Translation]
I am proud to have introduced Bill C-71. I believe the bill, in its current form, is inclusive and protects the value of Canadian citizenship.
[English]
Thank you. I want to note that there are some people who are touched by this law here today, including a very young gentleman and a less young gentleman behind me called Don Chapman, whom you have heard from before, who has been fighting for this for years and continues to fight for it. I simply wanted to welcome them here today, Madam Chair. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Miller.
We now will proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, we will have four minutes for your questions and that includes the answer.
The first question will be from Senator Bernard, deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: Thank you, minister and your officials, for being here with us today. I’m going to start with a very easy question. I want to know if the government conducted a Gender‑based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus, of this bill, and if so what were the main findings?
Mr. Miller: It’s a very important question, Senator Bernard. As you know, in any submission we do to cabinet there is a GBA Plus analysis — I would say uneven-at-times quality — done on any proposal that we put forward to cabinet.
As was highlighted in the court case, the judge found that women in particular were unduly affected by the denial of this Charter right. This will be the first time in our history that we believe the Citizenship Act will be Charter compliant. I think that’s important.
But the inequality cuts in uneven ways, as you know. Indeed, the analysis that we did as part of the trip to cabinet to get this out and done included what I want to thank the department for in doing an analysis that confirmed that as well as what the court, indeed, found publicly, which is that women in particular are people who are unduly affected by the denial of this right that we are rectifying today with this legislation.
Senator Bernard: Are you satisfied that this legislation will actually rectify that gender bias?
Mr. Miller: I certainly am. I think that it is one that finally cleans up the last piece of something that has been in a process of being cleaned up for well over a decade, so to the best of my knowledge, yes.
Senator Bernard: You referenced Bill S-245 and how this bill is picking up from that. I’m wondering, though, if there are remaining groups of “Lost Canadians” that will not be remedied by this bill.
Mr. Miller: Bill S-245 was less ambitious, presented by Senator Martin. I want to highlight the work she has done as a result of that. We worked extensively in committees to expand the ambit of this bill. I think it was appropriate to have a government-sponsored bill as part of this. I believe this catches those who are entitled to become Canadian citizens. There will be some disagreement perhaps as to some people who feel that Canadian citizenship, regardless of your connection to Canada, should be passed on in perpetuity. This is about equality for categories that are substantially similar and comparable.
I think it’s fair to put a restriction that establishes a substantial connection to Canada, which follows the Naturalization Act. You will certainly find people that disagree with me, but I believe that we are on the right site of this argument currently, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Minister Miller, yesterday we had a witness who raised concerns about Indigenous peoples of Canada who may be living in the United States or elsewhere who do not have Canadian citizenship despite having status. Has consideration been made during the House of Commons deliberations about how Bill C-71 impacts Indigenous children and families specifically?
Mr. Miller: Naturally, they will be impacted by this, senator. We have, in the long torn history Canada has with Indigenous peoples, a debate as to what Canadian citizenship means for an Indigenous person. You will find groups that can balance the notion of, to mischaracterize it, dual citizenship between Indigenous and Canadian citizenship, and some that reject Canadian citizenship for their own identity. So there are certainly some who would not want this even as a result of having it being superimposed on them.
I don’t think it will rectify all concerns in and around identity and belonging that Indigenous peoples have and the fraught relationship that they would perhaps have with Canada. But certainly this is a step in the right direction. I’ve certainly spoken to people who are living abroad and want to be able to reclaim that citizenship or at least have the paper to demonstrate that they are from Canada. They are Indigenous, and they will be caught by this too.
In this particular bill, I don’t think we can ever be satisfied with making sure that we are dealing properly with issues of identity and belonging with Indigenous peoples without having them present and speaking about it. But it is one that is always of concern in putting forward these bills. I think a more thorough analysis at times is also —
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator Seidman: Thank you for being with us today, minister, and to your department officials. I have four questions. They are pretty quick, straightforward ones so I’m hoping we can get those answers.
The first one is: Yesterday, we established with virtually all our witnesses but one that there should be a substantial connection-to-Canada requirement, as there is in this bill, but there were questions around the 1,095 days criterion. My question is: Why that?
Mr. Miller: Quite simply, it just follows the number of days that we currently have for people to become natural citizens of Canada — to be naturalized, rather. It tracks tightly the legislation we currently have in place, senator.
Senator Seidman: These are cumulative over a period of time. So it could be over 10 years or 20 years.
Mr. Miller: Yes, indeed.
Senator Seidman: It’s not a five-year —
Mr. Miller: That’s question number one so you probably have three more. Teasing into what your question probably is, I think if we were to restrict it to the five-year category, we would create another series of “Lost Canadians”. We felt that was fair in the context to have it as a broader number.
Senator Seidman: That’s fair. We speculated.
The next question is: How many individuals do you think will be covered by this piece of legislation? What can we expect in terms of numbers?
Mr. Miller: I don’t think I can give you a completely accurate number today. The true answer is we do not know. On the Don Chapman number and the IRCC number, there is a bit of a spectrum in between and we will probably not agree on everything. Currently, we have about 700 names in processing in the department. The last wave of people under the last series of amendments amounted to about 20,000. On a yearly basis, that will increase, obviously, but it is well under 100 of the number of people we’ve been processing along these criteria. It’s sure to go up, but I don’t think there are these wild scenarios where we’ll have hundreds and thousands of people.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. The courts imposed a deadline of December 19 for the government to comply with its decision. I’m asking, given the situation in the House, and we’re doing a pre-study, I wonder if the government has applied for an extension of the December 19 deadline.
