THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 17, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 3:58 p.m. [ET] to study Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025).
Senator Rosemary Moodie (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Welcome, senators. My name is Rosemary Moodie. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to have senators introduce themselves.
Senator Osler: Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler from Manitoba.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, also from Manitoba.
Senator Senior: Senator Paulette Senior from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Arnold: Dawn Arnold, also from New Brunswick.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Suze Youance from Quebec.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cuzner: Minister, welcome. Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
Senator Arnot: Welcome, minister. David Arnot from the home of the Grey Cup champions, the Saskatchewan Roughriders.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today, we begin our study of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025). Joining us today for the first panel, we welcome The Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. Thank you for joining us today. For your opening statement, you will have five minutes, which will be followed by questions from committee members. Minister, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
The Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, P.C., M.P., Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for inviting me this afternoon.
I begin by acknowledging that we’re gathering on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
Bill C-3 seeks to resolve the status of the remaining lost Canadians and bring fair access and clarity to citizenship by descent.
[English]
As senators know, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down key provisions of the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent, finding that they violated equality and mobility rights under the Charter. Bill C-3 ensures that a child born or adopted abroad by a Canadian with a substantial connection to this country has access to citizenship, no matter which parent passes it on or where the family lives. That substantial connection must be proven through physical presence in Canada for at least 1,095 days before the child’s birth or adoption.
[Translation]
Some senators have asked whether these days should fall within a fixed window, such as three years within the last five. We considered that carefully. But citizenship by descent is not naturalization. It’s not granting citizenship to someone new. It’s verifying that a Canadian born or adopted abroad has a substantial connection to this country before they can pass on citizenship to their child also born or adopted abroad.
A five-year window risks excluding people who have built their connection to Canada in stages. The only test that properly applies is the substantial connection test for the parent. That ensures fairness for families while protecting the value of Canadian citizenship.
[English]
It’s worth noting that many affected by Bill C-3 are children. I really want to stress that. Because the first-generation limit was imposed in 2009, those directly impacted are 16 and younger. Since citizenship by descent is established at birth or granted after adoption, future cases will likely arise early in life.
We’ve heard concerns that Bill C-3 could open the floodgates to new citizens. Based upon available evidence, we expect applications in the tens of thousands over time, not hundreds of thousands. Between January 2024 and July 2025, we received just over 4,200 applications under the interim measure for those affected by the first-generation limit. I have staff with me who can better explain these elements, if need be. Previous amendments in 2009 and 2015 saw around 20,000 people apply for proof of citizenship.
In all instances, we did not see a surge in applications.
The net fiscal impact should be limited. Some in this cohort are already in Canada, contributing to general revenues, and those abroad are generally not eligible for most domestic social programs; you still have to qualify for those, even if you come here for the provincial/territorial social programs.
[Translation]
Bill C-3 is about ensuring that no Canadian family is left on the margins of citizenship because of outdated rules. It upholds fairness, protects equality, and honours the generations of Canadians who have built their lives across borders while keeping roots here at home. I look forward to working with you to see this important bill become law.
[English]
Those are my comments. I look forward to any questions.
If I have any more time of the five minutes, I will simply say that this is not the first time this bill has been here. In fact, it has been a number of years in the making. I just happen to be the lucky minister who has inherited trying to put it on the other side, hopefully, and make it law.
Again, I’m here with very excellent people at the table. I have had many briefings, because it might not be a law that applies to many people, but for the people for whom it will be applicable, this is their life. This is very important. It is a complex piece of legislation — more than one would normally think when they look at it. Thank you so much.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for their question, which includes the answer.
Senator Osler: Minister, thank you for being here today.
In December 2024, this committee conducted a pre-study of Bill C-71, which was a bill to amend the Citizenship Act. This committee made the following remarks in its report:
. . . concerns were raised by some stakeholders about the requirements for recognizing the citizenship of the children of internationally born adoptees. Your committee heard diverging perspectives on this point and, therefore, encourages the Government of Canada to engage with relevant stakeholders to further investigate this issue and consider amendments to the bill, if required.
As you know, that bill died on the Order Paper in January 2025. Bill C-3 is a direct reintroduction of Bill C-71, yet the same concerns persist around adopted children and citizenship by descent. The testimonies presented during this committee’s pre-study of Bill C-71 do not appear to have influenced the drafting of Bill C-3. Because the bill continues to treat adopted children differently than natural-born children, the Canadian Bar Association has raised this as a concern under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the Canadian Bar Association urges an amendment to Bill C-3 to ensure that adopted children are granted Canadian citizenship retroactively to their date of birth to ensure that all children of Canadian citizens are treated equally under the law.
Minister, prior to Bill C-3 being tabled, did the Government of Canada engage with relevant stakeholders to further investigate this issue? If so, why does the current framework for citizenship by descent continue to treat adoptees differently from children born to Canadian citizens?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you for that question.
Let me just make preliminary remarks and then turn it over to the officials who are with me in order to answer more.
The intent and the structure of the bill is to treat children adopted and born abroad as similarly as possible, including applying the same rules for them to pass on citizenship to their children born or adopted abroad.
From my briefings, the approach has been guided by case law. Bill C-3 does not alter the existing framework governing international adoptions; rather, it extends access to citizenship beyond the first generation where a Canadian parent’s substantial connection has been demonstrated.
After Bill C-3, if it comes into force in its present form, Canadians who are born or adopted abroad will be able to pass on citizenship to their child subsequently born or adopted abroad in the same manner.
Would you mind if I turn it to —
Senator Osler: Can officials tell us if consultations with the relevant stakeholders occurred between Bill C-71 and the drafting of Bill C-3?
The Chair: You have 50 seconds in which to do so.
Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question, senator.
As you may know, Bill C-3 is, more or less, a mirror of Bill C-71, so there are no substantive changes. When we introduced and when the government introduced Bill C-71 and Bill C-3, in each case, we had met with stakeholders, including adoptee stakeholders, to discuss the content of the bill and to hear their concerns.
Bill C-3 remains the way it is because it is addressing the court’s decision on the first-generation limit. The court’s decision was not directly related to adoptees. We are simply taking the bill and extending access to citizenship to adoptees as well in order to ensure that those adopted abroad are treated as similarly as possible to those born abroad.
Senator Hay: Equity can actually be hard to come by in many places and in Canada. How does Bill C-3 re-enforce Canada’s identity as an inclusive nation that values family unity and diversity, and what message does this send to people in Canada and to the international community?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you for that question. Again, some of that is subjective. Other parts of it would be, I guess, objective, but it depends on the individual. From my perspective, there are people who have ties to a country — and here we’re talking about Canadians who may not necessarily have lived here all their lives, but through work or through other reasons may have had to leave Canada. So this will allow these people to be able to give that to their children, so that they can pass it on. I’ll give one really good example. As a Nova Scotian, we have all kinds of rural communities and a lot of summer cottages where children come back to visit their grandparents every summer. It happens to all of our communities. These grandchildren are not born in Canada, but for all intents and purposes, when you see them, they are as Canadian as any of us because they have an attachment to the country. They have an attachment to the community. They have an attachment to the people living there. So by us saying 1,095 days — and it is not cumulative, it is over before you were born — those children are then allowed to pass on that citizenship to their children, whereas if we were to limit it or make it consecutive, it would really exclude that. We are citizens of the world, most people would say these days. People are mobile. People travel. We go to different places. It is the attachment to the country that I think is really important, and Canada has always been a welcoming country, and this is not just welcoming. This is part of identity and identifying that this is your home.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much. Madam Minister, you mentioned that this has come to you after many previous ministers, and I want to thank you and your officials for being here and say that I think you are probably the perfect minister to bring this one home. I also want to observe, with the greatest of respect, that the Senate has really worked hard to accommodate and facilitate the schedule for this bill. We all know it is a long time coming, and we all know that it is very important. I do want to observe, minister, and this is more hopefully for you to take back to the cabinet, that as we are here, accelerating, doing everything we can to properly review this bill and then hopefully adopt it, at the same time, another committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, is facing a bill that has many of the same issues — the restoration of status — and the battle has gone on for decades of Indigenous women who have litigated for decades, won those cases, and here we have before us, from the cabinet, a bill that is this small when the issue is this big. May I just note the irony in this: That here we have Bill C-3 — and it is this big — and then we have Bill S-2, it is only this big, again?
My question is about what is in place to notify Canadians who live abroad on the assumption that this bill is successful, as we hope it will be — what are the mechanisms that are going to be put in place and mobilized so that Canadians scattered around the globe will actually know about the changes in this law?
Ms. Metlege Diab: That’s an excellent question, actually. They gave me a little briefing Friday morning in terms of what comes next. Hopefully once it is adopted here, there is an implementation plan. Again, nothing is set in stone. We would need Royal Assent, and then Treasury Board would need to approve it through an order-in-council to bring the legislation in force. We would be targeting the second week of December to do that at a Treasury Board meeting. Then we would need to update documents and forms and do a bit of training and engagement with Global Affairs Canada, Canadian Border Services Agency, IRCC and officials.
The department will have proactive communication to inform all persons who may be impacted of their potential change in status and to guide those individuals to IRCC online resources for more information on that. Quite frankly, as I said in the beginning, I know there is fear that we’re going to get hundreds of thousands. Our evidence hasn’t shown that over the last years where this has been an issue. But we also know not everybody is going to jump to apply either, but for those who want to, the information will be there, and I know the department has been working on this for a long time, as you said, and I want to thank the senators and the Senate Committee and everybody who has been working on this for a number of years now. Thank you for all your work. I’ll take the other one back.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for being with us here today. As you know, minister, Bill C-3 had the predecessor which we are talking about, Bill C-71, and that was not able to be passed due to prorogation, and the timeline to pass this legislation assigned by the courts has been slightly extended into January as we now know, as opposed to this week. It is still clear that we need to pass this legislation swiftly to right some wrongs and grant those rights to those “Lost Canadians.”
Can you explain to us how important it is that this bill be passed swiftly and what would the scenario be if this committee were to amend this legislation and what the impact of that might be?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Could you ask me the question again?
Senator Coyle: Can you explain how important it is that this legislation is passed swiftly? Within that time frame that we now have, which is slightly extended, what would you see the impact of an amendment being on that timeline?
Ms. Metlege Diab: The timeline has been amended by the courts to January. The date is prior to us returning to Parliament, and Parliament will adjourn the second week of December. We know that we need to pass this from Parliament — from the House of Commons — by the second week of December because we will physically not be back to do that. Failure to pass the legislation, I think, would probably do exactly what many parliamentarians do not want. That is, it will open it up so that citizenship by descent will have no limit, and that’s exactly what a lot of people don’t want. So here we have put a substantial connection test and other things. The alternative is not acceptable, to leave it open. We know we need to do something. As I said, the briefing that I had indicated that even after you pass it, it still needs to go to Royal Assent and to an order-in-council by the Treasury Board, et cetera.
If you were to make amendments here at the Senate, which is your prerogative, my understanding of the process, which is limited, quite frankly — that’s why I have people with me — is that it would then go back and be debated in the House of Commons. That’s my understanding, because then it would open it up, whereas now we have completed debate at the House, and that’s why we’re here. That’s my understanding of the process.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today, and thank you for having a meeting with me last week, which was helpful. I appreciated your openness to discuss the issues.
I commend you because I see this bill cures the issues raised in the Bjorkquist decision for two groups — the children born abroad to Canadian parents living abroad and children adopted abroad by Canadian parents who are living abroad. But there is a third group, and that’s the intercountry group, children born in a foreign country who are adopted by Canadian parents living in Canada and brought back to Canada to live pursuant to the strict rules of adoption. With that particular cohort — I call that group 3, because it has not been talked about in the past. I see this is the flaw.
The only way to cure it is to amend this legislation. But I’m not going to ask for an amendment to the legislation. I’m going to ask you and your colleagues in the ministry to meet with certain groups, particularly Kat Lanteigne, Don Chapman and other reasonable people who have been working on these issues for over a decade in much frustration. Why I say that is this: In this group 3, this substantial connection test is unlawful. It cannot be applied. You cannot compare group 3 with group 2 in law. Why? Because it is a breach of section 26 (2) of the Hague Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It’s a breach of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, discrimination on the grounds of national origin, and probably a breach of section 7, security of person.
Now, I say that because group 3 children — intercountry adoptees — must be treated in the same manner as in-country adoption, domestic adoption. That’s the comparative group. A child who is born in Zambia and adopted by Canadian parents who live in Toronto, and the child grows up in Toronto, must be treated in the same way as any other child who was born in Toronto and adopted by Canadian parents. That’s the comparative group. So you cannot apply the substantial connection test to group 3. That’s the fundamental flaw.
You and your colleagues may disagree with some of that, but I know that some very well-placed lawyers — I believe the Canadian Bar Association is of the same very strong opinion — also Mr. Choudhry and Ms. Silcoff from two different firms in Toronto agree with what I have just said. This is the flaw. It will, in fact, force Katherine Lanteigne and others, who represent 4,000 lost Canadian children, to litigate. That’s anathema. I would like you to commit to working with those stakeholder groups to come up with a reasonable solution, and the reasonable solution probably is an amendment to the act at a later date, because I understand the process and what you have told me. I am convinced that you are right about that. This bill will die if it goes back to the House of Commons.
