THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, December 6, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 4:34 p.m. [ET] to consider Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Ratna Omidvar and I am a senator from Ontario.
[English]
I am the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Welcome to our guests and to the people who are watching us on the waves. We apologize for the delay, and we are looking to see if we can extend this meeting for another 10 minutes. Regardless, we’re all now operating within a more constrained time frame. I ask for everybody’s cooperation.
Let me begin by welcoming everyone again and members of the public watching our proceedings. Before we begin, I would like to do a very quick round table, introducing my colleagues to the witnesses and the public.
Senator Osler: Gigi Osler, senator from Manitoba.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais, senatorial division of Victoria, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Bernard: Wanda Thomas Bernard, senator from Nova Scotia.
Senator Jaffer: Welcome. Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
[Translation]
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman, senatorial division of De la Durantaye, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, we continue our consideration of Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Joining us today on our first panel, we welcome: Shalini Konanur, Executive Director and Lawyer with the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario; Danette Edwards, Interim General Counsel at the Black Legal Action Centre; Andrew Brouwer, Senior Counsel, Refugee Law Office, Legal Aid Ontario; and Fatuma Alyaan. Thank you so much for joining us today.
We will begin with opening remarks. Ms. Alyaan and Mr. Brouwer, you go first, followed by Ms. Konanur and Ms. Edwards. Given that our start time was delayed, I’m going to have to ask you to keep it to four minutes each.
Fatuma Alyaan, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator Jaffer, for inviting me to speak to this essential committee. I’m here today not only for my family but for so many other young people and former kids in care who do not have this opportunity. I am also here as one of many, many people who have been struggling to keep our families together as they face deportation from Canada.
I want to tell you what the current laws have done to us and why they need to change.
Child welfare has caused separation and lasting harm to our families. As children separated from our parents and loved ones, we went through traumatic situations and carried a lot of stress. Think about the stress on children facing abuse and neglect, trying to advocate for ourselves, knowing we might get punished even more for speaking up. We carry the emotional and mental weight of all that, and we carry it alone.
My brother and I were taken into the system from our family as young children just a few months after arriving in this country. I was just 8 years old, and Abdoul was 6 years old — almost the same ages as my two kids now. We were separated from each other and spent the rest of our childhoods bouncing from foster home to foster home in the care of the government rather than of our family. My aunt Asha, who brought us to Canada, fought for years to get us back. After years of trauma and suffering, my brother and I learned as adults that despite living in Canada since we were little — in government care — we still didn’t have full status in Canada. We only learned this because the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, was working to deport Abdoul.
For Abdoul and I, our childhood was a fight to survive in child welfare. The child welfare system was a stand-in for our family, but they did not get us the citizenship we needed to be treated equally with other kids and to access the resources and supports we needed to thrive. The result of this challenging childhood has been that most of our adulthood has been a struggle to keep our family together.
Therefore, senators, we need this bill to pass and stop the harm that child welfare and deportation have done to refugee and immigrant kids — like me and my brother — in Canada. I’m 31 years old and still not a citizen, even though I have lived here for almost my entire life. This has impacted my ability to work and access housing and health care. It has exposed us to the possibility of getting deported from the only country we know — our home. Children in care shouldn’t have to wait until they leave the system to get citizenship, of course. In my experience, there’s no reason to delay a child in care getting full status. I have heard that children’s aid agencies are taking steps to try to avoid these situations in the future. But for Abdoul and me, it’s already too late. We aged out of care a long time ago. Please use this opportunity to stop others from going through what we have.
Six years ago, the Prime Minister said that something needed to be done. Yet, here we are, still fighting, and we still do not have our citizenship. More family members have been deported and more families have been separated while we’ve been fighting. We have to stop using immigration and child welfare to punish people.
One important change is to automatically grant citizenship to all those children whose “parents” have been in the provincial and national governments through child welfare systems. Please support this bill today.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Alyaan.
Andrew Brouwer, Senior Counsel, Refugee Law Office, Legal Aid Ontario: Thank you. Madam Chair, Senator Jaffer, members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to speak to you today about this very important bill. My office will urge you to adopt it too.
I’m a refugee lawyer. I’ve been practising for 20 years, the last dozen at the Refugee Law Office at Legal Aid Ontario, where I serve as senior counsel. I’m joined here today by my colleague Samuel Loeb.
Our office represents dozens of young people who came to Canada as children — often as permanent residents — were taken into care or supervision by child welfare authorities, and have crossed over to the youth criminal justice system, swept into what’s been called the child-welfare-to-prison pipeline.
As Ms. Edwards will note shortly, the large majority of these kids are racialized. In one Ontario city, for example, 65% of kids in state care identify as African-Canadian. This is in a city where only 8% of the general population so identifies. That drastic overrepresentation continues in Canada’s prisons.
When it comes to youth who are not citizens, there’s a further harm. For them, the pipeline from child welfare extends not just to prison but continues to deportation to a country they do not even know. As Ms. Alyaan explained, her family’s story is a case in point.
By the time children age out of care, many are unaware of their immigration status. They simply — reasonably —assume that, having lived in Canada for years, they are Canadian citizens. The first time many of these young people learn that they’re not Canadian citizens is when officers of the Canada Border Services Agency visit them in jail to advise them that they are on their way to deportation.
After years of often traumatic experiences in the child welfare and criminal justice systems, many of these individuals are experiencing mental illness and now they’re exposed to yet another assault on their dignity: banishment to a country they do not know and where they may not even speak the language. It’s the ultimate rejection by the country they thought was theirs. It’s the final failure of the system.
This bill helps to rectify that situation. It recognizes that these mostly racialized people who grew up in Canada, in the care or under the supervision of child welfare agencies, are entitled to equal treatment as full members of the Canadian community. It’s a small but bold and desperately needed step toward undoing some of the harm of systemic racism in the child welfare, criminal justice and immigration enforcement systems.
As lawyers, there’s only so much that we can do. We have to operate within the confines of existing law, but the existing law is unjust. Bill S-235 provides a remedy.
Let me close with a brief observation. I was here two weeks ago when the government officials were here testifying before you. I heard the concerns that they raised about so-called unintended consequences. In our view, they raised nothing that cannot be resolved by this committee, either by dismissing certain concerns as being unfounded, or amending the bill to ensure that those concerns are fully addressed. I hope we can address those during the Q & A. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Shalini Konanur, Executive Director and Lawyer, South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario: Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of this committee. I want to take a brief moment to thank Fatuma for sharing her story with us, and I want to say to you clearly that the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario is in full support of Bill S-235.
I want to tell you how thrilled I am to be here today and that we’re actually speaking about this issue and potential meaningful change, because our legal clinic works with 2,000 to 3,000 people here on immigration matters. Unlike Andrew, we work on the other side, the non-refugee side, with people who have no status or are being removed and need temporary status — the most vulnerable in our system. We do humanitarian and compassion applications to see if we can fix those situations. We do submissions on criminal admissibility to see if we can stop those removals. We do deferral requests to Canada Border Services Agency to see if we can convince the CBSA not to remove these people that we’re talking about today. We do stay motions in Federal Court and temporary resident permits. I’m happy to answer any of your questions on those areas. We also do authorizations to re-enter Canada.
Over the years, we have worked with several young people in care who have been serviced by child welfare systems on their cases. I was able to obtain some statistics for 2023. Currently, we have 23 children that we’re supporting in cases like this on immigration matters.
We also work with a number of adults who have come out of the child welfare system in the exact situation that’s been described already. That is, they have discovered that they do not have the immigration status to stop a removal that has been triggered by criminal inadmissibility.
I want to tell you quickly what I know. What I know from my work is that these issues impact racialized children disproportionately. We already know that the data tells us that Indigenous, Black and racialized children are overpoliced by both the criminal justice system and the child welfare system. There are populations of people who come out of the child welfare system who do not have citizenship. That, we know. There are systemic and structural barriers that have led to the failure to obtain citizenship. That is why we’re here today — namely, to talk about this legislation.
