:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In the previous amendment we debated—which was, I think, shamefully defeated—many members brought up the issue of resources and allowing access for new Canadians, in all parts of the country and in all economic circumstances, to ensure they could attend in-person citizenship ceremonies.
One area where we frequently hear from settlement service providers is rural Canada. In order to attract and retain new Canadians to rural communities, particularly where there are acute labour shortages and a great desire to attract higher levels of population.... One of the impediments to doing that is ensuring there are resources for a whole gamut of resettlement services, such as language acquisition services, understanding other government service interface points and—I would add—ensuring there are in-person citizenship ceremonies.
I also think it's not just about having access to citizenship ceremonies where new Canadians live and work, particularly in rural Canada. It's also about allowing rural Canadians writ large to participate in these ceremonies. As some of my colleagues discussed earlier, regarding the previous amendment, when members of either Parliament or the community have the opportunity to attend with new Canadians.... Taking up the oath of citizenship actually builds a sense of community and pride.
Madam Chair, I would reference the previous work of this committee, and even of different Parliaments, on settlement services. Oftentimes, when you talk to rural service providers, they will reference the fact that having those opportunities to provide not just settlement services but also community events that draw the community together and give new Canadians a sense of community is very important to building cohesion in Canada's pluralism.
One of the stated rationales for allowing online—as opposed to in-person—citizenship is that the government doesn't have enough resources to get these done. It makes it easier for people. As I've stated in previous debate, I don't think that answer holds water if our overall objective as parliamentarians is ensuring cohesiveness and ceremonies that allow Canadians to share in our pluralism in a meaningful way. Ergo, I think that, if we accept this amendment, it would send a message to the government that they need to provide resources to ensure there is availability for rural and remote communities to have in-person citizenship ceremonies.
That's my rationale for this. I think my colleague from rural Canada probably has a thing or two to say about that, but I would just say this to the people who are watching: We just tried to put forward a motion on a matter that is very germane and material to many new Canadians in very dire straits: people who want to come to this country but are facing deportation because of fraud the government needs to address.
What's happening with this bill is this. Rather than being allowed to get through this committee in the format in which it was sent to us from the other place—the Senate.... A special motion was moved, supported by the NDP and Liberals, to expand the scope of this bill far beyond its original intent. The expectation was that what's good for the goose would not be good for the gander. If the Liberals and NDP were hoping—when they opened it up far beyond its scope—that other parliamentarians wouldn't avail themselves of the rules they set and look at other aspects of the Citizenship Act.... This is now what we are all doing.
I think this is a very important amendment. However, I support my colleague Mr. Redekopp in looking at this particular issue.
Madam Chair, I would ask that we support this amendment but also recognize this is a situation the Liberals and NDP put themselves in by the government's not tabling legislation to the effect that's in here, as well as cutting a deal with the NDP to open up the scope of the bill in a situation where they could have kept it narrow.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm definitely going to support this amendment. We've talked many times, and I've spoken many times at the committee here, about the whole idea of in-person citizenship ceremonies. I hear this from constituents when I speak to them. Where I hear this isn't necessarily is from people who haven't gone through it yet, because they don't necessarily know what it is or what they're missing. In particular, I hear this from people who have gone through the in-person citizenship ceremony.
They tell me things like they made sure they took time off work to be there because it was so important, or they invited family to be there, or they were excited to see the different dignitaries and the other people who are often there and to hear the important speeches that people give. Mostly, what they're excited about is to actually sit through and experience the moment of taking that oath, particularly when they're called up on the stage and get to shake the hands of the officials and get to receive their actual citizenship papers. It's just the excitement of that. That's from their perspective.
From my perspective, of course, as an MP, and all of us here I'm sure, I have had the ability to go do citizenship ceremonies. It's quite a thing to sit there and to watch the eyes and the faces of those new citizens and to see the excitement they have in their eyes. Particularly, when they're coming up on the stage, too, if I happen to be there, I'm able to shake their hands, and I often give them little Canada pins, or something like that. They're just so excited and overwhelmed.
The other interesting thing that always happens at these ceremonies is the photos. There will be many photos taken not only during the ceremony but also after the ceremony ends, particularly. Of course, the big star of the ceremony is always the RCMP officer in his red uniform. Everybody wants him or her to be in the picture. That's always a great thrill. Whoever happens to be around, whatever dignitaries or other official are there, will often be in the photos as well. There can be a lineup that lasts for quite a long time after the ceremony is over. Often, I'll stay there for an extra hour or more as people come. They want to tell their stories and to talk and to have their photos taken.
It's quite a lot of fun and very meaningful. I think that is my point. It's very meaningful to the people to go through that experience, to have those photos and to walk across that stage, often with tears in their eyes. The stories they tell are often very difficult, but those tears are mostly tears of joy that they are now here and are now citizens of Canada. It's something that, as I said, is very meaningful to them.
Contrast that with somebody who's online. I've heard this from many of my constituents as well who talk about going on a computer and how it's just not the same. You're in your house. You're trying to make it as official as you can, but the phone rings or the dog needs to be dealt with, or whatever happens, and it distracts people from the ceremony. We all know. We have all experienced Zoom meetings. A couple of my colleagues are on a Zoom meeting right now and are probably experiencing that very thing where there are other distractions. It's just not the same as the intense thrill for those of us who are here in the room and who are allowed to listen in person to what I have to say.
That is what I hear from them. Having to sit in front of a computer screen and try to make it a meaningful event is not something they're going to be telling stories about in the future: “In 2023, we all gathered around Dad's laptop, and we tried to see the RCMP officer in the back corner, but we couldn't quite see him, and we got to pretend-walk across the stage.” It's just not a story that tells well, and it's not something that will have the same impact or the same memory as these people get older.
Those are the stories I hear. It doesn't matter where I go. If I'm in Saskatoon, I hear those stories. I've had the privilege of spending time in other areas—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As I was saying, I've had the privilege of travelling to other communities in Canada. Just this past weekend I was in the GTA and visited people in Scarborough, Mississauga, Oakville and Brampton. There, I heard similar stories of the significance of citizenship first of all, but particularity the significance of the ceremony itself. There has been much discussion about citizenship ceremonies in Canada. There has been talk about the one-click idea. There's been talk about the lack of in-person ceremonies.
In the past there wasn't much to talk about because it always was and it was just assumed that you would go to an in-person ceremony. That's just what it was. It wasn't necessarily talked about in advance of them. Now it's talked about more...and about the desire to have the in-person ceremony.
Some will say that it's difficult to do in a rural environment. It's true. They are more difficulties sometimes and it's harder to put them on as quickly as you can. At the same time, it's no less impactful to do it. Just because it's maybe a little harder to do doesn't mean it's not something we should do.
I think that, even in the cases where you are in a more remote environment, it's incumbent upon us as elected officials and it's incumbent upon the government to actually make a way for there to be an in-person ceremony, regardless of where you are in Canada. It's so meaningful to people, I don't think it's fair to take that away and to remove the ability for them to have that.
Whether you live in the GTA or in rural Saskatchewan, I think it's important that the ability is there. As I said, the evidence from those who have talked to me about the value of the in-person ceremony would bear that out and would say the same thing. That's why it's important for us to put this in here.
The other thing I would say about this—
I want to build upon that. When I did my first citizenship ceremony, I didn't think much of it until I was actually there participating in it. When you have people from different cultures standing there arm to arm in the same ceremony, they start to sense what it is to be a Canadian. We are made up of a variety of different cultures, of people from all sorts of different backgrounds, from different ethnic backgrounds. We are a melting pot. We bring people together. We take advantage of each other's strengths, and we build a better country because of it.
If you didn't have that ceremony in person, you wouldn't see that. If you just click on Zoom and say, “Okay, I'm a citizen,” it doesn't mean the same. I don't think we should belittle the fact that it's an honour to be a citizen of Canada. It is something that they've worked really hard to become. For the hoops they have to jump through to get to that point of being a citizen, we shouldn't shorten that. We shouldn't belittle it. We should make sure they recognize that this is something great and that they've accomplished something great in being a citizen of Canada.
This is a simple amendment that can move that forward. I think it's something that all parties can look at and say, “You know what? This makes a lot of sense.” I don't want to see that taken away from those individuals. I don't want to see that taken away from them and their families. I don't want to see their first impression once they're citizens of Canada to be something they see on Zoom. I want them to experience it with other people at the same time.
That's why I think it's very important that we actually put that in here and we maintain that. Sure, it costs money—everything costs money—but these people become the fabric of our society. They become our next workforce. They integrate right into the rest of Canada. They make us the greatness that we are. Let's make sure that we set them off on the right foot. Having a simple ceremony means so much to them. Why would we reject that or prevent that from happening?
I think this amendment would be a good step in that direction.
Thank you, Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to be really clear on exactly what this amendment is talking about: The minister has proposed that in the future, rather than going to an in-person ceremony or a Zoom ceremony, there would be a button one could click online. They would navigate to a web page and click, and that would be the extent of the citizenship process for them.
We're not even talking now about whether we are in person or on Zoom. There is no ceremony at all. There isn't even a picture of the RCMP person dressed in uniform.
This is an important issue. For all the things we have talked about prior to this, it is so important that citizens have the ability to remember the time they became a citizen. It is important that they have the chance to have the photos with the dignitaries and the people there, and that they receive a memento, even if it's a little flag or a piece of paper, rather than getting a package in the mail after they have clicked. It takes more work to order a package on Amazon than to do this. It's all in the name, supposedly, of efficiency and trying to move people through the process.
I'm all for efficiency. We really do need to improve the way that IRCC works, but I don't think it's right or fair that deficiencies and problems in IRCC get paid for by sacrificing the people at the end of the chain who are getting their citizenship. Effectively, what is happening is that there are problems, inefficiencies and things that aren't working well at IRCC and the solution is to skip over all that, go to the end of the process and have people click to get their citizenship because it will save a couple of months. In reality, that isn't the problem. The problem is at other stages of the process.
I find it disconcerting that this would be a solution that would be proposed for that. Obviously, the real solution is to fix the issues at IRCC. It's to fix the backlogs and speed up the time. That's what we need to do rather than having citizenship by a click.
I also want to refer to the study that was done. The IRCC did some surveying on this. There was an article about that in the news this week. Lots of comments were received on both sides—some positive and some negative.
Looking at the story, of course the government did not release the details or the final numbers of this study because they are keeping that information to themselves. My guess, looking at the comments, is that there was an awful lot of opposition to the idea. A lot of people thought it was a terrible idea and that it shouldn't be done. Apparently there were about 700 comments, which I find surprising. I would wonder if there were more than that.
One person said, “This is a horrible idea!” in big capital letters. I think that would echo a lot of what we've heard from others. It's sort of the same logic that we talked about on the Zoom citizenship idea. It's the same kind of thinking. The same people are going to have same opinions about that. The newcomers to our country who are becoming citizens are going to have the same opinions. They want to be there. They want to feel the moment. They want, as my colleague, Mr. Mazier said—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understood the question. It was just to make a general point, as motions are being tabled during the hearing.
In response to the member's question about whether the department has done a study with regard to people's participation online, I'd like to take an opportunity to correct the record about what the regulatory proposal actually is. It's been mis-characterized in the media and through some of the concerns we've heard publicly but also during these hearings.
The proposal is to maintain citizenship ceremonies. I'd like to be clear that we agree: Citizenship ceremonies are important and they will continue.
Secondly, the proposal is to give citizenship applicants the choice in terms of how they wish to proceed with their ceremony. The first choice that applicants would need to make under the proposed regulatory change is whether they wish to take the oath at a ceremony, as now. That's really important to emphasize. It would be the choice of the applicant. Where they're wanting to do that participation in person, as they do now, and where a connection may be an impediment, that choice will be for the applicant to make.
The second choice that will be available to applicants is whether they would instead take that oath online. There could be many good reasons why people may need to make that choice. We heard of some of them at the previous hearing. Those electing to take their oath online would have the ability to participate in their ceremony once again but at a later date, so that they're not falling behind in terms of their access to citizenship.
