(Chair) in the chair.

[English]

Senators, I would like to begin by welcoming members of the committee, witnesses and members of the public watching our proceedings.

My name is Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario, and I am the chair of this committee.

Before we begin, perhaps it’s a good idea to do a round table, introducing ourselves to our witnesses — not in this case so much but to members of the public — starting with a steering member of the committee, Senator Seidman.

Senator Judith Seidman.

Welcome to our committee, Senator Pate and Senator Jaffer. We look forward to your presentations.

[Translation]

Senator René Cormier from New Brunswick.

[English]

Pleasure to meet you.

[Translation]

Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.

[English]

Nice to meet you too.

Wanda Thomas Bernard from Nova Scotia. Welcome.

[Translation]

Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec. Thank you for being here.

[English]

Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba. Welcome.

Rosemary Moodie, Ontario.

Sharon Burey, senator from Ontario. Welcome.

It is our pleasure to welcome two dear colleagues to this study of Bill S-235: Senator Jaffer, who is the sponsor of the bill, and Senator Pate, who has a previous interest in the bill. We look forward to hearing from both of you. You have 10 minutes for your opening remarks. Please share them as you see fit, if you need to share them.

Thank you all for such a welcoming. It feels really good. Thank you.

Honourable senators, please let me start by sharing with you this voice of a non-citizen who was brought into government care, among the many from whom I heard during my work on Bill S-235:

I was placed in foster care at the age of 5 for reasons no 5 year old could understand. I was confused and missed my family.

I did not know where I was going and why my parents were not coming.

They were always with me when we were fleeing.

They took me to another family and not mine.

Why, was I a bad boy? Was I being punished?

Then so much happened. I was moved into 12 foster homes.

At school, every morning I stood up for the Canadian Anthem, and every year on July 1st I celebrated being Canadian. I was proud to be a Canadian. Yet despite considering this country my home, I lacked citizenship status myself.

At 16, I tried to find my mother but I did not remember where she lived.

I ended on the street and got into criminal trouble. I needed to survive.

Later, I became homeless, ended up in prison and was then deported to Jamaica. But why Jamaica? No one I knew was in Jamaica.

Honourable senators, this is one of the several painful accounts I heard while preparing for this bill. But this bill would ensure that stories like these aren’t heard again.

Before I continue, I want to thank Senator Omidvar and the committee for examining this bill. I also want to thank Senator Pate for encouraging me to sponsor this bill.

As an overview, Bill S-235 aims to provide Canadian citizenship to the children of refugee and immigrant parents who have been taken into government care. Upon spending 365 days as wards of the state, these children would receive formal Canadian citizenship. In this way, Bill S-235 fills a very small legal void, which nonetheless has dramatic consequences for non-citizen wards when they face, as adults, the threat of deportation upon criminal conviction.

Senators, Bill S-235 is grounded in three foundations: the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the in loco parentis role that government plays towards children in its care, as provided by provincial law.

Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canadian and provincial governments must make all decisions in the best interests of the children in care, who have a right to non-discrimination, development, necessary support and the right to get proper future care.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed this in the Baker case in 1999, writing that:

The values and principles of the Convention recognize the importance of being attentive to the rights and best interests of children when decisions are made that relate to and affect their future. . . .

Seeing that the omission to provide citizenship has a dramatic and negative impact on the future of non-citizen wards, government must provide non-Canadian wards with citizenship under international law.

To continue, Bill S-235 recognizes that non-citizen wards are discriminated against as non-citizens, as opposed to other citizen Crown wards, which might violate sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed, seeing how uncertain their future as Canadians is, non-citizen wards’ care plans are incomplete if the state doesn’t seek to provide them with citizenship. Their right to life and safety might be at risk, as in the case of Mr. Abdi’s situation, which I will return to in a few minutes.

But non-citizen wards must not be treated differently by virtue of their origins, especially seeing that they are in government care. This discrimination is particularly objectionable because non-citizen state wards are Canadian in everything but status. They have roots here; they know the language and the culture. They are as much a part of Canada as any other citizen. Therefore, Bill S-235 will formally recognize these wards, who are already in every other aspect Canadians.

Bill S-235 acknowledges that provincial governments and local authorities explicitly act in loco parentis — that is, in place of parents — when making decisions in the best interests of wards in their care, whether citizens or not.