We also know that many of the clients who have been convicted of criminal offences will eventually have a triggering of criminal inadmissibility in immigration law, which starts the process of removal and deportation.
One piece that I think about a lot is that in many of the cases that I see, the criminal behaviour is often connected to the traumatic experiences in childhood and within the child welfare system. You can see a thread in the behaviour and in the criminal activity that comes from that traumatic experience. We have had almost no success in stopping the loss of their status and their removal. We have had almost no success in our attempts to authorize re-entry to come back to Canada, which is part of the reason that we are here today — namely, to talk about that.
In the interests of time, I don’t want to speak too much about the clients that I see, but I have given you those clients with whom I’m working in my written submissions and in my speaking notes.
I want to tell you about one current client who was in care in child welfare, came out of that system and has now been triggered for removal with deportation. He’s lived here for 29 years, since the age of 3.
In conclusion, the populations that we serve and the ones who are impacted by this legislation are, in my view, Canadians. They are Canadian children; they are Canadian adults. They grew up in Canada. They were raised by families and child welfare systems and were engaged in those systems. They were educated by our Canadian education system. The ones who I work with have been embedded in the community and they contribute just like my own children do. In no uncertain terms, they believe — and I am strongly telling you this — that Canada is their home. Their only distinction is not holding or having access to Canadian citizenship because of the legislative barriers that we have created. I am delighted that we are looking at a bill that starts to break down those barriers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Konanur.
Danette Edwards, Interim General Counsel, Black Legal Action Centre: Good afternoon, chair, Senator Jaffer and honourable members of the Senate. Thank you for inviting me here today.
The Black Legal Action Centre, or BLAC, is an independent legal aid clinic that provides free services to people all over Ontario.
BLAC steers a coalition called Our System, Our Children, Our Responsibility. The title alone tells you what it’s about. It’s a campaign against the deportation of child welfare survivors.
BLAC is an organizational mentor for the collective of child welfare survivors. We receive frequent calls from people in the community who need urgent assistance, facing either deportation or other criminal law issues.
While BLAC does not specifically take on immigration cases in our practice like the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario does, we are deeply concerned with the relationship and connection between systemic anti-Black racism and its adverse impact on the communities we serve. We are concerned with the rights of Black people in Canada.
In 2016, in the One Vision One Voice report, a municipality in Ontario indicated that Black children represented 65% of children in group care, despite only making up 8% of the municipality’s population. Despite similar rates of neglect and physical, sexual and emotional abuse as White children, Black children are 40% more likely to be investigated and 18% more likely to have their abuse substantiated.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission also found that the proportion of Black children admitted into care was 2.2 times higher than their proportion of the child population. These statistics speak for themselves.
Black people are generally overrepresented in the child welfare system largely because Canada’s child welfare policies are oppressive, discretionary practices are biased and culturally safe service responses are lacking. Parenting responsibility in Canada is shifted to law enforcement when a child goes into care. Law enforcement is responsible for things such as dispute resolution, discipline and enforcing the rules of the home. Often, this is where Black children first encounter the criminal justice system.
For some reason, Black people, whether they’re adults or children, are seen as less deserving of our compassion. It is viewed as perfectly acceptable to deport a child who has lived in Canada all of their life — you’ve heard examples — to a country they have never known. The fact that a person has already served their sentence is ignored, and they are subjected to a second level of punishment: deportation from Canada.
From the data available, we know that gaining full Canadian citizenship is difficult if you’re from a predominantly Black country. We know that Black families face far more scrutiny and apprehensions from child welfare authorities. We know that Black people historically receive harsher sentences within the criminal justice system. And we know that deporting these children whom we have already failed to protect is not the solution. Children should not be penalized for their lack of immigration status. This is an issue over which children have little or no control.
We believe that Bill S-235 accords with the federal government’s Black Justice Strategy to ensure that Black people have access to equal treatment and protection before the law in Canada and is a response to the United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent’s call to action.
Under international human rights and family law doctrines, Canada has an obligation to ensure that children have the opportunity to become citizens of this great country. Canada should be proud to provide its most vulnerable children with a place to belong — a place to call home.
In closing, we ask that Canada honour its commitments and give dignity and citizenship to these children. Please support Bill S-235, as it recognizes the structural racism barriers faced by Black children caught up in the child welfare and criminal justice systems. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to all our witnesses. That was compelling testimony. You work in the trenches of this issue. You experience it. You have a great deal of credibility. I believe I speak for all of us when I say that this is an injustice that we have to fix. Let’s find the right way of doing so.
We have a lot of colleagues with a lot of questions. Colleagues, three minutes each today, including your questions and answers.
Mr. Brouwer, during the questions, if you can actually give us your perspective on how to address the concerns raised about a week ago, we would be very grateful; the same goes for other witnesses as well. Our first question is from Senator Cordy, vice‑chair of the committee.
Senator Cordy: I’ll try to get my question out in a minute and a half. Thank you very much. It was very compelling testimony and very much from the heart. I appreciate that.
We heard from the government officials when they were here that there’s a lack of data. Now, we know that if we’re going to make changes, particularly with the government, you need the data to make it happen because it’s more compelling. In order to have this strong voice, you need the data, which the government told us they don’t have. We also heard about the overrepresentation of Indigenous, Black and racialized people.
Do you have the data the government said they didn’t, about the number of children who age out? I think, Ms. Konanur, you spoke about it. They might not officially be Canadians, but their whole being is Canadian. What do you do? Do you have a way of getting the information, or is that a problem?
Ms. Konanur: Our clinic and the Black Legal Action Centre have been working with the Canada Border Services Agency for a number of years on this issue and other issues around data collection. I think the Catch-22 is that the people who can collect the data are the CBSA. As civil society, we are not in a position to collect the national data on that, which is why, when I spoke, I was only able to give you a flavour of what’s going on at our clinic. In 2023, we were supporting 23 children. That’s a microcosm number of one tiny organization in one part of this country.
I think that in an analogous way, this is the same question that was asked of me when I spoke at committee on changes around forced marriage. We don’t have the data, so let’s not make the changes. What we were told by our U.K. counterparts is, if you know what the issue is, you don’t need the data to make changes. If you have enough credible evidence, you don’t need it. Our country followed that. They actually created legislative change on forced marriage without the data.
I feel we’re in the same space here. When we have these committee meetings, and we’re able to give you our on‑the‑ground experiences, and that’s credible, that can be taken as the impetus for moving this forward.
Senator Seidman: I’m going to move right to you, Mr. Brouwer, and I’m going to take you up on your offer. Indeed, we did hear about unintended consequences. CBSA and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, officials said this bill doesn’t appear to align with the categories of citizenship outlined in the Citizenship Act, and that without a transitional provision, the bill would automatically provide citizenship to a new category of persons upon Royal Assent, retroactive to all persons who meet the criteria. This is some cause for concern.
I’m now going to offer you the opportunity to put forward a way we might change this bill to avoid that kind of situation.
Mr. Brouwer: Sure. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to that.
With respect to fitting within the categories, I guess there are two answers. The categories exist in law; that doesn’t prevent amendments to the categories as a general proposition. But more to the point, I think that there is a way to resolve the concern of immigration officials, and that is to take the provision as it has been drafted and shift it out of citizenship by right and into citizenship by grant. It’s moving it two sections down, essentially. Rather than individuals becoming citizens immediately upon Royal Assent, they would become eligible to apply for citizenship if they fit into the same category. I think that’s a relatively simple fix — and I can provide language on particular provisions — that would resolve a lot of the concerns that were raised by the department, including with respect to their concerns around voluntariness and consent. If we switched this into an application process by grant, you are expressing your voluntariness or your consent by making the application. It’s relatively straightforward.
I don’t want to get into the details. I’m happy to send something in writing on related amendments.