Mr. Miller: We have. I believe it’s three months. Recent submissions to the court, if they haven’t already been made, have been authorized to be made. We’ve asked for, at the very least, a three-month extension.
Senator Seidman: When do you expect a reply? Do you know?
Mr. Miller: I’m not sure.
Senator Seidman: The coming into force date — there is no coming into force date, but it’s going to be fixed by an order‑in‑council. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Miller: I’m trying to recall the thinking behind this, and it’s a bit of mental torture, but there was a date at one point and we didn’t feel like we wanted to impose that constraint on the court. There are some regulations to be put into place, but we would want to do it as expediently as possible.
Senator Seidman: Do you have an idea of how much time it would take?
Mr. Miller: Not currently, but we could provide you with a written response.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. I have finished all my questions.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the minister and officials for being here today. Minister, I have two questions.
Will you commit to serious consideration of the witness testimony heard at this committee and make any necessary changes to Bill C-71 before it leaves the House of Commons? The bill is not yet before the Senate, and this committee is conducting a pre-study of Bill C-71. The bill is currently at second reading in the House, meaning the House has the opportunity to hear more witness testimony and the power to make changes. Minister, can we have your commitment?
Mr. Miller: To the extent I agree with the witness testimony and I am convinced by it, I would absolutely ask my team to work on what those would look like in terms of amendments in front of the House. I think the Senate needs to make its own decision as to what amendments, if any, they put forward pursuant to its study.
I understand the nature of a pre-study and thank the Senate for having done that. It is important. I give you the assurance that my team is paying very close attention to the testimony that we’re hearing. We find it valuable and insightful. We are hearing varying levels of testimony, some are contradictory, so I can’t undertake to do everything but we’re certainly considering it.
Senator Osler: Thank you for that, minister.
My second question: Several witnesses highlighted concerns about how the Citizenship Act affects Indigenous families, adopted children and others. What consultation has your ministry taken to ensure that these groups and their concerns are considered in the bill’s provisions?
Mr. Miller: Currently, the work that is being done here is important to us. We’ve heard from them and their perspectives on this. We’re in a bit of a difficult situation of facing a court deadline. The momentum is not necessarily the government’s place to do whatever it wants with it, including extensive consultations. We have been, over the course of the year, including the consideration that I took in not appealing the decision — I think that is important — considering many of the views that we heard from Indigenous groups, from families that have adopted children, from families and large numbers of Canadians looking to reclaim their citizenship and, by that, their identity.
I don’t want to leave the Senate committee with the impression that this hasn’t been done or has been done in a cavalier manner. It hasn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, if there are any complaints, it is that we haven’t done this fast enough given that it is not compliant with the Charter. I don’t think this is a desktop operation here we’re doing here in considering witness statements and submissions. It’s something that we do have to consider in this part of your important role in the legislative process to put things forward that make sense to you. The result is that the House of Commons may or may not agree with it, but that is the nature of our legislative system.
Senator Osler: Thank you, minister.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Minister, I welcome you and your staff. Thank you for taking the step forward to resolve this issue. I heard your answer to Senator Seidman about the 1,095 days. Since that’s spread out over an eligibility period that is not defined, is there a risk that people will want to become Canadians of convenience, who could benefit from the advantages of citizenship without establishing a real lasting connection, since such a connection can be established over a long period of time? That’s my first question.
Second, you chose the 1,095 days. In my opinion, there is a complexity; why didn’t you choose registration as an elector under the Canada Elections Act, which is easily identifiable? Why not choose that formula? Otherwise, why not? It’s much simpler than having to prove those 1,095 days. So much for my first two-part question.
Mr. Miller: These are very relevant and interesting questions. Why didn’t we select other criteria? We could debate that. I think it was fair and reasonable to establish a well-known criterion for naturalization, and not necessarily something confusing. Yes, it’s natural and consequential to become a Canadian citizen and to be able to vote, but with reference to a process that people who have access to Canadian citizenship must undergo — that is to say an indeterminate period, and not within a five-year period. Let me explain.
Even if the period is staggered, let’s remember that a person who does not have this citizenship by right, when the bill becomes law, will have to prove that they have lived inside Canada for a fairly long period of three years and crumbs. That’s not nothing. Yes, in theory it could stretch over forty years, but we’re talking about one person. We’re not talking about the convenience of someone who has waited until the age of 60, suddenly discovering that they are Canadian and have the required weeks in Canada to prove it.
That’s a lot of speculation about people who haven’t appeared before me. I can’t give you specific examples, but I think that even if we broaden the time criterion, you have to have established a fairly significant connection to Canada, apart from the fact that it doesn’t fall within a five-year period. There has been a lot of talk about this situation for people who have been in Lebanon. The former Harper government imposed a number of limits because of this reality. This has been proven to be unfair and unconstitutional. We’re trying to rectify a problem that was created precisely because criteria were imposed that were artificial and unconstitutional.