This is made transparent in provincial law, as in Quebec’s Youth Protection Act and Ontario’s Child, Youth and Family Services Act, where mentions of the Crown having the rights and responsibilities of a parent for the purposes of the child’s care, custody and control are abundant.

As such, Bill S-235 recognizes that this responsibility implies obtaining citizenship status for its non-citizen wards — again, as acting in their best interests.

In closing, senators, I want you to consider the case of Abdoul Abdi, who arrived in Nova Scotia as a refugee at the age of 6. After being taken into care in 2001, he endured 31 foster home replacements. I have found out that, especially in some provinces, Black or racialized children face many changes in foster homes even if it’s not their fault. I’m sure many of you know this. Abdoul Abdi and his sister, from whom you will hear in the next few weeks, faced severe sexual, physical and emotional abuse. As a young adult, he confronted criminal charges and the threat of deportation to Somalia, a country he barely knew. I remind you that he came here at the age of 6.

While these deportation orders were eventually overturned through legal and public efforts, to this day, Abdoul remains without Canadian citizenship. This bill will ensure that this never happens to another non-citizen child in state care.

Honourable senators, we both come to you here to say to you that children whom we raise in government care are children just as much as ours. They need to be protected and taken care of, ensuring that their Canadian citizenship is a critical part of that.

I can genuinely tell you that as a refugee myself, it means a lot to be a Canadian citizen. When we received our Canadian citizenship, my son was 7 years old. He flew the flag all day, saying to everybody, “Now I’m a Canadian citizen.” That’s what belonging means. That’s when he felt he really was part of this country. We come to you to say people who are taken in as wards of the court deserve our protection.

Thank you, senators, for listening. Senator Pate might have some remarks.

Hon. Kim Pate: The only thing I would say is thank you very much for sponsoring this bill, Senator Jaffer. I also want to recognize and thank Senator Omidvar for inspiring this bill.

Those of you who were in the Senate when Bill C-6 was being considered will remember that an amendment was made by Senator Oh. He made that amendment based on a case that I had been working on when I was being appointed. That was the case of Fliss Cramman, a young White woman who did obtain citizenship after the process. I don’t think that should be lost on anybody. He made the amendment hoping to correct the issues that Bill S-235 now does correct. At the time, a decision was taken by some members in the chamber that if I proceeded with correcting and doing a further amendment, a friendly amendment, if you will, that the bill would be defeated. In the interest of not defeating that bill, I acceded and, as Senator Omidvar encouraged me to do, developed a private member’s bill, which Senator Jaffer kindly agreed to sponsor.

That is the history of this bill. It is an attempt to correct something that people thought was being correct with that bill. I know the government recognizes this is a vital issue because they developed a policy recently that I think they hoped would put to bed this issue, but it does not. It does not ensure that all of the children in these situations would have citizenship — quite the opposite. It provides a small mechanism to allow for a temporary resident permit only, and specifies there needs to be a court order requiring full legal parental responsibility by the child welfare system.

We should certainly get the numbers from each of the provinces, but I can tell you from the many cases I’ve worked on in the past four and a half decades that the number of times that happens, particularly with some of the young people we’re talking about, is not significant. In fact, that policy is performative. It attempts to put forth an idea that this will be solved when, in fact, it will not. It is only policy, not legislation.

I strongly encourage you to support the bill Senator Jaffer has brought forward. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Senators Jaffer and Pate, for your remarks. My commendations to both of you for your “stick-with-it-ness.” Bill C-6 was in 2016. We are now in 2023. This is for the audience to know that things often move at a snail’s pace. However, they move because of the commitment of colleagues like Senator Jaffer and Senator Pate.

We will go to questions now. Colleagues, you will have four minutes each for questions. If I may ask the first one, a clarifying question, Senators Jaffer and Pate, this bill is not retroactive in any way; it’s prospective, yes?

Yes, it is not retroactive. I found a mistake in the bill and I have corrected it. It should say, “the person was subject to the conditions described in clauses 1(1)(i)‍(A) to (C) for 365 days.” It does not make that clear.

Which line in the bill is it?

I’m sending it to all of you. It’s on page 3, line 3 of the bill.

Page 3.

Line 3. That’s to be added because it was not clear.

Before we end the session, are you going to seek an amendment to correct that?

Yes, at clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.