Senator Seidman: The committee would be most appreciative if you did manage to send that to the clerk so we can all see it.
The Chair: That’s a really interesting idea. I’d like to hear from Senator Jaffer as to what she thinks about that as the sponsor of the bill. We’ll get to that.
If it’s a citizenship by grant, then who applies for it? Are we not back in the same murky place where we were before? They have a right, but they have to apply for it. They miss the deadline, so then they are no longer — so who would actually apply for it?
Mr. Brouwer: Thank you. The way I see this proposal and bill is that it goes hand in hand with the changes made previously that would allow applications for citizenship to be made by child welfare authorities while kids are in care. This bill, as I see it, applies to those for whom that didn’t happen and who have aged out; they are 18 or adults, and that is the point at which they could apply.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Osler: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. I will start with Ms. Edwards.
I would like to ask about some of the unintended consequences that this committee heard about. Previous witnesses raised concerns that this bill could or would incentivize placing children in care as “anchor relatives” whereby children would be sent to Canada unaccompanied for the purpose of securing citizenship for their family.
Would you be able to provide your opinion on how probable that scenario would be?
Ms. Edwards: Thank you for the question.
In our opinion, that risk is negligible and almost non-existent. To assume that people would send their children to another country to go into a child welfare system — in most countries, that is a completely foreign concept to begin with; they are not aware the state has the ability to take children into care.
We’ve also spoken with staff and policy people at the Centre for Refugee Children, and they have advised us that the number of eligible children in state care or who go into the child welfare system is in two digits; it is fewer than 100 per year, probably. I think it might be fewer than 100 over two years.
In terms of incentivizing people to send their children to Canada to go into the child welfare system, as a parent, that’s far out there. It’s definitely not something the average person would contemplate. When you think about it as a parent, it is not something any parent would voluntarily subject their child to.
Senator Osler: Madam Chair, if there is time, perhaps the other witnesses would like to provide an opinion.
Ms. Konanur: I worked at the legal clinic in Mississauga and at the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario. I worked primarily with Black and brown families in immigration. I have not seen that in my 20 years of practising. I have seen the opposite: families fighting to get their children out of care.
I have not seen your scenario happen, so I do not believe the idea that a floodgate would open bears out in respect to what is actually happening.
The Chair: Colleagues, we extend this panel to 5:35 so that we have a little bit more time. Senator Jaffer, you are the sponsor of the bill. This is important for you. You have advocated for it for three years. Let’s hear your questions, please.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for making this possible. Thank you, all of you, for being here. I will start with Ms. Alyaan.
First of all, I want to thank you. You have been extremely courageous. For you to come here was not easy. I cannot thank you enough for being here. You came here not just for your own sake but for your brother’s. Thank you. I also want to thank Mr. Desmond Cole for bringing you here today and giving you the supports for you to come.
I have some short questions. You are from Somalia, and you said that you and your brother came here at the ages of 6 and 8.
Ms. Alyaan: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: And you were separated almost immediately.
Ms. Alyaan: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: Did your aunt fight for you to be returned?
Ms. Alyaan: She is still fighting to this day.
Senator Jaffer: What was said? Why were you not returned?
Ms. Alyaan: To be honest, I don’t know the answer to that question.
Senator Jaffer: Okay.
Did your aunt try to obtain citizenship for you?
Ms. Alyaan: She has. She got her citizenship around 2004 while she was still fighting for us. She tried to apply on our behalf, and they told her “no” because we were in the custody of child welfare.
Senator Jaffer: Recently, you went to hospital. What happened when you went to hospital? You were seriously sick.
Ms. Alyaan: They wouldn’t see me.
Senator Jaffer: Why not?
Ms. Alyaan: Because I don’t have a health card. I can’t pay.
Senator Jaffer: And how much did they say it would cost you?
Ms. Alyaan: It would be $1,000 just to talk to a doctor, and if I needed any testing, that would be an additional cost.
Senator Jaffer: So what did you do?
Ms. Alyaan: I had to leave.
Senator Jaffer: I can’t believe how brave you are.
You managed to get to a town hall meeting when Prime Minister Trudeau was coming. You asked him a question, which I will read into the record. “My question to you is, if it was your son, would you do anything to stop this?”
The Prime Minister’s reply to you was that he was familiar with your brother’s case, and he said:
When we saw how the care system failed your brother . . . how the challenges he is facing have impacted upon him, and we saw the real challenges that we’re facing in the system, it has opened our eyes to something that many of us knew was ongoing in many communities but we continue to need to address.
Do you know if he has addressed the situation?
Ms. Alyaan: From my understanding, it has not been addressed.
Senator Jaffer: Okay.
You don’t have citizenship either?
Ms. Alyaan: I do not have citizenship.
Senator Jaffer: Why do you not have citizenship?
Ms. Alyaan: I don’t have the right documentation. I can’t get the right documentation.
Senator Jaffer: You don’t have the documentation?
Ms. Alyaan: No.
Senator Jaffer: So you have not committed any crime, but you still don’t have citizenship?
Ms. Alyaan: Exactly.
Senator Jaffer: If I have time for another question, Ms. Konanur, you mentioned a thread. What do you mean by a thread?
Ms. Konanur: Absolutely.
In my everyday cases, I see people come to us as adults, and they have gotten into trouble with the criminal law. When we start to unpack why and what has gone on so we can make arguments for them, many of those clients are in trouble because they had very traumatic experiences in their childhood related to child welfare. So in one sense, it’s really difficult to say, “Well, we have put you in this system. It has brought you to where you are today, and now we will remove you.” That’s as simple as that thread is.
In our work with the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, it’s been virtually impossible to stop the loss of permanent residence or status and to stop the removals. If they leave, I tell them, “You are not coming back,” because I know that we will not be able to get them back. I’ve had some scenarios where they have left, and things have not gone well. We have lost clients.
The struggle is that I look at them collectively as our children. I have children. It is that question that Fatuma asked: If it were your kid, what would you do?
Senator Jaffer: I have a quick question, Madam Chair. Thank you for your indulgence.
When the officials came here the other day, they said that if a person is deported, there are networks in their countries through which they can return. In your experience, have you seen anybody return?
Ms. Konanur: No. I’ve been trying to do that work for 20 years, and I haven’t been able to successfully obtain those authorizations. I have a case right now where it was denied. It went to Federal Court and was sent back; it was denied again two days ago.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you very much for being here today — you especially, Fatuma.
I address my question to Mr. Brouwer. I want to follow up on these unintended consequences just a little bit more, and one in particular. It was noted to us by the officials that automatic citizenship might cause problems for those who still hold citizenship in another country that doesn’t allow dual citizenship.
Can you talk to us about that? I know you talk about a voluntary application process. That comes with some problems with respect to access, education, being able to navigate the process and so on. Could you talk a little bit about the challenges of the process?
Mr. Brouwer: Sure. Thank you very much. I will ask my colleagues to jump in if there is anything to be added.
My first response to the question regarding voluntariness and loss of status is that whether this provision remains a grant by right or citizenship by right, or if it has shifted to section 5, either way, there is a step that needs to be taken by the individual to obtain that citizenship. Even if it is by right, the individual would need to make an application for a certificate of citizenship. So they are taking a step.
With respect to the question about getting proper advice before taking that step, that’s obviously very important. We work in legal clinics and can talk about how to provide that. However, I think that’s the first answer to the issue that was raised by the government. From my perspective, it is not a real concern, frankly.
Senator Moodie: What about the problem we encounter and that Fatuma has encountered, which is no paperwork? How do we get around that if we do put a system like this in place?
Mr. Brouwer: To some degree, paperwork is going to be required one way or the other. What you see in the bill is a specific provision to try to get around barriers for paperwork. There is a requirement that the government must rely on a statement by the individual unless there is evidence to the contrary. If the person states that they were in care for a year, that should be enough. As a matter of law, if you pass the bill as formed here, you are getting rid of very significant normal barriers that most applicants have to deal with.