[English]
The Chair: You are out of time, I’m sorry. It was a fulsome response.
In view of the time we have lost, I’m going to switch your time to three minutes per question.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: Minister, this bill was introduced on May 23 of this year. To my knowledge, there were speeches in the House of Commons on September 16 and 17 of this year. Can you explain why the House of Commons has not studied this bill and the Senate is being asked to study the bill before it arrives?
I know there is a court order and deadlines to meet, but why hasn’t the House of Commons considered this bill?
Mr. Miller: You are no doubt aware of what is happening in the House of Commons. Were it not for that, the House of Commons would be holding a committee debate. Right now, there is paralysis, with privilege motions being invoked and debated to no end. We’re trying to speed things up, especially with the court deadline hanging over our heads.
That’s why I’m grateful that you’re doing this preliminary study. We’re trying to convince the court that we’re using all the necessary means to pass a very important bill that will give structure to something as important as citizenship and rectify the shortcomings in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am grateful for your flexibility. In reality, in the House of Commons, it is impossible to do anything at the moment without putting an end to the debate on privilege, with rare exceptions. We may have to make decisions in three months if we don’t have the extra time granted by the court. The main reason for all this is the House of Commons being paralyzed.
Senator Brazeau: It’s important to have that in writing. My second question is simple. Yesterday, we heard from witnesses who said that there are children who have First Nations status but who do not have Canadian citizenship. In Canada, the reverse is also true: There are people who have Canadian citizenship but who do not have First Nations status. How will the bill address these long-standing problems in Canada?
Mr. Miller: I would say that there is a certain hypocrisy, as you can have status as defined by the Indian Act and not be a Canadian citizen at the same time. I know a lot of people in Akwesasne, with the border running alongside the community, who have this challenge. Unfortunately, I don’t think this bill will rectify all the cases that exist in relation to this reality, but it will rectify many by band, because of the notion of the first generation and the loophole that currently exists in the legislation.
This is all something to keep an eye on; it’s natural to think that someone who would have First Nation status under the Indian Act should automatically have Canadian citizenship. It’s ridiculous.
I know a chief out west who has the same challenge. He was born in North Carolina; he’s the Chief of the Siksika Nation and he has status, but he’s not yet Canadian. You’d practically have to make an exception for him to be Canadian.
Senator Brazeau: There are a few. Thank you.
Senator Mégie: Thank you, Minister, for joining us with your officials, as I have a question for them. I’ll start with you. Do you know what it costs a citizen to apply for Canadian citizenship, per person? What I’m trying to explain to you is that if it costs the citizen a lot of money, it may be difficult for them to apply. Sometimes time goes by, the children haven’t applied and they’ve forgotten.
Mr. Miller: Could you clarify whether you are referring to the fees associated with proof of citizenship or the citizenship application?
Senator Mégie: I’m talking about the fees for the process.
Mr. Miller: It can be expensive to apply, obviously. It costs $75 for proof of citizenship. However, for the process, if you hire a lawyer, it can be expensive, but it’s $530 for someone applying for Canadian citizenship.
Senator Mégie: That may vary depending on the person’s situation.
Mr. Miller: Yes; if the person is automatically entitled to citizenship, when they go to get their cards and proof, it’s $75. The application for someone who is a permanent resident costs $530, plus associated additional fees, but that doesn’t go back to the government.
Senator Mégie: We discussed this yesterday with other witnesses. Given how difficult it is for a citizen to navigate the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada website, wouldn’t there be a need for an ombudsman or someone to help navigate the system, since it’s more difficult for them?
Mr. Miller: That is something we could consider. It’s not something we’re doing right now. I know that there are a lot of pitfalls in the current context to determine that they are eligible for Canadian citizenship; it’s not something we’ve thought about proactively. We’ve been reactive so far. The bill is proof that we are in proactive mode, with the suspension of the legal process to go on the attack and rectify a Charter loophole that exists in the Citizenship Act.
Senator Mégie: Thank you. Witnesses yesterday suggested establishing a registry, as is done in Germany. It would be a registry of names that would enable the person to register for citizenship; among other things, it could enable them to indicate an X date that would be asked of them. Perhaps it would be easier to see the number of days the person has been in Canada? Could I have a written answer later, Madam Chair? Do I have time for a second question? Perhaps in the second round.
Mr. Miller: We can follow up, Senator.
[English]
Senator Senior: I think my question is related somewhat to where Senator Mégie left off, which is: What is the plan to make sure that folks in different parts of the world, near and far, are aware of Bill C-71 once it comes into play? What measures are you looking at to inform people that they would be impacted by this?
Mr. Miller: Other than the guy behind me, who has been quite vocal on this.
Senator Senior: Yes, he is.
Mr. Miller: As I mentioned to Senator Mégie, we’ve been in reactive mode up to now in terms of reacting to court decisions. My department and my team are moving to the next gear, which is being proactive about this and making sure we are rectifying something that is a Charter violation, which is much more than any other breach of the law. It is serious and people have rights.
There is a significant contingent of people that know about this, that have been fighting for ages for this, so it’s a big day for them. But understanding and fully appreciating who is completely touched by this is the next step.
