Bill S-245

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are doing clause-by-clause on Bill S-245.

We have Conservative amendment 5 on the floor, and I have Mr. Maguire on the list.

Mr. Maguire, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting to order.

We are on clause-by-clause on Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor. Seeing no one....

Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

This a non-debatable motion. Mr. Redekopp has asked to have debate on his motion. We will go to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will now resume our clause-by-clause study of Bill S-245. We have amendment CPC-5 on the floor.

The floor is open for debate. I have Ms. Rempel Garner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I think we're getting into.... We're dealing with Bill S-245. We are doing clause-by-clause.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, I just want to let folks know so that they can anticipate this.

The motion would read:

That, following news reports that international students admitted into Canada with valid study permits were issued fraudulent college acceptance letters by immigration consultants, and are now facing deportation, the committee issue a news release to condemn the actions of these fraudulent 'ghost consultants' and call on the Canada Border Services Agency to immediately stay pending deportations of affected international students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted, such as the Humanitarian and Compassionate application process or a broad regularization program.

I just want to let people know that it is my intention to move that motion at the end of the meeting today, assuming we can finish Bill S-245.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before we get into Bill S-245, I would like to first put on notice the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study into the targeted exploitation scheme faced by 700 Punjabi international students in which they were unknowingly defrauded by a “ghost” immigration consultant who used inauthentic admission letters for their student visa application; that this study be comprised of two meetings; and that the study consider:

a) how the situation was allowed to happen;

b) why fraudulent documents were not detected until years later when the students began to apply for permanent status;

c) the significant harm experienced by students including financial loss and distress;

d) measures necessary to help the students to have their deportation stayed, inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation waived, and provide a pathway to permanent status; and

e) that the committee also examine how to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

I'm putting this motion on notice, Madam Chair. I fully understand the precedence of the order is for us to finish Bill S-245, for bills to be dealt with. Then we can entertain other studies, so I've put that forward.

The other thing I want to note, Madam Chair, is that, at the end of the meeting today, I would like to move the following motion. The language is as follows—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I will remind you that we will be meeting for three hours today.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to certain Canadians). We will continue our clause-by-clause study of the bill.

When we left off, Mr. Kmiec had just moved an amendment from the floor, which has been distributed to the committee. The floor is open for debate.

I have two people on the speaking list, Ms. Kwan and then Mr. Redekopp.

Ms. Kwan.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Some of the amendments we're not going to be carrying through. It's hard to tell which ones we will be moving forward with, based on the conversation at the table.

I proposed an amendment, as you know, Madam Chair, about a month ago to reset the deadline for amendments to May 15. After a very brief debate, that amendment was voted down on Bill S-245. I wanted to avoid this situation, but it's now impossible, so this is a floor amendment. I have floor amendments to move. There are members of my committee who want to, and I'm not going to rush them.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, first of all, I want to thank my dear friend Mr. Ali, not only for bringing all these statistics and personally attending the meetings last week but also for all the great work he does, not only for the people of Brampton Centre but in fact on any real issue. On the student issue, he was there, and on any other issue that comes in that affects the immigrant community, he has always been there. I want to thank him.

Madam Chair, I want to tell the committee members that I came to Canada as an immigrant as well. I came to Canada in 1984 and landed in a beautiful city at that time, Calgary. I went to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and to the University of Calgary, getting my engineering degree.

Madam Chair, I got my citizenship in 1987 at the earliest moment I could. I was very proud and am still very proud to be Canadian. It's not only me. In fact, all my family are Canadian citizens, including my mom, who is very vibrant. She worked here in this country. She still today, at 83, goes with me when I am campaigning or doing any social work. She is ahead of me all the time with the energy she carries, but she came to Canada not speaking any English.

I remember when Conservatives were in power and we talked about citizenship for people aged 55 to 65 for people who did not have knowledge of the English language, and I can tell you that my mother would have had to wait a long time if that had been in effect at the time when she took her citizenship. I'm sure there were many, but in fact, I still remember when the Liberals came back to power and brought in Bill C‑6, which brought that age back to 55 and gave many immigrants whose mother tongue was not English or French the opportunity to have their citizenship earlier. I can tell you that the Liberals were helping.