In terms of the “why” of this proposal, as we've heard, there are some who may not be able to afford to travel a distance to participate at a ceremony in person. There are some who may not be able to afford to take a day off work. We know that affordability is an issue for many out there.
Thirdly, in terms of accessibility, we have options now, but the Government of Canada needs to do better. This proposal is really looking to give people who may need better options of accessibility—for reasons of disability, for reasons of debilitating illness or for other kinds of reasons that may require accommodation—an avenue where they don't have to make a case to an official and ask for an exception to be made so that they can have a virtual ceremony or some other accommodation to enable them to be citizens and to be like everyone else who can make it to a ceremony, in person or virtually, with a dedicated service channel for them. That's what an electronic oath would provide, in addition to those options to continue to participate at ceremonies to take the oath, as is currently the case.
In summary, we haven't had to do the type of study that the member asked about. I'm grateful for the question. Once again, the proposal is to offer that choice to our clients in order to better meet the needs of a variety of circumstances in cities and in rural communities across this great country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
I'll share with you one last story.
I happen to live here in Ottawa, in an apartment. The concierge downstairs was going to their citizenship award. It just happened I was checking in at 10 at night, and he said that he had a nine o'clock meeting and he would go online for this thing, I think it was next Monday. He said, “You wouldn't happen to have a Canadian flag, would you?” I asked what he meant. He said he'd like to have a backdrop to display that he's going to be a Canadian citizen. I grabbed him one and brought it back for him.
Then, it came to the day and he said, “I don't know, I have to stay here until midnight and it's nine in the morning.” He was going to to go. He was all excited. I said, “No, you go celebrate. You've done a great thing.” On going online, if it weren't for my encouraging him, he would have just gone and click, bang, he would have been, “There you go. I'm a Canadian citizen.”
What I ended up doing that day was that I made a nice certificate up for him. This was in downtown Ottawa. The guy was right here in our nation's capital and he didn't even think it was worth his time to go online to be a Canadian citizen. There's something wrong with that picture.
I ask you to please review that and that somehow, in these regulations, we reflect how much we do appreciate people becoming new citizens in this country.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Certainly what's interesting in a large rural constituency is the whole dynamic around virtual citizenship, and specifically some of the proposals that have been brought forward. You know, when we've had the details of the amendments that have been brought directly before us here, I have consistently heard question asked of whether these adjustments are.... Quite frankly, over the course of this, it was not isolated to the new proposals. It was also some of the amendments that had been brought forward as IRCC and the government adjusted to the dynamics of COVID-19. I have had new citizens and people who are pursuing citizenship asking the simple question about how some of these things fit within the tradition of what is seen to be an incredibly valuable part of taking that step and that path to citizenship.
I guess my question to the officials specifically surrounds some of the consultations about how this impacts the perception of citizenship and the process that the oath, particularly, has. I'm wondering if they could provide some feedback or details around how some of these adjustments have impacted the perception of what the citizenship process is.
I think my father-in-law would be very comfortable with me sharing this. It was a very exciting day when as an adult—he'd moved with his family to Canada when he was a child—he decided to become a Canadian. That was a very powerful moment. There was a judge in front of an auditorium and 30 or 40 of them. This was long before I was elected. You know, me and my family.... I think I had one child at the time. It was an incredibly poignant moment for him, having lived and worked in Canada his entire life, and to also be on the stage with many others.
Has any data, research or feedback been received? Certainly, I've been receiving this. My office and constituency staff help hundreds of individuals with “casework”, as we refer to it. Has there been feedback provided about this process in terms of what is perceived as the culmination of the citizenship process, that actually becoming a citizen—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment is, I guess, taking a different approach to this, in wanting to not have an online web form for doing the oath of citizenship. This does not preclude having some sort of Zoom option, I suppose, and it certainly doesn't preclude having an in-person citizenship ceremony. It really is coming back to that same issue that we keep hearing about over and over again from constituents: that having the online web form method to do the citizenship ceremony is just not right, for a variety of reasons.
The first one is that it's good to be in person. It's good to be with the people who care about you, the people who sometimes travel to be with you so that you can actually experience the joy, excitement—sometimes tears—and thrill of becoming a Canadian citizen. We know that when that is done online, when you're sitting there, what this is specifically going after is just the simple click, because it takes away all the excitement of that moment. It takes away all the ceremony that would be there.
Another concern we have with this is on security, because when someone is behind a screen and clicking, we don't really know who that is, where they are or what part of the world they're in, or if there's some sort of fraud occurring during that time. These are all things that I think would be very hard for any kind of system to manage properly.
There are all kinds of reasons that doing it this way is a concern. We've heard about the potential for there to be a problem in rural Canada with Internet access. Just being able to actually get online to do these things that way is a concern.
I don't know if my colleagues have some thoughts on this, but those are some of the reasons we want to do this. I'll throw this out for debate.
That is a very good point that my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe brings up. It's important that we be clear what we mean by compassionate grounds. I think this is very important. I can think of some examples of this.
If a person was sick for a long period of time, to me that would be a good example, a good case, because they were unable to travel. We just came through COVID, when you weren't able to be with other people because you were concerned about catching something, particularly if you were an older person. We all experienced that through the last number of years. I think that would be one example of what would be compassionate grounds.
We want to make sure, for those people who can't travel for legitimate reasons, that they can have an in-person citizenship ceremony. We need to give them that ability.
Another example I can think of is if you were simply unable to get off work. If you had the kind of job that didn't allow that, and if you were a great distance away from the citizenship ceremony, this could potentially be a reason for being granted the ability to do this.
We're not asking for a big, onerous process here. At the same time, we don't necessarily want people to be able to just choose to do this because of all the things that have been said tonight. I won't repeat them all, but the most important elements of this are being able go to that citizenship ceremony, being able to bring your family and your friends, being able to walk across that stage and shake the hands of the officials, being able to receive your certificate and being able to pose for photos with the RCMP officer and other officials.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It's certainly interesting that when you look at the intent of this legislation and ensuring that those so-called lost Canadians are able to be recognized.... I know, for example, in hearing the very touching story, and I'm sure it's hard to hear, because I listened intently when it was debated in the House...ensuring that the process to seize that citizenship is realized.
I know a member, a Conservative colleague, is not specifically impacted by this, but it's a similar type of scenario. Consistently, when it comes specifically to this amendment and how it would strike a very appropriate balance, Madam Chair.... Balance is where as a committee we're able to accomplish so very much, because we are able to ensure that in the midst of what can often be ruckus in the House of Commons, we come to committee. We can take a breath, get to the root of what is important to our constituents and work with other political parties in an environment that is conducive to ensuring that can take place.
I think that's where this amendment specifically really strikes that right balance when it comes to an in-person ceremony, and I don't think it is any surprise to members around this table that Conservatives are very supportive of this. With all due respect to my Bloc colleague, there certainly is a significantly greater value placed on the idea of citizenship and its value by those of us who believe in a united country. Ensuring that we find the right balance that can be sought when there is not that ability to have an in-person, because there are dynamics....
I live in a rural constituency, Madam Chair, and it's 53,000 square kilometres. I heard a number of times of a constituent speaking on the phone with somebody from Service Canada, and they'll say, drop by number one Canada Place and we'll get that sorted out for you. Number one Canada Place in the province of Alberta happens to be in the city of Calgary, and that's a three and a half to a four-hour drive. It's finding that right balance because when it comes to the value of what citizenship is, there is something that is very practical, and then there's something that is less tangible. There's that value and assurance that you're becoming a part of this Canadian family, of those who have come before.
I could go on at length, but I won't. I'll spare the committee my very proud Canadian history and the more than five generations specifically in the Consort area and the farm. I will spare the committee that.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, let me help my friend, Mr. Redekopp. Perhaps he will be able to vote against his own amendment.
The IRCC very well knows that our office is the busiest office in Canada. There are far more cases than any other MP has across Canada. I see the compassionate cases that come forward as well. Now it's taking them about 34 months.
Being a professional engineer, I'm also very practical as well. This bill is giving every individual an opportunity, as Madam Girard explained earlier. If an individual wants to have a ceremony in person, they can go and take the oath in person; if they cannot do that, they can do it online. We are already giving that option that my dear Conservative friends are looking forward to, but when we get into these compassionate grounds, there are 350,000 cases every year—350,000. People are going to come out and say they can't go in person for certain reasons. Everybody is going to think that their case is the compassionate case, and then they will take it to the minister.
In fact, this will cause more delays and more backlogs in the system. Instead of reducing the backlogs, in fact, we will be creating more backlogs, and I would like to ask officials if they would agree with me on that particular issue, when the compassionate cases are already taking 34 months. It will put more pressure on the department.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
He further asked Ms. Girard, I believe, about the.... Maybe we need to go back and look at it, but his question had to do with why this is here, because it has nothing to do with the original lost Canadians. I believe that was the question that was loosely asked. That's my loosened paraphrase of his question.
I'm speaking about this because it's a very good question, and it does specifically get to why its here. In order to answer that question, it needs to be through the lens of scope. That's why I'm speaking to that. I haven't had a chance to speak to that on this amendment, not since Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe asked the question. That's why I'm mentioning that.
The point that's important to understand here is that the original scope was very narrow. This scope has been widened. The government purposely widened the scope. This gets to how an amendment like this in a bill that has to do with lost Canadians.... The government specifically amended this bill to allow it to be wide open so that they could do more than just what the original intent of the bill was. The original intent of the bill was fairly defined, fairly simple. It would probably have passed through here quite quickly, but as we now know, as you add things to this bill, it becomes more complicated and takes longer. Why do you do that? It's because you don't have a lot of opportunities to actually make changes to the Citizenship Act. This is an opportunity to make changes to the Citizenship Act.
Just as the originator of this bill had an idea to change the Citizenship Act, the NDP and the Liberals got together and decided there were some other changes they wanted to make. It's totally within their right to suggest that, and they have the power through their grouped majority to actually make it happen, so they did.
Then we ended up in a different place. We're no longer just looking at the lost Canadians bill. We are looking essentially at a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, because this is the one opportunity we have to suggest and make those changes that we believe are important and will improve the Citizenship Act for all future Canadians. That is the reason we are looking at some of these different ideas here.
This is our chance to go into the bill and to make those changes that we've discussed and haven't had an opportunity to make. We hadn't had a vehicle, so to speak, to make those changes. It's the same logic the government used when they decided to add some of the amendments they added.
I don't think it's fair to accuse one person, one member on this committee, of adding an amendment when someone else on this committee has added an amendment to do something that expands the scope of the original bill. That's the better understanding of why this is here. I hope that helps Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe understand that a bit better.
We certainly want the best outcome for Canadians, and we want the Citizenship Act to be the best possible regulation and law that it can. That's why we've done this, and that's the reason this particular amendment is in here.
I just wanted to make that clear, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have two points.
One is very specifically related to the amendment, the carving out of an exemption here and ensuring that the responsibility is placed upon those who will be new citizens.
Obviously, there's a much larger conversation to be had—which we will not have tonight—surrounding the immigration backlogs and certainly some of the challenges. Although my office may not have as much volume, certainly there's a host that could be talked about. I won't go there.
However, I do want to specifically comment on what was said in the previous comments. I have received a fair amount of feedback from constituents and their families who have been frustrated with the move to Zoom ceremonies. It's certainly my hope that this would filter its way up. When I've heard from constituents, in many cases they've come from countries where governments do not welcome criticism, so sometimes they're unwilling to or feel that they may not be able to rock the boat, if I could use that expression.
As a member of Parliament developing a relationship with constituents and specifically navigating the intricacies of casework, especially those circumstances that end up in our offices, these are generally the ones that fall through the cracks.
Certainly, I've heard from a host of constituents and their families that they would have preferred to have an in-person option. Further, there have been a number of instances where I've heard from constituents that, when there have been requests to accommodate and specifically the desire for there to be that in-person option....