And in a world where people are increasingly mobile, increasingly less connected to a home country, I think it is important, one, to have parameters and criteria as to what citizenship means to people but also the ability to claim it once you have and know you are entitled to it.
My kids were all born abroad, and their kids would have been, had the law stayed the same and we had stayed abroad, not been eligible. I think these connections are important in establishing identity. And it doesn’t hit too far from home for a lot of us in a country that is increasingly mobile.
But those parameters are important to have. I think the role of the Canadian government in communicating that is important but also limited, just in its capacity to put this into operation. We will be looking at a number of solutions to make sure people know their rights once this law is passed.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I have two questions and I’ll try to be specific to get some answers.
Yesterday, we heard testimony and questions about a difference in treatment of natural children as opposed to adopted children. We tried to unravel this scenario and came to the conclusion that, as I understand it, there would be different treatment for an adopted child who in turn has a child. There is a difficulty there.
I wanted to get your view on that. If that is the case, I’d also like to understand the logic behind that policy choice.
Mr. Miller: I suspect that this is also Senator Arnot’s question.
Senator Petitclerc: Possibly.
Mr. Miller: I have pointed this out and I have said it very clearly: If I am told of a situation that proves potential discrimination, I am prepared to rectify it in the bill.
Through the bill, some people who would be considered Canadian citizens once the legislation comes into force, whether they are adopted or not. After the legislation is passed, the situation of a person who would be adopted by a family has less to do with the person themselves than the ability of that person’s parent to prove that they were a Canadian citizen.
In my mind, people are treated equally and fairly in the bill. However, if there are any examples that can be presented to me, I’d be happy to hear them, and I’m trying, too. I don’t think this issue is settled here, but we are flexible enough to examine whether there are any amendments that could create new situations of discrimination or that could rectify potential ones.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
I would like to know whether, with regard to the evidence that will be required in the documents, potential difficulties have been considered. For example, if we go from three years to several years, and if certain life situations arise…. Where should all those documents be kept? Is there any flexibility in this request for documents to prove their physical presence? Would that be realistic?
Mr. Miller: That’s the important thing. I think we’re running out of time, so we’ll send you a written reply, but we can already say that stamps on passports won’t be getting checked.
[English]
The Chair: That would be very helpful, minister, because we have run out of time.
Senator Arnot: Minister, you talked about the testimony that we’re hearing today. I can say there is a flaw because there are some constituent stakeholders that will not be able to give testimony. I want to say that I met with constituents in my office in Saskatchewan and have seen tears of heartfelt anguish by parents who think that they will not be helped by this bill.
And I made an intemperate remark yesterday, and I’m going to apologize later to my colleagues here, based on my anger at the thought these witnesses would not be heard. I say that just to say that I’ve met with you a number of times. You know Kat Lanteigne, you know that she represents roughly 4,000 Canadians. I believe this bill, in its current form, treats children who are given citizenship by grant as born abroad and, therefore, not equal to Canadian adopted children, or to Canadian children who are naturalized or sponsored — this legislation, I believe, singles those children out.
Treating adoption by direct grant with the other category has the potential for violating an adopted child’s Charter rights. I feel very strongly about this, as I know that there are other concerns by others — the Canadian Bar Association — about Charter rights’ violations that need to be cleaned up here as well.
An adoptive parent cannot be compared to a biological mother as they have no legal dominion over the child in the parent-child relationship until the courts or government grant the adoptive parents parental rights and citizenship rights. That’s a very detailed, burdensome process to take a child from another country, go through the court system there and then come into Canada and go through the court system again. I see that as being redundant and, in fact, insulting to parents in that situation.
So I will be putting forward an amendment, unless you would undertake to put forward this amendment yourself in the House before it gets back to the Senate, that children who receive citizenship after adoption is complete are exempt from the substantial connection test because the testing they go through by the courts in the two countries that are involved are rigorous, and it’s redundant.
So I make that comment and I wonder if you’re able to agree with me now? I don’t want to make it an amendment if it is going to —
Mr. Miller: I think it’s a question of figuring out exactly what we’re talking about. The way you presented it, senator, and I have to look at the details, but you said if someone receives citizenship after adoption, then they wouldn’t be touched by this bill in the first place because they’re already citizens. So I’m just trying to understand that in the first place.
I want to get a better sense of what we’re actually talking about here. In all cases, whether you’re a naturalized citizen or, like me, lucky enough to have been given citizenship, you’re equal before the law. The law, as currently contemplated by this committee, and hopefully passed by the Senate, will create people that will become Canadian citizens whether they’re adopted or not by operation of law prior to coming into force.
And then afterwards, there will be the substantive connection test focusing on the parent and not so much the adoptee. I don’t know how that inequality is created in this.
At the same time, I recognize and it is important for you to get the points of view of your constituents on the record, but we have to consider what is being put forward further and do a proper analysis of this so as not to create an indirect discrimination against other people who may come back and say, “If it is automatic for a number of people, then how come other people have to do a substantive connection test?”
Hopefully, we are not talking about apples and oranges here and we are comparing two comparable categories. We are willing to look at it. I’m not trying to discourage you from putting forward your amendment is what I am saying.
The Chair: I’m going to ask Senator McPhedran to pose her question.
Senator McPhedran: Welcome, minister and officials. Thank you for being here.
