SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 183 - Apr/24/23

Apr/24/23 4:04:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank Bloc members for their kindness and understanding on the issue, because they are exactly right. Stripping immigrants of their right to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad is wrong. It creates a second class of citizens, and it is wrong. By doing that, we are breaking up families; families are being separated. Can members imagine a Canadian's child born abroad being stateless? That is the reality people are faced with, and it should not be that way.

84 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Apr/24/23 4:05:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for moving concurrence on a report during a meeting of the immigration committee right now to discuss a draft report on a different matter. At committee, when there was a discussion on this on the public record, I had moved an amendment that suggested we give ourselves more time to consider new amendments and give the clerk enough time to provide us these amendments in both official languages so we could consider the expansion of the scope of what that would involve. Why did the member vote against it and why she did not want to have all the amendments presented that would be out of scope beyond the original intent of the bill?

123 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/24/23 4:05:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is because committee members had the time to do exactly that. That is exactly what I did. I tabled a bunch of amendments that I wanted to see adjusted and amended in this bill, worked with legislative counsel and tabled them with the committee's clerk in time for the deadline established for all committee members. The Conservatives, of course, could have done that, but they did not; they chose not to. However, that was their choice, not my choice. I did the work and met the deadline. All committee members could have done the same.

99 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Apr/24/23 4:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a response that would make sense if the amendments were all in scope. Some amendments turned out not to be in scope, and that is what members of the Conservative Party saw. This was a Senate bill that came from Senator Yonah Martin, a Conservative senator who had discussed this matter with members of the Conservative caucus. Therefore, we did not need to make amendments to the bill, because we agreed with the intent of Senator Yonah Martin, for a very fixed group of lost Canadians, to expedite a bill through the Senate and the House of Commons. The Senate was kind enough to do it without committee review, and what is happening right now at committee and with this concurrence report is that we are going far beyond what the senator intended with the original bill. Why did the member want to abridge the process and basically vandalize Senator Yonah Martin's original intent for the bill, which would have expedited fixing a problem for a certain group of lost Canadians? There was always the opportunity to present new legislation, whether it be government legislation, a new Senate bill or even a private member's bill that could have come from the member. Why were those options not considered?

214 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/24/23 4:07:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when Senator Yonah Martin intended to table this bill on addressing the age rule, the “28-year rule”, I did actually have conversations with the senator and indicated that it would be really important to address other lost Canadians as well. I know that Conservative members, including this member, have had conversations with people like Don Chapman and others to talk about the implication of leaving out the lost Canadians, Canadians such as Emma and others like her whose families have been broken apart because of this situation. Families need to leave their children behind because they do not have Canadian status. This is wrong and we need to fix this. Certainly, I raised this issue with the senator. I raised it with the Conservative members too, by the way. They seemed to be okay with it, and all of a sudden they are not okay with it. I am of course reminded of the fact that it was the Conservatives who took away those rights to begin with, and maybe they are sensitive to that. We should actually fix this problem and put the people's issues before us to make sure families that have been broken up and separated no longer need to face that situation. We should not do that. That is why I am moving these amendments, which would be out of scope. That is why I am seeking the House's authority so the committee can move forward in addressing amendments out of scope.

253 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/24/23 4:09:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to be consistent on the issue of concurrence reports that come up when we could be debating, in this case, budgetary measures. It is not to take away from the importance of the issue, but I do have a question more so of the principle of when a member wants to move forward amendments. For example, when one brings forward legislation, whether it is private members', a resolution or a government piece of legislation, there are rules in place to ensure the initial intent and scope are not being changed. In good part, this is because there is a great deal of consultation that has been done in advance from the department and the different stakeholders. I am wondering if my friend could provide her thoughts. When we look at changing the scope of things, it really dictates a different perspective that needs to be explored before any sort of quick decision. I would like her thoughts on that.