In fact, here is a very touching story. It was at the height of COVID. There was an outdoor celebration that took place, where they did the ceremony virtually and then had an outdoor celebration. They were really disappointed that they couldn't do it together, in person. They had an outdoor, distanced celebration that somewhat resembled a wedding or graduation. It was a very touching story. I was sent pictures. It was very moving.
It's certainly feedback that I've heard. If I'm one of 338 members of Parliament hearing that feedback, I have no doubt that there are additional members.
I just want to note that certainly those going through the process don't want to question the process of the country they're asking to become a citizen of. There's a hesitancy. Especially when you hear some of the stories of those who have come to Canada because they're fleeing persecution or whatever the case is, it's completely valid. Their past experience informs their perspective, although, in some cases, they learn how our free and democratic openness, the ability to criticize and the freedoms associated with fair elections—
Ms. Girard, if we were to vote in favour of amendment CPC‑8, and this provision were added to the act, what difference would it make?
We are speaking hypothetically once again. All kinds of hypothetical scenarios were raised during the debates and the work on this bill. As there are a lot of singular circumstances with respect to lost Canadians, we have to look at specific cases.
If this amendment were implemented, what difference would it make?
Let's take a hypothetical case, about which I've spoken before. Let's look at what would happen if Quebec were to become an independent country in a few years. What would happen to children who are born in Quebec afterwards? Logically, given that Canada recognizes dual citizenship, Quebeckers born in Canada would have Quebec and Canadian citizenship, but the first and second generations of children of Quebeckers born in an independent Quebec, and hence outside Canada, would have Canadian citizenship.
If we were to adopt this amendment, what would change if Quebec were to become a country? The next two generations born outside Canada would have Canadian citizenship and could vote in Canadian federal elections, even though they are living in an independent Quebec.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I do have another amendment I'd like to move. After I have read it in English, I will read it in French as well.
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 the following
24(7): where a citizenship ceremony has been scheduled, the Department must provide the person with at least seven days' notice prior to the date of the ceremony.
[Translation]
I will now read it in French.
Je propose que le projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant:
1.4 L'article 24 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit
24 (7) Lorsqu'une cérémonie de citoyenneté est prévue, le ministère donne à la personne un préavis d'au moins sept jours avant la date de la cérémonie.
[English]
I'll explain the logic of this one. It's pretty simple. After hearing some of the debate at the table about persons having difficulty planning ahead of time, I did take the liberty of looking up what other countries do. Right now, we can make mandatory at least a seven days' notice for a person when they have a citizenship ceremony scheduled. In the United Kingdom, citizenship ceremonies have to happen within three months of receiving an invitation, so there is actually quite a bit more notice being provided. In New Zealand, there is a four weeks' notice before the ceremony, so it is not unusual for countries to provide a notice period for the department to inform the person that they are now eligible to take the oath of citizenship, and by which day. There is a notice period that gives people time to plan out when they can reasonably be there, and if there is a need to reschedule, they can take it up with the department.
So that's the logic. It's just an easier method for new citizens to take the oath of citizenship, making sure of their timeline so that their families can all be there.
:
I will read CPC amendment 12 into the record.
[Translation]
I move that Bill 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 the following:
24(9) The Minister must disclose in advance to Members of Parliament the location, time, and date of all citizenship ceremonies that will be attended by their constituents, either in‑person or virtual.
[English]
The logic of this is simple. As parliamentarians, we should know when our constituents are becoming citizens of Canada. This is not done on a consistent basis.
I know that in my riding, I often get an invitation when there's a special occasion when it's being done, but this is not being done on a consistent basis. I remember one year when my pharmacist became a Canadian citizen, I wasn't made aware of when this was going to happen.
It would be good because sometimes, because of how large some of our cities are, there are people from different ridings being lumped together in some of these ceremonies. If all parliamentarians knew, we could make plans to attend. I think, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to be there and to participate in what is really a huge life milestone for many persons who are obtaining their citizenship.
I have never had a citizenship ceremony in person that I regretted attending. They are all terrific to attend. I'm hoping we can find consensus at the table here that it should be a requirement to tell members of Parliament when citizenship ceremonies are happening.
We already get a list of new citizens. It's not too much to ask the department to send us a list of all citizenship ceremonies where our residents are going to take the oath of citizenship. It would just be one little extra step. That way, we can make ourselves available to participate in this. We could help the department make sure there are good, strong showings at the citizenship ceremonies, as well.
Thank you.
:
All right, Madam Chair.
I move that Bill 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 the following:
24(10) A document of citizenship must be provided immediately upon completion of the oath of citizenship.
[English]
The logic of this amendment, since we're doing what I would call a statutory review of the Citizenship Act, is that at the citizenship ceremony, when you attend in person, and actually when you attend it virtually as well, the department has you cut your permanent residency card. The PR card is cut. Oftentimes they ask you to cut it visibly in front of these civil servants, because you can't have a PR card and citizenship at the same time, obviously.
What happens then is that they mail a document of citizenship. But they already know who has attended there. They can kind of check them off the list. There's no reason that you couldn't have them just print off the document of citizenship. I personally would much rather that we go back to the old way. I won't fish out my citizenship card from my pocket, but the old cards are much better. This is a big document of citizenship.
The reason that one is so important is that you need that to get your passport. You need that for your passport application. It's 30 days or however long it takes, depending on how remote you are. You may live in a remote community or in an apartment block where there may not be mail delivery every single day, depending on how the contractors work with Canada Post.
The logic of this is to just do it at the ceremony. It's just a process issue. Just give it to the persons as they're there. Because citizenship ceremonies may take an hour or two or three to complete, I think the department has enough time to check off who is there and check them off digitally in the database. Then they can just print off the document at the location, or have them ready to go. Whoever doesn't show up, the department can just bring it back to their offices.
I think it's a huge process improvement for new Canadians.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is for new clause 1.4. It is that Bill 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1(11) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on the first day of Ramadan.
As we all know, Ramadan is a 30-day festival or celebration. It's a very important time of the year for those of the Muslim faith. That first day is always a very significant day as they begin Ramadan.
I have just a couple of things I wanted to read. Fatima from my riding told me this:
Ramadan, the 9th month of the Islamic calendar, is a time of spiritual rejuvenation when Muslims spend time reflecting on how to become the best they can be. The primary focus is fasting which fosters self control, mindfulness, gratitude, and feeding the soul. During this month, there is renewal of intention to be more [focused on] acts of worship with more prayers, charitable deeds, and better overall conduct.
She goes on to say that it's also a time when families gather to share the Iftar, or breaking of the fast together, traditionally with dates, as was the practice of the prophet Muhammad.
I'm sure all of us have been to Iftars. It's a wonderful time when.... For those of us who don't fast, it's not actually a good thing, because we end up gaining weight during the whole period. The whole point is you have to fast to balance off the Iftar, but I'm learning. I have done a little bit of fasting and my goal is to get better at that.
Mubarak sent me this, which I thought was very touching. He said:
My faith is one of the most important parts of my life. The religion of Islam is my identity, my hope and my lifeline. I like to celebrate everything that has to do with my religion. For example the month of Ramadan, it is one of the most important months on the Islamic calendar. It is a month of fasting with a lot of prayers but with very less sleep and food.... To me, it is like a physical and spiritual boot camp in which I try to enhance my spirituality, morality and seek nearness to The God Almighty not only for a month but for the entire year until the next Ramadan arrives. It also helps me physically to cleanse myself in many ways.
I think this is a very important time for Muslims in Canada. That's why I believe that the first day of Ramadan should be respected and we should not schedule citizenship ceremonies on that day.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have another amendment, amendment CPC-26, that I'd like to distribute. I'll give you a minute.
Amendment 26 would amend Bill by adding after line 18 on page 1 the following new clause:
1.4 Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1 (12) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Eid al-Fitr.
Again, following on the last one, the end of the month of Ramadan is Eid al-Fitr. That's one of the great days of celebration as well in that festival, particularly since that's the day when everybody puts out their very best food and their very best of everything. Again, for me it's an exciting day to visit with families and eat way too much. It's a good thing.
Mubarak said this about Eid al-Fitr: “Eid al-Fitr is an annual celebration that is celebrated at the end of Ramadan. To me it is a day of gratitude to God Almighty for enabling me to successfully go through the month of Ramadan. It is a day of joy and happiness in which I like to go visit my family and friends, exchange gifts with them, have food during the day and on and on. Eid is particularly very exciting for children. They get gifts and mostly cash from elders.”
This is what Abbas told me: “Eid-al-Fitr is my favourite. After the blessing of the month of Ramadan when people are so pious, practise good deeds and donate generously, we celebrate Eid at the end of the month as a reward. This festival brings people together to exchange gifts and presents, meet and greet friends and families, and enjoy feasts and food.”
Again, this is a very, very significant day. In fact, I believe we had about 15,000 people come together in Saskatoon for the Eid al-Fitr celebration. That's a large number for a city like Saskatoon. Much food was consumed on that day; I can say that.
I would encourage you to accept this amendment to the bill.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
New clause 1.4 is that Bill 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1 (14) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Muharram (Islamic New Year).
Again, this is another significant date for Muslim people. It's the whole idea of respecting these dates when people are not really available to do citizenship ceremonies.
Zunaib told me that the Islamic New Year marks the migration of Prophet Muhammad and his followers from Mecca to Medina, which was a turning point in the history of Islam. Muslims use this occasion to reflect on their journey of faith, renew their commitment to God and seek forgiveness for their sins. The Islamic New Year is a time of introspection, prayer and gratitude for the blessings of life.
He said that overall, Islamic holidays are significant not only because they celebrate historical events or religious beliefs, but also because they offer an opportunity for Muslims to connect with their faith, their community, and their humanity.
Mumtaz told me that recognizing these holidays would demonstrate Canada's commitment to religious freedom and respect for the diversity of its citizens. It would also be a way to acknowledge the significant contributions made by the Muslim community to Canadian society.
He added that recognizing these holidays would enable more people to participate in the celebrations without having to miss important things. Recognizing these holidays would also promote social cohesion and unity by bringing people of different faiths and cultures together. It would provide an opportunity for Canadians to learn and promote greater understanding and respect for diversity.
I couldn't have said that better myself.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Once again, I will read amendment CPC‑29, beginning with the French version.
Je propose que le projet de loi soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 19, page 1, du nouvel article suivant:
1.4 L'article 24 de la Loi est modifié par adjonction de ce qui suit:
Respect des jours fériés et des jours d'importance pour la promotion de l'identité multiculturelle du Canada
24.1(15) Les cérémonies de citoyenneté ne peuvent avoir lieu le jour de Newroz.
[English]
Newroz is the first day of spring. I do say “Newroz” because it is also considered a national Kurdish celebration, and I also chair the Parliamentary Friends of the Kurds group on Parliament Hill, which I started. I've been a big advocate of recognition of the Kurdish people in Canada for who they are. They are a distinct indigenous group in the Middle East.
In Kurdish mythology, Newroz combines nature's awakening from a long, cold winter with a nation's awakening from a long life of captivity and repression. The lighting of fire, gatherings and dancing hand in hand at Newroz symbolizes unity, tolerance and the victory of light over darkness.
Canadians of Kurdish heritage celebrate Newroz. They see it as an opportunity to share their rich culture with other Canadians and to keep the spirit of Newroz alive mainly in three ideas [Technical difficulty—Editor] and resilience.
For those who may not know, especially in the city of Akre in south Kurdistan.... There are four parts of Kurdistan that are important here. In south Kurdistan, which is also called Bashur, Bashuri Kurds celebrate in Akre, where the entire mountainsides are lit on fire. Fire is so important because it's a representation of the spring, the starting of something new. They light large bonfires. This happens in all four regions of Kurdistan. It also happens in Bakur, which is the territories in Turkey; Rojhilat, which is the western provinces in Iran; and Rojava, which is the northeast region in Syria.