I wish to build on the question raised by Senator Bernard to ask whether, in the Gender-based Analysis that was done, you looked specifically at section 28 of the Charter, the sex equality guarantee?
Mr. Miller: I would have to look again at the GBA analysis. The analysis and the Charter compliance of documents and legislation we put together are thorough. It considers the entirety of the Charter. So the answer is yes.
I would have to reread the text of the GBA analysis again to see if there was a specific consideration of that. The opinions we get from the Department of Justice and the work we do in creating the cabinet documents include that review.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: In a 2008 report, the committee recommended that the government make it a priority in the near future to completely replace the current Citizenship Act with a new citizenship legislation that would be clearer and simpler. Some described the current Citizenship Act as a hodgepodge of technical measures and felt that people in general should be able to understand the Citizenship Act, understand the system and determine whether they are citizens.
To what extent have the amendments in Bill C-71 been drafted in a way that is simple and easy to understand for those affected, especially those without a lawyer? What does your department intend to do to reform the Citizenship Act to make it clearer and simpler, in line with the recommendations the committee made in 2008?
Mr. Miller: I think we can always accuse our legislative drafters of not being clear, especially in the resulting legislation. It’s a constant effort.
In a bill that intends to remedy a court decision that asks us to quickly amend the Citizenship Act, there is no need for a complete revision, a total overhaul. That’s obvious. I think it’s a good idea. In the context of a government that has, at most, a year and very important priorities in terms of immigration, I would tell you that this is not my department’s top priority.
Senator Cormier: If you had that latitude, do you feel you would still have to —
Mr. Miller: Absolutely. Obviously, we’ve seen it with the people who have gone to court to challenge it. There are a lot of inaccuracies and things in the Citizenship Act that go against the charter. I think it’s important to rectify them. I think a complete overhaul is in order at some point in the best of all possible worlds. As you know, we’re not in the best of all possible worlds right now.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Minister, I know you have agreed to stay beyond time. I thank you for that. Do you have time for five more minutes? We will ask the next two senators to limit their questions to two and a half minutes each.
Mr. Miller: Most ministers don’t control their schedules to a great extent anyway, but we have five minutes.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, minister.
I wish to reiterate that this bill in its current form has a risk of violating section 15 of the Charter. I hope the constituents I know will not be forced to take litigation to the Supreme Court of Canada to cure this problem.
The amendment I proposed — I proposed it in a question in the Senate Chamber — will protect adopted children from the potential harms of the bill and further regulatory changes to immigration law in the future.
You know Ms. Kat Lanteigne. You have heard her arguments. This is who I’m speaking for now because she cannot be here to speak for herself.
Will you work with her to assure her that what she believes are the current anomalies or gaps in this bill can be cured if necessary in some way before it leaves the House of Commons?
Mr. Miller: I think it is safe to say our team is more than glad to reach out and talk to her about what this bill is intended to do and address her concerns.
I cannot commit to a specific form of amendment without reading and considering it.
Senator Arnot: The last time I met with you I believe you directed Ms. Gill to produce a document that would assuage my concerns. I haven’t seen that document yet. We are under tight timelines.
Mr. Miller: We can get you what you need to hear. I don’t know if it will completely deal with your concerns, but you should at least get a written response, as we promised.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Minister, you said you had 700 names under processing right now. Senator Seidman asked you questions about numbers. I wish to pursue that.
Seven hundred names in processing, then going forward you were not sure about the numbers. Which countries are affected? Which countries are you anticipating current processing as well as future expectations with respect to the countries involved.
Mr. Miller: I would have to give you thoughts off the top of my head based on my knowledge of Canadians abroad. First, there are people in Canada. There are people in the U.S. There are people in Lebanon. We all know the genesis of some of the silliness that went around, the violation of the rights of people there in the first place that led to this, at least the mediatization of it and the public fury over it.
I would suspect as well there are probably a wide swath of people around different countries in Europe. I wouldn’t exclude Hong Kong at the same time.
Increasingly, if you look at the diaspora of people coming into Canada, I wouldn’t exclude India or China for that matter at this point, or the Philippines eventually. That’s wildly speculative at this point. We would have to give you a coherent response. We could probably give you a sense of that in writing.
Senator Dasko: About the 700 names currently under processing.
Mr. Miller: I don’t know their nationalities.
Senator Dasko: You don’t?
Mr. Miller: I don’t. I suspect they would vary. They may not track what I said. I don’t know if we are tracking for current nationality as opposed to their right to become Canadians.
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Mr. Miller: We can say they are all Canadians for that matter, at least the ones who are eligible.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I wish to thank the minister for his testimony today. The officials will remain in the room to answer questions during the second half of this meeting.
I thank the officials for being here to answer further questions. Senators, we’ll have four minutes for your question and that includes the answer. The first question will be from Senator Seidman.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for trying to answer some of the questions in a little more detail, if that’s possible. I do want to go back to the 1,095 days accumulation. I want to try to understand, again, why exactly we’ve chosen that and how challenging you think it’s going to be for applicants to prove that 1,095-day accumulation.
I know one of the senators suggested what we heard yesterday had to do with the registry and that has its own complications, but to track 1,095 days over maybe 30 years, let’s face it, it’s accumulation, so there is no time limit. I would like to hear you more on this whole issue.
