Pursuant to notice of November 20, 2024, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024), introduced in the House of Commons on May 23, 2024, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than December 10, 2024.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak briefly on government Motion No. 201, which calls on the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to carry out a study on Bill C-71.

The bill establishes a revised framework governing citizenship by descent and restores citizenship to a cohort of people frequently known as the “lost Canadians.” It is a matter that the Social Affairs Committee has examined before, notably in the context of legislation proposed by our colleague Senator Martin, Bill S-230 in the last Parliament and Bill S-245 in the current one. Our chamber passed both of these bills, but neither has yet been adopted by the other place.

Bill C-71 is the government’s own legislative response to this issue. Colleagues, there is now some urgency to deal with it due to an upcoming court deadline. For your benefit, colleagues, let me provide a quick sequence of recent events to explain how we got here.

Last December, the Ontario Superior Court struck down the first-generation limit on the transmission of citizenship by Canadians born abroad. In her ruling, the judge acknowledged that the right to transmit citizenship need not be limitless and gave the government six months — that is until last June — to enact new, more circumscribed legislation.

The government introduced its bill in May and successfully sought two extensions of the court’s deadline, first to August and then to December 19 — in other words, just under a month from now.

Bill C-71 did get debated at second reading in September, but as we know, there has not been much legislative progress in the other place this fall.

The government has given notice of motion that would allow for the quick adoption of Bill C-71 in the House of Commons, but, again, colleagues, it is unclear when — or indeed if — that will happen. The bottom line here is that there is a reasonable chance that this bill will land in our chamber sometime in December, with a court deadline looming and very little time for us to debate and study it at that point.

That’s why I’m proposing that the committee begin its study of the bill now.

If the committee deems the bill acceptable, we will be able to deal with it when the time comes, and if the committee feels that the bill needs to be amended or studied further, that will still be an option.

It is important to appreciate and to understand what is at stake if the court’s deadline passes without new legislation in place. In that scenario, there would essentially be no limits on the transmission of Canadian citizenship by descent. Someone born to a Canadian parent on the other side of the world who never sets foot in Canada and has no connection to this country would nevertheless be able to transmit Canadian citizenship to their children and potentially to future generations, with all the rights and privileges that Canadian citizenship entails.

Even for a country as welcoming and open as Canada is, certain limitations are appropriate, as indeed the court has recognized. Bill C-71 would respect the court’s ruling while putting such limitations in place.

Honourable senators, I encourage you to support the motion currently before us so that the committee can begin its study and the Senate can be ready to examine Bill C-71 when the time comes.

Thank you for your attention.

Will you accept a question, Senator Gold?

Yes.

Thank you for your question. No, my office did not direct and does not direct committees. It did not and does not and would not, nor is it my role as Government Representative to be the Senate’s investigator.

The issue of a pre-study was raised with leadership some weeks ago, as you know, and again earlier this week when I expressed my intention to move forward with the motion which I moved today. But, no, my office had nothing to do with the decision that the steering committee might have made or, as you said, did make. I have nothing further to add or to do in that regard.

Let me explain the body language that you saw. First of all, with all respect, my office had nothing to do with the decision that you have reported, and I do not believe that it is my responsibility or our office’s responsibility to interfere with or make inquiries, frankly, as to why a committee — which is the master of its own procedure and its own affairs — decided to raise the issue, I gather, at the steering committee, but I really don’t know the circumstances.

Nor was I aware until you raised this question of the issue of how many meetings were raised or discussed. It is certainly not the view of the government that this bill — we have no view, frankly, as to how many meetings, how many sessions or how many witnesses this bill would require. It’s precisely because we respect the Senate’s role in studying legislation properly, as it sees fit, and because we respect the committee’s ability to decide what needs to be done, which witnesses need to be heard and what improvements, if any, need to be brought forward that we’re asking the Senate — under these circumstances, with a court deadline approaching — to give the Senate and its committees the mandate to do the work that we were summoned here to do.

With all respect, senator, the urgency is simply to avoid a situation where — whether or not an extension is requested, and whether or not an extension is granted — we in the Senate have no time to do the job which we all believe we were summoned to do and are constitutionally required to do.

That’s the purpose of the motion.

Senator Gold, I listened to your speech, and a number of us are not big fans of pre-study, except in specific or unusual circumstances. I think you’re building a good case that this is one of those times, so I think this deserves consideration.

I wonder if you have any information with respect to the government’s intentions or actions around an application in court.

We’ve had this before, as you recall, where we were stampeded into making a decision to meet a court date, only to find out after the stampede that they received an extension, and we weren’t aware of it.

We found out, though, in that circumstance, that there was a portal you could go to in the Supreme Court of Canada docket to see applications, but, unfortunately, in the lower court, I’m told, there is no such way to find out. The only way we can find out and take that into consideration would be if you tell us what the intentions are or if anything, indeed, has already been done.

Thank you.

I’ve made regular inquiries, and, as of this morning or at least as of late last night — and I believe my team would have advised me otherwise, because we’re monitoring this — no application has been submitted. I have not been advised yet that a decision has been taken one way or the other.

I do want to take the opportunity to remind colleagues, especially those who are newer in this chamber, that just because a pre-study is done — even in the event that an extension were permitted, that study can continue, and we have, in the past, transformed the pre-study into a committee.

There will be no diminution of the Senate’s ability to study this bill fully. If, in fact, an extension were to be requested and given, it is all the better for the Senate study to be completed without the pressure of a court deadline.

That’s the value — I hesitated to say “virtue” — of a pre-study under these extraordinary circumstances.

Thank you for the question.