I think it's an important time of the year. There are also picnics that are planned for afterwards, but this first night is incredibly important and it should be set aside so that Canadians of Kurdish heritage don't need to choose between attending their citizenship ceremony to swear an oath to become citizens and celebrating Newroz with families.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment relates to proposed new clause 1.4.
I move that Bill 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity
24.1 (16) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Yalda Night.
This is a really important Iranian holiday, and I have two very good leaders in Saskatoon, Bijan and Pooyan. They're very strong Iranian leaders in the community and they're doing lots to hold up Iranian causes in Saskatoon and literally across the country.
Bijan told me, “Most Iranian holidays are based on natural phenomena, given that the Iranian calendar is synchronized with the earth's revolution around the sun. Yalda happens during the winter solstice, which is the longest night of the year, and is a celebration of enduring and passing the longest of nights and moving toward a future with more sun and sunlight, both literally and also as a sign of moving from evil to good.
His brother Pooyan said, “Personally, these traditions play an important role in maintaining identity and a sense of self, besides their benefits. I also believe living through governments like Iran's creates a sense of distance and distrust among people. These holidays are an opportunity to heal the wounds of our relationships, practice kindness and trust, and love each other again.
“When I look at people's faces during these celebrations, I see decades of tiredness and of being alert and anxious. I love seeing them laugh and smile and embrace each other. It also helps that these occasions remind me of my childhood when I didn't know much and life was simpler and more fun!”
Again, I would hope that I could find support to pass this amendment.
:
Thank you. I see we're becoming very efficient at distributing these amendments. I'll pause for a moment.
This amendment also relates to proposed new clause 1.4.
I move that Bill 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1 (17) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Thai Pongal.
This is also a very important holiday. I found that the best description of this holiday actually came from . He said, “Tamils celebrate the end of the harvest season by coming together and enjoying pongal, a sweet and savoury dish made with rice and fresh milk.”
His statement continued, saying, “At the heart of Thai Pongal are the values of respect, compassion, and mutual support within families and communities—values that unite all Canadians and speak to who we are. Coinciding with Tamil Heritage Month, Thai Pongal also highlights the enduring strength and resilience of the Tamil community, while also serving as a continued reminder of the great impact they have made and continue to make.”
This is an important holiday for Tamils. I think it's important that we recognize that and respect that as we're setting citizenship ceremonies.
Before I finish, Madam Chair, I want to mention one thing: You'll notice that we have not mentioned Christian holidays. As a Christian, I can say why that is. It's simply because those holidays are already recognized, because those are on the calendar that we follow in this country. Those holidays are here, and all we're trying to do is add to those and bring some balance with all the other cultures and religions that we have in our country.
For those of you who are wondering why we haven't raised Christian holidays, that's the reason: We don't need to. They're already in the calendar and they are respected by the department for that reason.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Yes. The next amendment, amendment 32, is being distributed. I'll just pause.
Let me read this amendment on proposed new clause 1.4.
I move that Bill 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada’s multicultural identity
24.1 (18) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Puthandu (Tamil New Year).
Again, this is another significant day in the Tamil calendar, something that we need to respect and be careful of as we schedule citizenship ceremonies.
Puthandu is a significant celebration for the Tamil community, as it marks the beginning of a new year. It is an opportunity to reflect on the challenges and successes of the past year as well as to look toward the future with hope and optimism.
To mark this occasion, friends and family will come together and begin the celebration by decorating the entrance of their homes with kolams, which are designs made of coloured rice flour.
They will also exchange gifts and greetings, dressed in new clothes, and enjoy delicious food together.
Just as in the previous amendment, this is an important time that we must be careful to respect, and make sure that we don't schedule citizenship ceremonies on these days so that we respect the Tamil culture in Canada.
I would just implore my colleagues to support and vote for this motion.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am just noting that CPC-36 should be distributed, but there are also CPC-37, CPC-38 and CPC-39.
On amendment CPC-36, 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1 (22) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur is the Jewish Day of Atonement. It falls 10 days after Rosh Hashanah. It's a solemn day spent reflecting on one's actions in the previous year and spent asking for forgiveness and pleading for divine mercy.
Jewish law mandates a 25-hour fast from sundown to sundown and the observance of a special religious service, as well as a prohibition on washing and bathing oneself and on wearing leather shoes. Orthodox Jews as well, refrain from using electricity and from driving or riding, and from other forms of prohibited work.
From that description, it would be quite difficult for one of them to make it to an oath of citizenship. It might be considered as work, and therefore they would be unable to go. As I said, Yom Kippur is a Day of Atonement, but it is also a day of reflection, and it's one that's typically spent at home with family.
Madam Chair, I don't think we should have citizenship ceremonies scheduled for that day.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will have to wait for CPC-37 to be distributed before I can read it into the record and explain its purpose.
Just so you know, Chair, there are also CPC-38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, and there is a 43rd one. That is it until we get into clause 2. I am just giving you notice now that we will stop and then move to clause 2.
On amendment CPC-37, 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 the following:
Respecting holidays and days of significance to promote Canada's multicultural identity
24.1(23) Citizenship ceremonies may not be scheduled on Orthodox New Year.
Orthodox New Year is celebrated as the start of the new year in the Julian calendar for Christian Orthodox, Eastern-rite Catholic and Coptic Christian communities. The time is normally spent eating traditional dishes at home with loved ones, and they also attend a special New Year's Day liturgy at their churches. This typically happens about two weeks after Christmas....
I think it's on the Gregorian calendar. Forgive me if I have the calendars wrong, but it's a very important celebration, especially for Coptic Christian communities.
I just spent my weekend, especially Sunday, with the Coptic community in Montreal, and it is a very important holiday. It has been celebrated almost exactly in the same manner for over 2,000 years, including the music in their services and the practices and the liturgy, which are almost intact. They have not updated it in that amount of time.
If anybody is curious about what the practice would have been over 2,000 years ago, the music, the liturgy, the style of the churches, the contents and the traditions have basically not changed in that time.
It's an important day, and we should not be scheduling citizenship ceremonies that would conflict with a person's religious faith and obligations to attend these liturgies at their churches.
Thank you, Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to read it into the record so the public is clear on what we're trying to do here.
It's that Bill be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:
Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):
(f) requiring that service standards of the department in managing application backlogs are tied to bonus compensation at the EX-1 and DM-1 levels and above on an annual basis, where bonus compensation is withheld or wholly rescinded should the departmental backlogs exceed more than five per cent of total applications.
I am trying to find it on my computer here quickly, Madam Chair. I have the department's spending for last year on how much was paid out in bonuses.
As we know, the department's immigration backlog is about 2.1 million. It grew by about 100,000 applications during the public service strike. Right after the pandemic, it was at a high-water mark, since 2015, of about 2.9 million applications that were backlogged.
In the Treasury Board Secretariat submission—the departmental plans that are submitted by the department when it tables its estimates—usually there are sections in there that refer to the service standard expectations and how many applications they expect to complete by a certain threshold. The department has a target for every stream, and usually they try to meet it within a fixed amount of time 80% of the time.
However, that's not the experience that many of us have with our constituents. Probably 90% of the work in my constituency office in Calgary is on immigration case files, and many of those are related to backlogs. Backlogs cause problems for constituents. They mix up their lives. It delays planning for family reunification. It makes it very difficult to plan trips for families. It's very difficult to know whether you can grow your business or not when you're waiting for someone's work permit.
Although this is my favourite example to give, it is not a happy example. I have a constituent who came to me about a month ago. Her temporary resident visa application was from Tanzania. This application has been 1,113 days in the system.
I have another constituent from Nigeria. Her husband wasn't able to join her to celebrate Christmas in 2022. Every time she logged into the system, the delay kept increasing—every single time. When my constituency office and I would follow up with the agents, they told us we would have to wait.
I don't think that's acceptable. In the private sector, compensation bonuses are based on performance. The department, at this level that I'm referring to, the EX-1 and DM-1, is not performing up to the standard of my expectations.
A few months ago, I filed an order paper question in the House asking for the total amount being spent on bonuses. Over $30 million was paid out in 2022. Sadly, I don't have the exact number before me here, but quite a bit of money was spent by the department on bonuses.
For the benefit of my constituents and yours, Madam Chair, and I'm sure just like every one of us around this table, I would like to tie that to performance. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's strictly on the service standards set by IRCC and nothing more. I think tying the two together would give a very strong incentive to the most senior members of the department to drive the department towards excellence.
When you have an application backlog of two million, including all applications that are within the service standard and those that are way beyond the service standard, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that bonus compensation be withheld or wholly rescinded if the backlogs exceed more than 5% of total applications.
You could do it by streams. You could do it by overall numbers. I think it's reasonable to do. I think it's time that our constituents back home see some type of accountability from this department that has, as we know, doubled its staff since 2015 and doubled its budget since 2015.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment reads as follows: Regarding new clause 3, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:
Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):
(g) prescribing the manner in which foreign credentials may be regarded as equivalent to Canadian credentials as per previously approved Acts of Parliament, in a manner that may act as a step towards gaining citizenship.
This is a critical part of the problems we're having in our country right now with newcomers to our country who are trained in a profession and are unable to actually work in that profession—for example, doctors, nurses, engineers and so on.
This is a perennial problem. We've all heard of the classic situation of a doctor driving a taxi when we have shortages of doctors in our country. We also have shortages of nurses, for example, yet we have many thousands of doctors and nurses who are not practising in their field because our system doesn't allow that.
One of the parts of that, one of the pieces of that puzzle, is the foreign credentials component, so what this amendment is doing is looking at the section of the act that gives the minister the ability to do certain things in terms of regulations. What I'm proposing through this amendment is to allow the minister to say what is an equivalent credential, so that if you have a certain credential from another country—for example, India—the minister can, through proper due diligence, designate that it is equivalent to a certain Canadian credential.
We think that's important, especially for the future. Whether this government is able to figure that out or not, I'm not sure, but potentially there might be a future government that might be different, and that government may want to do some of these things to improve the situation.
That's where this would be an opportunity for the minister to be able to designate equivalencies and therefore speed up the process and make it less expensive and less time-consuming for a newcomer to work in our country with the credentials they have.
That's what this is about. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will read amendment 47 on new clause 3.
That Bill be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:
Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):
(h) overriding licensing boards under federal jurisdiction and provincial licensing boards with regards to foreign credentials, which include, but are not limited to, numerous fields such as medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, among others, to enable immigrants to practice their professions in Canada, which may serve as a step towards gaining citizenship.
Madam Chair, this is also a very significant issue in Canada right now. Newcomers to our country have skills. They have training. They have had, in many cases, years of experience in a certain field. When they come to our country, they're told that they can't practise their profession, whether it's as a doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer or veterinarian—there are many examples.
I've spoken to many people who have literally decades of experience in certain professions, yet the process to get licensed in Canada is so onerous that, essentially, they have to start again—spend many thousands of dollars, take years of education, essentially repeating what they've already learned, not only through school but often through experience.
Certainly in Canada, we need to have standards. We need to make sure that people who come here to work in those jobs have the skills and education required. That goes without saying, but at the same time, we know there are a lot of cases in which people meet that standard, and they would meet that standard but there are gatekeepers in the way. There are licensing boards. There are other boards that restrict the adoption of people into their groups so that those people cannot practise.
What is so important, I think, is that we eliminate these gatekeepers and allow for co-operation among these groups in our country so that we take advantage of the tremendous pool of labour that is just there before us.
It seems somewhat obvious to me, given that most parts of the country would agree that we have a shortage of doctors, for example. We have many newcomers who have been trained as doctors, who may have years and even decades of experience as a doctor in another country, but because of the way the licensing boards in Canada have set things up, they are just not able to go through the process. Either they can't get in or the process is so onerous and time-consuming and expensive that it's just not something they're able to do.
Particularly if you're a little bit older in years and you've already gone through school and have practised as a doctor, for example, for 20 or 25 years, to be told that you need to start again, the same as a 19-year-old or 20-year-old student and go through five or six years of education again, it's not a very attractive thing for many of these people. I've talked to them, and they've shared that exact thing with me.