I’m asking you to commit to working with the stakeholder groups who have a lot to say, are very knowledgeable and have lived for 10 years in frustration. Don’t condemn them to the high cost of litigation — some millions of dollars — and 5 or 10 years before it arrives at the Supreme Court of Canada. There should be a legal solution in legislation.
The Chair: You have run out of time.
Senator Arnot: The answer is yes.
The Chair: The minister will not have an opportunity to answer, so we have to move on.
Senator Senior: Thank you, minister and staff for being here.
I have two questions. I will ask them both. Could you tell us whether or not you have conducted the Gender-based Analysis Plus on Bill C-3, and what the findings were? That’s my first question. My next question is this: In a brief concerning Bill S-245 the Canadian Citizens Rights Council warned that for substantial connection tests based on a person’s presence in a country, relevant evidence may be hard to find and difficult to verify, especially after a long period of time has passed. My question is this: What evidence will applicants need to provide to prove the 1,095 of cumulative physical presence in Canada?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Let me take your second question first. The department already has mechanisms for assessing physical presence. It is something that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, already does. For example, when people apply for citizenship, that’s exactly what it does: It already tracks physical presence. We also have some exit and entry data stats, which the department would be able to access from the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, if need be. It is possible that the department is doing it in some situations.
The burden is always on the applicant who is applying to show that, but there are mechanisms for the department and the officers who work in this field to track it.
Senator Senior: Is that the only evidence required?
Ms. Metlege Diab: The only evidence for physical presence?
Senator Senior: To apply. Yes.
Ms. Metlege Diab: The 1,095 days — yes. That substantial connection measured by 1,095 days of the parent prior to the child’s birth or adoption.
Ms. Hoang: In addition to substantial connection, there are other data elements that need to be collected to verify. For example, a key one is to ensure that you have a Canadian parent who is able to pass on citizenship to you. There is an application process, one that is already very similar to what we have under the proof of citizenship that will be leveraged to implement Bill C-3.
Ms. Metlege Diab: On the issue of gender-based analysis, do you mind answering that? I’m happy as a woman in this country to have the same rights with respect to this as a man. In some countries we don’t have that right.
Ms. Hoang: In developing any type of policy that leads to legislation, we conduct a GBA plus analysis. I can’t tell you exactly all the results from that analysis, but overall, I can say that there were no concerns. If anything, it was to address and correct some of the issues that have been raised to date.
The Department of Justice also does an assessment of a Charter risk. Perhaps I could turn it over to my colleague Alain Laurencelle to speak to that Charter statement.
Alain Laurencelle, Manager and Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: With any government bill, the Department of Justice will conduct a review from a Charter perspective. It did so for this particular bill. The Charter statement was introduced in the House of Commons, and it concluded that there weren’t any issues with respect to the Charter. Typically in a context of citizenship law, we would look at section 15 among others, but we haven’t identified any issues.
The Chair: I would ask if that gender-based analysis could be sent to us in writing, please. Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: Thank you, minister, for being here today. Certainly, my depth on this bill isn’t that of my esteemed colleagues who have wrestled with it. I would not go note for note with Senator Arnot on it, for sure. My question won’t be as deep in the weeds. But reading the notes on it, the individual stories are very compelling. Each one is very different, but the impact is great for those on whom it does touch.
Some concerns have been raised, and they were raised in the chamber recently, with regard to security clearance and not subjecting applicants to any kind of security screening. Can you elaborate on that, minister? Why was that approach taken?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you for that. That approach was taken for a couple of reasons. One, the idea of having this legislation is to give those individuals the right to be Canadians because they have the right to be Canadians. If you are a Canadian, you’re not going through a language test and a security assessment. That’s one. You don’t need to pass a language test if you’re a Canadian.
Senator Cuzner: A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
Ms. Metlege Diab: That’s exactly right. I recall we had a great prime minister in the past who said that when I was much younger. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. That is exactly correct.
It’s also to remedy the majority of cases for those who were born after 2009, who, by definition, would still be minors. Our hope is that children are not criminalized out there; some people seem to think they possibly should be.
Again, citizens born abroad after the bill becomes law will be newborn babies or young children when their parents apply, so it shouldn’t matter. Babies talk all languages. You can probably understand them as a parent, regardless of what Google language they talk. They shouldn’t be posing any security risks. That sums it up in a very plain kind of way.
Senator Burey: Minister, thank you so much and for all the work that your team has done on this important bill and also with this committee.
In your second-reading speech, you said, minister:
We recognize that citizenship cannot and should not be imposed on people who do not wish to hold it . . . .
You went on to say:
. . . In many countries, dual citizenship is not permitted in certain jobs, including government, military and national security positions. In some countries, having citizenship in another country can present legal, professional or other barriers . . . . That is why the bill would also provide access to the same simplified renunciation process . . . .
Could you elaborate on what this underlined simplified renunciation process is? What were the challenges in the 2009 process that was instituted? Let’s go there.
Ms. Metlege Diab: That’s an excellent question, and it’s one that I think most people miss. The intent is obviously to give people citizenship, but the reality is not everyone wants to be a citizen, even of Canada, right? But, also, in reality, dual citizenship, if they somehow get it, will hurt them. So, in this legislation, there is a way to renounce simply. There is a simplified way to do that, and that is an important point.
Senator Burey: Could you elaborate on what that process is like?
Ms. Hoang: Persons who become Canadian citizens by operation of law before the coming-into-force date will have access to a simplified renunciation process as long as they were not previously granted citizenship because that was an active step on their part to seek citizenship. It’s an easier way, if you will, than the regular renunciation process. Fewer pieces of information need to be provided, and it’s also free. That’s a key difference versus the regular renunciation process which you must pay to obtain.
Senator Burey: Going on Senator McPhedran’s question, how are you planning to let people know that they are now citizens and that they can renounce it, if they want?
Ms. Hoang: As the minister mentioned earlier, a proactive communication will go out when the bill comes into force, so we can communicate out to those who may be impacted by Bill C-3. Part of that communication is engagement domestically. As you meet with stakeholders later this afternoon and this evening, they’ll attest that we’ve been meeting with them over the past few years as the various bills have been introduced in Parliament. We discussed the content of the bill and shared with them how it will be implemented. We will also engage with our departmental officials, both domestically and internationally, particularly Global Affairs Canada, to help spread the message to those who will benefit from Bill C-3 about what they need to do to seek proof of citizenship and, for those cases in which they do not want citizenship, how they can apply for a simplified renunciation.
Senator Burey: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: I’m going to give you an opportunity to answer Senator Arnot’s question. I, too, have similar concerns. I’m with the Canadian Bar Association on this. I heard Ms. Hoang say earlier that adoptees will be treated as similarly as possible. That is not “the same.” I don’t know what “as similarly as possible” means. We need some clarity there, but I would like to hear a response to Senator Arnot’s question. Will you meet with the stakeholders and try to find a solution? And do you see any policy solutions to this which would not require legislation?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Bill C-3, as we’ve said already, does not alter the existing framework. It does aim to similarly treat children born abroad and children adopted abroad to Canadian parents. That is the aim of this —
Senator Muggli: Similarly or the same?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I believe the same.
Ms. Hoang: Similarly.
Ms. Metlege Diab: The same? Can you take that?
Senator Muggli: This is what Senator Arnot was talking about. There’s a Group No. 3.
Ms. Hoang: If I may take a step back, I will explain the adoptions process. To obtain citizenship via the intercountry adoption process, there are two key steps. The first step is the adoption process. The second step is the seeking-citizenship process.
Senator Muggli: I am sorry to interrupt, but I would like to hear from the minister whether she’s prepared to meet with those stakeholders about that third group that Senator Arnot was referencing. Is there a policy solution versus legislation opportunity here for that group?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I can’t answer you whether there’s a policy solution. I don’t know the answer to that.
Senator Muggli: Is that something you’d be prepared to look into? Also, would you be prepared to meet with the stakeholders?
Ms. Metlege Diab: I don’t see an issue. Why wouldn’t we be? Of course, yes.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Thank you to the minister.
I think Senator Muggli had exactly the same question as I do. I would like to understand the nuances between the two situations. I think adopted children should have exactly the same rights as biological children. If that isn’t the case, why not?
I would also like to better understand whether that has to do with the court’s decision. The court’s decision did not mention adopted children. Is that why your solution today doesn’t fully address the matter of adopted children?
Those are my two questions. Could you answer them, please? Thank you.
Ms. Metlege Diab: It’s true that the court did not address adoption. That’s why it isn’t included in the bill.
When I became minister, I was told on day two, “Here is the bill, and you will have to introduce it.” It’s true. Honestly, you can even look at the dates. It’s exactly the same bill that was introduced before Parliament was prorogued.
Senator Boudreau: I would like to know the nuances and find out why there are two categories of adopted children.
[English]
Ms. Hoang: To answer your question in a different order, the court’s decision did not address adopted children; it addressed children who are born abroad who are subject to the first‑generation limit.
Given the intent and structure of the Citizenship Act is to treat children who are born abroad and adopted as similarly as possible to children born abroad, we extended access for children who are adopted abroad beyond the first generation, as long as the parent can demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada. It did not change the way the adoptions framework operates; it simply extended access.
The way it works is based on jurisprudence, which I can turn to my colleague to speak to and share with you why it is the way it is. It is based on jurisprudence.
It’s important to understand the two processes. One is the adoption process, and two, the citizenship process.
For the adoption process, a Canadian parent can be living inside or outside of Canada in order to adopt a child. They do not have to be living in Canada at the time of adopting a child. For adoptions completed in Canada, the adoptions fall within the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments. It is the provinces and territories who set the laws and requirements of how adoptions are governed; it is not the federal government who is responsible for that.
To access citizenship for the child, the adopted parent does not have to be living in Canada. When I say “accessing citizenship,” I’m speaking specifically to the direct grant of citizenship, often as we will call it the section 5.1. The parent does not have to be living in Canada. The parent can be living outside of Canada.
Once the adoption is completed, there is no requirement under the Citizenship Act for a child to return to Canada and lives with a parent, or for the child to remain abroad; that is the choice of the family.
In reality, a Canadian parent can adopt a child while living abroad. They can also complete the adoption process while being abroad. There is no obligation for them to return to Canada, as per the Citizenship Act, in order to maintain or to keep their citizenship status.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for allowing me to ask a question. I’d like to continue along the same lines, because I find this rather difficult to understand.
I have to tell you that I’m the mother of a child adopted abroad. I’m trying to understand. You give different rights to two different types of adopted children. Those who are adopted in Canada, who might go overseas and go through a process, would be exempt from demonstrating the substantial connection, while those who are adopted abroad — which is my own journey — would have to go through the substantial connection test. That’s been seen as discrimination — not by me; I’m not an expert — in the Choudhry and Silcoff brief that was submitted to the committee.
Why require that children adopted abroad demonstrate the substantial connection, when we know that most adoptive parents live in Canada, and that that’s actually one of the conditions to adopt?
[English]
Ms. Hoang: If I understand your question correctly, senator, you’re asking why is it, when the adoption is taking place in Canada, they’re being treated as if they were born in Canada versus a child who was born abroad and adopted treated like they were born abroad?
Children who are born in Canada, they obtain their citizenship because they’re born in Canada, not through any citizenship rights or the Citizenship Act.
If anyone has children in Canada, regardless whether they put them up for adoption or not, those children are Canadian citizens.
With respect to intercountry adoptions, these are children who are born outside of Canada. The Citizenship Act aims to treat all children born outside of Canada as similarly as possible, because there are also instances where families will grow their families through surrogacy, or assisted human reproductive mechanisms. Those children are also treated like they’re born abroad.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Aren’t you creating a new discrimination between children adopted abroad and children adopted in Canada?
Ms. Hoang: What I will do is turn to my colleague, Mr. Laurencelle, who will outline the jurisprudence that set up why the adoptions framework is structured the way it is.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurencelle: To clarify, someone who was born on Canadian soil, except in very specific circumstances, gets citizenship by virtue of being born on Canadian soil. Adoption isn’t relevant in that context.
It’s our understanding that these third-party groups are comparing the children who are adopted abroad and come back to Canada, and the children who are adopted abroad but don’t come back to Canada. What I can say is that there’s relevant jurisprudence. We can provide the committee with references dating back to 1999, as well as a subsequent case, in 2007 or 2008, which dealt with the issue of adopted children from the point of view of the Canadian Human Rights Act and section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those two laws tend to cross-pollinate, so to speak.
What those two decisions have provided as a legal framework is that, for the purposes of citizenship and the applicable rules, children adopted abroad are compared to children born abroad. That’s the basis for the policy framework of the current law, which has existed since 2007, which has been expanded with provisions for granting citizenship to adopted children, and which includes rules governing citizenship by descent. That’s the basis for the principle of trying to treat children adopted abroad in the same way as children born abroad.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I understand what you’re saying.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, colleagues, for indulging me as a non-member of this committee. This bill is of great interest. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and ask a question.