In fact, I took the oath personally, and I have that small card, the one that Mr. Kmiec was mentioning, but I have also seen excitement on the online meetings. I still remember that I was asked to come to one of the homes. Mr. Sashi Kumar, who is a Canadian citizen now, lives in my riding. He invited me. He was very excited to become a Canadian citizen and to have an opportunity to do it online. They decorated the whole home, they invited the whole family and they invited me, and I made my way to them to see the excitement.

The technology changes, and I think it's totally appropriate to have both a personal ceremony and one online for people who are in difficult situations, like Madam Kwan's mom. I'm sure there are still many out there in Canada who are in the same situation today. They cannot go personally to attend their ceremony and they want to opt out, do it at home and celebrate at home, the way that Mr. Sashi Kumar and his family did when they invited me. I was very proud to be part of that celebration at home.

Madam Chair, as I said, I could go on for hours, but I know that Bill S‑245 is a very important bill as well because it is going to help many Canadians who have lost their citizenship. I know Senator Martin. She's a wonderful person. I have a very excellent working relationship with her, and she's also from beautiful British Columbia. I would love to see this bill go through ASAP.

The important question that maybe we should be asking officials in terms of the online test that came in during COVID is about protecting the integrity of that test. It came to my knowledge that there might be an opportunity for some fraud if the people themselves don't appear for the test, but others do, from the outside. What steps are being taken by the department to make sure that we are able to protect the integrity of our examination centres or examination tests or whatever they have for citizenship?

That would be my question, Madam Chair.

With that, I want to thank each and every one of you who spoke so passionately about the citizenship ceremony, whether it be in person or online.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 1, the following new clause:

1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding “at an in-person citizenship ceremony” after “oath of citizenship”.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 1, the following new clause—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:

1.4 The Act is amended by adding the following after Section 23:

Members of the Senate shall not be eligible to be delegated authority unless they are an appointed member of the King's Privy Council.

I can't believe that we're here, but I think that any time this committee now has an opportunity to clarify that members of Parliament and other parliamentarians, particularly the Senate, do not have delegated authority to make decisions that affect either citizenship or other immigration applications, we should avail ourselves of doing that.

There are pending court cases now, given that a member of the Senate took it upon herself to assume that she had delegated authority to make these types of decisions. Given what's happened before and what our committee has been seized with this year, I think it's important to articulate in acts that there has to be a clearly delineated line of authority to make immigration decisions, be it, as in this case, the Citizenship Act or otherwise.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is so kind of you.

We were at NDP-12.

I want to make a point about this meeting that was called. We are typically given 48 hours' notice, and I'll note that we had sent a letter calling for an emergency meeting to consider the case of international students. That did not happen, and there are international students facing deportation this week.

I find it terribly unfortunate that we couldn't have had that meeting and done two meetings on Bill S-245 this week. This one could have been dedicated to these international students.

I was a bit tardy getting here because I was doing interviews. It's such a huge case right now, because the deportation inadmissibility hearings have now been done.

With that, I had marked one question to ask the department officials here. It's one I've asked previously when there has been a switch of amendments. One was a floor amendment and one was the one provided with the package. What is the difference between the two, the original NDP-12 and this version of NDP-12? I can't remember whether I had this information. I want to have an understanding of which one I would prefer to vote on.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

We are continuing our clause-by-clause study of the bill. When we left off, we were debating a new NDP-12 amendment.

Mr. Kmiec had the floor right before we adjourned, so I will let him continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay. We will have to stop here, because we don't have the services beyond eight o'clock.

We have a time slot available for 11 to one tomorrow, and I am requesting that we have the meeting for Bill S-245. I have checked and the resources are available. We can get that time slot, so I will request that the meeting be called. Details will be sent out to you with regard to the room number and everything.

We will have the meeting tomorrow from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Details will be sent out. It will be on Bill S-245's clause-by-clause consideration.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.