163 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/24/23 4:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course I have been working in collaboration with government members on this, including the minister's office, because the situation is such that the lost Canadians who are impacted by these rules are suffering. They are suffering to the point where people are in such distress. Can one imagine having a newborn baby to two Canadian parents who is stateless? That is the reality they are faced with. There were witnesses who came before committee, and the witnesses all said that we need to fix this. We need to make sure these lost Canadians are made whole. At committee, I was very open and forthcoming in indicating that this is what we need to do and that amendments need to be brought forward to address this. We then talked about some scenarios, about how these amendments could address some of these issues and what that could look like.

151 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Apr/24/23 4:11:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke a lot about some of the folks who are going through this very difficult situation caused by a previous government's laws and regulations. Could she talk more specifically about what someone who faces that statelessness experiences? What would Emma's child have to go through as part of that scenario?

57 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/24/23 4:11:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if a person is stateless, that means they do not have status in the country they were born in because their parents do not have status there. Therefore, their child does not have status in that country. Back here in Canada, they also do not have status, so the child is in the middle of nowhere. Meanwhile, if the parents were to move to Canada, which is what they want to do, they cannot bring their child with them. Can colleagues imagine what that situation is like? Even if they were able to bring their child to Canada, without status the child would not be able to get education or get medical care like any other Canadian would be able to. This is why these laws need to be changed. They were wrong to strip immigrants of those rights. We need to make them whole, and we need to do it now.

154 words

Hon. Filomena Tassi

Apr/24/23 4:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1302 to 1315.

22 words

All Topics

Ms. Ya'ara Saks (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.)