First, I want to raise an adjacent issue. I greatly appreciated that you raised the issue of adoptions in this bill. I want to mention the issue of Canadian citizens who are posted abroad on behalf of Canada, either as diplomats or CAF personnel, who either adopt or marry abroad, and whose applications for permanent resident, or PR, for a spouse take a long time. Could you address that?
The criticism made about this bill suggests there would be Canadians of convenience — a term that is used — who would benefit from this bill. I suppose it refers to people who don’t have an interest in being Canadian, but at certain times would suddenly be interested for whatever reason. What is your response to people who refer to the term “Canadians of convenience”?
Ms. Metlege Diab: Thank you. Senator. Let me talk about your first point first, even though you didn’t directly ask that, but I got a briefing on the Crown servants and these are people who serve in armed military or diplomatic or whatever. Just to let people listening know, there is an exemption where if their children are born abroad while they’re serving abroad, they are Canadians, just to lay that out which is important to know. They won’t be required to demonstrate substantial connection because they are in service of their country.
As to your second point, people all their opinions on that, and we respect on this side of the House all opinions. Generally speaking, I would say to you if individuals are going to that great length to have their children wanting to be Canadians, I would say that’s a good thing. Canada has always been a country where we welcome diversity and people. These are people that will become our doctors, nurses and our engineers at one point after they all grow up. Certainly, if people are concerned they’re going to come and take your housing and health care and so on, if they have family or grandparents here, chances are they’re visiting them, they’ve got good connection with them, they become global citizens.
Nowadays, we talk about people wanting to come to Canada and study but you don’t necessarily need to stay here, you can go anywhere in the world and bring Canada to wherever you are in the world and we value that. If people want to have a connection with Canada because they take pride in being Canadians, that’s a positive thing and there’s nothing wrong with that.
We’ve built a system here that is Charter compliant, as you’ve heard. Justice has looked at it. Courts have also said that what is there is not working. You have to make changes to it. We have a substantial connection test that people have to meet and there are ways to meet it. If and when they come to Canada and want to apply for other things, just like everybody that is here, there are steps. Provinces and territories have their own legislation and requirements.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: I would like you to come back to two points that I find very positive in this bill. The first is that the court injunction deals only with citizenship by descent, while this bill makes it possible to bring back lost Canadians, particularly those adopted abroad. Finally, as part of the changes and amendments, there emerged two categories of children adopted abroad: those who were able to get citizenship by naturalization and those who got it by descent. The latter group couldn’t pass on Canadian citizenship to their children.
I think those two aspects of the bill are very important. I would have liked you to highlight them a bit more.
Ms. Metlege Diab: I understand your questions. As I said at the beginning, it’s complicated. It’s a simple bill, but it’s very complicated at the same time. I have many people here with me for that reason, because sometimes I find it very complicated.
[English]
Let me answer this question for you, and it’s a point. You have a family that lives in Canada is Canadian and have been here all their life. They have a couple of children who are born in Canada. All of a sudden that family goes abroad for whatever reason. They have a couple of more children and they’re born abroad. These are natural children. I have that in many situations. The children that are born abroad, natural birth, are not born in Canada. They are Canadians when they come back or they don’t come back, quite frankly, because their parents have lived here and most of the time those kids that are not born abroad will come back, because the parents come back or whatever, and will live here for the rest of their lives. They’re not born in Canada, so they’re not going to get a certificate that says, “you’re born in Canada.”
What this bill is doing is treating the ones who are adopted abroad the same as those kids who are also born abroad. I know it’s complicated. It’s almost like putting a legal hat back on that I had a decade and a half ago and I’m having difficulty, to be quite honest, because it is very difficult and very technical but we’re open to learn and listen more. What we’re trying to do here is deal with what we’ve been given and to try and move it the best and fairest way that is possible to really try and treat people the same that are in the same situation.
I do appreciate there are people that have children other than adopted and other than natural birth in different ways and those would not be caught. They would all be treated the same because it depends on the parents’ substantial connection.
I’m not sure how else to answer that. Was there anything else?
[Translation]
It isn’t easy, but I very much appreciate all the questions.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of this first panel. I would like to thank the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab for her testimony today, for joining us, and for being very present and answering us frankly.
Senators, joining us in person today for the second panel — and thank you for continuing and staying with us, those who were here before — from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Citizens Sector; Uyen Hoang, Director General, Citizenship; and Alain Laurencelle, Manager and Senior Counsel, Legal Services. From the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we welcome Jason Jacques, Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer; and Louis Perrault, Director of Policy. Thank you for joining us today.
Mr. Jacques, you will have five minutes for your opening statement, which will be followed by questions from committee members. The floor is yours.
[Translation]
Jason Jacques, Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer (Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer): Honourable senators, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
[English]
We published our independent cost estimate of Bill C-3, formerly known as Bill C-71, during the Forty-fourth Parliament in December 2024. Based upon our analysis, we estimate the total net cost of the proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act to be about $21 million over five years. The total number of persons who would be affected is estimated to be around 115,000 over the same period. Given that this estimate was prepared nearly a year ago, in October 2025 — about a month ago — we issued an information request to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to obtain the most recent data available. With the new data provided by the department, we were able to validate our model and ensure that the assumptions behind our estimate remain sound.
[Translation]
We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our analysis of Bill C-3. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jacques. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators, we will have four minutes for your question, which includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to a particular witness or to all witnesses.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My question is for IRCC, and it is about how Bill C-3 would be operationalized within your department.
With the federal public service being required to achieve 15% in savings over the next three years, you will need to manage growing demands with fewer resources. We heard the minister state in the last panel that she is expecting tens of thousands of applications. You have just heard our interim PBO estimate of 115,000 people. The media has estimated over a million people.
At the same time, processing times already extend for several months, with citizenship grants currently taking about 13 months.
Given those resource constraints and rising volumes, how will your department verify the applications, including the 1,095 cumulative days of physical presence in Canada, especially for individuals whose time in Canada may have been decades ago?
Catherine Scott, Assistant Deputy Minister, Settlement and Citizens Sector, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you for the question.
It is difficult to estimate the exact number of people who are impacted by this legislation, especially because the government has not tracked births overseas since 1977. But we do know that when the government remedied “Lost Canadians” in 2009 and 2015, we did not see a surge in applications. Not everyone who is impacted is going to come forward and seek a proof of citizenship.
If we look at the numbers since 2009 — “Lost Canadians” — a little over 20,000 individuals came forward to seek a proof of their citizenship. We did not see a rush or a surge, and that was over a period of about 16 years — around 20,000 individuals. At the highest point, we were seeing fewer than 2,400 applications per year.
If I can give a more recent comparator, we implemented interim measures after the Bjorkquist decision in January 2024, and from January 2024 until July 2025, we have received about 4,200 applications from individuals who were impacted by the first-generation limit.
Therefore, we do not expect a significant surge once the legislation is passed, and we are quite confident that we will be able to manage those volumes with the current resources in the department.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here.
I’m going to ask a question around legal durability, which is essential for policy stability and public trust. A law that fails constitutional tests risks undermining confidence in Canada and its citizenship framework.
From a legal perspective, how confident is IRCC that Bill C-3’s provisions, including the substantial connection test, will withstand Charter scrutiny, and are there areas where litigation risks remain?
Ms. Hoang: I’m going to turn the question over to Alain Laurencelle.
Mr. Laurencelle: Perhaps I will mention again that, as a matter of course, proposed laws would be scrutinized by the Department of Justice to ensure consistency with the Charter. That was done in this case. As indicated by the Charter Statement that was tabled in the House of Commons, it is the view of the Department of Justice that this bill and its contents are consistent with the Charter.
Senator Hay: Thank you very much.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much to each of you for being with us today. I really appreciate some of the answers when the minister was with us, responding to Senator Arnot and also Senator Youance. But I am still feeling very unclear about the rationale. I am understanding the distinction. I’m not understanding the rationale. How do we end up with a bill in front of us that so obviously discriminates? How did that happen?
Ms. Hoang: You are speaking about adoptions?
Senator McPhedran: The points raised by Senator Arnot.
Ms. Hoang: Thank you for the question, senator. As I mentioned earlier, the court’s decision did not address the adoptees. It addressed those who are subject to the first‑generation limit. To ensure that the intent and structure of the Citizenship Act are maintained in a way that treats children born abroad and adopted as similarly as possible to children born abroad — and when I say “as similarly as possible,” what I mean is accessing citizenship, in terms of how they access citizenship. Children who are born abroad, on and after the coming into force of the bill, their parents will have to demonstrate — the parent who was born outside of Canada or adopted outside of Canada — a substantial connection requirement to Canada in order to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad.
In the case of a child born and adopted abroad, beyond the first generation, their parent will have to demonstrate substantial connection in order for them to access the section 5.1, direct adoptions grant. So how they access citizenship are different, but the end result is the same. As long as they meet all the requirements, they will be able to have the citizenship by descent status. The intent and structure of the act is to ensure that these two cohorts are treated as similarly as possible, and this is based on jurisprudence, as Mr. Laurencelle has explained, previous case law that has led us to where we are today.
Senator Coyle: Could we just go a little step further, because Senator McPhedran was concerned about discrimination, and we have heard from Senator Arnot as well about this? Could you tell us which children born abroad, adoptees born abroad, are going to be treated differently from the two categories that you have just described that will be covered by this, just so that we get that distinction?
Ms. Hoang: If we were to remove the substantial connection requirement for parents who are living in Canada and completing their adoptions in Canada versus continuing to subject parents who are living outside of Canada and adopting their child outside of Canada, what that means is that you will give preferential treatment to the parent residing in Canada, but the outcome here is after the completion of the adoption, there is nothing to say that the parent who is residing in Canada at the time of the adoption completion could move outside of Canada with that child and continue to live abroad for the rest of their lives, versus the child who is being adopted by parents living outside of Canada, to move back to Canada and live in Canada for the rest of their lives. In that case, the preferential treatment will lead to different outcomes, where the child that returned to Canada, just because for that moment the adoption process was completed outside of Canada, despite the fact that they may be being raised in Canada for the rest of their lives, they would have to demonstrate a substantial connection requirement in order to pass on to subsequent children born or adopted abroad, versus the child who is adopted in Canada, but who may have moved outside of Canada for the rest of their lives, that child would not have to demonstrate a substantial connection to Canada.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for that description. I just want to clarify because I’m not sure that we all fully understood the answer to the scenario that Senator Miville-Dechêne posed. She adopted a child abroad. My understanding, in that scenario — and I want to understand for you — is that her child, who has Canadian citizenship, will be able to pass on her citizenship just as my child who was born in Canada would, under this?
Ms. Hoang: Yes. In that scenario, if I understood correctly, her child has returned to Canada, lived in Canada and would easily meet the substantial connection requirement of 1,095 days, and therefore would be able to pass on citizenship to any child that she gives birth abroad or adopt abroad again.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. We just needed that clarified because it was left a little bit unclear.
Senator Senior: Thank you for hanging in with us. We appreciate it. We’re doing our best. My question was alluded to earlier, I think by Senator McPhedran, with respect to the process once these kicks in. I am more interested in the timeline that it will take. Once someone puts in an application, what is the estimated or expected timeline for that citizenship to be in place for that person?
Ms. Scott: I can give you an indication based on the current timelines. So with the interim measures that have been put in place following the Bjorkquist decision, it is about a six-month period right now.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. This question is for Ms. Hoang. One of the things I am hearing tonight is that the Bjorkquist decision really didn’t deal adoptions, but there is a cohort here who is going to be on a second panel tonight — a third panel, I guess, who are going to talk about adoptions. They have got a lot of issues. They feel they need a remedy, and the remedy needs to be through legislation, probably. Maybe policy, but maybe regulations. So as I said earlier, I talked about group one and group two, but this third group, I believe, is lost. So my question really is this: Do you think it would be really good policy and provide really good solid legislation to further consult with the adoptee group, these parents — these panellists that will come later — who are fully ensconced in the “Lost Canadians” issue to get a better understanding of their perspective on this such that a legislative remedy could be found for them or a win-win situation for everybody. These folks feel they have been left out and there is going to be a discrimination and they feel they will be pushed into litigating.
It is more consultation, broader consultation. Would that be fair to say?
Ms. Hoang: What I can say is that I think we have been in discussions with stakeholders across the board who are impacted by this bill, those who have a direct interest and those who are being subject to the first-generation limit as well as those who are concerned from an adoption perspective. We have listened to their concerns, and we believe we understand their concerns. I’m happy, as a public servant, to continue to engage with them and to better learn the issues that are of interest to them. But with respect to Bill C-3, I wanted to clarify that any changes to the substantial connection and how it impacts adopted children will have to be made through legislative changes and not through policy or regulations. If the bill, as drafted, comes into force, the substantial connection requirement will be the key component within legislation, and regulations and policy will not be able to overcome that.
