QUESTION PERIOD — Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Citizenship Legislation
May 29, 2024
My question is for Senator Gold. It relates to Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. This legislation is in response to a December 19, 2023, Ontario Superior Court ruling that ruled that first-generation limit found in the present Citizenship Act is contrary to the Charter and unconstitutional. The court gave the government a six-month period to fix the legislation, and that six months is up on June 19. The government can now demonstrate that it is taking action through the introduction of Bill C-71 in the other place last week.
Given this and the importance of this matter in determining who is a Canadian, should the government not seek an extension to the June 19 deadline so this important piece of legislation can be fully considered in the other place and not sent to the Senate with little time to be fully examined by committee, fully debated and senators having the opportunity to provide sober second thought?
Thank you for your question, Senator Quinn. You may know something that I don’t. I don’t know that it is the intention of the government to send it to the Senate so that we will then be asked to pass it before June 19. That is not my understanding of what is on the agenda in the other place. Nor do I have knowledge of whether they are going to ask for an extension because — to the best of my understanding, Senator Quinn — this important Bill C-71, which was only recently introduced in the House, will not receive Royal Assent by June 19.
Since you’ve raised this question and as I have no knowledge of any plans to get it here soon, much less out of here soon, I’ll certainly make some inquiries so that I am aware of what the situation is. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Gold. As a follow-up, surely there is an obligation to respond with the court’s decision to reply by June 19, but it sounds like that may not be a legal requirement. Would that be correct?
Well, no, Senator Quinn, I think what senators should understand is that when a court gives a grace period for a government to respond, they’re simply inviting the government to legislate or to take the time to legislate if that’s how they choose to respond. There is no sanction that a court could impose upon a sovereign parliament to act or not act. The consequence, however, would be if Parliament doesn’t fill the legal gap and there are legal consequences. But I’m sure the government has taken that into account.