Apr/24/23 4:13:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to the motion to concur in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with regard to expanding the scope of Bill S-245, which seeks to address lost Canadians. While the bill is well intended in its aim to address the remaining lost Canadians, as drafted, it falls short of correcting what I see as the key challenges on this file. As a matter of fact, it is something that I spoke to in our first debate on this bill when it came to the House. Before outlining the concerns that I have with Bill S-245 as written, I will briefly touch on the circumstances that led to the emergence of lost Canadians. The requirements and complexities of the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, and former provisions of the current Citizenship Act, created cohorts of people who lost or never had citizenship status. They are referred to as “lost Canadians”. To address this issue, changes to citizenship laws that came into force in 2009 and 2015 restored status or gave citizenship for the first time to the majority of lost Canadians. Before the 2009 amendments, people born abroad beyond the first generation, that is, born abroad to a Canadian parent who was also born abroad, were considered Canadian citizens at birth, but only until they turned 28 years old. This is sometimes referred to, as my colleague mentioned previously, as the “28-year rule”. If these individuals did not apply to retain their citizenship before they turned 28, they would automatically lose it. Some people were not even aware they had to meet these requirements and lost their citizenship unknowingly. These people who lost their citizenship because of this rule are often referred to as “the last cohort of the lost Canadians”. Since we began this debate in the chamber, many of them have written to me and other members of the immigration committee. To prevent future losses, the age 28 rule was repealed in 2009. At the same time, the law was changed to establish a clear first-generation limit to the right of automatic citizenship by descent. This means that, today, children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent are Canadian citizens from birth if they have a parent who is either born in Canada or naturalized as a Canadian citizen. Unlike the former retention provisions of the Citizenship Act, those children do not need to do anything to keep their Canadian citizenship. Those born in the second or subsequent generations abroad do not automatically become Canadians at birth. This first-generation limit is firm on who does or does not have a claim to citizenship by descent. I would like to lean into this with a personal experience I have had with this, with my own two daughters. As is well known, I am a citizen of two countries, born Canadian but raised in Israel. At a certain point in my early adulthood, I chose to return to Israel to be with my family there. I got married and had my eldest daughter. She was born there, and upon her birth I applied for Canadian citizenship for her. Subsequently, we returned to Canada, in approximately 2008, and my second daughter was born here in Toronto, where we live today, in York Centre. She also obviously has Canadian citizenship, having been born here. However, if my eldest daughter chooses for some reason to live elsewhere in the world, such as in Israel, where she is currently living this year, and if she has children, my grandchildren will not be Canadian, even though she has lived here the majority of her life. Although her core ties to Canada are clear and well committed to, she has lost the ability to confer that citizenship onto her children as a result of the Bill C-37 change that was made under the Harper government in 2009. Ironically, if my younger daughter, who was born here, were to have children abroad, they would automatically be Canadian, as she would be able to bestow upon them what I was able to bestow upon her. Herein lie some of the problems we have been discussing as colleagues in this House. I can appreciate the work of Senator Martin in wanting to narrow it down to a specific group of individuals, but, frankly, as my colleague from the Bloc said, this is about dignity, compassion, and a sense of heritage and connection that is being stripped away from many, so I will continue to talk about this. There are many people who are born abroad or adopted from abroad to a Canadian parent beyond the first generation. These individuals are not citizens, but still feel they have a very close tie to Canada, just like my daughter does, and also see themselves as lost Canadians. Currently, these individuals can only become Canadian citizens by going through the immigration process. That is to say, they must first qualify and then apply to become permanent residents. Then after the required time, they must apply to become citizens. In some specialized cases, people born abroad in the second generation are eligible to apply for a grant of citizenship, but only in exceptional circumstances. Turning back to Bill S-245, though it is well-intentioned as written, it does not address some of the remaining lost Canadians. Bill S-245 is targeting only the lost Canadians who lost citizenship because of the age 28 rule for those who were born abroad after the first generation and had already turned 28 years old and lost their citizenship before the law changed in 2009. The bill as written excludes people who applied to retain citizenship but were refused. This is an issue because those who never applies to keep their citizenship would have their citizenship restored by the bill as written, while those who took steps to retain their citizenship but were refused would not benefit from this bill. Recognizing that the age 28 rule was problematic for all, it is my hope that the committee will consider amendments to restore the citizenship status of all those impacted by the former age 28 rule, which has since been repealed. The committee heard compelling testimony from witnesses that precisely highlighted the problem with excluding one of the cohorts impacted by the age 28 rule. As I understand it, the committee for immigration also received dozens of written submissions from stakeholders both inside and outside of Canada. As a matter of fact, some of those stakeholders have also written to me in light of my previous interventions in the chamber on this matter. It would seem that there were many people watching Bill S-245 closely, like me, as parents. What is interesting is that almost all of the written submissions point out the challenges that exist for people born abroad in the second generation or beyond. Given the call from stakeholders, I feel strongly that the committee should be empowered to at least consider