Ms. Konanur: I would say as well that in many other parts of our immigration work, when documentation and security issues arise, our immigration services will routinely waive the requirements. If they are satisfied with what has been provided, they will waive the requirements. Therefore, the idea that this is not already happening is not true. It happens all the time.
The Chair: I would like to follow up on a question by Senator Moodie. Mr. Brouwer, regarding your proposal of citizenship by application, how would it take into account the issue of retroactivity? If the law is passed, what about people who have aged out of the system and possibly been deported? What measures would you put in the bill to address the concerns around retroactivity?
Mr. Brouwer: Well, if this gets shifted to section 5 — as I understand the operation — the person becomes a citizen after making the application and upon the grant being issued. When their application is approved, that’s the moment at which they become citizens.
The provision as it stands, as a matter of law, would recognize that individuals are citizens and need to claim their citizenship. It doesn’t actually become a documented citizenship until they’ve gone through that process. In neither case, as I interpret the bill, is there actual retroactivity.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for you, Mr. Brouwer. I want to better understand the barriers.
The Citizenship Act currently provides ministerial exceptions to the requirement that all applications for citizenship by persons under the age of 18 must be submitted by custodial representatives or state officials, creating a mechanism for minors to apply for citizenship themselves.
What obstacles do minors currently face when trying to obtain citizenship through this mechanism? How does the bill before us address these obstacles?
Mr. Brouwer: Thank you very much.
[English]
I apologize for my poor French.
I have two responses. With respect to barriers that currently exist for children in care, I will suggest that the next panel will probably be best positioned to answer. That’s the next set of individual witnesses.
As I understand it right now, the primary barrier is information and support. There needs to be better awareness among all the children’s aid organizations that this is an option, and there needs to be enough support given to those organizations or to legal service providers in all the provinces to ensure the applications are filed.
The other issue is with respect to how this bill relates to that previous amendment. As I think I said, I see them as two responses to the same problem. The provision that was passed previously seeks to undo or avoid future circumstances of individuals aging out of care without status. So as long as there is enough support to organizations to provide applications and submit applications while kids are in care, then we won’t have the situation we have right now with people aging out without status.
This bill is necessary for all the people who have already aged out. To be realistic, people fall through the cracks, and they will continue to fall through the cracks. We need this provision for those for whom the timing wasn’t good to apply while they were still in care, or the organization wasn’t aware — or for whatever reason. If an application wasn’t made while they were minors in care, we need this bill to make sure they don’t end up being deported because of that.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: My question is for you, Ms. Konanur. Since child protection falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, if this bill were to become law, what would be left as barriers or challenges, at the provincial level, for this to go well?
[English]
Ms. Konanur: Thank you so much for that question, because we work in both jurisdictions, so we see that regularly. Obviously, the next panel will give you more information. However, what I see in my work day to day is connection with child welfare systems who contact us for support. Everybody is struggling with capacity. In implementing a bill like this, we have to talk about what supports come along with it for those systems. I see very good intentions sometimes from child welfare systems but just no capacity to do the work.
I have to say that Ontario has the most robust legal aid clinic system in the country. Everywhere else that I travel, they have one tenth of what we can do. Therefore, we have to talk about aligning supports. When we create this legislation, we also have to think about how it is supported in every way.
Regarding the question that was just posed, I really want to quickly add that we work, actually, on ministerial permits, ministerial exceptions and citizenship waivers. They take an extraordinarily long time. The barrier there is significant delay.
[Translation]
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you very much. You said it and I’m trying to figure it out.
[English]
You have said a few times that there is almost no success in stopping deportation or re-entering. What I’m hearing is that a lot of it is bureaucracy and paperwork. What is the core of the challenges? The system?
Ms. Konanur: The law is the core of the challenge. The law has been changed to become very strict. Therefore, if you are convicted of certain crimes — boom — it’s criminal inadmissibility under immigration law, and there is almost nothing we can do to argue humanitarian and compassionate factors in order to stop it — or almost nothing. It is this change in the law that put Fatuma’s brother in the situation he finds himself in. In fact, when I was practising way, way earlier, we may have been able to have some humanitarian and compassionate relief. The law doesn’t allow that anymore. You can try; however, I have to tell you in no uncertain terms, trying to get people back once they’ve been removed is almost impossible.
Senator Bernard: To all the witnesses, I just want to simply say thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your work. And to Fatuma, I want to say thank you for continuing to be a strong, strong advocate. Your voice is important in this conversation.
I have a lot I want to ask, but I know I wouldn’t be able to. I will ask one question. I will start with you, Ms. Edwards. I want to pick up from the question that Senator Osler asked about “anchor relatives.” I see some threads here.
You’ve talked about the child-welfare-to-prison pipeline and the prison-to-deportation pipeline. I think the other link in the pipeline is what happens in the education system. The other thing you talked about that I think is part of the pipeline is the reality of systemic anti-Black racism. So I would like to talk specifically about systemic anti-Black racism.
Does that even figure into the question about “anchor relatives”? How does that figure into the pipeline? How do you disrupt the pipeline so that you are not getting people to the position where they are?
Ms. Edwards: Disrupting the pipeline, as you so eloquently stated, starts with the education system. Black children are subjected to unnecessary suspensions, exclusions and disciplinary processes, even while in elementary school. I’m sure you’ve all seen the headlines of four-year-old Black children being locked in storage rooms by themselves or simply being expelled from school because they’ve gotten into a fight with another child.
School systems are no longer dealing with positive disciplinary actions. As I stated in my submissions, they are shifting their responsibility to law enforcement. These children are being criminalized.
The other day in the Peel Region, I believe, there were a number of school girls who got into a fight at school. There was an undercover police officer. Now they are charged with assaulting a peace officer. They didn’t know that person was a police officer, because they were in plain clothes. What was a plainclothes officer doing in the school in the first place?
It starts there, absolutely. They get removed from their parents. In one very famous case, a teacher called child welfare authorities on a parent who sent their child to school with a roti. I’m sure you all know what that is; it is a flat bread. The teacher felt it was an inadequate meal.
These are not stories we make up; these are things that are happening on the ground. The charges are ridiculous. I’ve given you the statistics, and there are reports that support them. Children are being fed into this.
Long ago, you had to receive a jail sentence of two years before you would be eligible for deportation. It is now six months. By reducing those timelines, you are actually feeding into that pipeline a lot faster. You are creating these numbers. Black people get stopped disproportionately by police. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has produced reports on that. We get stopped, searched, overcharged, imprisoned and denied bail.
There are a lot of reasons why there is such a disproportionate representation of Black people in the system. We need to look at the systemic factors. We need to do that.
Senator McPhedran: I have a quick question. Very often, in situations that appear to have no remedy, there is a hope that there can be some kind of ministerial response. What have been your experiences with that? Have you seen a shift? I’m going to guess that you have. Can you relate that to this bill?
Ms. Konanur: I have 19 ministerial permit files right now. The average wait time to get a response is eight to nine years. I can’t even get them into court, because in court, you have something called mandamus, where you can ask the court to force the government to make a decision. But the courts have said in ministerial permit cases that 8 to 10 years is a reasonable time to wait.
The point is that those extraordinary options are just that: extraordinary, and they are unlikely to succeed. In the meantime, you sit with clients who, because they don’t have citizenship, never get to vote. They have access issues to certain things, depending upon their status. They have to lead their lives in a hole, without status, in a country that’s theirs.
It is a really difficult thing. The idea that a safety valve is there is not true in reality.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Do others have comments?
Mr. Brouwer: I can add to that. I don’t know if that was related to the evidence given by the government officials about the new temporary resident permit, or TRP, and ministerial instructions, but if so, it is critical to see the massive difference between a temporary resident permit on instructions and Canadian citizenship.