This amendment goes to the part where the minister is able to make regulations. It would allow the minister to, essentially, force licensing boards to adopt certain standards when it comes to credentials, because sometimes the credentials are where people get tripped up. It lists some of the areas that this would work in, like medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, etc. It basically gives the minister the ability to go in and write regulations that will ease the transition of newcomers to our country into the field that they're trying to work in.
This is, I believe, something very important and something that needs to be done. It wouldn't necessarily be simple. There would have to be co-operation, but I have confidence in our ability to co-operate on things like this, particularly today, right now in our country, when we have a shortage of doctors, for example.
I'm quite confident that there would be a way to co-operate to make this work, for all levels of government and licensing boards to work together, but if the minister had a little more power in this, I think it would be helpful.
That's why this amendment is here. That's what I'm hoping for. I really hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for the question.
We had a similar provision for the legislative amendments implemented in 2009 to remedy lost Canadians, as well as the overhaul of citizenship legislation done in 2014-15. Without a provision like this, when Parliament finally passes legislation, it would mean it comes into force right away, and the department is expected to loyally implement it right away.
As I've previously testified, to implement a legislative initiative such as this one smoothly and to ensure we can process the citizenship applications of those benefiting from the bill, at a minimum, we need some IT changes put in place. Those generally take a year to get in place. We typically have to develop regulations, as well, to support smooth implementation. The regulatory process takes a year to 18 months. To do it within a year is considered very tight.
Alongside those critical changes to IT and the regulations, there is usually a whole host of other changes we need to do in parallel. We need to update our application forms and communications, and do our outreach to those who are benefiting. We need to update our policy guidelines, our training and all manner of things to get the program ready to deliver.
That is the purpose of having a “coming into force” provision.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
No, and I want to speak to that.
The reason it's still a no—despite the fact that we've had I don't know how many hours of debate to get to this point—is that I want to make very clear that both my position and the position of my caucus is that this was a bill where the sponsor came here and distinctly said where the tracks were to go, in her view. I reiterated and spoke to her again during the clause-by-clause consideration.... I just want to make sure it is understood that we were opposed to the expansion of the scope of the bill and the votes that were held then. We did not want to go beyond the original scope. It was a very narrow support and help for a certain group of lost Canadians that we were trying to address.
Expanding the scope then led to our side thinking of things we have heard from constituents and stakeholder groups and from witnesses before the committee on important amendments that could be made.
I then said in the House during the debate on the tabled reports from this committee, when concurrence was moved, that we would consider this a statutory review. We tried to demonstrate that this would be what we consider a statutory review of the Citizenship Act. Therefore, we would make amendments that we thought were necessary or important or that addressed concerns we heard in different communities.
Again, we showed some goodwill. We voted for some of the amendments, such as the improvements in language that the department brought forward and said needed to be done—the difference between Bill and Bill and the difference in language that needed to be brought forward. We decided that, yes, we would vote in favour of that.
There were measures in there to make sure that adopted children would be treated equally to children born in Canada and children naturalized in Canada. We supported those as well.
We did not support the substantial connection test being only 1,095 days, and we suggested it should be successive or continuous days. We thought that it could have been toughened up with some prohibitions on persons who have been convicted for crimes with two years plus a day. It would have strengthened the bill. We could then have voted for a substantial connection clause, especially if it had added more days.
I have to say, there was much unpleasantness in May, unfortunately, during those breach of privilege debates that we had to have at this committee. I will also remind you, Chair, and others at the committee, that I proposed a motion that would have seen us deal with amendments at the table by May 15—for other parties to submit them—now that the scope had been expanded.
I know that this was a long and arduous process. However, I think we've learned more about the Citizenship Act than any of us on this side and on that side probably knew. I have copious notes now, and I probably understand the Citizenship Act better than I ever wanted to. Now when somebody from my caucus comes has a question or a bright idea, I will use the content from this meeting to dissuade them from touching this act and making further amendments, because I realize how simple it is to lose entire groups of Canadians and make more lost Canadians in so doing.
I hope we also demonstrated the fact that we can be reasonable and can proceed to quick votes when necessary, when time is of the essence. We were making a point that the way May went down was, in my view, still not acceptable and that we all take this back to other committees that we may serve on so that this doesn't happen again.
When the sponsor of a bill asks that we not affect the contents of the bill, the substance, the scope and the principle, and that we leave it intact and have a simple up or down vote on whether we support the bill as is, it is a courtesy to our colleagues not to—what I will again call—vandalize their bill. I have used that language, and I will continue to use that language, I'm sure, at report stage, at third reading of the bill and then as it goes to the Senate.
The witness testimony that was heard at the Senate committee was that, if amendments were to be made, that would delay the passage of this bill and it should just be passed as the original. There was a certain gentleman who said that repeatedly. I have the witness testimony from that committee on Bill when it was being debated originally.
Now that there are amendments that are very likely to pass, this bill will likely go back to the Senate. That could be as late as perhaps the fall—late fall—or into the spring session, and who knows whether there will be an election then.
I am just laying out the concerns I have with the way this was done. This bill could have been passed way back in May. I am convinced of it. It could have been royally assented to and then we could have worked on a different piece of legislation, or a member could have tabled a different bill that could have been considered. That's not me, because I drew third from last in the private members' bill draw.
I will note, for the benefit of all of us, that senators seem to be able to legislate faster than members of Parliament. We get only one chance from one draw in each Parliament, while senators can keep drafting new bills and expediting them through the Senate, if they can convince their colleagues....
I just think there's a certain measure of unfairness that now has been built up in our system, whereby members of Parliament get to legislate less quickly and less easily than senators can, and senators don't have an elected mandate from the public to push the bill, so they push.... Nevertheless, they are nominated and they are appointed by the Governor General upon the advice of the , so they can do work like this, like Bill .
I just want to lay that out, because I've seen a few articles using the F-word and people know how much I love that word, because I've used it at other committees. It's not the one you think. It's the “filibuster” word. We have not done that. We have asked questions to wonder about the contents of the Citizenship Act and the impact on different groups of lost Canadians. We also had structural amendments that we wanted to do on the Citizenship Act, which we have proposed and laid before the committee. Unfortunately, none of our amendments passed even though I heard that some of them were.... The content was quite good and could form part of future private members' bills that any member can pick up and reuse. I just want to make sure that members remember that and also that the vice-chair of this committee and I can be merciful when we want to be merciful and allow things to continue and proceed to business.
Madam Chair, there is a group of hopeful Canadians out there—international students who really need our time and our efforts—and I really hope that this committee is going to do that, but with the state of this bill right now, I know that I'm going to have a very tough time presenting this to my caucus to convince them that we got something in it. There's nothing in here that I can really point to, nothing to convince them that this bill is the same substance as it was before it came to this committee intact. That is a concern to me. This might happen to any one of us with our bills in the future—where the content might be deleted and replaced with things that we don't agree with—but it looks silly when you're the sponsor of a bill and you're whining to have to either vote against it or against your colleague's bill just because the content has been drastically changed from the original.
I want to put that on the record, because I'm sure there will be journalists who will want to refer to this, and I would want to refer to it, too, and send them the clip. That way, it can answer all of their questions on our feelings and thoughts on the process up until this point.
Thank you, Chair.
:
I echo my colleague's comments. I won't repeat them ad nauseam, particularly on how there were good amendments in this process, as my colleague Mr. Kmiec said, on strengthening the language and also with regard to adoption.
Colleagues, I want to emphasize that this is an exercise on how not to approach private members' legislation for a reason, and if the government members find themselves on this side of the table, on what happened here, you do not want to be part of that. I'll tell you why.
The government has had eight years to propose the types of amendments in here and they chose not to—number one—and the scope that was proposed in here was so beyond the original private member's bill that it really should have been government legislation or another private member's bill, but what happened was that the committee—the NDP and the Liberals—decided to override the Standing Orders and the procedures on how we dispose of and dispense with private members' legislation to expand the scope, because that didn't happen.
What happens to my colleagues, particularly in the government party, then, is that as legislators you're sitting here and dealing with amendments that are really significant, that we haven't had witness testimony to and, as well, that we haven't had departments testify to.
The other concern I want to re-emphasize in the deliberations on this bill and why it was so important to scrutinize these amendments is the leaks that happened and the breach of privilege. I understand that there are passionate stakeholders on this, but they're not elected officials. They may have opinions on this issue, but they're not representing the hundreds of thousands of people who we represent. Therefore, there should have been decorum and due process put in place, and due process wasn't followed in this instance.
We came into this all in agreement on passing this bill expeditiously, as it was in the Senate. My sense is that this is not going to be the case when it inevitably returns to the other place. I think that's unfortunate. I think what's happened here is that this is now a piece of legislation that is going to likely...not at my request or anything, but it's going to face more scrutiny and more holdups, probably because a couple of well-intentioned people thought they could break the rules and play fast and loose with the rules. That's really unfortunate because the substance either should have been in a government bill or not taken this way.
For those people who are listening, if that happens, it's because the rules weren't followed and the original deal and the original spirit of this bill were broken by an overreach. I find that really disappointing, and I think it has potentially negative outcomes for a lot of people, so I also echo my comments of my colleagues that this should not be reported.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just want to remind everybody that the original intent of Senator Yonah Martin, when she put this bill forward, was to try to avoid the problems that had happened in the past. In the past, this bill—a very much similar bill—had come forward.
As we know there are different categories of lost Canadians. Each category of lost Canadians requires a certain correction or a fix or repair to the Citizenship Act in order to bring those lost Canadians back in as Canadians. Each of them stands on their own. It's very complicated. It's very complex. The act is actually very complicated, as my colleague Tom has said. It's very difficult to understand. I thank, very much, our officials for providing that knowledge because it's very hard to understand how this affects that and everything.
When there is a bill that changes that, it's very complex. When you try to solve one, two, three or four different problems, you end up with that many chunks of words, of amendments, to the act that all impact different parts of the act. It gets very complicated. Lots of questions have to be asked. It's not something that's simple to do. It takes a lot of time, first of all, just to draft it and to get it written properly. Then it takes a lot of time here to deal with it.
This was the whole point of why these bills have failed in the past. The process required, when you do that sort of thing, takes a long time. You can't just simply have a meeting, explain it and it all makes sense, and then everybody votes and it's done. It's not like that because there are so many pieces to this puzzle. They're all very complicated. They all need to be double-checked.
The whole reason we're here is that previous changes to the legislation had been made, and unknowingly, there were unintended consequences. Because proper due diligence wasn't done.... I'm sure the people who did it did their best, but they could have asked more questions because they obviously missed things. Those things then resulted in what we refer to as “lost Canadians”. Another way to refer to that is “unintended consequences” of a bill.
What has happened since then is that much more scrutiny is being put on citizenship changes for that very reason. We don't want to create new unintended consequences. Bills have failed in the past because they extend too long, they require too much study and, being in a minority situation, inevitably, we aren't able to go the full four years. Then an election happens, and that's the end of the bill. That has happened before.
That's why, when Senator Martin decided to bring this bill forward, she wanted to take a different approach. She was unhappy with the fact that this had failed. In fact, constituents who spoke with her relayed that concern: The approach hadn't worked, so a new approach was required. That's where her idea came for this. Let's just take one of these groups—one of the larger segments of this group of lost Canadians—and let's just try to fix one thing.
One thing that would be quite simple.... It's not that it would be simple. That's not putting it right. It's that it would be limited. The explanations, while complex, would be somewhat limited, so it wouldn't take eight meetings to figure it out. It could be done in one or two.
To that end, that's what she decided to do. It had the bonus effect of the same exact issue that had been talked about in the Senate before. To her advantage, the Senate didn't actually need to restudy it, because it had already studied exactly that thing. She was able to move it through the Senate very quickly, because the Senate agreed that, since there had been no changes to the original bill—the previously studied bill—it didn't need to restudy it. It agreed with Senator Martin to just pass it through the Senate to the House.