solutions for some of the other people who consider themselves to be lost Canadians. This is the subject of today's debate. Does the House support the request from committee to expand the scope of the bill to see what could be done for the other lost Canadians? I think we must support this. My story with my daughters is really not unusual for many of the constituents I represent in York Centre whose children go back and forth between Israel and get married here or in the United States. The Jewish community has very close cross-border ties, and these families, like many Canadian families, sometimes have some fluidity due to faith, culture or language and have other strong connections. They are watching this closely as well. That is why I think we should be supporting this, because those who were born to a Canadian parent abroad beyond the first generation, including those adopted from abroad, are not Canadian citizens but feel they should be because they have a strong connection to Canada, similar to my older daughter. To address these other lost Canadians, the bill could be amended by introducing a pathway to citizenship for people in this exact situation. I was really disappointed to hear about the reaction by Conservative members when the motion to expand the scope of Bill S-245 was presented at committee. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion, but rather than give serious or substantive arguments about why the scope should or should not be expanded, some members took the opportunity to make threats about what they would do if the scope is expanded. This is actually very disappointing. The member for Calgary Nose Hill stated: ...do we really want to have the immigration committee all of a sudden drop into a broader review of the Citizenship Act? If we are opening up this bill beyond the scope of what is here right now, I will propose amendments that are well beyond the scope of this bill. There are a lot of things I would like to see changed in the Citizenship Act. I will come prepared with those things, and we will be debating them. I really take issue with this approach. I am not a member of the committee so I do not know what confidential amendments the members have already put on notice for the bill, but the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill absolutely does not have that information. We do know that. When she made these comments, she was fully aware of what members were going to propose. Furthermore, the member for Vancouver East was pretty clear in her comments on the motion that she was not trying to make changes to some completely unrelated section of the Citizenship Act. As a matter of fact, she said that today as well. It is quite something for a member to threaten to overwhelm committee processes by trying to propose amendments that are, in her words, “well beyond the scope”. I am disappointed, and it is unfortunate that the Conservatives are closed off to the urging they heard from stakeholders and that all members heard at committee from witnesses. I am not alone in having been put off by that fact, and I want to read into the record a communication that I understand was sent to committee members after the motion to expand the scope was moved at committee last Monday. I think it has a lot of meaning for all of us listening to this debate today. It says: Dear Members of the Citizenship and Immigration committee of the House of Commons, First I would like to thank the committee for taking the time to reflect on and discuss Bill S-245. Although the current language of the bill will have no effect on my status as a Lost Canadian, I am hopeful that this bill will help to pave the way for a path to citizenship for myself and others who are lost. My story is like that of many other Lost Canadians. I live a life unfairly exiled from the country that my mother lives in. She lives alone in Haida Gwaii, and as she grows older, I wonder how I should be able to care for her, when it is illegal for me to live in the same country as her. I will not at this time speak to the immense pain, suffering and grief I live with every day. I am not writing to you to tell you another story of a Lost Canadian. I am here instead, asking that the language you use while discussing Canadian citizenship be more sensitive and fair to those with ancestral ties to Canada. I do not believe it is the members intention to further marginalize those Canadians who have been stripped of their ties to Canada and it is for that reason that I make this plea to you all. Time and time again, when discussing citizenship and lost Canadians, House members use the words “immigrant” and “citizen” as if they are interchangeable. The intent of Bill S-245 has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with citizenship. As a Lost Canadian, when I am referred to in the same sentence as someone looking to immigrate I am astounded. I am heartbroken. Above all, I fear that if we are constantly grouped together with those individuals looking to immigrate to Canada, that we will never be seen for who we really are—individuals who have been unjustly stripped of our birthright to Canadian Citizenship. From an outside perspective it seems that the members inability to separate these two concepts—citizenship vs. immigration—while trying to address the issue being studied in bill S-245 is creating divisiveness over expanding the bill to make it fair and just for those of us who have been unfairly stripped of, or denied our birthright to Canadian citizenship.... It is disingenuine to speak of this as if it were an immigration issue. [Such language]...continues to reinforce the emotional damage and trauma we experience daily living in exile. It goes on: The intent of bill S-245 is to extend Canadian citizenship. To threaten amendments to Bill S-245 such as mandating in person citizenship ceremonies, is not only ridiculously out of scope for this bill, it is insulting to the masses of Lost Canadians simply looking to return home. I understand that the complexities surrounding this issue of Lost Canadians and second generation born abroad Canadians make the situation difficult to understand. But until the members of this committee, those with the most influence on legislation regarding citizenship can themselves make the distinction between “Citizenship” and “Immigration” there will be no clear path forward for those of us who are lost. So I beg of you. Lost Canadians are not immigrants. We are Canadians. The language used by the members should reflect that. The words spoken in this moment have much weight for those of us who are suffering. Please see us for who we are so that you may more fully open your minds and hearts, and let us in.... If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding—