Senator Arnot: You indicated the other day — and I think this was really important information — that, as I understand it, roughly 40% of children who are adopted don’t live in Canada, won’t come to Canada, may come back and if so, they have a substantial connection test to meet.
That means there are 60% of children who are adopted who live their whole lives in Canada. It is that group that should not be subjected to a substantial connection test because that is a barrier, exactly what the Hague Convention prohibits. It is a barrier to full citizenship. That is a fundamental problem.
Ms. Hoang: As I mentioned earlier, there are two steps for intercountry adoptions. The first step is the adoptions process, and the second step is the citizenship process.
The federal government does not have jurisdiction over how provinces and territories govern adoption laws. The laws across all 13 jurisdictions, I am not an expert in that. I could not speak to how consistent they are applied across the board, whether some are the same or not. These are the requirements set by the provinces and territories.
At the federal level, we are responsible for the Citizenship Act and the requirements in terms of how adopted children can access citizenship through section 5.1. As I mentioned earlier, to access the section 5.1 adoptions grant, the adopted parent does not have to be living in Canada. They could be living outside of Canada. They could complete the process outside of Canada. After the child receives citizenship, there is no requirement under the Citizenship Act for the child to return to Canada.
Senator Burey: I am not going to leave you out, Mr. Jacques, because I want to ask you a question about your models.
The figures you gave us ——115,000, around $21 million over five years. What kind of data do you use to come up with the models?
I think I heard a large discrepancy between the numbers from IRCC and yours. Did I do my math wrong? I thought I heard around 4,000 over one or two years since the decision in Ontario; if we did that over five years, that would be 20,000 people and you have 115,000. I could be wrong. Answer me, please.
I will ask the PBO first, then IRCC, if there is a big discrepancy between what you have and the numbers they are sharing.
Mr. Jacques: Thank you for the question, senator. I will defer to our lead on modelling, Dr. Perrault, to take you through some of the intricacies.
Louis Perrault, Director of Policy, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer: The major input for our model comes from a study from Statistics Canada that tries to measure the diaspora of Canadians.
Specifically, there is a number for 2016 of their measure of the number of citizens by descent that are outside Canada. We take that number, grow it forward and backwards for different reasons, then we apply fertility rates and different demographic decisions to come up with the actual measure. Then we have the number of children by descent, first or second generation, for each year and then we sum it up.
In that model, there is a behavioural decision. The number of people that would technically be eligible would be greater than the number of people who will apply. We use a proxy to get at that behaviour, which gives us roughly that 115,000 number.
With the information we got from our information request about the section 8 “Lost Canadians,” our model performs well. We get around that 20,000 number. That makes us quite confident, if the new individuals behave roughly the same way as these “Lost Canadians,” we probably capture some of that behaviour.
Now, the further amendments on those 10,000, the 95 days, may change. A priori, there is no reason to know. They are different populations.
Mr. Jacques: You asked a question with respect to the 4,200 versus the 115,000 — my public servant counterparts in the department, you may correct me as you see fit — I do believe it is kind of comparing apples and oranges.
The 115,000 is better compared to the minister’s statement with respect to tens of thousands. The 4,200, my understanding is, directly relates to an application period that opened up in December 2024. Those are the applications the department received.
Based upon the business we’re in, which is the forecasting business, notwithstanding the confidence we have in terms of the estimates we have generated — and the 115,000 number we have put on the table, tens of thousands versus 115,000 — the numbers are probably pretty close together overall.
From a fiscal perspective, again, you are looking at millions of dollars in terms of the differences around the cost of processing applications between the two.
Senator Arnold: This is a question you will probably not want. In 2008, this committee studied this. One of the recommendations from that time was the entire act should be rewritten in clear language so people understood what it meant. If there are plans under way, is that being treated seriously? Once we get over this hurdle, is that something that is on people’s work plans?
Ms. Hoang: As the DG who is responsible for our policy team, we’re always looking at the new, emerging issues and how the act is structured to address those. We are always doing policy work to look for areas of improvement and modernization. Could I tell you today it is on our work plan? It always is on our work plan. How far and fast we move it depends on the priorities we’re faced with.
Senator Osler: My question is for the PBO.
In the December 2024 brief on Bill C-71, it estimates a net cost of $20.8 million over five years. Can you give us a breakdown of what those costs are? Is it a cost to the federal government, provinces and the territories? It is a net cost. What was the gross cost? What were the deductions that figured into the gross versus net?
Mr. Perrault: The total costs are the consular services and also the cost to process applications for proofs and grants of citizenship. That’s all there is. In that exercise, there are often cost recoveries for having a passport or application fee. We had that included in there. That’s why you get that net cost.
Senator Osler: The net cost was to consular services?
Mr. Perrault: Exactly. It is a narrow cost. It is about granting the citizenship and some consular services if you are abroad and are Canadian.
Senator McPhedran: The timing might not work for a full answer on this. If you don’t have the answer today, I would appreciate a written follow-up, please.
The Chair: By tomorrow.
Senator McPhedran: Yes. Looking at the 2024 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which put an angle on what happens when discrimination is found to be unconstitutional, that’s the Power decision from 2024. What we have here is a generational limit found to be unconstitutional, and you have heard concerns from many senators around the table about adoptees, differences and arguably strong discrimination. Can I just ask IRCC in developing this act — and we appreciate it was in response to particular court decisions — what about the risk analysis on this, opening up IRCC, and actually a public purse for damages as a result of unconstitutional discrimination?
Ms. Hoang: Again, I would defer to my colleague, Mr. Laurencelle. He’s already outlined the Charter statement made by the Department of Justice.
Senator McPhedran: What was the date of that assessment?
Ms. Hoang: We are committed to sending that to you. It is public. It’s accessible on the website, but it was right after Bill C-71 was introduced. I don’t want to give you the wrong date, senator, but I would be happy to follow up and provide the link to the Charter statement and the date when it was published.
Senator McPhedran: I’m wondering if the timing was such that that opinion didn’t take into account the Power decision.
Ms. Hoang: Again, the Department of Justice statement is an assessment of the bill, so I can turn it over to my colleague to speak to the specifics of that Charter statement, if you like.
Senator McPhedran: It was June 10, 2025. Thank you.
Senator Senior: I just wanted to follow up on a question that was asked earlier, as it follows concerns around folks with potential criminal records. My understanding is that, based on the fact that this is from 2009 onwards, as of this point, we’re really talking about 14-year-olds and younger? Am I correct?
Ms. Scott: That’s right. Moving forward, when individuals come forward to seek proof of citizenship, we expect it will be mostly parents seeking that for their minor children.
Senator Senior: Moving forward, then, folks will get older, if they choose to apply much later.
Ms. Scott: Potentially.
Senator Senior: Thank you.
I have another question, because I have some time.
With respect to the huge discrepancy between what the media is publishing as millions compared to 115,000, do you know why there’s such a huge discrepancy? Is there something that’s being caught up in these stories that we could identify as responsible for this discrepancy?
Mr. Perrault: Before the prior estimates, there were a wide range of estimates of the actual Canadian diaspora and the number of Canadians by descent. Some data sets may say 300,000, and others say 4 million, so there’s quite a big range, and then the question of who will apply for this, also, would probably get into this. Then where the actual people get the number in the media, I can’t say, but there’s quite a wide variety of estimates out there of how many Canadians. My understanding is that we don’t track the number of people. At least, from the information requests that we received from IRCC, there’s nobody tracking the number of Canadians outside Canada.
Senator Senior: I understand that, but there’s a limit since 2009. So even within that, why would they assume it’s millions? I’m not understanding that, but I understand that you don’t track them.
The Chair: Senators, this brings us to the end of the second panel. I’d like to thank all the government officials for their testimony today.
We now continue with our third panel if there is consensus of the group? There is general agreement.
Joining us in person today, we welcome, from Lost Canadians, Don Chapman. Welcome back to the Senate of Canada.
We also welcome Ms. Allison Petrozziello, Assistant Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, who brought along her delightful daughters, Alba and Alaia; and Ms. Katherine Lanteigne and Mr. Graeme Ball, Parent Adoption Advocates.
Thank you for joining us today. You will each have five minutes for your opening statements, followed by questions from committee members.
Mr. Chapman, the floor is yours.
Don Chapman, Head, Lost Canadians: Thank you. Good afternoon. My brief will answer many of your questions.
Bill C-3 has been about 100 years in the making. How so? If you go outside the Senate chamber, you’ll see the Famous Five statue. In 1929, they won the right to be a person, a senator or a judge. What they did not win, and still do not have, are equal rights to pass on citizenship to their children, the same as men. You should be proud that Bill C-3 finally gives women equal rights forward and backwards.
Turning to a different Senate bill, if you remember Bill S-3, it eliminated the gender discrimination in the Indian Act. So how can it be unconstitutional to deny women in the Indian Act but constitutional to deny in the Citizenship Act? Bill C-3 fixes this as well. Equal should be just that — equal.
With adopted children, while it’s not my area of expertise, I’ve helped many families. Even recently, like 20 minutes ago, I got an email saying April Murphy was just accepted, and she was adopted.
I do know a little bit about the process and how families are affected. As to my thoughts on international adoptions, I’m happy to share that during the question period.
I’ve lived with the “Lost Canadians” issue probably longer than anyone. In 1961, at age 6, I was stripped of my citizenship, which was before some of the senators were even born. I’ve been at this a long time. I wrote a book about “Lost Canadians,” and I coined the term. Bill C-3 is my twelfth “Lost Canadians” bill, and I would really like to make it my last.
I’ve noticed with previous bills a disconnect between parliamentary intent and the implementation. For example, when Bill C-37 was in committee, the MPs, including the then citizenship minister, wanted all stateless babies born to a Canadian parent to be immediately granted citizenship. That didn’t happen.
All non-stateless children born to a Canadian parent, if they didn’t have Canadian citizenship but they were moving to Canada, were to be given permanent residence status from, I think it was, birth through age 23. In this way, Canada would be in compliance with two UN human rights conventions, the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But because no specific instructions were given to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, children remained stateless, and forced family separations became commonplace. Many Canadian parents and their kids lived in different countries.
On another issue, naturalized Canadians were all to be deemed to be born in Canada for purposes of conferring citizenship, and this, too, went by the wayside.
Likewise, people given subsection 5(4) grants were deemed to be born in Canada and yet IRCC later “undeemed” some of them, leading to even more categories of “Lost Canadians.” What’s needed from you to prevent this with Bill C-3 are clear guidelines of parliamentary intent and how you expect IRCC to implement the laws.
My suggestion, which has never been carried out, is to appoint a citizenship ombudsman. Passing a bill and then turning it over to IRCC just doesn’t work. You need to remain actively involved.
Finally, let’s practise what we preach — fairness, compassion, human rights, peace, order and good government, and to stand on guard for thee, where “thee” means you and me. Canada should never again turn its back on its own people, let alone against children.
From today forward, whenever you walk by that statue of the Famous Five, know that with your yes vote on Bill C-3, you become part of the continuation of the solution that they were trying to get, of equal rights. And, hey, it only took us 96 years to get there. Your mothers, grandmothers and daughters would be proud.
Without delay, please, pass Bill C-3 — and one more thing. Follow your own committee recommendation from 2008 and get going on writing a brand new Charter compliance citizenship act. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chapman.
Professor Petrozziello, your five minutes.
Allison Petrozziello, Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University, as an individual: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I am an assistant professor of Global Migration & Inequality at Toronto Metropolitan University. I am here with my daughters, Alba and Alaia.
My interest in Bill C-3, an Amendment to the Citizenship Act, is both academic and personal. First, I’ll tell you the academic part.
I have spent the last decade researching exclusion from birth registration and proof of citizenship around the world as monitored by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, among others, as documented in my forthcoming book, Birth Registration as Bordering Practice.
Imagine my surprise, first, that children born to Canadians living abroad would be among those impacted by increasingly restrictive citizenship laws, such as the unconstitutional “first generation limit,” and imagine my further surprise to learn that my own family would be personally affected. As a Canadian citizen by descent, working abroad for UN Women at the time, I had to sponsor my own children — seen here today — for permanent residency and eventual naturalization because they happened to be the second generation born abroad. Proud Canadians by descent as they are, I wanted you to see some of the faces of just a few of our children who have been adversely impacted by this limit.
The Senate has the opportunity to right this wrong, by passing Bill C-3 swiftly and by keeping the substantial connection test cumulative and flexible.
The following recommendations are based on my current research as principal investigator on the Birthing Canadian Citizens project, which is part of the Bridging Divides research program and funded by our government’s Canada First Research Excellence Fund. We’ve been interviewing Canadian citizen parents who are giving birth abroad, in Hong Kong, U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Singapore and elsewhere, but have had difficulties passing on their citizenship because of the first‑generation limit.