Pemi Gill, Assistant Deputy Minister, Service Delivery, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Definitely. Thank you. I’ll talk about the 1,095 days as two distinct aspects just to ensure there is clarity.
For any citizens by descent who predate the coming into force, the substantial connection test of the 1,095 days does not apply, so it is going forward only as of the coming into force.
As of that date, if a parent would like to pass on citizenship to the next generation, anyone in the second generation or beyond, that is where this 1,095 day substantial connection comes into play. The intent of it is for establishing the relationship of the parent to Canada and not the child.
So, in fact, it is time-boxed because it would predate the birth of the child as well as, in the case of an adoption, predate the date of adoption. So it would not be over 40 years. It would be, in effect — potentially it could be if you were at that moment — but it is really for the parent establishing their connection.
We have similar requirements for presence in Canada for naturalization. For getting citizenship through a grant, it is the same requirement but over a five-year period. Again, people provide documentation. We accept multiple different types of documents. For example, in the permanent resident card, for people who are permanent residents of Canada who are receiving their document for entry and exit to Canada, they are also meeting a test of so many days physical presence.
Again, documents like previous passports with stamps, school records, employment records, explanations with photos; there are various documents which can be provided to demonstrate the time needed.
Senator Seidman: I will just ask, to be clear, why the decision was made for no timeline, sort of an unlimited period for accumulation of 1,095 days as opposed to, say, five years?
Ms. Gill: It is intended to be facilitative so that people who are Canadian citizens can pass on citizenship to their descendants. People could have cumulative, for example, they come to Canada to study every summer or visit their grandparents so they have built up that connection to Canada over many years and not in a short time frame.
In addition, because it is a connection of the parent to Canada, it predates the birth or adoption date and therefore that accumulation is being a little more flexible rather than knowing I’m going to be having this life event at that moment.
Senator Osler: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. We heard the minister talking about the government being reactive versus being proactive. Yesterday, I had asked witnesses about steps the federal government should take to effectively inform individuals about their eligibility for citizenship both now and after Bill C-71 should it pass. Among the suggestions we heard were ensuring transparency such as updating the IRCC website and appointing a dedicated citizenship ombudsman.
Does the government have a proactive plan to inform individuals?
Ms. Gill: Thank you. I’ll speak first to what is available right now on the website and then plans at the time of coming into force.
We have posted on our website information for the public in terms of the first generation limit, the court decision. In addition, if you Google “am I Canadian,” you will actually get our website first, which includes information on the interim measures.
So persons who are currently impacted by the first generation limit, as the minister referenced, we have 700 applications. These are persons who would be eligible for citizenship by descent but right now are not due to the first generation limit.
On our website, there is actually a little wizard you can go through that helps identify if you have an urgent circumstance or humanitarian or compassionate need immediately linked to the first generation limit, and that does allow for an interim approach as well. In addition, if not, we’re holding those applications so that those clients become citizens by descent once the bill is passed. That information is readily available. It’s all on the website.
Second, in terms of planning for coming into force, the department is very committed to being proactive as well as a fast implementation. Work is already under way in terms of changes to the application forms, laying out documents that can be submitted in support of the requirements.
We’ve done a fair bit of outreach to stakeholders and such, and we’ll have that type of a proactive plan when we come into force as well.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all. The first question I want to ask follows up from Senator Osler’s question about the website. We have heard from some witnesses that the website is very difficult to navigate, which in itself could be a barrier for people. Have you heard that about your website? If so, are there some plans under way to make the website a bit more user-friendly for those who may need to use it?
I have to admit, I haven’t personally gone to the website, but we’ve heard witness testimony that it’s complicated.
Ms. Gill: Yes, I can relate to that as well. One thing I would note is what I have laid out in response to the previous senator’s question about the information that is available, we had received that feedback in terms of understanding what interim measures or solutions could be available to people who are impacted by the first generation limit. We did make changes to the website in the summer. We made sure there were banners put on multiple parts of the website where we talk about citizenship.
In addition, adding that wizard so we’re helping to guide the client through the questions to determine whether or not they would meet the requirements for an interim measure. That was really done to try to facilitate understanding the implications of the decision from the court as well as Bill C-71.
Senator Bernard: I’d like to ask about demographic characteristics of Canadian citizens in the first and second generations.
Do you have information on who they are, those who are born abroad, and do you have information on what countries they’re most likely to be born in?
Ms. Gill: At this time, the Government of Canada doesn’t track births abroad. Therefore, to be able to indicate how many Canadians have been born abroad is not a data point that we would have.
I believe we have previously shared what has been confirmed, which is how many Canadian citizens overseas have applied for passports. These would be Canadian citizens who are residing abroad who are applying for a passport. Now, they would all effectively be first generation because they would be eligible for Canadian citizenship under an existing provision or they would be naturalized Canadians. Therefore, it’s kind of comparing apples to oranges in that sense because if you are entitled to a Canadian passport it’s because you are a Canadian citizen but through the multiple means of being a Canadian citizen. There are three ways: birth on soil, citizenship by descent, which is what Bill C-71 focuses on, and the naturalization pathway.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: I’ll ask the minister again: why didn’t you use voter registration under the Canada Elections Act, for example, as a determinant? We know you’re a busy department. I imagine that managing the 1,095-day identification, all the documentation and the provision of this entire process requires a great deal of follow-up on your part. Why didn’t you simply choose registration as an elector under the Canada Elections Act? Why wasn’t this option chosen?