The TRP, the new ministerial instructions, are entirely discretionary. It is the minister advising individual officers that they may grant a one-year — or maybe two-year — permit for individuals to stay in Canada, with no status beyond that they can stay. At the end of those two years, they could apply to renew it. Maybe that will work; maybe it won’t. If there is a change of government, those ministerial instructions could be lifted.
There is no path from a temporary resident permit to citizenship. You are stuck in two more years of limbo — two more years of having no real status. There is a little bit more in that you are protected from imminent removal, but that’s it. It’s not anywhere near the same as recognizing these kids as our kids, and recognizing that these are kids who grew up here, who are Canadian and deserve to be treated like Canadians.
Ms. Konanur: Can I add something quickly?
Senator McPhedran: Please.
Ms. Konanur: We have a public policy that we worked on regarding temporary resident permits in family violence cases. There is a ministerial instruction on that. Over the three years that we’ve been doing those permits, when that instruction was initially given, they were granted as a right. Over the past year, most, on discretion, have been refused at our clinic.
So you can see a shift in the way that officers are thinking about those cases, regardless of what the intention was for the temporary resident permit.
The Chair: I have a final question that will go to Ms. Alyaan. Thank you so much for being here with us and sharing your story.
May I assume that if this bill passes and gets Royal Assent that you will apply for citizenship?
Ms. Alyaan: I definitely will, yes.
The Chair: And will your brother apply for citizenship?
Ms. Alyaan: Yes.
The Chair: Can you tell us how your life would change?
Ms. Alyaan: It would change dramatically. I can’t work. I can’t go to school. I can’t get health care. It would change my life an entire 180 degrees. I could access what everyone in this room can. I could work. I could provide for my two kids. I don’t have to sit at home, sick, thinking that something will happen — that I will leave them and they will end up in my shoes.
It would help and change a lot. That is not just for me and my brother; there are so many other kids who don’t have the same opportunity to speak up that I do. That’s why I am here today. That’s why I truly hope you all consider this and it does pass.
The Chair: Thank you so much, witnesses. You have helped us understand the context and the solutions much better.
Colleagues, we will turn now to our second panel. The present witnesses are welcome to stay and listen.
Joining us now, colleagues, for the second panel, is a group from Peel Children’s Aid Society. They were recognized in the chamber today as guests of Senator Oh. Welcome to our committee. They are Mary Beth Moellenkamp, Chief Executive Officer; Danielle Ungara, Manager, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence; Fatima Mukai, Immigration Specialist, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence; and Liz Okai, Manager, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence. They are all with the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence at the Peel Children’s Aid Society.
By video conference, we welcome Terence Hamilton, Policy Specialist with UNICEF Canada.
Thank you to all for joining us today. I remind all our witnesses that you will have four minutes allocated for opening statements, followed by questions from our members. We will begin with opening remarks from the Peel Children’s Aid Society. Ms. Moellenkamp, you have the floor.
Mary Beth Moellenkamp, Chief Executive Officer, Peel Children’s Aid Society: Honourable senators, thank you for allowing us to be here with you today. We’re pleased to share our support for Bill S-235. We’re here to speak on behalf of the children and youth we serve within the child welfare systems across Ontario.
The Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, or CWICE, at Peel Children’s Aid Society provides critical consultation and assistance to child welfare professionals focusing on complex intersections of child protection and immigration. Funded by the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, we collaborate on local, provincial and federal levels to develop partnerships and establish protocols aimed at resolving immigration-related challenges. Simply put, after hearing from the first committee, we want to prevent some of the challenges you heard earlier today.
The children, youth and families we serve are among the most vulnerable in our cities and communities. Our children and youth often feel invisible, facing barriers that other children and youth do not. For them, as we heard, citizenship is more than legal status. It symbolizes acceptance and a sense of belonging. These youth, as wards of the state, should be recognized as Canada’s children and given every opportunity for full integration into society.
The 2017 amendment of the Citizenship Act permitted child welfare agencies to apply for citizenship on behalf of children in their care, and it was a pivotal starting place. However, extensive documentation, as we heard, is often unobtainable for children in care, which leads many of them to leave our system without proper identification or citizenship.
This bill proposes to extend citizenship to children in government care, however, in a manner akin to citizenship acquisition through parental lineage. In this scenario, the provincial or territorial child welfare agencies with legal responsibility for that child would facilitate that process.
Insights from Indigenous communities and our own client experiences underscore the profound long-term and generational impacts and effects of policy within the child welfare and immigration sectors. We know we have to do better. This requires collaboration between provincial and federal systems to close legislative gaps and to work in partnership to address the complexity of this issue.
Bill S-235 promises consistent, empathetic management of citizenship cases for children and youth in foster care, preventing the risk of statelessness, deportation and related traumas. It offers a significant opportunity to enhance these young individuals’ lives, granting them the security and sense of belonging crucial for their well-being and future success.
With that, I will pass on to Ms. Ungara.
Danielle Ungara, Manager, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, Peel Children’s Aid Society: Honourable senators, it’s hard to fathom how someone who’s been in care since the age of 5 and is now an adult in 2023 can still be without citizenship. However, that is the case for a small group of individuals. In 5 years, CWICE has responded to 170 citizenship referrals. We have worked to uphold children’s right to hold citizenship and ensure the best interests of their considerations. However, we’ve witnessed the negative impact of overdue citizenships, and today there are 16 individuals in Ontario facing significant barriers. These include a 16-year-old born in Syria who has lived in Canada since age 6, as well as a 17-year-old born in Jamaica and a 19-year-old born in Pakistan who entered foster care at ages 13 and 12 respectively; no one applied for their citizenship.
Bill S-235 provides hope of citizenship and prevents the deportation of our country’s children. Adopting these amendments will allow for more equitable pathways and outcomes to exist. I’ll pass things to my colleague now.
Fatima Mukai, Immigration Specialist, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, Peel Children’s Aid Society: More than 10 years ago, I worked with a sibling group in foster care; I recently learned that the oldest was deported to a war-torn country where he died soon after. This traumatized his surviving siblings. One had a rapid mental health decline and until recently was facing deportation.
As a child welfare immigration specialist, I have worked directly with several individuals who required citizenship grant applications either while in care or after they had transitioned into adulthood. They have all experienced significant trauma and more than half have mental health and/or developmental challenges.
Other times, this has been a complicating factor in their involvement in the criminal justice system. I have witnessed how citizenship can prevent painful outcomes and reduce barriers for children in care.
Honourable senators, please endorse Bill S-235. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms. Okai, unfortunately, we have gone way over your four minutes. We need to let Mr. Hamilton have his four minutes. Hopefully, we can address questions to you, Ms. Okai. I apologize.
Terence Hamilton, Policy Specialist, UNICEF Canada: Thank you. I will try to be brief.
Thank you, chair and honourable senators of the committee. I’m joining you today from the traditional territories of the Wendat, Petun, Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe peoples under the jurisdiction of Treaty 13 here in Toronto.
As you’re likely aware, UNICEF’s mandate is to advance children’s universal human rights, guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the only organization mentioned in the convention, UNICEF considers itself the flag-bearer for the rights of children in every jurisdiction where we operate.
Here in Canada, we advocate for the fulsome implementation of the convention in domestic law, the use of global best practices in child rights governance and the inclusion of the voices and opinions of children and youth in decisions that affect them.
One of the key processes we advocate for in that regard is the use of Child Rights Impact Assessments, or CRIA. Similar to the Gender-based Analysis Plus, or GBA Plus, process, a CRIA is used to assess the positive and negative implications of policy or legislation on the rights of diverse children.
UNICEF Canada has long advocated for the use of CRIA in Canada, and were pleased to support the Department of Justice Canada in the development of a CRIA training module and template, which was released this past June.
Applying similar considerations, I will take the remainder of my time today to provide a cursory overview of the implications of the bill under study for the rights of children.