The first recommendation I’d offer is to see amended Bill C-3 through the legislative process expeditiously so it can be passed into law before the January deadline. Bill C-3 promises to restore equal citizenship to Canadian children who happened to be born abroad, and as you know, this change was ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found that limit unconstitutional and also in violation of Charter rights of mobility and equality. My understanding is Bill C-3 will bring our citizenship law into Charter compliance and create greater equality between Canadian citizens by birth and by descent. I’d like to emphasize the gender dimension of the issue. Since 2009, the only advice the government has been able to offer Canadian women about how to ensure they can pass on their citizenship is to fly home in late-stage pregnancy to give birth in Canada. Even during COVID-19, even when it’s a high-risk pregnancy, even when the couple has been trying for years to get pregnant through IVF treatment and even when the doctors and health insurance are in place in their country of residence but not back home here in Canada. So Bill C-3 promises to eliminate gender discrimination from our Citizenship Act once and for all, and to allow Canadian parents to make the reproductive decisions in consultation with their doctors, not government.
The second recommendation is to take a flexible approach to the substantial connection test, to avoid unnecessary administrative burden on Canadian families living abroad. The requirement of 1,095 days of physical presence may still infringe upon Canadians’ Charter-protected mobility rights, which hold that Canadians have the mobility right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada freely.
If the Senate wishes to maintain this test, then it should keep it cumulative, and also consider shifting it to apply only to the second generation born abroad.
This is because our research demonstrates that the first generation born abroad already has a substantial connection to Canada by virtue of being raised by a Canadian parent — regardless of where in the world they grow up.
The Senate may also consider granting exemptions to this requirement for both international adoptees, whom we’ve heard a lot about today, and also to children born to Indigenous Peoples of North America.
In this way, the legislation would not only comply with the Charter, but also the Hague Convention and the 1794 Jay Treaty. The Senate should pass Bill C-3 without further delay. At a time when Canada continues to need people, but public support for immigration is declining, recognizing the children of Canadians born abroad as our own children strengthen Canada. Recognizing the diversity of families, which makes up this country, whether born at home or abroad, adopted or birthed biologically, Indigenous or first-generation Canadian is a necessary part of strengthening what it means to be Canadian. I thank you for your leadership in restoring our citizenship rights.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Petrozziello.
Katherine Lanteigne, Parent Adoption Advocate, as an individual: Hello. Muli bwanji.
My name is Katherine Lanteigne. I am here today with my husband Graeme Ball, representing our son, Nathanael, to defend his citizenship rights and the rights of intercountry adoptees. We adopted our Nathanael in 2017 and left Canada temporarily in order to complete the in-country requirements to bring him home. We were only permitted to adopt him via Ontario’s Intercountry Adoption Act, which prescribes that we must reside in the province.
While our son is from Zambia, we adopted him in Ontario, Canada. It’s illegal for us to not live in Canada and adopt a child born abroad.
But because we chose the “direct grant route” for his citizenship application, which we qualified for, he’ll now be subjected to a discriminatory treatment if Bill C-3 is passed without an amendment. Bill C-3 seeks to impose a retroactive connection test on our Canadian son that will demand that he prove he is substantially connected to Canada if he chooses to pass on citizenship to his child if they are born abroad.
Asking a child who has been adopted through intercountry adoption to prove they are connected to the nation that adopted them is tantamount to asking them who their real parents are. It has a deleterious effect on the adoptee; it questions their legitimacy and their sense of belonging. It serves absolutely no legislative purpose and meets no policy goals as set out in the intent of Bill C-3.
Bill C-3 will perpetuate stereotypes towards intercountry adoptees, as it will treat our son like he’s a foreigner to Canada. It is discriminatory in its application, it subordinates our son’s citizenship status, and violates his Charter rights under section 15.
The role of the IRCC is to ensure our adoption is legal; it is not to adjudicate the quality of our son’s citizenship.
We are in this position because the Government of Canada has failed to adequately modernize the Citizenship Act for adoptees. Our Canadian children are meant to be treated in the same manner as those who obtain citizenship based on their birth in Canada, as Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption, which clearly stipulates in Article 26 that adoptees must be imbued with the same set of rights as their domestically adopted counterparts. The government has been impervious to these facts.
Intercountry adoptions are a harrowing experience for adoptees. A child loses everything they were born into. Their culture of origin, their biological origins, and the connection to their birth nations.
In return, adoption ensures that a child is granted their inalienable right to a permanent family, but this does not erase the deep trauma they live with. This is well understood by the Canadian Paediatric Society.
If not amended, Bill C-3 will ensure that one way or another, adoptees will be persecuted. They will either have their legitimacy questioned through an arbitrary connection test, or they will have to wait for years for their citizenship to be issued through the sponsorship route, and Canadian parents will have to weigh the consequences of the pathway they choose for their adopted child, because Canada still conflates immigration with citizenship. It is a wanton act of legislative cruelty on the most vulnerable class of people in the world: the intercountry adoptee.
We want to extend a sincere thank you to Senator Arnot, Senator Wallin, Jenny Kwan and Nathaniel Erskine-Smith for their strident attempts to rectify this issue and to the adoptive families across Canada who trusted us to represent this issue on their behalf. And to our Nathanael, remember as a Canadian, always be proud of who you are our beautiful, brave Canadian-Zambian boy. Nikukonda, bebe. You are the one.
The Chair: Thank you. We will now proceed to questions from committee members. For this panel, senators will have four minutes for your question and that includes the answer. Please indicate if your question is directed to an individual or to all witnesses.
The first question will be from Senator Osler, followed by Senator Hay, Senator McPhedran, and then the bill’s sponsor, Senator Coyle.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My question is for Ms. Lanteigne, it’s sort of a two-parter.
In the last panel or two, this committee did hear that the intent of the bill is to treat adopted children and naturally born children as similarly as possible and we also heard that there was an opinion that the bill treats the children the same.
I would appreciate, first, hearing your opinion on that.
The second part of my question is you mentioned an amendment to Bill C-3. On the first panel, Senator Arnot got a commitment from the minister to meet with stakeholders regarding intercountry adoptions to see if there is potential future legislation, amending legislation or a regulatory change that is possible without a change in the legislation.
The second part of the question: What would your wording be for an amendment for Bill C-3, or a future piece of legislation to amend? Is there wording around a change in regulation you would like to see?
Ms. Lanteigne: The answer is this bill does not treat adopted children equally.
In our view — we have shared this view very strongly — the IRCC has been misleading these committees in the history of this bill. There are what is called the domestic adoption of people who are residents of another country who adopt a child. That child, in theory, may become an international adoptee if that family were to move back to Canada.
Intercountry adoption is a very specific, legal process in our country as a Hague country. When we adopted the Hague Convention, we adopted it federally and provincially. The provinces all across the country —
[Translation]
It’s the same in New Brunswick and in Quebec.
[English]
— all have the Intercountry Adoption Act with the Hague Convention language in it. It is a statute. It is a law. You are not permitted to originate an adoption in Canada without living here. It is illegal.
What is frustrating to us is, when we do it in tandem, it is an integrated process. When we apply for our part 1 citizenship for our child, we have to choose whether we are doing PR or whether we are doing the direct grant. What other people also don’t understand is sometimes we’re not permitted to choose because the countries we adopt from dictate the process. For example, if you adopt a child from the United States, you must come here first and your adoption is finalized in the Ontario courts. You are monitored by a social worker.
For example, if the IRCC gave our son citizenship, and they gave it to us and did not know we were living here, having originated the adoption from Canada, that is when you say — you know this hysteria about child trafficking? That is what they would be doing.
We have very specific paperwork that triggers the second part that the IRCC officials review; it is called a letter of no objection. When all of our adoption paperwork is accumulated from Ontario, from the countries we adopt from, the IRCC officials review that. When they say, “Yes, it is a go,” we are then permitted to return home with our children.
Graeme and I could not leave Zambia. We sat there and waited. Senator Wallin was helpful in getting our son home, because they make you wait for weeks or months until they issue citizenship.
I want to make it clear that the principle being shared that Canadians who adopt abroad do not have to live here is absolutely false.
Senator Hay: Thank you for being here and for sharing your journeys, your children and Nathanael. I’m sorry for the trauma experienced.
Mr. Chapman, I want to ask you some technicality about Bill C-3. There are many systemic barriers I have read, heard and researched.
From your opinion, outside of the intercountry group we are talking about here, and a potential amendment, what gaps do you see remaining? What additional measures are required? You mentioned an ombudsperson, clear enough guidelines and accountability. Can you outline that for me?
Mr. Chapman: Yes. If you get a grant of citizenship, let’s say a 5.4 grant, you are deemed to be born in Canada. If IRCC then “undeems” you, what if you had a child born outside of Canada? Now what is that child? If you get a 5.4 grant, or you are naturalized, you should keep the deemed to be born in Canada. I am not an expert on other types of grants, like adoptions, the 5.1 grants.
I have to say my brother and sister are adopted. We’re all from Canada. I was born in Canada. Had I been born outside of Canada, I would have remained Canadian. Also, because my brother and sister are adopted, they got to keep their citizenship and I’m the one who lost it.
These laws have been nutty for a long time. Ms. Lanteigne is right. We should include this. Whether or not it is in the bill, the problem we have there is, if it goes backs to the House, it could be filibustered and the whole bill dies.
I will work with Senator Arnot whether or not it is a private member’s bill. I have done two or three private member’s bills through the Senate. I’m sure we can get it through. That’s one of the areas that remains.
The other area is, everywhere you go they say citizenship began in 1947. No, it didn’t. It began with Confederation. I will take this to a court challenge if we don’t get the government — I don’t need legislation, because they already were legally Canadian. I need a statement by the Prime Minister or the citizenship minister. If citizenship didn’t exist, then none of our war dead were Canadian and Canada didn’t fight in World War I and II, and Canada didn’t liberate Holland, but it did exist. That’s another area I am going after. We should not be doing this piecemeal.
Senator Hay: Without an amendment, are you confident there will be meaningful dialogue?
Ms. Lanteigne: No, I have no confidence there will be meaningful dialogue. We have tried for a decade. We have been working on this for 15 years. We have made solid attempts for a decade.
There is not one minister in the last 10 years who has ever given us any time. They told one of the adoptive parents in our group, another adoptive mom — a single parent who adopted her child — that we were not preferred stakeholders.
Senator Hay: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for bringing such a strong personal sense of what is at stake here.
I think you were all in the room when I referenced the 2024 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Power. This may be considered a hypothetical question, but I’m going to invite you to answer it anyway.
This would be something that would be adjudicated if you or others were to sue IRCC and the Government of Canada. Some of you have mentioned that possibility. Can you help us understand some of the damages you have experienced within your particular situations?
Mr. Chapman: Millions and millions of dollars. Remember, I lost my citizenship in 1961. It took me 47 years to get it back. I had to become a landed immigrant in my own country. It is kind of odd to have a birth certificate showing I’m born in Canada and I’m an immigrant. It took 47 years. Even being born in Canada, I couldn’t get my children in. IRCC wouldn’t let my own children in, first generation born abroad.
Senator McPhedran: I am sorry, Mr. Chapman, but I am hoping we can create some time for other panellists.
Mr. Chapman: Financially, it has been millions of dollars. I’m not interested in remuneration by the government. I’m interested in correcting the law.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you.
Ms. Lanteigne: We have retained counsel formally. I’m the mom. We’re the mom and dad. We are the mom and dad who will file a Charter challenge on behalf of our son if this legislation becomes law.
We retained counsel this summer because we knew we weren’t going to get anywhere. It is the third legal opinion we have drawn. None of those lawyers knew each other. We were all told this is violating our son’s Charter rights and the rights of the intercountry adoptee.
The damage that is being done is to Canadian children who live here who come from racialized communities.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. Ms. Petrozziello, we have another moment.
Ms. Petrozziello: Having to pay thousands of dollars to sponsor my own children for permanent residency and wait for naturalization seems to be unfair when I hold Canadian citizenship. I’m not seeking any damages, but I imagine that there could be a claim by those who have had to go through that process.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses with very different backgrounds and concerns here. I too gave birth abroad, and so my daughter was in the same situation as you, professor, except that she did happen to marry a Canadian. So her children born in Mexico received citizenship, not through her, but through him. I know some of these trials.
I’m interested in the adoption situation because that’s the one that is the stickler here. You heard the last panel speaking to us, and the intent of the bill is good. The intent is to give the same rights, whether a child is born to a Canadian abroad or whether they are adopted. When you look at what is described under objective 3 of this bill, minimized distinctions for children adopted abroad by a Canadian parent — for those adopted abroad before coming into force of this legislation in the second or subsequent generations, this bill will provide access to the direct grant of citizenships to all persons adopted abroad by a Canadian citizen who is an adoptive parent, which would be your child, who would be an adoptive parent, including in the second or subsequent generations.
I’m trying to figure out why Nathanael would be discriminated against by this law.
Ms. Lanteigne: We are Canadian citizens living in Canada. Our son is not an immigrant. He has no metric to meet. None. He is protected under the Hague Convention. The government has been violating the Hague Convention since 2009. There are multiple sections that the government is violating within that convention. One of them is that the Government of Canada is not to be imposing barriers when it comes to the safe transfer of that child to Canada. I did not adopt my son abroad. I adopted my son in Canada, but he is from abroad, and he was born abroad. So that means that this government is about to violate his Charter rights because you cannot treat him any differently than a Canadian child. It is written in law. He cannot be treated differently than if we adopted our child in Ontario. It is a major violation against me as a non-biological mother. There are many, many Charter violations that we will be filing on this issue.