When it arrived at the House, what could have happened—what I have before described as track A—was that we could have brought it here. We could have asked the hard questions that needed to be asked on this particular group of lost Canadians. We would have been done by now, I guarantee it. As I said, even though the questions are complicated, and the answers are difficult to explain, it's a very limited segment of information that was required.
We would have had that information. We would have asked the questions we needed to. We would have made sure—and actually, the department had some good suggestions for wording and language changes to Senator Martin's bill that we agreed with—that the exact correct words were there, and there would be no further unintended consequences. That was all done.
That would have been completed. It would have been through this committee many weeks ago, and it would have been back to the House. All that would have been required for it to become law was a vote. It probably would have been the law of the land by now.
That was track A. That was the track we were on. That was the whole logic of what Ms. Martin had planned as a different approach to this problem and a different approach to this legislation actually getting through the system.
That was the plan. That's how it would have gone on track A. What really happened, as we know now, is that the government and the NDP got together and decided they wanted to try track B, which just so happens to be the same track that was tried before. We know what the result was before. The result before was that it didn't get through because it was too complicated. We had people tell us—and we know from the previous Senate testimony—that constituents said that, if this was going to get overly complicated, it would not pass in time, and they would rather have at least one piece of it dealt with, and then we could come back and deal with the others later. That was the testimony of people. That was the testimony of the sponsor of the bill. She specifically requested that we not expand this so as to slow it down. That was her main request—that we just leave the bill as it was so that we would not slow it down and not conflate different issues that would add time and cause this bill to fail again.
Unfortunately, that's the track we're on. Not only did it take longer for us to process and analyze all these issues here in this legislation and to make sure there were no unintended consequences, but the really sad part is that now it will eventually make its way back to the Senate because it's not in the same form it was when it was sent from that place.
What's very likely going to have to happen there is that the Senate will look at this and say that this is not what they agreed to. It's not the same thing, so they will ask what all the changes are. They are going to have to study this bill. The way the timing goes on these kinds of things, it's not something that will happen next week or tomorrow. This could take a long time before it actually gets the chance to be talked about in the Senate and referred to committees there. This will potentially add many months to this process.
This is the danger we spoke of at the very beginning of this process when, as my colleague Mr. Kmiec said, the bill was vandalized. We had warned about this, that besides taking longer to get through the House of Commons, it was going to be studied in great depth again at the Senate, and there would be many questions with potentially further amendments at the Senate that then would have to come back. It could have been done. Track A could have been done. With track B, there's a bunch of uncertainty. It's going to extend it for months, guaranteed. In this environment of a minority government, you never know when an election could be called. Should an election be called, all of this work will have been for naught and it will all get thrown out, and some future parliamentarian will have to address this and start this again.
That raises another good question. If the government was so intent on making further amendments, why did it not just introduce a bill? It could have let this bill deal with this piece of the puzzle, let it go through and be done with it. The other changes the government wanted to make could have been introduced in another bill. It would have very much been within the scope of the immigration minister to do so. The government has the ability to control the agenda and to put bills through the House of Commons. This would be quite a logical and sensible way to do this so that we would both preserve what Ms. Martin had intended in hers and put the government changes through on their own bill. What the government has done is vandalize this bill.
We always have to remember that we as parliamentarians have few tools with which to legislate, but one of them is private members' bills. When we put forward a private member's bill, the intention is that we are communicating our idea, the thing we want to do, and we are putting that forward to Parliament to be voted on. When the government comes along and says essentially to delete everything and replace it with what they want, it's no longer our bill. I don't think any of us around this table or any of us in the House or the Senate wants that approach. We all want to retain the right to push through our legislation the way we envision it.
The government should not be able to take over our private member's bill, throw out what they want and put in what they want, but that's what has happened here. I think that's another significant abuse of a private member's bill. It's not something that we should think lightly about.
This has huge implications for precedents, as well, because if the government did it here, you can guarantee this case will be referred to in the future. They will talk about what happened at this committee and they will use it as a precedent to destroy some other future parliamentarian's bill. I can assure you that it is going to happen. It's very disappointing, and it's disappointing that I have to be a part of that, because it's not something I see as a good precedent in our country.
I am really disappointed—I guess that's the best way to put it—in the process that has happened here and in the way the government has taken this bill, put in these changes and, frankly, taken advantage of the private member's bill of a fellow parliamentarian, rather than doing the work it should have done on its own, which is produce its own bill to make the changes that the government wants to change.
That summarizes my thoughts on this. I'll allow someone else to speak on it.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
:
With respect, Madam Chair, this is not out of scope because I'm speaking to the issue of the scope of the bill, what's been done to the bill and why it should not be reported back to the House. It should not be reported back to the House because it goes far beyond the original intent of the author and the sponsor of the bill. She has made that clear to this committee.
I think that, as part of understanding and discussing whether this bill should be reported back, it's totally appropriate to look at the areas where the government expanded the scope of this bill and chose this route to change, in my view, the very nature of the bill versus the government's option to bring in its own bill, which it chose not to do. In this process, it rejected a number of important improvements.
Since it broadened the scope of the bill, it had an opportunity, with some amendments, to talk about and expand the issue of the process one goes through, a citizenship process and oath, which is incredibly important. It's not just some sort of bureaucratic paperwork type of thing where you can say, “We have a backlog that's doubled under our government, so we'll just try to figure out ways to speed it up, make it all virtual, take the magic out of that most important day in a person's life and have them just sit at home on a computer and swear in, if the technology works.” These things could have been addressed, as well, since the government chose to go at it, but it chose to not continue to look at ways to make sure that it is required that these most significant ceremonies be done in person, that it be known publicly when the ceremonies are done, or that members of Parliament be invited to all of those, members of Parliament who have managed to go to those very moving ceremonies.
That's not possible when it's done in a virtual situation. The people may not even be in the same city—the citizen court judge and the individual being sworn in. It diminishes and cheapens the process. If the government felt that this was the way to go, then it surely proved it through this process.
The main issue is this: Why did it not take the opportunity that the government has to create its own legislation and draft it specifically into what the government needed? That is a process. I was taught how to do it.
My colleague Mr. Redekopp talked about the law of unintended consequences. In fact, the deputy minister I was referring to earlier, Arthur Kroeger, with whom I worked in employment and immigration—he was our deputy minister—taught me about the legislative planning process and how the primary job of drafting legislation of the department is to figure out the law of unintended consequences. Every piece of legislation has those things you're trying to do, but it also has impacts on things that you necessarily cannot anticipate.
We spent, on that case, on a bill that changed the Employment Insurance Act—or Unemployment Insurance Act, as it was known then—a year working on scenarios of unintended consequences to the bill. That's why you don't come at the last minute into a private member's bill and try to insert things that are beyond the scope of the bill, in my view again, without doing all the proper work in advance. It could take a year or two years—this government has had eight years to do it—to think of all the unintended consequences and how they will impact people, how people will do things and react to the law in ways that you did not expect. That takes a lot of work and due diligence.
I don't think amending a private member's bill shows that the government had much forethought in how to go forward with a comprehensive review of the Citizenship Act and ensure that it achieved everything that it wanted to achieve. In this case, since it was opened, as we've said, we proposed a number of things that the government chose to ignore. The original author may now see the bill delayed extensively because we have one or two weeks left in the House before the summer break.
Of course, there are a lot of rumours about things that might happen during the summer, as there always are, including possible prorogation.
An hon. member: It could be a cabinet shuffle.
Mr. Rick Perkins: It could be a cabinet shuffle, as well. It seems pretty evident there's going to be a cabinet shuffle.
On the issue of going forward and the time left for the Senate to deal with the amendments of this bill, it's highly unlikely this is going to make it through in time. Who knows what the fall will bring? It could be a Speech from the Throne and whatever electoral fortunes we may face.
As a result of all of this, the bill could have been through the system with a quick resolution and passage through the House, as we've done.... I sit on the industry committee as well. We passed three private member's bills through our committee in the space of one month, because we all worked together and the government didn't make major changes. They made minor legal changes to make sure those bills complied with CUSMA.
In this case, the substantive changes—changing the nature of the bill—are causing this to end up in a legislative loop, which means the lost citizens may, yet again, get let down by this Parliament not addressing their needs. This process takes years.
I would ask the government whether they could clearly rethink their approach, go back to the drawing table, agree with us that the bill should not be reported back and come back with a proper piece of legislation that does the things they want. They can leave this bill alone or make the choice, at further stages in the House, to correct the mistakes they've made by expanding this bill.
Again, we haven't thought through.... I don't think the government has thought through all the changes these amendments will make. I would ask the chair not to report this back to the House, so the government can do its homework in the proper way by introducing a proper bill and fixing the things the government wants to fix in the Citizenship Act.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
There were just a couple of points made by Ms. Kwan. There was a short point about the intentions or the views of Senator Yonah Martin. It's commendable that the member reached out to our colleague from the Senate when the bill was tabled and that she met with Senator Yonah Martin and that she said her views had changed between then and now, at some point.
That's not comparable to us. We sit with our Senate colleagues in all of our meetings. I know that's different from the case for most caucuses, but our senators are involved in everything we do, with regular reports in caucus. They listen to the whole debate and they get to participate in it. They are equal members in our national caucus.
I should know. I chaired the national caucuses of the Conservative Party during the pandemic as well as a little before that and a little after that. Her views did not change. I thought she was very clear, when she came before the committee on Bill , which was taken through the Senate so quickly, that there was a common understanding among senators that the substance of the bill was the same as that of Bill .
That's why Senator Martin was able to convince her Senate colleagues to expedite the bill and to convince our caucus that the substance had not changed and that, therefore, this bill should be pushed through because it was essentially the same as before.
You can't interpret every conversation you have as a permission slip for any action to be taken. I did follow up and I have followed up repeatedly with the senator in question and also with the House of Commons sponsor of the bill, who was my predecessor on this committee, about their intentions concerning the contents of the bill.
At this final stage of the bill, I just want to ensure that we have a common understanding of how we got to this point with some of the work we have done and where we agreed on certain amendments to be passed. Again, having one-off discussions doesn't compare to being in the same caucus room. I know it's different for certain caucuses that don't have senators who sit with them regularly, but in this case we do, and I believe we've reflected what was Senator Martin's understanding when she testified at this committee as a witness. Also, we have been able to speak to her continually about stakeholder relations, the contents of the bill and certain amendments to be considered.
As my colleague Mr. Perkins said, when all of us are drafting bills, the tighter a bill and the simpler it is, the more likely you are to get consensus from more people. When bills are changed at committee stage—and it happens, and I agree. I'm sure if there is another IRPA bill or maybe the government will have a bill to amend the Citizenship Act at some point or a modernization bill, as they like to call it, there will be amendments made by the committee that may result in our having to return to our caucuses to get a review or to get agreement on them. That is how my caucus works. When a bill is substantively modified, seriously amended as this Bill will be, it should be reported back to the House and it will require us to go back to caucus.
We have a caucus meeting tomorrow. I think all of us have caucus meetings tomorrow, so I was wondering, Madam Chair, whether you would be willing to perhaps suspend the meeting, and I could take it back to my caucus, and we would meet tomorrow at 3:30. I could therefore get direction tomorrow morning from my caucus team and the Senate caucus members on the Conservative side as well, and I could come back to the committee. We could either expedite it or we could maybe reconsider it, but I would hope we could expedite it. I hope my caucus would give me very clear direction.
That is how we work. We have a consent system. We have caucus advisory committees, and I don't think that's a big revelation to anybody out there, but there is a substantial amount of consultation that every shadow minister has to do on their file and every sponsor of a private member's bill or a Senate bill has to do.
The substance has changed. The scope is much beyond that of the original version that came to this committee. On at least one of those matters—the adoption clauses—we did agree with them, and I'll stand by those votes. I thought we voted wisely to expand it there.
I think that would perhaps be better for us, because it is late and I know this committee met extensively on Monday. I was not here on Monday. Forgive me for that. It was my oldest son's junior high graduation, and that's one of those things you can't miss, especially when it's your first one who is graduating. I could not miss that, so I was present for that.