UNICEF Canada welcomes Bill S-235 as a measured, child rights-based response to the problem that children in the care of Canada’s child welfare systems do not consistently receive the Canadian citizenship status to which they are entitled.
Much of the debate on this issue has focused on the risk of deportation faced by those without citizenship who receive a criminal conviction, and understandably so. While these outcomes are not representative of the majority of children in care who lack Canadian citizenship, they do represent the outcomes of systems in which the rights of children are not adequately prioritized and protected.
Bill S-235 acknowledges this fact right from the opening lines of the preamble, where it references Canada’s duties as a state party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, or UNCRC, and cites the protection of children and the upholding of children’s rights as “. . . a fundamental value in Canadian society . . .”
In other words, Bill S-235 returns the vulnerable non-citizen child and their rights to the centre of the conversation, where they belong.
As Senator Jaffer documented in her sponsoring speech in June, and as we’ve heard from my colleagues here today, many of the adults did not have citizenship primarily because the Canadian child welfare authorities to whom their care was entrusted failed to make an application on their behalf for the citizenship to which they should have rightly been entitled.
Some did not even realize they were not Canadian citizens until they came into contact with the criminal justice system as adults.
In our opinion, this is a clear violation of the rights of children.
The state and, by extension, the child welfare agency acting in loco parentis, have a duty to protect and promote the child’s best interests. It is eminently reasonable to assume that making an application for Canadian citizenship for non-citizen children in the care of child welfare systems would be to act in that child’s best interests.
Pursuant to articles 7 and 8 under the UNCRC, all children have the right to a legally registered name and nationality. Where a child is deprived of some element of his or her identity, Canada — as a state party to the convention — has a duty to provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re‑establishing speedily his or her identity.
Furthermore, as part of determining the child’s best interests, the right of children to be heard in decisions that affect them under article 12 is considered one of the four guiding principles of the convention. Any administrative proceedings pertaining to a child’s immigration status that proceed without their knowledge and participation are clearly inconsistent with article 12.
Of course, in order to participate meaningfully in proceedings that affect them, children must be informed of the decision under consideration, in language comprehensible to them. Children who are never informed of the opportunity to make an application for citizenship are therefore denied their right to express their views on a matter of clear importance to them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. I’m sorry, we are out of time. Hopefully, you will get some time back in the questions. We will proceed to questions. There’s a long lineup of senators who want to ask questions. We have three minutes each. Ms. Okai, I will cede my time to you. You have come a long way. You are welcome to make your statement now.
Liz Okai, Manager, Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, Peel Children’s Aid Society: Thank you. In conclusion, honourable senators, there are several barriers children in the foster care system face in obtaining citizenship, such as intellectual disabilities, developmental disabilities and lack of identity documentation. We’ve mentioned criminality as well, and especially the lack of knowledge on the part of child welfare professionals has caused this.
It is important to note that much of the justice system involvement for many of these youth has been the result of unresolved trauma, mental illness and developmental and intellectual disabilities. While the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence has been supporting children and youth in Ontario with the citizenship application process, there are many other children across Canada who may not have similar services and supports. Bill S-235 would provide a much-needed consistency in ensuring equity across Canada for this vulnerable group of children. The bill will prevent youth and young adults from being deported to countries they do not know or have no ties to.
These are Canadian children, honourable senators, who need a sense of belonging and permanency, and we owe it to them to make this a reality. Thank you so much for giving us your ears.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Okai.
Senator Cordy: Thank you, all. It’s been an excellent panel. You’ve all said that you welcome this bill, so I will ask you about things happening in other places.
Mr. Hamilton, you spoke about global best practices. I wonder if you could share what some of those are. Ms. Okai, you spoke about overcoming the barriers. I wonder if you could expand on that because I know you were speaking quickly.
The Chair: Mr. Hamilton, why don’t you go first?
Mr. Hamilton: I will be quick. I did reach out to UNICEF colleagues across the world to try to find some comparable statute to what is under consideration by this committee, and I could not find anything. I will say that this would be an opportunity for Canada, once again, to show leadership in this area of children’s rights by being one of the first jurisdictions to pass such legislation.
Ms. Okai: Thank you. Some of the barriers have been, first of all, the lack of knowledge on the part of child welfare professionals. The Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence is filling that gap right now. We offer national training to bring awareness to this issue.
Other barriers have been that these children often don’t even know they’re non-citizens, or they don’t have information to give to professionals when they ask for it. They don’t have the know-how. They don’t have their own history.
Just applying for citizenship has been difficult. Once they leave care, it’s even worse. The barriers have been the know‑how, they don’t have the supports — the financial part. At the cost of $630, a youth or young adult might say, “I’ll do it when I get money,” so they put it on the back burner.
Then, with respect to their intellectual and cognitive disabilities, looking at a citizenship application requires a lot of information and a lot of jumping through hoops. They cannot do it without the supports that we are able to offer.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much to everyone on our panel for being with us today as we try to understand the important aspects of this piece of legislation.
I think I’m going to address the Peel Children’s Aid Society specifically because it’s my understanding that organizations like the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, as you referred to, and the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants have a substantial infrastructure addressing issues of immigration and citizenship for children in care in Ontario.
I’d like to know from you, thinking about the national issues associated with this legislation, and the other provinces, regions and territories that are going to have to deal with it, what types of services, supports and administrative resources are necessary at the provincial level in order to facilitate this kind of legislation? Whoever would like to answer that question, please go ahead.
Ms. Moellenkamp: In Ontario — you’re right — we have built some infrastructure around this proactively to address this issue. We are the only province that has something like this.
In 2020, we brought together leaders from across Canada to talk about this issue and what would be needed to have a national framework and response to this. Really, it came down to funding and what that would potentially look like.
There’s always this challenge between — we’ve heard a little bit about it here — what is the province’s responsibility and what is the federal responsibility?
From my perspective, we could build a national framework. We’ve done bilateral agreements to end gender-based violence and other pieces. I would love to see a commitment between the federal government and the provincial governments to really talk about this issue, because while it’s the province’s responsibility to care for children and youth, and to address child welfare, the federal government has responsibility around immigration and addressing citizenship.
So if we could work together and have consistent principles, standards and processes, I think we could implement this bill in a consistent way across Canada.
Senator Seidman: As far as resources and infrastructure are concerned, if I understood you correctly, you’re saying it’s funding.
Ms. Moellenkamp: It’s funding. We have had other provinces that have said that if they had the funding, they would fund us to do the work for them. There is some consistency in terms of how that work is and helping them navigate that intersection between child welfare and the immigration system.
So it depends upon the province and their availability of funding to address this.
Frankly, with respect to understanding the issue — and you heard Ms. Mukai speak about this — it’s taken some time for child welfare to understand the impact this has had on children and youth. If you’re not in a community that’s a diverse population or has a port of entry, it might not be top of mind. We’ve heard about the challenges with data.
So until you see that as a challenge or a problem, child welfare is typically reactive in its response versus proactive. One of the things we are proud of in Ontario is that we were able to take a proactive response to this. We didn’t have funding. We started this on our own as an organization to do this, and the provincial government came along to help support that.
We need to talk more about that on a national scale.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My question is for the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence. It is the same question I asked in the first panel.
This committee has heard from previous witnesses who raised concerns that this bill would incentivize placing children in care as “anchor relatives” whereby children would be sent to Canada unaccompanied for the purpose of securing citizenship for their family.
Whoever feels best placed to answer, in your experience and opinion, how probable is that?
Ms. Ungara: I can take that question. Thank you so much.
You might know that we do some work with unaccompanied and separated children. We have typically seen about 50 a year for the last few years. Then last year, we saw that number more than double to 122 children and youth, mostly in Ontario. We were able to work with and organization — Jewish Immigrant Aid Services, or JIAS, Toronto — funded by IRCC, to do a study last year. We published that report this year, making some recommendations for a national framework.
We do hear this myth from time to time that children might be used as an anchor. The reality is that we have little evidence that supports that children are used as anchors and that their families arrive later. We know there are limited provisions for children in the reunification process once they arrive here.