Senator Coyle: Do we have a little more time? This is very important. Your testimony is extremely important to us. Having said what you said — and I’m not in any way disputing it. I’m just going back to the testimony of the previous panel, and the panellists from the ministry talked about federal versus provincial, and you heard that.
What is your response to what you heard, where that distinction was made in terms of The Hague Convention and the responsibilities of the federal government versus the provincial government around this type of situation?
Graeme Ball, Parent Adoption Advocate, as an individual: We are Hague Convention compliant provincially and federally. So we know now that Canada has been breaking international law since 2009 when it comes to intercountry adoption. I want to add that we adopted Nathanael, who was born in Zambia. That country is Hague compliant as well, and they expect Canada to uphold the Hague Convention, and they have full confidence that this country is doing that, and we’re not. So countries like Zambia, if they were to know that Canada was breaking the Hague Convention, breaking international law, they would have serious concerns. It is a shame on our country, and that’s also damaging when you talk about damages.
Senator Arnot: My question is for Katherine Lanteigne and Graeme Ball. Mr. Chapman, this bill doesn’t cure all the “Lost Canadians.” It needs to be a broader net. There will still be “Lost Canadians” after this bill passes. My question is this: Would you advise this committee to take an in-depth study on “Lost Canadians” and make recommendations to government about how to deal with that issue in the future so that you don’t have to come back here?
Mr. Chapman: That’s what I have wanted for decades. Yes, it is a good idea. I would pass this bill because I will take anything a step at a time, and I will come back and help Ms. Lanteigne because obviously she is in the right. So, yes, please.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Ms. Lanteigne and Mr. Ball, in answer to the question of Senator Osler, having to put Nathanael through the substantial connection test is a barrier, and it is a barrier to all intercountry adoptees, and it is that barrier that’s the flaw. That’s the barrier that needs to be addressed. Subjecting intercountry adoptees to the substantial connection test is fundamentally wrong and a breach of the Hague Convention. Do you agree with that? It is therefore a Charter breach pursuant to section 15 as well.
Mr. Ball: It is discriminating based on country of origin.
Senator Arnot: I wanted to get that on the record.
I know you have had 10 to 15 years of a sea of frustration and incredible anguish over this issue. It seems that the government might be forcing you to litigate once again. You don’t have confidence that they will address the issues.
Ms. Lanteigne: The amendment that would be Hague compliant would be to do what the U.K. does, which is this: They are Hague compliant, so when they issue citizenship for an intercountry adoptee, it is called “other than by descent,” and all that means is that it is like you were born in Canada. We cannot ever get our citizenship until the end of our adoption process because they have to make sure we were compliant with the law, and if the IRCC does not believe we are compliant of the law, I don’t have a son. I don’t have a son.
So this principle that you can compare our adoption and our family life to a domestic adoption overseas or to a biological mother is already completely unfair. But what the barrier that they put up is that because they force us, we either have to sponsor our child home through PR and wait for almost five years for their citizenship to be granted, or we go through the direct grant. So there is a cost on either side. That is a violation of the Hague Convention already. The reason why we did not choose PR is that if something had happened to Graeme and me, and our son did not have citizenship, he would be stateless, and we have navigated it. It took us seven and a half years to have a child, to have our Nathanael, and then you have a stateless child with people who didn’t navigate that adoption, and then that child could be returned to their birth nation.
The stakes for us are so high, and the IRCC and Ms. Hoang knows that, and she knows that this process is integrated. There are steps, absolutely, and there are jurisdictional powers because the federal government could never vet us and send social workers to our house. Graeme and I have had three INTERPOL checks. We have been psychologically tested. We have had our taxes reviewed. We have had a social worker to our house over seven and a half years. We had to show up in court in Zambia and be confirmed by the ministry over there so they were assured that all the paperwork that was being transferred was correct. We needed to foster our son to make sure that he was stabilized and safe. Then, when that process was done and we got that adoption order, that adoption order triggered that letter of no objection from the Ontario government. Every province in this country has that letter. The IRCC won’t give us the right to return with our child without it.
So to be completely impervious on the government’s behalf and to use the principle that you are adopting abroad — that, all of a sudden, we are not in Canada, not Canadians and that we don’t go through this very specific process — is just untrue. There is a difference, I would say, Senator Arnot, to something that is unfair and something that is a Charter violation.
Senator Senior: Thank you for being here and for making it clearer for us in terms of understanding the implications.
Senator Arnot’s question led to you answering part of my question, but you also said in your statement — or maybe it was a response — around the idea that it will be racialized kids that will be the most vulnerable to this unfairness or challenge. Could you speak more to that?
Ms. Lanteigne: Most intercountry adoptees are from nations that have multiple challenges with supporting children on many different fronts. Most intercountry adoptees come from racialized backgrounds, particularly African nations, Korea and China. The othering that happens to them when they are both an adoptee and a child of colour — or of an ethnicity that often doesn’t match the ethnicity of their family into which they are being adopted — that adds more difficulty for them as an adoptee. That is something that is very important to recognize, because it makes it a lot harder on them to deal with then being told that they were adopted. The reality is that an intercountry adoptee can never be anything but born abroad. It is an enumerated ground; it is a ground. It is who they are. To then try to penalize them from becoming Canadian by parents who adopted them in a nation that is signatory to this very serious international treaty — that they need to prove that they are connected to this country — that is so deeply objectionable, and it is so harmful to our son. It is so harmful to him and his fellow intercountry adoptees.
It is also completely unnecessary to achieve the goal of the objective of this bill, because the reality is that it will catch up. My grandchildren, if they are born abroad, at some point, all of these rules will come into play for all Canadians if they don’t return to Canada.
Senator Cuzner: I have two questions.
Could you share with us the scope of the issue? How many Canadian children does this impact? It has been sixteen years since the change in legislation in 2009. Has there not been a representation made about Canada contravening the Hague Convention, and if representation has been made, why hasn’t it been made?
Ms. Lanteigne: That’s a very good question.
We focused on getting our government to change legislation. There are steps when you make a complaint to The Hague or the UN for a country not being compliant. You actually have to prove that you have done everything and have all the documentation to demonstrate the violation. In our circumstance, when we do make our formal complaint to The Hague, which we will, and we do make our formal complaint to the UN, it will be based upon our filing in court. Throughout that time that we had been advocating, we were not able to secure a very good legal team, although we do finally have one. Sujit Choudhry, who won this constitutional challenge, is our counsel, as is Maureen Silcoff, and we will be taking all of those steps, as well.
What I’m saying is that we had the burden to do the work to try to get the government to stand to attention. What is happening now is that our son is about to turn 10 next week, but for a lot of our adoption community, their children are older. They are about to meet this in their life. We can’t wait any more for the government to take an obstinate position where they are choosing to be impervious. They know it is wrong, but it is a choice. It is a choice to do what they are doing right now.
Senator Cuzner: In terms of the scope, how many Canadian children would this impact?
Ms. Lanteigne: I might be incorrect, but I believe it is 2,000. I know somebody quoted 4,000, but I think it is 2,000; I think it is quite small. Regarding the numbers that the IRCC gave, there is no way they have those numbers in the way that they expressed them to the committee. They don’t know where people live after an adoption is completed. What they are doing is saying that people who are living abroad are X many people to whom we give a direct grant, and there is Y many people who are in country whose adoptions originate from Canada, and they are here. I think that’s actually a better interpretation of what the IRCC was trying to say with their numbers.
Senator Arnot: I’m the one who gave the number of 4,000, but I got it from people. I will go with your number.
Is there anything else you would like to tell the committee? I think that your testimony is compelling, and it really requires a legislative change. Hopefully, this committee can encourage the government to do that. But if they are as obtuse as they have been in the past, we might not have a lot of hope on that. Do you have other comments?
Ms. Lanteigne: The thing that most profoundly weighs on me during this entire advocacy period that we have worked on — and it was highlighted last June when I was in a meeting with the IRCC with Ms. Hoang and two of her officials who had invited us. We had been part of a broader stakeholder meeting where we were getting briefed. Then my mic went out, so I couldn’t ask a question, so they invited me for a separate meeting.
As I voiced very succinct arguments that are based in law — not just in principle, in law — she asked me if my real concern about this bill is that, when my son goes home, he is not going to be able to pass the test. I said, “To my house? Is that the home?”
This bill is steeped in xenophobia and racism. We have deep objections to those principles. I asked the question again, because I thought she misspoke, and she said it again to me.
So that is what the concern is. There is no threat to our Canadian son passing on citizenship to our grandchildren. He should not be treated any differently than any other Canadian here. It is an absurdity. We don’t object to the Government of Canada trying to come up with an answer to confer citizenship, generation after generation. We have no objection to that. But we are arguing that our son is not a second-generation citizen. He is not an “other.” He is ours. This nation is his.
That is what we are trying to share with you today. We are devastated that the Senate is being put in the position to stand up and vote for this bill that will make sure that those kids who are on the playground will get that reaffirmed to them, day by day now in this country, that they are “Canadians — sort of.” That is the total and ultimate responsibility of this administration, and it is more than deeply disappointing.
Senator Coyle: I will speak with you again on this because we really want to ensure we unpack everything that needs unpacking. When I’ve asked questions about it, I’ve been told that if the bill were to be amended to eliminate the “substantial connection” requirement for international adoptees to obtain or pass on citizenship, it would create scenarios where children adopted abroad by Canadians would benefit from preferential treatment, compared to children born abroad to Canadians.
Have you heard that argument? I’m just curious because it seems very different from what you’re saying here. What reasons has IRCC given you for not including the scenario that you’re wanting to have included in Bill C-3?
Ms. Lanteigne: They would echo the same as what you’ve just shared, but the challenge is that an international adoptee is not necessarily the same as an intercountry adoptee. We’re trying to make that very clear to the committee.
We have no idea how Switzerland navigates adoptions when somebody might be a Canadian citizen. They’re getting an approval. They’re not getting an approval to adopt a child from Canada in Canada. Nathanael’s proof of life is me; Nathanael’s proof of life is his dad. We are Canadians. We are his Canadian family. There’s no connection test to be met. The connection test in itself, whether it was 10 days, a thousand years, whatever it might be, there’s no metric for him to meet. He’s not an emigrant to this nation. He’s our son, our Canadian boy, and we’re a Canadian family living in this country. That is why it is a clear Charter violation.
You can’t make the argument about conferring citizenship down from generation to generation when we are not abroad.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
Senator Boudreau: Every time I think I’ve figured this out, there’s another layer of complexity that gets on top.
On the earlier panels, this was said in French, and I loosely translated: We want to treat children adopted abroad the same way we treat children born abroad.
That’s essentially what was said. You fall in that first category, children adopted abroad.
Ms. Lanteigne: No, we do not, sir. We adopted through intercountry adoption. Our son is from abroad. We did not adopt abroad. We adopted in Ontario, Canada. Our son has to live here. It’s illegal —
Mr. Ball: I might add, we need to live in Canada to make that adoption. Parents adopting abroad are subscribing to that country’s domestic rules when it comes to adopting in that country. We didn’t do that. We adopted in Canada.
Senator Boudreau: Okay. That’s the nuance that I was missing.
Senator Arnot: That’s the fundamental distinction that the IRCC is not recognizing, right to a core.
Senator Boudreau: It was just that nuance, and that clarifies things for me. Thank you.
Mr. Ball: He said there is a third group, and we are that third group.
The Chair: If there are no further questions, senators, this brings us to the end of this third panel. I thank Mr. Chapman, Professor Petrozziello, Ms. Lanteigne and Mr. Ball for your testimony today.
We will turn now to our final panel as we welcome, from the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, Bruce Allen, Citizenship and Immigration Lawyer, Partner, Allen & Hodgman; from the Canadian Bar Association, Amandeep S. Hayer, Vice Chair, CBA-BC Immigration Law Section and Principal Lawyer, Hayer Law; and Andrew Griffith, Fellow, Environics Institute, and Former Director General, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
Thank you for joining us.
Gentlemen, you will each have five minutes for your opening statements, followed by questions from committee members.
Mr. Allen, the floor is yours.
Bruce Allen, Citizenship and Immigration Lawyer; Partner, Allen & Hodgman, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association: Good evening, senators.
Citizenship by descent has long been a pillar of Canadian law. The Naturalization Act, 1914, provided that children born outside Canada to British-subject fathers were British subjects. In 1947, Canada’s first Citizenship Act provided that children of Canadian-citizen fathers were Canadian citizens.
Until 2009, there was no explicit limit on the number of generations, but there were many restrictions that prevented even most first-generation persons from becoming citizens. These included the “father only” rule, registration and retention rules, and loss of citizenship caused by foreign naturalization. The 1977 Citizenship Act eliminated most of these rules but did not restore citizenship to persons born before 1977. Many persons born after 1977 did not become citizens either because their Canadian-born parent had already lost their citizenship.