That would be my suggestion and perhaps you could take it under advisement.
I'll stop there.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just curious. My colleague Mr. Kmiec asked you about suspending and resuming tomorrow. Is that something you would consider doing? That's just a quick question for you.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Brad Redekopp: Okay. All right.
I wanted to address as well the changes made to this bill when we were starting to run into a time crunch in May. The committee requested of the House an extension of time, which I think was a reasonable request. Along with that request for an extension of time was also an extension to expand the scope.
I think this is one of the places we ran into trouble, as I've spoken to before. I just wanted to reiterate some of the implications, I guess, of that change to expand the scope. I've spoken about before, so I won't repeat, how it changed the direction of the bill from track A to track B. The other thing it did is that it opened the door to doing many different things to the bill. The government had their ideas on how they wanted to change the bill. The NDP had their ideas on how they wanted to change the bill. I think the Bloc just wanted to get past the bill. We had our own ideas of how we wanted to change the bill. By opening up the scope of the bill, we took it as a statutory review. I think essentially that's what was happening with the members of the government and the NDP as well.
By doing so, it really caused us to step back and say, “If we have the option and the ability to actually make changes in this legislation, this very complicated Citizenship Act, what are the things we've been hearing?” That's where we were able to go back to our offices, to constituents who had spoken with us and to stakeholders who had contacted us to really go through and look at those things that had been sort of on the priority list. Essentially, the question was, “If you could fix the Citizenship Act in one way, what would it be?” Out of that discussion came the suggestions we've made.
I think people need to understand that when this bill's scope was opened up, it presented an opportunity to fix multiple things that were wrong in the system. That's what the members of the government chose to do. That's what the NDP chose to do. That's what we chose to do. When we got to our amendments, that's what they were. They were sensible amendments that were drawn from the suggestions and thoughts that we and our constituents had so that we could improve and fix things. In the same vien, we didn't want to have any unintended consequences in those amendments, so we were careful to draft them in such a way that they wouldn't do that. The result of that was to have what we call the statutory review, which is essentially what was happening.
The other thing I wanted to touch on relates to that. It still could have gone easier than it did. My colleague Mr. Kmiec made a very reasonable proposal or motion: Given that we are expanding the scope, and given that we are expanding the time, let's have an extra two weeks—I think at that time it was two weeks—to submit the amendments we want to submit. Of course, that motion was not approved. Therefore, we were not able to do that. As a result, we had to take more time here. We had to provide our amendments one by one as we went, which made more work for the clerks and everybody around the table. If we had accepted that very reasonable motion by Mr. Kmiec back in May, we wouldn't have had this issue.
The other issue I want to touch on in that same line of thinking is the fact that there was a breach of privilege when an amendment that had been shared in confidence with members was actually shared outside this room and shared very explicitly and in a very detailed way with members of the public. That is another reason there was great hesitation to submit the amendments we had. It was the risk of those being put out there in the public. We weren't sure what was going on with the committee and who was supplying that information to others.
That was another reason this took longer than it needed to. There was a lack of trust, I think, in how that happened. I'm not sure we ever quite got to the bottom of that, but we need to ensure, number one, that it doesn't happen again. It's a disappointing thing that happened. Of course, it's a well-established principle of parliamentary privilege that certain things are allowable and certain things aren't, and that was one that wasn't.
I just wanted to add those things to the record, and some of the reasons we ended up where we did on this.
I'll leave it at that for the moment, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a bit of a follow-up, if I could, to the beginning of Mr. Redekopp's question, which was a follow-up to Mr. Kmiec's question about suspending until tomorrow.
Because we made more than 40 amendments, Mr. Kmiec referred to our caucus process. That was one of the revelations here when I got elected. I thought the caucus part of the whole process would be two hours a week that I could never get back. It turned out that our process, anyway—I don't know how it is for the other caucuses—is a lot different from what I expected, in the sense that for any motion, issue, bill or private member's bill that goes before Parliament from this place or the other place, the shadow minister has to set up what we call a “caucus advisory committee”, which was referenced. I'm the shadow minister for industry.
It's basically inviting all your caucus members to a discussion on that issue to discuss the bill, the proposal and what the shadow minister may or may not think, and to also have a discussion about what we think our position should be. That discussion then goes through a type of cabinet process. We have shadow cabinet committees, which shadow ministers sit on for various areas—economic policy, social policy. The relevant shadow minister has to take that caucus input on that bill or legislation, as was the case for this one, to that shadow cabinet committee and have yet another discussion about the bill and what caucus recommended.
Sometimes that process reconfirms what the caucus advisory committee wants. Sometimes it modifies it or alters it. It then goes on to a meeting of our leadership team, which is the equivalent of the cabinet's P and P process, so it's like the cabinet committee process. I think it was Rona Ambrose, when she was leader, who set up this process for us, which we still follow.
As discussed at that committee meeting, that P and P process, not unlike the cabinet process, may choose to do something different or to ratify or alter something at that discussion. Then it goes to the full caucus, believe it or not. The shadow minister who presented it originally has to present it to all of the caucus. We then have a caucus discussion and debate about that recommendation and an actual vote. Everything we do goes through that process, including the vote.
When there is a substantial change to what we approved originally, whether it's a private member's bill, a motion or a government bill that happens through the committee process, as shadow ministers we're obligated to bring that back to the full caucus to have a discussion and debate about what we think the caucus and the team—this is a team sport, after all—should be doing.
Because the alterations to this bill are so significant, it would require us.... We're lucky, in that it's Tuesday. We've missed some of the other elements, but we all do have caucus tomorrow. Our shadow minister could make a presentation to caucus tomorrow morning on what has changed and get feedback from the caucus on the position for reporting back and the vote on what our position would be on reporting back to the House and going forward to third reading.
If I recall, Madam Chair, I think that while you may not have said it, you seemed to nod your head when Mr. Redekopp asked if you would consider suspending and following up on Mr. Kmiec's idea that we suspend and come back tomorrow, if possible, after the caucus process. That would mean after question period tomorrow we'd reconvene so that we could have, with our proper caucus of our 118 or so colleagues—I guess I'm not so good at math tonight—less those present, the input of those caucus colleagues and instructions that we could bring back to the table tomorrow, if that were possible.
Madam Chair, I would like to follow up on the two previous comments on whether that nodding was agreement so that we could adjourn until tomorrow—
Seeing no debate, we can go for a vote.
Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Mr. Tom Kmiec: We would like a recorded division.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, can you please take the vote?
(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Chair: I will report the bill as amended. It is adopted.
Thank you, everyone, for your patience.
Thank you to all the officials, and to the team being led by Ms. Girard. Let's give her a big hand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: I know you have been very patient, and you had to spend your husband's birthday with us to get through Bill . On behalf of all the members of the committee, I really want to thank you and your team for being here for many long evenings.
Thank you to all the support staff and to the interpreters.
I really want to thank all the members for their co-operation and for their patience.
I thank all our staff also, because we can't do it without staff.
Thank you to everyone for getting this legislation through. Hopefully, I will report it back, and we will be moving on.
Yes, Ms. Kwan?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I, too, would like to thank the staff, particularly for their patience and endurance with this bill.
Now I'd like to move two motions, Madam Chair. I will move them one by one. I'll let the first one be dealt with first, and then when we've finished with that, if you can come to back to me, Madam Chair, I'll move my second motion.
My first motion is:
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.
Madam Chair, I'd like to move this motion first. I think it is important that this motion be adopted by the committee.
As mentioned previously, this is an issue that I wrote to the about, long before this matter became a topic for this committee. I called for him to take action in raising the concerns of how these students have been victims of this fraudulent scheme. The measures we need the government to take are staying the deportations; waiving inadmissibility based on misrepresentation by the fraudulent, ghost consultants in submitting doctored admissions letters, unbeknownst to the students; and then, finally, giving the students a permit pathway.
As we know, when students are faced with the issue of inadmissibility, it stays on their record for five years. That applies to all immigration pathways, so this is very significant to their future.
These students—I've met with many of them now—are in such a terrible state. They've lost money, and they are stuck in a terrible situation. Some of them have deportation orders. Others have pending meetings with the CBSA.
As a first step, this, I think, is absolutely essential and necessary, Madam Chair, so I'll move this as my first motion. After this is dealt with, I have another one to move.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to mention that I spoke, today, with the students affected by this, and they are growing extremely impatient for some action. They'll be very happy to see, finally, that this committee is taking some action.
One thing I think we have to be very careful about, at least from the Conservative perspective.... We are all for not immediately deporting these students, because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. We are also certainly open to their obtaining PR status. However, we are concerned about creating a special pathway for these particular students. We have the pathways that are there. I think what all these students want is to be considered, like anyone else, for permanent status. They're not asking for something special that way.
I have a subamendment that I would like to propose in this regard.
Towards the end, the current one reads, “waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”. I would like to delete “an alternate pathway to permanent status” and replace it with “a path to reapply for permanent residency”.
It would read.... I'll start at “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 a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted,” and it carries on.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This issue is really important, especially in Brampton. I see many students who are struggling to deal with their situation. I have sympathy, and my office is assisting some of the students who fell into that situation of being banned for five years. Our constituency office is assisting those students.
I think it's a record as a government: In 2016, we had 264,000 students, but in 2019 there were over 400,000 students. We had a situation last year. There was an article on IELTS. For some students, the IELTS was not genuine. There was an article about a college in Niagara.
Now this is happening. Some students may be innocent or some.... We don't know until we go through a study on it. I think we should allocate the time to a study on this, to find out where something went wrong and how we deal with this issue without compromising the integrity of our system, of IRCC.
There's one more question that I wanted to ask Mr. Redekopp. He said that we should give PRs to people who were here for five years, but then, who applied or.... Yes, they can apply, but my point is, do we deal with the refugees who have been here for the last five years in a similar way...? Would that open another door?
I wanted to hear your thoughts on that, but yes, this issue is really important, and I think we need more time to discuss it as a committee and to bring forward suggestions or solutions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The situation with the students is devastating. I think we all agree with that.
I've talked to a number of the students now, quite a number of them, actually, in the last number of days. Some of them have made an application to have their TRV extended, and now their system is hung up. Others are going through a process of trying to access and build towards a permanent pathway, which is ultimately what they want.
In this motion I've tabled, I'm saying to the government that we should acknowledge the suffering these students have undergone. One student I spoke with racked up $20,000 in legal fees as a result of this situation. They paid the fee to the unscrupulous consultant already. They paid student tuition to the school they were supposed to go to. However, they didn't end up going to it because they didn't know there was a fraudulent claim with that, so they went to that school to try to get access to the school and couldn't. Then, they went to another school after all of this, so they paid double the educational fee in this situation.
They have sold their land at home. They've sold everything they own at home. They have nothing at home. This is the reality they're faced with.
I think my motion calling for the government to provide an alternate pathway for these students is the right thing to do. Alternate pathways could mean a humanitarian, compassionate stream. They'd still have to go through the process in their application. I think it is the right thing to do, so I don't support the amendment. I'm sorry.
The Conservatives have taken a different point of view for a long time. In their other motion, they said to suspend deportation only until they get a chance to testify. I don't agree with that. I actually think we should suspend the deportation, not just until they testify but until there is a full remedy for the problem, including the waiving of inadmissibility based on misrepresentation and for that pathway to materialize.
I'm sorry. I don't support the amendment, and I would like my motion to stay as is.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I certainly feel very bad about these students as well, and particularly the ones who are facing deportation and have to go through this, but the way I see it is this. Some members of the committee might not know the system and how it works. What happens is that the student gets a letter from the school and then the admission is done. The student pays fees directly to the institution. What happens—single cases have come to me—is that they will do this, but this will also somehow be done by the agent. When they land here, they find out, or the agent tells them, that they didn't even have admission to that school, or it didn't even exist. What happens is that the student takes admission into another school. Basically, they start their life at some other school, like the 400,000 students Mr. Ali mentioned earlier. They are in the same lineup.