We also feel there’s no evidence that children and youth, or families, have substantive knowledge about the immigration system prior to arriving.
Senator Osler: Thank you. Mr. Hamilton, would you like to opine?
Mr. Hamilton: Sure.
From what we’ve heard from the experts on the front line today, the child who deserves citizenship should be at the centre of the conversation. There are other mechanisms that can be identified for the misuse of the system or for people who are making applications they should not be making.
As we’ve heard from the Centre for Refugee Children and others, these are small numbers. We should be prioritizing that children who are entitled to citizenship are indeed being granted it under the legislation.
Senator Osler: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I have two questions. First of all, I want to thank CWICE. You have given me so much information and many resources, and supported me on this from day one. Thank you so much to all of you.
I have one question for you, Ms. Moellenkamp. Can you speak about and give further insight — Ms. Alyaan covered it a little bit — on the ways in which the lack of citizenship has affected the people you serve and who have aged out of care?
Ms. Moellenkamp: I’d be happy to answer that.
We heard a bit in the first panel about the impacts on children and youth who are not able to access post-secondary education, as well as underemployment issues. With respect to children and youth who come into the child welfare system, we already know we are addressing issues of overrepresentation — specifically of Black, racialized and Indigenous children and youth. When you add on top of that the fact that they have an abuse or neglect trauma history, and then they don’t have citizenship or that sense of belonging — and we think about what we’re hearing about the potential of children and youth going into the justice system — those are impacts that our children and youth are facing because of that systemic barrier.
That sense of belonging is not something we can appreciate for a child or youth. If we’re able to address that and give them that security and sense of safety, they will be able to thrive. That’s what we want: to change outcomes for children and youth. We know what those outcomes are, so we need to reduce every barrier possible in order to do that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you so much. I have a question for you, Mr. Hamilton. Canada is a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and one of the articles under that convention is to seek citizenship for people under care. What has Canada’s record been on that, Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton: Canada is a signatory to the convention and has ratified it, but it has not fully implemented it into domestic law, which is something we have long advocated for.
When it comes to the rights of children who do not have citizenship, Canada has been a leader internationally in pursuing citizenship either in their countries of origin or in Canada. But when it comes to the children whom this particular bill concerns — children who might have citizenship on paper but, effectively, have never been residents of that country since they were very young — obviously, Canada is not living up to the spirit and intention of articles 7 and 8, which pertain to nationality under the convention. That is my opinion.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Senator Moodie: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Terence, it’s good to see you.
I want to focus on one question. You are Peel Children’s Aid Society. I’m a pediatrician. I know how children get taken from their families. You have a role in that. At the same time, you seem to intimately understand the issue faced by children who age out.
What’s the failure rate in Mississauga, where you sit, and why do you have this failure rate, despite this incredible amount of information, resources and focus you have?
Ms. Moellenkamp: I can speak to that.
One of the things that we’re doing as a system in Ontario is looking at how to redesign child welfare. The way I describe it is that it’s a move from a sole focus on child protection to child, youth and family well-being. That’s investing in early health and intervention, and working with ethnocultural partners to be able to change and redesign the system so we’re not bringing children into care. We know the outcomes of that; we want to keep them at home and in their communities.
What I can proudly say in terms of the Peel Region is that despite a population of 1.5 million, we have fewer than 150 children in care. That’s because of the programs and the work that we do with communities. With respect to the work of CWICE, because we have had this working for us for the past five years, we are not seeing children leave our care without having citizenship addressed or at least a process to start that.
What we wanted to do, having Pearson International Airport in our jurisdiction and because we had to build this expertise because we were seeing newcomers and new arrivals come into Peel and not being able to do that, we didn’t want to have a different experience for a child in Sudbury or another part in Ontario that children and youth in our region were receiving benefits for.
Really, we became a centre of excellence, designated by other children’s aid agencies in Ontario to help do this work. We’re starting to see those shifts because we’re able to do that. They talked about the teaching and service provision that they do.
Part of the role of the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence is to ensure that any child or youth who has left us have the opportunity to come back. It is our commitment to say, “If we failed you before, we will be here and help to navigate that process.” That’s why we’re advocating for Bill S-235 — namely, to help us do that and to make that process easier.
Senator Moodie: Toronto, one of the biggest areas of issue, sits right beside you. Tell me how you have helped them. What’s the issue? Is it funding? Is your message is not spreading because your teaching, your expertise, is not available to them? They are right beside you.
Ms. Mukai: If I may answer that, social workers are typically there to provide social work but are not versed on immigration issues. Often, we see files no one has looked at for many years. No one has made it part of the child’s file. That, honourable senators, has changed. With the redesign, it is now obligatory to have a look at that and to have documents for each child in Ontario. I can’t speak for other provinces, but we are changing. We are making roadways.
Senator Moodie: Do you have the data?
Ms. Mukai: I will refer that to Ms. Ungara.
Ms. Ungara: We have some of the data but not what you are hoping for in terms of the exact numbers.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is both simple and complex. I understand that the bill addresses some of the barriers you see in the system. Are there any issues you raise that aren’t addressed in the bill and should be? Are there elements, obstacles you’ve identified that aren’t in the bill that could be?
This sounds like a theoretical question, but it would help to better understand what is covered by the bill, for you. My question is for all of the witnesses.
[English]
Ms. Ungara: Thank you for the great question. I would love to hear everyone’s answers on theory.
We are all registered social workers with decades of experience working with children and are all here supporting this bill. We believe this bill systematically integrates not only child rights — that is, the things our colleague online has spoken about — but also the best interests of the child.
I think that has come up a bit, both today and in the past. We know that it’s not a hypothesis; it’s a reality that it is integrated in this bill. We also know that what this bill is trying to address may not be for all children but for the children who are currently getting excluded. This bill is seeking to include the people who are the most vulnerable and who may not be covered already. I think it is fairly thorough in its breadth.
I will invite my colleagues to answer also.
Ms. Okai: Thank you, Danielle. This bill seeks to remove the barriers that we have been talking about. If Bill S-235 passes, I think this vulnerable group of children will receive the right services and become Canadian citizens. It actually tears down the barriers that we spoke about. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton: Thank you, senator. That’s a great question. One issue that could be added to this bill is provisions for the children themselves to be involved in this decision or at least be informed of it. It may seem like an obvious component of this type of process, but — as we see in the stories of survivors of the child welfare system who are well into adulthood before they are told that they are not Canadian citizens, as they had previously thought — it is deeply symptomatic of a culture in which the informed opinion of children receives little consideration.
To your previous question from the previous panel concerning the issue of children who may lose citizenship of another country to receive Canadian citizenship automatically, the option of asking them is always there. To Mr. Brouwer’s point, ensuring that they have the information necessary to make an informed decision would be a tremendous addition to the bill under consideration.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for your testimony today. I have two questions. Hopefully, I will be able to get them both in.
First, the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence is servicing all of Ontario. I’m not aware of a similar organization in any other province or territory. I’m assuming there aren’t any. If this bill were to pass, is that something that you think would be useful for Canada to consider? I will put this in a broader context because my other question is really about aging out of care. I am wondering if your organization began to do this work to develop this expertise because of the issues around aging out of care.
During COVID, we saw many provinces making changes regarding aging out of care. There are no national standards around aging out of care. Could you speak to how those are connected, if they informed your work and how that may be relevant if this bill is passed?
Ms. Moellenkamp: I can start with that. Absolutely, if we were able to have a national organization. I shared that when we brought senior leaders together from across Canada in 2020. That was their request — namely, that if there were funding, why couldn’t CWICE do this across Canada? We have done work with other government bodies who have asked us to consult and support other provinces as well because of the expertise that we have learned. I think it is something that we could share and that would help with both consistency and implementation.