Much changed with the 2009 amendments when all “Lost Canadians” born in the first generation became Canadian citizens, but these amendments limited citizenship to the first generation. Persons in the second generation and beyond who were citizens before April 2009 did not lose their citizenship, but most second-generation persons born before 2009 never were citizens and are not citizens today.
For instance, there are countless persons alive today who are not Canadian because their grandmother, rather than their grandfather, was their ancestor. These persons born before 2009, and all second-generation persons born since then are the last remaining large group of “Lost Canadians.” They should all become Canadians now, along with all those born in the future to Canadian citizens with a substantial connection to Canada. It is the right thing to do, and it is good for Canada.
My law firm practises Canadian citizenship law in both the U.S. and Canada. Since the first election of Donald Trump, we have handled about a thousand citizenship applications for persons born outside Canada to Canadian parents. This is who they are: Nearly all are U.S. citizens. They range in age from newborn babies to persons well into their 90s. Nearly all adults have at least a bachelor’s degree; many have PhDs, medical degrees, law degrees and other advanced degrees. Many have achieved prominence in education, the arts, medicine, science and government. All are motivated by a lifelong identification with Canada based on family ties and time spent in Canada.
Most are moved by a strong identification with Canadian cultural, moral and political values, including LGBTQ rights. All are English speakers, and many speak French. All seek recognition of their Canadian citizenship to legally validate an identification they have long felt in their hearts. With their permission, I will share several of their stories.
The Goodman Family includes Patricia Goodman, 87 years old, born in New Jersey, whose father was born in Nova Scotia in 1905; her daughter Lisa and Lisa’s son, David. Patricia is an internationally recognized breeder of Olympic horses. Lisa was the leader of the successful fight for marriage equality in Delaware. David is studying for a master’s degree in biodiversity at the University of Oxford. All have applied under the interim measure for Canadian citizenship.
The Rouda family includes Harley Rouda, Jr., 63, whose father was born in Toronto, and his four children, Harley III, Avery, Shea and Dylan, all born in Ohio. Harley Rouda, Jr., is a former Member of Congress of the United States of America. His son Harley III works in commercial real estate. Avery is an award-winning filmmaker. Shea is a tech founder, and Dylan is a professional musician who has toured extensively in Canada.
The Raab family includes Patti Raab, whose mother was born in Niagara Falls, Ontario, and her sons Reilly and Mitchell. Reilly and his wife both hold PhDs in computer science and hope to work in Canada. Mitchell works in technical construction specialties.
The Lin family includes Lola Lin, a lawyer who naturalized in Canada in 1974, and her son Kenzo, now age 18, who was born in Texas. Following a visit to a refugee camp in Montenegro when he was 11, Kenzo, at age 12, became an advocate and fundraiser for child refugees, which he continues to this day.
The Chair: Mr. Allen, thank you very much. I’m sure you’ll get an opportunity to share more about these families.
Mr. Hayer, please start your presentation.
[Translation]
Amandeep S. Hayer, Vice Chair, CBA-BC Immigration Law Section and Principal Lawyer, Hayer Law (Canadian Bar Association): Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me here today.
[English]
I’m the principal lawyer at Hayer Law, and the vice-chair of the Canadian Bar Association in British Columbia’s immigration law section.
I practise on the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations. I appear today on behalf of the National Section of the Canadian Bar Association, to speak in favour of this bill and to recommend further improvements. The section supports the amendment to create a pathway to Canadian citizenship for those who have ties to this country. We’re pleased to note that the bill aligns largely with our recommendations to use a residency-based test as is used in the United States. However, we wanted to identify some remaining issues, some of which have already been discussed.
The first is on gender discrimination. Senators, our society has made a lot of progress on this one issue. Nowhere can that be spoken better than in this house where half the membership is now women and standing outside are the statues of five women who fought for the rights of the very first woman to sit in this House. But there’s one troubling reality. The very act that defines who we are as a people still discriminates heavily based on gender and marital status as my colleague just said.
While this bill moves in the right direction, and we are quite hopeful that this might be the first real attempt at creating a gender-neutral Citizenship Act, I do want to identify that there may still be issues that pop up as we go through this, in particular, its references to old, long-dead legislation, particularly the 46 act and the 49 act. Those statutes very heavily contain the assumption that women are not allowed to equally pass on their citizenship. For example, married women cannot pass on their citizenship to their children if they had a child born abroad with a foreign national.
Accordingly, we make two recommendations. One, Parliament should consider whether it’s even necessary to make reference to the old legislation. The Senate made this exact reference a while ago, in 2009. We believe that many of the goals referenced in the old legislation can be achieved by removing that reference. Where a reference to the old legislation is required, there should be some sort of clear interpretative guidance that says, “This is how we can prevent gender-based discrimination from reappearing.”
This would support the goals of the bill, which are not only to create gender equality but to try to eliminate the longstanding issue of the “Lost Canadians,” but it also goes with our overall recommendation to stop using complex language and go to a very simple, consistent, easy-to-understand act. It is our opinion that you should not need a law degree to determine if you’re a Canadian.
There’s a second gap, and it’s been addressed a few times here, and that is the unequal treatment of adopted children of Canadian citizens. It’s been discussed here already, but I want to address it from a different angle. One of the issues that comes up is when you’re adopted as a Canadian citizen, unlike somebody who is naturally born abroad, your effective date of citizenship is the date your application is approved. If you’re a Canadian actually born abroad, your effective date of citizenship is your date of birth.
This can be a problem because many people come to us later in life asking to claim Canadian citizenship. If you’re naturally born, no problem. All your children born thereafter may qualify for Canadian citizenship, assuming they meet all the necessary tests, but those who are adopted are permanently barred because, in those cases, those children were born before the application was approved. Because they were born before the application was approved, their effective date of citizenship is the date of the approval. For that reason, we’re asking that we go with a process that is used in our peer jurisdictions, the U.S., the U.K. as has been mentioned, where citizenship by adoption is effective from the child’s date of birth. I’m also going to note that even this specific issue does violate section 15 of the Charter because it treats biological children and adopted children differently.
Finally, making such a change, I would argue, would put us in line both compliant with the Charter and in line with international norms. I thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns, and I would be pleased to address any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hayer. Mr. Griffiths, you have the floor.
Andrew Griffith, Fellow, Environics Institute, and Former Director General, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, as an individual: I’m pleased to be back here again. As you may know and recall in my previous submission to the committee, I focused on the lack of a time limit for the 1,095 days to meet the residency requirement, which undermines the purpose of determining a valid connection to Canada.
Later, this committee, of course, accepted the government’s approach of not having a time limit. But, of course, while this House Citizenship and Immigration Committee made a number of changes to Bill C-3, the government chose to revert to the original bill as is its right. This made sense with respect to removing the House Committee amendments that would require language and knowledge assessment, as well as criminality and security checks. The second generation, like the first generation born abroad, is claiming a right and are not permanent residents applying to become citizens.
However, two amendments made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration improved the bill, in my view. The first requires that the residency requirement of 1,095 days be cumulative but within any five‑year period prior to the birth of the child. This addressed my main concerns regarding the difficulty for both applicants and the IRCC to administer Bill C-3, along with creating a stronger connection test. Processing time for citizenship proof has already increased from five to nine months’ pre-Bill C-3 implementation. In my view, it would be irresponsible to add the additional administrative burden of determining 1,095 days of residence over a lifetime as opposed to five years on a department that is already struggling with meeting service standards. The second amendment requires annual reporting on the number of persons becoming citizens as a result of the bill’s provisions. This is needed to ensure accountability and ensure the bill is actually working. The Globe and Mail‘s November 3 editorial convincingly argued for the reinstatement of both these provisions. Testimony by the minister and officials in October, and largely the same today, demonstrated the general weakness of the data presented and the apparent confusion about whether exit controls exist. They don’t really seem to. The data provision is, therefore, particularly important.
Moreover, IRCC presented no analysis of the number of persons likely to apply for the simplified renunciation process, nor of any related costs. Now, we know IRCC has received about 4,200 applications from the second generation born abroad to date. Ideally, with this large sample, IRCC can share applicant characteristics, gender, age, country of residence, and origin, can do an analysis how many would be captured with the five-year limit or beyond the five-year limit. I expect, actually, that most people applying already have a strong connection to Canada, and would likely be easy to meet the five-year limit, and would be tabled to document to the satisfaction of IRCC.
A related issue, again, is the provision of the simplified process to renounce Canadian citizenship, again for accountability, that should be part of annual reporting.
To conclude, I have three recommendations: First, and again, we may not have the time to do it, but IRCC should conduct an analysis of the pending applications in terms of all those variables, so you will actually know who is likely to apply. Because it’s a large sample. Secondly, senators should consider sending Bill C-3 back with the same recommendations for the five-year time limit and the annual data reporting, and thirdly, senators should include a requirement for annual reporting that would also include the numbers and countries of residents of applicants for the simplified renunciation process. Thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
I would be happy to answer your questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Griffith. We will now proceed to questions from committee members.
Senator Osler: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. My question is for Mr. Griffith, and it’s a two-parter. Your brief mentioned that IRCC needs to share data about the applications that they’ve received to date, and you mentioned gender, age, country of residence or origin.
My first question is: Are there other data points that you think should be collected, analyzed and shared? The second part of the question is, as you said in both your testimony for Bill C-71 and in your Bill C-3 brief, you recommended reinstating the five‑year time frame for the 1,095 days of physical presence. Why is having that time frame critical, and what risks could arise if Bill C-3 retains that open-ended accumulation period?
Mr. Griffith: Well, the first question, I thought I just would pick the most important variables. It takes time to collect data, and analyze it, so I thought those were the critical ones. There may be others that I missed, but I thought that would actually give the committee a very good sense of who we’re talking about.
In terms of the five-year limit, I guess one of the things that we’ve learned over the past number of years is when IRCC doesn’t have limits or doesn’t manage closely, you get into situations where numbers balloon, and suddenly people have problems with that. Generally, from a public administration point of view, it’s nice not to have open-ended commitments, because you don’t necessarily know what you’re dealing with.
Even if the vast majority of people who applied probably will meet the five-year one, you will have some outliers. For example, we know about the example of people who spend their vacations in cottages, have summer vacation, so let’s do the math. You have to meet three years, 36 months, so if you go for one month a year, that’s 36 years. If you go for two months a year, it’s 18 years, and it’s harder both for people to document that, and it’s also harder for IRCC to track that in a regular way.
I also generally believe that a concentrated period of time in Canada is probably a deeper connection than one spread over many years, because on holiday, it’s a connection with family, and connection with friends and a connection with a place, but I don’t think it has the same deepness. People can disagree with that, but certainly on an administrative point of view, I think it’s something to keep in mind.
Senator Osler: And on an administrative point of view, having that five-year time frame to accumulate the 1,095 days, would actually make it easier to be administered. Is that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Griffith: I think a five-year time is a reasonable one, because also, again, listening to my former counterparts, they picked the number of days to match the citizenship requirement, and I think the same logic would also apply to the time frame under which to do it.
The difference is that for immigration to become a citizen, it has to be immediately the five years before the application, whereas this could be any time. So theoretically, you could meet it — yes.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here. I’d like to zero in on risk and mitigating risk, around potential vulnerabilities that are in Bill C-3, that could lead to future litigation, challenges or constitutional challenges. And so when I think of risk mitigating, I’m thinking of cost, but also disruption and reputation for Canada, and also more trauma for families and communities.
So I guess maybe I’d like you to zero in, if you could, on what your opinion would be on what could happen to the group 3, the intercountry adoption without an amendment to this Bill C-3 as it stands right now? How do you see that? What kind of an opinion do you have on that?
Mr. Hayer: One thing I would say is there’s still that underlying issue which is eventually going to pop up. What I will say is from this perspective: I believe this is now the fourth time this body has taken up the issue of citizenship and having inequality so heavily baked into the act. Coming back over and over again trying to rewrite this legislation is taxing on the Canadian psyche. Having the act change consistently, trying to say, well, here’s one issue and here’s another.
We also heard from the group that are challenging the act. Litigation is very draining. I can speak from experience. That would be very draining for them personally. We have an opportunity right now, if we were to put forward an amendment here and get it enacted into law, we could finally start moving past some of these issues that have plagued the Citizenship Act for so long.
Mr. Allen: I have listened — as you all have — to the very compelling testimony of persons affected by the differential treatment of adoptees both in terms of their ability to pass down citizenship and also the fact that they obtain citizenship only when they receive a grant, which could be quite late in life. I agree that this needs to be addressed. As I mentioned, tens of thousands of very compelling cases with people with strong ties to Canada who need this bill to go into effect so that they can assert their citizenship. We have two months. The deadline the court issued has been extended until January 20. If there were a way to come to a consensus in that period of time, that would be wonderful.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and bringing your legal expertise to our discussion.