[English]
Ms. Gill: Thank you. We’ll take that one back. We’ll have to look at what Elections Canada has, and we’re happy to provide a response in writing.
Senator Muggli: Thank you for being with us today. I want to carry on with Senator Arnot’s concerns around adopted children. I, too, have been contacted by folks who are very concerned about the impact this may have on them. I’m looking for a commitment that you’ll consult with the relevant stakeholders and legal officials to address the possibility of a section 15 Charter violation as it relates to adopted children.
Ms. Gill: What I can say is that we built on what was in Bill S-245. Once the bill was tabled, we met with many stakeholders, some of whom were mentioned today, and took on board that information. I could walk through how the adoption would be structured under Bill C-71 if that would be helpful.
For adoption, there are two aspects to it. I’ll talk about it as persons who are already adopted before the coming-into-force date. For any children who were adopted before the coming-into-force date and they are second generation or later, so, of course, anyone whose parent is a Canadian citizen right now and they’re adopting abroad, they would proceed through the direct adoption pathway that is already in place today.
Once this legislation comes forward, anyone who is adopted in the second generation overseas would have access to that direct adoption grant that’s for citizenship. That is what we have available today for people who are first generation. We will expand that access to anyone in the second generation. Should that child who is adopted in Canada and has their own child born in Canada, they are effectively back at generation zero, so to speak. So it is very much based on the parent and where the parent is. That applies equally if you were adopted in Canada as well. Because if you were not, you don’t have the parents’ nationality at that moment even if you’re physically in Canada. So from that perspective, there is an equity to it as well.
If it is after the coming-into-force date, that is where the substantial connection test comes in, and it is a substantial connection test of the parents’ connection to Canada, and it predates the adoption.
Senator Muggli: Why is that necessary for these folks?
Ms. Gill: It would be the same for whether you’re adopted abroad or born abroad in a second generation. Perhaps I’ll use an example. It sometimes becomes a little easier. I will make sure I use the right names and don’t get it mixed up.
For example, if Ali is born in Spain in 2014 and he is adopted in 2015 by Canadians parents who were also born abroad, under the current legislation, Ali is unable to apply for citizenship because neither of his Canadian parents can pass on citizenship to him because the parents were born abroad and then they adopted Ali abroad.
However, once Bill C-71 comes into play, Ali would be eligible to apply for the direct citizenship grant, which is currently available to anyone whose parents were born in Canada, so it allows for an equity from that perspective. In addition, today, if let’s say Ali is born in 2014 in Spain and his parents are Canadian citizen parents, he’s a Canadian citizen because he’s first generation. However, if his parents were born abroad, he would not be eligible, so even though he is a child born to a Canadian citizen because that Canadian citizen was born abroad, they also have to meet the substantial connection test.
By rendering the substantial connection test as a proxy of the relationship of the parent to Canada, it is applied for both those who are born abroad as well as those who are adopted abroad in the second generation or later.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: My question is related to the previous question and your answer. It means that once Bill C-71 is implemented, there will be two categories. Let me put it this way. One category of people will have citizenship by descent. Automatically, they become generation zero again, and they won’t have to prove the substantial link test. On the other hand, there is a second category of people who will be granted citizenship. They will go through a naturalization process. What does this mean for their lives?
Those who are citizens by descent have automatic return of citizenship, while others become citizens from the moment the application is accepted. What are the consequences for those who are granted citizenship, for example, on their insurance scheme, or who may undergo a citizenship revocation process? Are the criteria different? For people who are granted citizenship, it’s linked to the naturalization process, like permanent residents. Will the criteria for loss of citizenship be the same for people in this second category? I hope that’s clear enough.
Ms. Gill: I hope I’ve understood all the questions.
[English]
The granting of citizenship is the pathway of a naturalized Canadian, and there are provisions in the Citizenship Act for revocation when a person misrepresents information or provides false representation of information. In that circumstance, under the Citizenship Act, we could pursue revocation of citizenship at which time the person reverts to their previous status. For example, if they were a permanent resident or a foreign national.
For those in Bill C-71, it is citizenship by descent. Under the Citizenship Act, there are three ways that a person has legal status of citizenship: One is birth in Canada; one is naturalization, so the grant of citizenship which has the revocation; and the third is citizen by descent, which means that you are a Canadian citizen as a result of your parents giving you status. Therefore, you are a Canadian citizen from the time of the adoption or the time of birth. In those circumstances, the revocation would not come into play.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: That’s clear. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Senior: I think the minister mentioned — if I understood correctly — that the cost to each person was about $75 to each person for their application. If it’s $75 per person, do you have a sense of how many people that would be annually in terms of setting a budget for the applications that would come your way?
Ms. Gill: Yes. There are different citizenship applications that have different fees associated with them. As the minister said, if you’re applying for a grant of citizenship and you’re an adult, the fee is $530. For minors, there is a different cost associated with it.