To your question about national standards around children aging out of care, I would love to see that in terms of addressing issues around identity, education, health — all of the areas where we know our children and youth, when they leave us, are not doing as well as children and youth in the general population. So, how do we make those changes?
In Ontario, we recently made changes to that. We are now supporting children and youth up to age 23, recognizing that this work to be able to ensure they are connected in Canada and addressing issues gives us a longer period of time to work and spend with them. If we could have some consistency around that and some consistent investments across provinces, then I think we would see changes nationally for our children and youth.
Ms. Okai: I want to add, with respect to the first part of the question, that the Child Welfare Immigration Centre of Excellence, or CWICE, is already being tapped into by other provinces in terms of training. It is becoming national, though we are going slowly. About four provinces are already receiving training from us, child welfare professionals. If this bill is passed, we hope that this can go national.
Senator Bernard: We are all wondering which provinces.
Ms. Ungara: That would apply to Ontario, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and, most recently, Manitoba.
The Chair: We have senators from all provinces and territories here.
Ms. Ungara: I forgot to mention P.E.I.; I’m sorry.
The Chair: Maybe there is some backdoor advocacy that we can do.
Let me ask all our witnesses — just one answer each, please — this: Ontario and other provinces in Canada have a children’s ombudsman who has a particular role investigating complaints and issues that may be systemic in the system. Has the children’s ombudsman of any province put out a report on this particular feature of misgovernance, if I may call it that?
Ms. Moellenkamp: I haven’t seen it, in terms of attention to this issue. However, we’ve worked collaboratively with our former provincial advocate on these issues to address some of these challenges. When we were developing CWICE, they were part of the process. But, as we’ve heard, there may be some data challenges in those pieces and, frankly, a lack of awareness around how this intersects with the child welfare system.
When you don’t understand the impacts and the barriers facing children and youth, I don’t think that there is that larger system response around how we hold systems and provinces accountable around this.
The Chair: We are dealing with a typically Canadian problem. We are talking about services for children, which are provincial. We are taking about a national responsibility. We are talking about money and power. Hopefully, we will be able to reflect all your wisdom when we report to the chamber on this bill.
Senator Petitclerc: I have a simple question. I am trying to get a full picture. Am I correct in assuming that the child welfare families, if they don’t have support from a centre or something, don’t have a responsibility or incentive — or any encouragement — to embark on a process of obtaining citizenship? To put it simply, is it that they don’t know or that it’s not their job?
Ms. Mukai: It’s not a question of them not knowing what their responsibility is as a potential Canadian citizen. It’s a question of them not being able to access services, understand the forms — some of them — or even have a computer to fill out an application. They don’t have the money to pay the $630 required because a youth who is living in a bus shelter is unable to obtain $630. A person who is going from shelter to couch or couch to shelter will lose their documents; that’s another issue. They lose everything, and now they have nothing. They don’t even know where to start the thread.
Some of them, luckily, have been fortunate enough to contact their old case worker, even though years have passed, and the case worker puts the person in touch with CWICE.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
Ms. Okai: In terms of child welfare professionals, historically, child welfare had nothing to do with immigration. That’s why they don’t even look at that in an assessment. Now we are saying they need to do a holistic assessment. If a child is coming into care, they ask for documentation. They see if they are not a citizen. If they are taking care of their emotional and physical needs, immigration needs to be part of it. That’s the education and part of the training that we are offering to child welfare professionals.
Now they are beginning to turn their minds to it, and they are reaching out to CWICE for help and support with the services.
Senator Petitclerc: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hamilton, I have a question for you. This must not just be a problem that Canada faces. Immigrant minors or migrant minors must face challenges in Germany, Sweden and, of course, the United States. Is any other jurisdiction that you know of addressing this challenge in the way we are or in other ways?
Mr. Hamilton: I would say, senator, that the previous conversation really struck on the Canadian challenge here, which is that child welfare is often administrated at the provincial or territorial level, and we are looking at immigration at the federal level.
In other jurisdictions, there is a more streamlined integration of child welfare and immigration in government departments, not to mention the Children’s Aid Society structure that we have here in Ontario, which further decentralizes it.
To answer your question, for better or worse, it is streamlined. To your previous point about striving for national standards or establishing CWICE in every jurisdiction, that is beyond the scope of this particular bill, but this is where a federal commissioner or ombudsperson for children would really come in handy. That office could act as a sort of central clearing house for these issues, particularly as they pertain to federal jurisdiction over immigration, et cetera, but also for establishing consistent standards. In the child rights world, the lack of standards across provinces and territories is a well-documented concern when it comes to Canada’s implementation of the convention.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we’ve heard arguments in the chamber about the establishment of a federal ombudsman for children.
Senator Bernard: This is a very important question, so I appreciate the opportunity to have it on the record. The previous panel talked about the overrepresentation of Black and brown children who are impacted by these laws and therefore by what we’re trying to address. I know that this was one of the issues for the One Vision One Voice project.
I’m not sure if the One Vision One Voice project led to some of your work. I’m not sure if they were able to finish their work. Would some of you like to comment on that question of overrepresentation and issues around racism, and anti-Black racism in particular?
Ms. Moellenkamp: I can answer that. One Vision One Voice is still working in Ontario to address overrepresentation. Really, as a system, we are looking at how we address anti-Black racism within our service delivery model and within our structures.
When we talk about racism, it’s in multiple systems: the policies, the legislation and all we create. For those of us in child welfare, when we think of overrepresentation and disproportionality, we often see it right from the front door because we’re working with multiple systems, from education to police to health care to all of those pieces.
Our work in child welfare involves asking: How do we advocate with those systems? How do we start to change our models to do things differently?
I spoke about some of the programs. I can give you a Peel example where we work with ethnocultural partners to start to address that. We have programs working with our Black community, our South Asian community, our Southeast Asian community, because we need to customize our response. We’ve done that in Peel, which is a microcosm of many other communities in Canada. It’s probably one of the most diverse communities in Canada. We are starting to see how we are addressing that spread out in Ontario.
We’ve made great strides in terms of returning children and youth home to their communities and not bringing them into care. But we have heard about overrepresentation. We know Black children and youth are 2.2 times more likely to be investigated; Indigenous children are six times more likely. We still have to do that work, and we have to be able to change the system through the structures and the policies, but we also have to do our work in child welfare, and we are continuing to do that. We know it’s part of the work we need to continue to do.
How is it connected to this? When we think about children or youth in the community and who’s approved, who’s able to access resources and get those supports, and who faces barriers, we definitely see a disproportionate number of Black and racialized children and youth who are coming to these systems and facing these barriers.
We need to do better. Even though the work of CWICE and One Vision One Voice are not connected, they are very intertwined because the children and youth who are affected are often from similar communities, and we need to do more.
Mr. Hamilton: Senator, there is also an issue of pathologizing when it comes to not only which children are in the child welfare system but what future it has in store for them. With regard to the current bill, obviously, the issue has come to be defined by this protective right to not face deportation; however, there are, of course, positive and active rights around securing citizenship as well.
Citizenship is a gateway to many civil rights, including the right to vote and stand for office; to receive certain forms of health care, education and employment; to serve in the country’s Armed Forces; and so on.
Children who grow in Canada’s child welfare systems deserve to be regarded as human beings, rights holders and prospective Canadians who can grow up to become MPs and senators and other respected members of Canadian society, rather than a marginalized class of children with limited rights who grow up to face criminal convictions and potential deportation.
The Chair: That is a wonderful aspiration upon which to close this panel. Thank you very much to all our witnesses.
I want to say one thing to Peel Children’s Aid Society. As we’ve studied this particularly troublesome situation for more than two years, I’ve always been worried about the lack of accountability and responsibility borne by children’s welfare societies as they abrogate their responsibilities to the most vulnerable people in their care. The leadership of Peel Children’s Aid Society has restored my faith. Congratulations to you for your leadership. Thank you very much, all of you, for being here.
(The committee adjourned.)