2430 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/24/23 4:27:50 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the member for Perth—Wellington.

13 words

Mr. John Nater

Apr/24/23 4:27:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe quorum has been lost.

8 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/24/23 4:28:01 p.m.
Watch

We will start counting. And the count having been taken: The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum now. I will wait until everybody has come to order, and then we can start up again. The hon. Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

46 words

Ms. Ya'ara Saks

Apr/24/23 4:28:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, to wrap up my comments, I will share the last thoughts of the stakeholder who wrote to the committee. She said: If you can see us as the Canadians we are then I believe this issue can be dealt with more clearly. This cannot be an issue where members let their views, beliefs or desires regarding immigration cloud an issue that is very clearly about citizenship policy.... We are Canadians since birth looking to return home, not immigrants desiring to move to a new country. We may be lost, but we are proud and hopeful. See us for who we are so that you may help us. Kindest Regards, Jennifer Johnnes. I think the words speak for themselves and show how deeply painful the subject of lost Canadians is and how traumatic it is for them. I would add that the amendments in 2009, in essentially creating a situation where families would be separated, where they could not be reunited and where almost a two-tier system of who is Canadian has been created, is something we should be addressing. While Senator Yonah Martin may have put this bill forward with one intention, I think it is a unique opportunity for us to correct the path to make sure everyone who is eligible for Canadian citizenship by birthright, by the right of their parents and by the right of their families to raise their children here or their desire as Canadians to raise their children here is contemplated. We must take this up with the utmost urgency. I humbly ask members of the House to consider the importance of expanding Bill S-245 so that it can be improved and ultimately better meet its objective of addressing more lost Canadians.

292 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Apr/24/23 4:30:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a specific question for the member. It is more of a commentary on what I heard her read to the House to provide the perspective of her party. I will mention to those listening at home that the member is a parliamentary secretary. The government has known for almost eight years that there were these different groups of lost Canadians. There is always the ability to table government legislation, and I think we will find that a lot of members of this House are willing to consider plugging holes in legislation. That is exactly what Senator Yonah Martin has been doing in two Parliaments. She was able to convince the Senate to move Bill S-230 through the Senate with one committee hearing to consider the exact same bill we have today, Bill S-245. She was able to do so because she is widely considered to be a non-partisan member and widely considered to be well informed on the subject of the Citizenship Act. Members at that committee voted against my amendment to suggest, if we are going to go beyond the scope, that we give ourselves more time to consider what groups of lost Canadians we could consider and what different situations lost Canadians might find themselves in. I will tell the parliamentary secretary that the Liberal benches voted against my amendment to the motion that brings us here today to debate this concurrence report. This is about process. We do not know when the next election will come in a minority Parliament, and it very well could be that lost Canadians will have to wait again for another Parliament before this particular group of lost Canadians will have their citizenship restored to them, as it should be. This is not a question about whether it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do. It is about process. We have a bill and an opportunity to fix something for a particular group of Canadians. We all agree on that, and by doing this, the bill will be sent back to the Senate, and the Senate will thereafter make further considerations and call more witnesses to the committee. That is simply the legislative process. I know that is difficult for the government to understand. I know it is difficult to have such a thin legislative agenda. However, this situation could have been avoided.

405 words

Ms. Ya'ara Saks

Apr/24/23 4:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will share with the member that I am quite familiar with the process, having successfully passed with my colleagues Keira's law, Bill C-233, and understanding the immense value of unanimous consent and when members work across party lines because issues are so important. I do not think any of this is partisan. I think this issue affects many families, including my own, and many constituents in my riding of York Centre. As a matter of fact, the member for Thornhill would attest to that as well, as we share similar constituency demographics in that sense. She is a member on his benches, and I would encourage him to perhaps speak to her about the many families in similar situations. There is always an opportunity to work collaboratively, and I certainly hope the member will consider it.

141 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/24/23 4:33:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-245

Mr. Speaker, a situation with the cut-off rule for first-generation born Canadians has been in place for 14 years now, and many families have suffered during this period. It is true that the government could have brought in legislation to make that change, but that has not happened. With that being said, we now have an opportunity before us through a Senate bill, Bill S-245, to fix the lost Canadian rules once and for all. If we all care about this issue as we say we do, should we not then seize this opportunity to expand the scope of the bill, fix the lost Canadian community that has not been addressed in this bill and fix those issues once and for all?

125 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/24/23 4:34:43 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

12 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/24/23 4:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, can the member provide her thoughts regarding the importance of Canadian citizenship and—

16 words