The $75 is for those Canadians who are citizens by descent and would like the department to confirm that they’re a Canadian citizen and give them a proof of citizenship. We call that the “proof application.” That is the one that would be relevant for Bill C-71.
In that circumstance, if I’m a citizen by descent, but I don’t have a document because I was born abroad to a Canadian citizen parent and I would like a document to demonstrate that I am a Canadian citizen, I would apply to the department for a proof application with a fee of $75.
There are many other Canadian citizens through naturalization who might also apply for a proof. If, at some point, you had lost your Canadian citizen document or you need an updated one, you would also apply.
What’s most relevant in terms of the stat would be because we have made available information about the first generation limit, and, as the minister said, we have approximately 700 applications under the proof line of business where the client is impacted by the first generation limit.
Senator Senior: I’m not sure my question was answered. Is it cost neutral?
Ms. Gill: Cost neutral for what?
Senator Senior: In terms of the cost.
Ms. Gill: For Bill C-71. Yes. We do not anticipate a large volume of new proof applications coming in. Since we don’t register births abroad, we don’t have a definitive number. However, we can break it down into different cohorts of clients who would be impacted by the legislation.
The first is the pre-coming-into-force cohort. There are those who are the section 8 “Lost Canadians.” This refers to the individuals who were born abroad in the second or subsequent generations between 1977 and 1981 who then lost their citizenship.
We know that there are about 35 to 40 such persons who come forward annually. That’s one cohort. They do come forward, so that’s what we would anticipate for that particular part of the clientele who are impacted by Bill C-71.
The second cohort are the descendants of previously remedied “Lost Canadians”. Again, pre-coming into force. While we remedied the majority of “Lost Canadians” previously, some of their descendants were not remedied at that time. This legislation will remedy their descendants as well.
When we had done that for the “Lost Canadians” in 2009 and 2015, there were approximately 20,000 individuals who came forward, but we did not see a large surge. It was very much a trickle. This time, we would be giving it to their descendants. So, it would be a smaller cohort as well.
The third cohort that Bill C-71 focuses on is persons currently limited by the first generation limit. This would be post‑coming‑into-force who could come forward. That is a small number that we’ve been seeing so far. That is the 700 applications to which the minister referred.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I just have a short clarification question. We talked about being proactive rather than reactive. We want to be more proactive. We’ve heard the stories of people who, at 20 or 25, for all sorts of reasons, thought they were Canadian and realized they weren’t. That’s the heart of it. I’m trying to figure out whether, with this bill, that kind of situation is going to happen again. I understand the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Will we be proactive? I understand that we can’t be proactive in finding these individuals. So there will always be situations where someone finds out, for all sorts of reasons. Am I wrong?
Ms. Gill: I understand. Unfortunately, no.
[English]
This is because, at the end of the day, people may think that they’re a Canadian citizen or they may think that they’re not a Canadian citizen, and it’s through that application where we assess the parent. Under the Citizenship Act, we assess where the legislation is that we would then be able to identify to that client that they are a Canadian citizen.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: It’s too complex. We couldn’t find these individuals before they come forward. It’s very complex.
[English]
Ms. Gill: No. In Canada, they could be internationally, and that’s why even in terms of applying for a proof application, it is those individuals who believe they are a Canadian citizen who would like a proof from the department.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: I understood. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Ms. Gill, you know the issues that I’ve been speaking about. As I mentioned before, the constituents and Kat Lanteigne, who lives in Ontario, believe there is an ambiguity or an anomaly in the act that needs to be resolved by a fairly simple amendment. I put forward that amendment, and I’m hoping that you’ll be able to look at that and give advice as to whether or not the amendment would be done in the House of Commons.
These folks have had significant legal advice on this issue, and what they’ve heard today and yesterday hasn’t assuaged their concern. I know they are watching. What do you suggest could be done to accelerate a solution to the issue?
Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship Policy and International Experience Canada Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question, senator. Perhaps I can take a step back and lay out the structure and intent of the Citizenship Act, which has been, and remains, to try to treat children born abroad and adopted by Canadians and children born abroad to Canadians as similarly as possible.
If Bill C-71 were to come into force, since citizens who are adopted abroad are treated the same as citizens by descent, who were themselves born abroad, they too would need to meet the substantial connection requirement in order to be able to pass on citizenship to their child born abroad or access the direct adoption grant — section 5.1 — for a child adopted abroad.
If Bill C-71 is amended to eliminate the substantial connections test in the international adoptions context and begins to treat adopted persons as if they were naturalized citizens and not citizens by descent, as is in the case for children born abroad to Canadians, this will result in differential outcomes for the two groups.
Children adopted abroad by Canadians would benefit preferential treatment compared to children born abroad to Canadians, who would then be subject to different and more onerous requirements in order to pass on citizenship by descent.
If Bill C-71 were to eliminate the substantial connection requirement, again in an international adoptions context, it could mean that a child born abroad and adopted to a Canadian parent could then also adopt a child abroad and pass on citizenship despite never living in Canada. This would mean citizenship by descent could be passed down through generations of people who have never lived in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, this brings us to the end of this panel. I would like to thank all officials for their testimony today.
Colleagues, we will suspend briefly to go in camera. I will ask officials and other members of the public present to please leave the room.
(The committee continued in camera.)