You have been in the room, so you have heard my interest in the Power decision, and also the statement by the IRCC officials that the Department of Justice assured them that this bill meets all of the Charter standards. I am particularly interested in the gender-based analysis that is embedded within this bill.
Interestingly enough, the Department of Justice seemed to think it was just fine, and I would like to open it up for observations you might like to bring to this in terms of both the Power decision and also the Charter analysis.
Mr. Hayer: I’m going to draw your attention to two sections: section 3(1)(q) and section 3(1)(r). Both of the sections deal with a person born outside of Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada before January 1, 1947, to a parent who became a citizen under that date, and they specifically cite the Citizenship Act of 1946. Now, (r) says 1949 for Newfoundland. The reason I bring that up is this: If you read that act, and you read specifically the section which grants citizenship, it was exclusively to children of married fathers and unmarried mothers. That’s a really easy example. Are we potentially incorporating that?
What I have noticed in my practice, though, is that usually when those sections are interpreted, there are a number of sections above it which retroactively deem people to be citizens under other sections through January 1, 1947, or April 1, 1949, and they are read in a particular way. At this point, when we start reading the statute, we really shouldn’t have that risk. We shouldn’t be relying on the government to interpret it one way when it could be interpreted another way as well.
I’m just going back. The first time this issue was ever identified was in 1997, and I was 10 years old at the time. It was the same thing. When we apply these old retroactive statutes we inadvertently incorporate their values in, and then we are not sure why it produces an unequal result.
Senator McPhedran: Is there time for other responses?
The Chair: We have a minute and 30 seconds.
Mr. Griffith: On the GBA? Well, that started my time of government, and it is a fairly rigorous process from what I recall, but I haven’t actually read the GBA statement on the bill.
Senator McPhedran: What about the more general Charter?
Mr. Griffith: With regard to the Charter, I always relied on our Department of Justice lawyers for their advice on that because they have the more detailed expertise. My lay reading of it is that it should be Charter compliant. It is a reasonable measure in terms of the residency. I also think that a five-year limit wouldn’t change. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s my sense because we are not saying that there’s no restriction, and presumably the government in its analysis would say, yes, it is legitimate to have a restriction just like we have restrictions in other areas.
Senator McPhedran: Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen: The key consideration of the Bjorkquist decision was the enormous impact that the existing first-generation rule has on women, because it is women who give birth and it is women who have to return to Canada to ensure that their children are going to have citizenship. From that point of view, there is an enormous step forward that Bill C-3 represents as a theme we have come back to over and over again here. At the same time, I think all of this is going to be tested. Certainly, we have an enormous discrimination that the bill has in terms of children born after the coming into force of the bill, whose parents are going to have to meet an extremely rigorous test, and based on our experience, very few will meet it.
You just heard it right here. Two weeks in a cottage, you have to go there for 70 plus years to meet the requirement, and remember, that’s before the birth of your first child. So very few people are going to meet this requirement because we’re talking about people whose parents are born outside Canada, who were born outside of Canada themselves, who, by and large, live outside Canada. By contrast, there is an enormous population of people who are currently second generation and beyond, many of whom I alluded to, who are going to be citizens under this law.
Certainly, those questions are going to be tested as this comes into force. It is a double standard. We haven’t had a whole lot of explanation of exactly why that distinction is going to exist. We certainly are going to see it, and there are going to be substantial constitutional questions that will arise.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses. Good to see you again, Mr. Griffith. I have a clear sense from you, Mr. Griffith, in terms of amendments that you would like to see. Mr. Allen and Mr. Hayer, I am not sure I’m completely clear. I thought Mr. Allen wasn’t asking for amendments, but maybe you were thinking it through. Mr. Hayer, you talked about clear interpretive guidance. That’s something that could be done in a regulation. You want the act to be cleaned up and have clear language. That’s next steps. Regarding adoptees, though, I’m wondering if there was a specific amendment that you were wanting to put forward, and Mr. Allen, I may have misinterpreted what you had to say.
Mr. Hayer: What I will say is this: I made this recommendation last year with Bill C-71. Where I would put amendments is under section 3(1)(b). If the person was born outside of Canada after February 14, 1977, and at the time of his birth one of his parents other than the parent who adopted him was a Canadian citizen. What I would do is repeal the section under section 5, which is the naturalization provision concerning adoptees, and shift that to section 3(1)(b), and state, “At the time of the person’s birth or adoption one of its parents was a Canadian citizen” — take it further, make that gender neutral — that would more or less solve a lot of the issues. The other thing I would add to the subsection is that “so long as the adoption was consistent with Canada’s obligations under the Hague Convention.” That would resolve many of the issues that have popped up.
It may also then require going through some of the other subsections too that applied before February 15, 1977, and allow the adoptees to be included there as well. It could be another amendment where it says “the above shall include adoptees.” I think that would resolve many of those issues.
As for cleaning up, I don’t know if it can happen this time. At some point this body needs to take up the fact of why are we referencing bills that don’t think women are equal to men, that think fathers are still the head of the household?
We should remove those references as much as possible and say — someone who is a Canadian citizen. For example, rather than say the Citizenship Act, just say somebody who was a Canadian citizen on January 1, 1947.
Mr. Allen: It is true. The message I wanted to come here to bring is based on our experience with so many of these people and how much benefit Canada stands to gain from welcoming them into our society as fellow citizens.
I have followed the debate — the extensive, lengthy debate in the House of Commons — and seen these people referred to over and over again as Canadians of convenience, people with no ties to Canada.
What I wanted to do was to come here and say, “You know, that’s not true.” They are our own flesh and blood. They are the best of our past and the hope of our future. I see Bill C-3 as a huge step forward.
Now, if I were sitting here a year ago and being asked to draft it, there are problems I see with the way it is drafted which I think pale by comparison to what we stand to gain. That’s what I mainly wanted to say.
I agree with both of the points Mr. Hayer raised about adoptees. I think those would be valuable. I also think there are holdovers from the fact that the existing citizenship law was drafted against a background of limited availability as citizenship by descent. It contains language that is going to cause problems with respect to parents who died.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Senator Arnot: My question is for Mr. Hayer. Sir, you represent the Canadian Bar Association, 40,000 members or so in Canada. I believe you are saying this bill is flawed and there is a Charter breach in section 15, without any question. The last time you were here, you said you had a draft statement of claim ready to go on this very issue.
Mr. Hayer: I have a potential claim, willing to litigate.
Senator Arnot: I’m going to bet there is a one thousand per cent litigation risk with this bill, correct?
Mr. Hayer: Yes.
Senator Arnot: To anybody who would like to answer, would you encourage this committee to do an in-depth study on this very issue and try to cure the “Lost Canadians” once and for all? It is very important. It has to be done through legislation. Would you support a study of that nature by this committee?
We’re going to pass this bill. We are going to be forced to pass it tomorrow by 7 o’clock or so without any amendment. We were told by the minister, and many others, this bill will die if we don’t pass it, so we have to pass it even though it is flawed.
There is a whole cohort of around 2,000 people who are going to be negatively affected when we pass this bill. Any comments?
Mr. Hayer: Yes. I don’t want to talk about the legislative process. That’s not my expertise. I will defer to you there.
What I will say is this is an issue which has been brought up a number of times. The first attempt Parliament made was when they enacted the current Citizenship Act on February 15, 1977.
Then the Supreme Court of Canada said in 1997 in the Benner decision, gender discrimination is heavily baked into this law. Then in 2009 there was a bill, I forget the exact name, then amendments in 2009 and 2015. We have been trying to fix this now for longer than I have been alive.
I think the time has to come where we have to finally look at the Citizenship Act and say, “how do we go to a truly gender-neutral one” which uses an objective test, not based on any arbitrary lines but ones which reflect the realities of the average person. That is how it should be baked in.
The other thing we should be doing is, okay, these were the acts that were existing before; do they still share our values? If they don’t, they don’t have any need to be here.
Every country in the world has a citizenship-by-descent provision. Very few of them try to make references to old laws. You see this definitely in the U.S. one. There is no reference to the old laws. It is a clearly defined test which is objective and clear. That’s what we need.
Senator Muggli: Litigation may take a while, I don’t know how long. In the meantime, not that a private member’s bill wouldn’t take an even longer time but, Mr. Allen and Mr. Hayer, do you think this might be an option to deal with group three related to intercountry adoption? I want to hear from you whether you think there are any policy or regulatory options that can support this group of people?
Mr. Hayer: As long as the adoptee provisions under the naturalization provisions, rather than section 3 which is automatic grant of citizenship at birth, we have a potential issue which will pop up one day. It will be litigated.
Again, I’m not familiar with the legislative process. I don’t want to go too in depth. I will say we do have an opportunity, if we amend the bill now, it gives us an opportunity to finally put at least one of these big issues to bed and give people a pathway rather than having them go through the courts.
I’ll mention the federal court is clogged up to begin with. Why are we putting another thing on to the court’s burden when this is the body? This is what should be writing and interpreting laws. It shouldn’t be left to the courts to constantly nudge Parliament in the right direction.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Allen, do you see any regulatory or policy options to help this group in the meantime?
Mr. Allen: No. I think it is a legislative matter. There is going to be litigation; we heard that today from the same legal team that won the Bjorkquist decision. That’s going to come to a head, for sure.
From what we have heard today, I think the government is confident their interpretation of the current framework is correct. We didn’t hear a lot of wavering on that. I think it is going to be litigation or the development of new legislation in the wake of this that is going to solve this problem. It is baked into the law. It is either going to be a court or this body that changes that.
Senator Muggli: Do you want to respond, Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith: I think it is legislative. My lay reading again is you do need a legislative fix for this. The other point that’s been made a number of times in this committee — in not only this session but previous sessions — is the bill does need a complete rewrite starting from scratch. Even the lawyers have problems reading it. Heaven help the rest of us. You got that in answer from my counterpart at IRCC. It is not on the radar because they are so busy doing other stuff. It is not a priority.
If we want to take citizenship more seriously, there are a number of things we can do. I think one of the things that would be a really good thing to do is to take a full look at the Citizenship Act and actually draft a new one that deals with all the anachronisms, the old language and really represents a readable, modern act that reflects where Canada is now and where Canada should go.
Senator Muggli: Sounds like a study. Thank you.
Senator Cuzner: I lived in Fort McMurray for 10 years, and the only thing I lost in Fort McMurray was my Cape Breton accent, but I didn’t lose my Cape Breton citizenship. I would only get home for two weeks in the summer, and in a good year, I would get home for two weeks at Christmastime.
To limit the 1,095 days to five years, I think, is a challenge. The area that I represent — our trades people have been travelling the world working on some of the biggest construction projects, and they go for six or eight months at a time or whatever it might be. To jam something into five years, I think that’s a challenge. I’m supportive of the approach that they have taken.
On making sure that they spend this time in the country, is Canada Border Services Agency not able to track the comings and goings of people now? Every time you cross the border, they swish your passport, so they know when you enter the country, and they know when you leave the country. Should that not be data enough to solidify the fact that you are there 1,095 days, or is there more data that is needed beyond that?
Mr. Griffith: Let me start with the first one.
I think when we look at the five-year limit, we also have to look at a lifetime. In your adult working life, if you are travelling and everything like that, it may be hard to do it, but, presumably, a lot of those people have actually spent time in Canada as children or as students, and so the actual number who would be affected — I mean, it is a bit like Don Chapman’s example of the airline pilots, and there are other ones that are like that.
If you look at a lifetime, a lot of those people will have spent their childhoods in Canada, so they will have met the three years and the five years, but there will be some people that will probably fall outside. Again, that’s one of the reasons why I was looking for the analysis of the 4,200 applications, because they should be able to assess that. Is it 90% that can meet it or not? It is important information.
I forgot your second question.
Senator Cuzner: Canada Border Services providing —
Mr. Griffith: On the tracking. From what I understand, in theory, they should be, but I haven’t seen public data sets that actually track this. I have some folks who have worked with Statistics Canada on it, and they tell me that there are some data issues involved.
Theoretically, yes, it should be done, but the test, for me, will be when Statistics Canada or when CBSA publish monthly stats in terms of — so they can show that.
It is coming, is my understanding, but I don’t think we have it just yet.
Mr. Hayer: I just want to point out about the travel history.
One of the first things we do in our office before we apply for anybody to renew their permanent resident card or to apply for Canadian citizenship through the usual naturalization process is we get the travel history from the Canada Border Services Agency. We also obtain their I-94, which takes about five seconds. We can obtain it from there, and most countries now do keep complete records, so we have started getting it.
The records are available. They are very easily accessible. If we are lucky, we usually get our Canada Border Services Agency’s records within six to eight weeks, the United States’s records within five minutes, and most countries can get them within a month. If that is a concern, it is there. That data exists. It is very easily accessible.
The Chair: With no further questions, we will end this session.
Colleagues, this meeting concludes the witness testimony that we have on the work plan for this bill. The committee’s next meeting, which is tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m., will be clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
Please note that this meeting will not be in our usual committee room. It will be in Room W120 in the Wellington Building.
(The committee adjourned.)