The main focus that I see right now is the fraudulent letter. What damage did that fraudulent letter do to those students? They took their letter, and now they're facing a five-year deportation ban. I would support Madam Kwan on this one. This should be abolished right away. This should not be on their record. They were not aware that this letter that was given to them was fraudulent.
On the other hand, our dear friend Mr. Redekopp on the other side has brought a motion forward. Basically, I think he's saying that they got in here, for example, on this letter they were issued, and we are already dealing with that. That fraudulent letter should not put a five-year ban on those students. If those students have already taken admission in the other college, and they have gone through that process, they already have the number of hours they need, the qualifications they need, the exams they need and all the other requirements—medical, criminality check—so they are the ones who should be given immigration instead of a blanket being put over the whole thing.
If we go with a blanket thing, we're not certain; they're now saying there are 700 students, but I don't think there are 700 students. The number I see is about 200, or whatever the number is. Out of those 200, some of them might have already gotten their immigration and gone through the system already. Some of them have already completed all the requirements they needed to make sure they have the required number of points for express entry, or they have applied under some provincial program, such as BC PNP. There are a lot of pathways that students have already followed, but the major issue they are facing is deportation and this fraudulent letter. If they got the admission here, they are in the same lineup as any of the other students, the 400,000 or so students who came in, because that letter was the only thing. Now that letter is not going to have any impact on their application.
Is that the line Mr. Redekopp is thinking along, that it's fair to these students who have come under this fraudulent letter and it's also fair to those 400,000 or so students who are already here studying?
:
Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief.
I just want to address Mr. Ali's concern on fairness, which I think is fair for us to talk about.
The motion as it was originally worded reads, “provide an alternate pathway to permanent status for those impacted”.
The amendment that Mr. Redekopp is suggesting is, “provide a path to reapply for permanent residency for those impacted”.
I think it was Mr. Dhaliwal who suggested perhaps a subamendment to this amendment, which would say, “a path to apply or reapply”, but the implication that Mr. Redekopp's amendment catches is the fairness one, Mr. Ali. It suggests that we're not going to create a special stream for people, but we're going to allow them, if they were deemed inadmissible because of the fraudulent letters, to reapply or apply, as the case may be, through normal processes and due process.
I think it's really important for us to accept this amendment—and not just in this case. I don't know what's happening—'tis the season—but our committee this session has been seized with fraudulent letters of all sorts. I think we, as parliamentarians, have to be careful to not inadvertently create a pull or an incentive for ghost consultants to say, “Well, it doesn't matter. I'm going to issue these fraudulent letters and then I'm going to tell people that, guess what, the committee is now going to say that they have an alternative pathway.”
I don't want to put words in her mouth. I know that's not the spirit of Ms. Kwan's amendment, but I think it behooves us to be precise and say that we understand the humanitarian nature of the situation, but we also want to make sure we are using existing processes and due process, so that we're not being unfair—to Mr. Ali's component; that we're being equitable—but we're also not creating a pull factor by saying that when this type of fraud happens, we're going to create special circumstances. Frankly, that is what we risk happening in the Afghan letter cases as well, because there are civil cases right now.
I think we just need to be precise as a committee. We shouldn't be binding the government in a pull factor. I think that's the spirit of Mr. Redekopp's amendment here.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I'd now like to move this 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 this 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.
Madam Chair, I'll be very quick about the intention of this motion. I think it's self-explanatory. I think we need to do all of these elements.
The big difference I want to highlight, though, between this motion and the one the Conservatives moved earlier, which they say is similar, is that it's substantively different. In their motion, they only call for the deportation to be stayed until witnesses present to this committee. That is not good enough. We need the deportation stayed in a substantive way so that the inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation can be waived and a permanent pathway option is available to them.
The other piece that is also significantly different is that the Conservative motion does not talk about waiving inadmissibility. If you don't waive inadmissibility, these students have, on their records, a five-year ban, and that is very significant for their futures. They would not be able to access any immigration pathway, even if it were a study permit, a work permit or anything like that. That is an essential component, in my view, to this.
Finally, to the last point—a permanent pathway—this is what the students want, and we need to make sure we address that as well.
There's a substantive difference, and that's why I supported the adjournment of those motions. I would not support the motion in any event, and I would support this one, which is much more holistic in addressing the issues for the students.
:
Madam Chair, I'm not here to debate whose motion is better.
I want to thank each and every member of this committee for finally supporting the students who are facing this difficulty. I don't think anyone is not in favour of the five-year ban, based on that letter, being taken away and the deportations being stayed, whether they are stayed until whenever.... Even if they were to do their studies and stay afterwards, I think everybody probably meant the same thing. There was no problem on this side of Bill . We were always saying to our Conservative and NDP friends that, of course, once we finish this, we will deal with that issue. I'm glad each and every party is supporting dealing with this, and that the motion proposed by Madam Kwan and amended by me is going through.
Let's get on and see. Even if students come to you, as an individual.... Let's pursue those cases with the ministers of IRCC and public safety to make sure they feel that the support is there and that we're standing with them shoulder to shoulder. We should not play politics with this issue or make this issue a political football, when those students, at the end, keep suffering.
That's where I want to leave it, Madam Chair. It's not only the Liberal members on this committee. I can tell you, Madam Chair, that many other members have approached me. They are talking outside this group. We have already met with the 's department, as well as CBSA, to make sure we are prudent on this issue and support it as much as we can.
On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to show my support for these wonderful students.
:
I have just a very quick comment.
In terms of the students who are faced with this situation, many of them have actually reached out to me. I've spoken to many of them, and I'm working with them to collect their information to get their consent. I had already been in conversation with the about the situation to get their files right in front of the minister and to have, hopefully, a positive outcome for them.
In the case of Mr. Lovepreet Singh, he is, indeed, faced with deportation imminently, so that's an urgent file. In fact, I was on an email with him just now with respect to that.
Absolutely, we need to do that.
The work in this committee.... As I explained to the students, as well, as anxious as they were, this committee has no authority to waive or stay deportations. Only the can do that—or the Federal Court. However, what we can do, of course, is to look into the situation and explore different options as recommendations to the government to see how we can prevent this from happening again.
Most urgently for the students who are faced with this situation right now, we need to actually take a different path. In my view, the best path for moving forward is to bring their cases forward individually to the 's attention and have them addressed. That's exactly what I'm doing with my staff team.
:
As I told you, Madam Chair, this motion has been on notice since March 27. I move:
That, the committee report the following to the House: that Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is facing political persecution in the Russian Federation including a show trial with high treason charges following his public condemnation of the unjustified and illegal war by Russia against Ukraine. That Vladimir Kara-Murza has survived two assassination attempts by poisoning including in 2015 and 2017, and that he is currently imprisoned in Russia and his health is failing. That Vladimir Kara-Murza is the recipient of the Vaclav Havel Human Rights Prize awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and is a Senior Fellow to the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Therefore, the committee calls on the Government of Canada to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza and demand that the Russian Federation set him free.
Madam Chair, that is the motion that has been on notice.
I'll briefly explain why this is still important today. He is still in jail. He's 41 years old. He is the same age I am. He has three kids. His wife, Evgenia Kara-Murza, has been here before, and she has spoken to members of Parliament.
We are trying to reach an agreement with all parties on a UC motion, and I understand we're still having trouble getting there. He has been under arrest since April 2022. Again, he has suffered unjust treatment by his captors. As one of the official opposition leaders in Russia, he, with Alexei Navalny, has basically led the way in defending the democratic rights of people who oppose Vladimir Putin's regime and the Kremlin.
His health has declined. He's lost about 40 pounds since his trial began. He did not have 40 pounds to lose, by the way; that would be like me losing 40 pounds. He's had two poisoning attempts, both suspected to have been directed personally by President Vladimir Putin, from his past two visits to Russia in 2015 and 2017. He has already been diagnosed with polyneuropathy. He's lost feeling in both feet and one arm. Even under Russian law, such a diagnosis should lead to his release, and it's very likely that he will die soon unless he is released.
Unfortunately, yet predictably, Russian courts found him guilty and sentenced him to 25 years in jail. I will also note for the record that there is a statement by the chairs of the foreign affairs committees of various European states in continental Europe that condemns the sentencing of Vladimir Kara-Murza. As all political prisoners know—I have met a few in my time here on Parliament Hill—if we do not promote their names, if we don't have them front and centre in the public, they will be forgotten, and regimes like the one Vladimir Putin leads will murder their opponents in jail. They have shown before that they have done so. Boris Nemtsov was murdered on a bridge right outside the Kremlin, in the evening, when he was shot to death in a very brazen murder.
For Russian opposition leaders, Russians who support democracy and the Russian Federation, it is a tough life being a member of the opposition there. I count my blessings that I am here in Canada. It is very difficult for them. Granting him honorary citizenship would be the least we could do to support someone who has basically given his life for the democratic movement, human rights, free speech and liberty. The only thing he said that wound up putting him before the Russian courts was that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and unjust and that he continues to oppose Vladimir Putin's regime, the kleptocrats in the Kremlin.
I hope that we can pass this and bring it to the House, so that the House can pass it as well, and that eventually the Senate may do something similar. There are six honorary citizenships that have been granted, I believe, in the past 30 or 40 years. This would be our seventh. I can't think of anyone more worthy than Vladimir Kara-Murza.
:
I want to say thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward. There are so many areas where we would agree on the principles of his motion.
I don't want to upset anyone on this committee, but I think it's important that we also set the stage for this motion. When you think about ordinary Canadian citizenship, it is not at the discretion of the . I think it's important that this be on the record. It is purely symbolic. It is an act on the part of the House. As my honourable colleague mentioned, since 2001, there have been six citizenships. One of them, unfortunately, was revoked. It was done through a unanimous consent motion that was proposed in the House for a joint resolution to be passed to grant that honour.
I think it's important that everybody understand that the recipients of that honour do not receive any of the rights held by Canadian citizens, such as the ability to receive or hold a Canadian passport, nor are they permitted to exercise any duties associated with Canadian citizenship. I think it's important that we realize, and that we put on record, what we are proposing to do in essence.
My honourable colleague did mention how horrible it is for this wonderful person who, through his perspective, is actually challenging, contesting and opposing what the current regime of Vladimir Putin is doing. I think we can agree on all those aspects of what we want to do here. I hope that I'll have the support of my colleagues, because I think the principle is right, but we need to ensure that the language is actually reflective of past practices, what exactly it means and what we would be saying.
For that reason, Madam Chair, I would like to propose an amendment to my colleague's motion. If I can read it in both official languages here, I will do so.
Madam Chair, maybe it would be easier if I read the motion the way I would like to see it with the amendment going forward.
:
I am fine with the second part, where “the Government of Canada” is stricken out and replaced with “Parliament”, but I'm not fine with a news release. I can put out a news release. I can tell you that Vladimir Putin doesn't care about my news release.
All of us here at this table are sanctioned by the Russian Federation. All of us are banned from entering that country, which I wear as a happy badge of honour. When an initial list came out, I was not on it for some reason—a bunch of us were not on it—and it was very difficult for me to deal with my family because they thought that was impugning my character somehow not to be sanctioned by the regime.
The first part is not acceptable. We've done this before. The committee has put out a news release, and it goes nowhere. There was one on minority Christians being persecuted overseas, and there were two other ones earlier in the year. Those were quickly forgotten. The thing that is not forgotten and that other regimes pay attention to is when Parliament and committees of this Parliament act and do things. Through acts of Parliament, we've recognized genocides. We act. We pass unanimous consent motions. Those are things people pay attention to.
To me, although they are non-binding, that's still the way we've done it before when we've named others to become honorary citizens. This is a way, through Parliament, to do so.
I don't support the amendment, even though half of it is okay with me. A news release is not enough. I would like to see this reported back to the House. It needs to be as is. A news release is simply not enough. It won't help. The Russian Federation won't care. They won't pay attention to what we do here. A news release just won't do it.
Other Parliaments are acting as well. Time is of the essence.