Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to reduce the distinctions in eligibility for citizenship between adopted foreign children and children born abroad of Canadian parents.

Motion in amendment

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-14, mostly because it respects Quebec's jurisdiction over adoption, by allowing the Quebec government to determine whether an adoption is in accordance with Quebec legislation. Quebec law already protects the rights of children. The Bloc Québécois is in Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebeckers and to defend Quebec's existing jurisdictions.

However, Quebec has to be able to conclude international agreements on adoption because they fall under Quebec jurisdiction. This is still a problem. I will come back to that later. I hope will have enough time to do so.

The bill amends the Citizenship Act to reduce the distinctions in eligibility for citizenship between children born abroad of Canadian parents and foreign children adopted by Canadians. The bill will make it easier for any person who was adopted by a Canadian after February 14, 1977, to obtain Canadian citizenship; it will reduce the requirements for obtaining Canadian citizenship for adoptees who have reached the age of consent and, finally, it will reflect the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with respect to obtaining Canadian citizenship.

We have one major concern: this bill must respect Quebec's laws. Thanks to everyone's work, including the Bloc Québécois, of course, but also the Government of Quebec and the negotiations that took place between the federal government and the Government of Quebec, Quebec succeeded in ensuring that its jurisdiction over adoption will be respected. Clause 2 of the bill would add paragraph 5.1(1)(a), which states that the adoption “was in the best interests of the child”, to the Citizenship Act. The Bloc Québécois supports this.

The amended paragraph 5.1(2) states that it is Quebec's responsibility to determine whether or not the adoption meets Quebec's requirements. In other words, this clause says that Quebec is responsible for determining whether or not an adoption complied with the Civil Code and adoption legislation. If the Quebec adoption authority finds that the adoption complied with Quebec legislation, the federal government can grant citizenship to the child. We are pleased that this measure has been introduced and that the Constitution will be respected.

Finally, and this is a little sad, this morning we talked about another proposal concerning the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to protect workers, for which unanimous consent was sought. The only thing the Bloc Québécois asked for was that the legislation respect Quebec's jurisdiction and the Civil Code of Quebec, but the government refused to support it. That was a little strange, and might even seem paradoxical. We ensured that Quebec's jurisdiction will be respected in terms of Bill C-14, but in terms of another bill relating to the portfolio of a minister from Quebec—even though the minister is from Quebec, or perhaps because he is from Quebec—we were unable to ensure recognition of one very simple principle: respecting Quebec's Civil Code.

Back to Bill C-14. There are already provisions in Quebec's legislation that take into account the best interests of the child. Section 543 of Quebec's Civil Code states that: “No adoption may take place except in the interest of the child and on the conditions prescribed by law”.

Section 32 of the Civil Code states that: “Every child has a right to the protection, security and attention that his parents or the persons acting in their stead are able to give to him”.

Section 33 states, “Every decision concerning a child shall be taken in light of the child's interest and the respect of his rights”.

This has been a long-awaited bill. In granting adopted children citizenship more quickly, the federal government is finally taking account of the best interests of the child.

At present, adopted children are not treated the same as biological children born abroad to Canadian citizens, which, according to a Federal Court of Appeal decision, violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Adoptive parents already have a long series of procedures to follow in order to adopt a child.

Speeding up the process to obtain citizenship for these adopted children will thus lighten their burden. What was once an unnecessarily complex process is being simplified and this acceleration will facilitate the integration of these adopted children into their new host society.

Now, another contentious issue remains between the Government of Quebec and the federal government, that is, Quebec's ability to negotiate its own international adoption agreements. We believe that Quebec should be able to conclude its own adoption agreements with other governments. In order for Quebec to exercise its powers in the area of adoption and civil rights, it must be allowed to conclude its own adoption agreements with other countries. However, the diplomatic shackles imposed by Ottawa prevented it from doing so. This was the case with Vietnam, for example, and we all know what happened there.

The Conservative government claims that it is open to Quebec and that is practising a new federalism, but it still refuses to recognize the validity of the Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, which states that anything that falls under Quebec jurisdiction should remain Quebec's jurisdiction throughout the world. This means extending Quebec's internal jurisdictions internationally. This is the Guérin-Lajoie doctrine, which is still not recognized by the federal government. As long as this is the case, Quebec cannot be fully autonomous in its areas of jurisdiction, as originally set out in the Constitution.

Consequently, Quebec cannot take action, any more than other countries can. It is up to Ottawa to move on this issue. It is not up to other countries to interpret Canada's constitution. As long as the federal government tells other countries that it has exclusive jurisdiction over international relations, those countries will refuse to sign treaties with Quebec. We understand, because to act otherwise would amount to interfering in a federal-provincial dispute. Quebeckers find that rather painful. I can just imagine what it must be like for Vietnam to try to follow this sort of debate.

The painful episode of the adoption treaty with Vietnam revealed that the federal position is not only bad for Quebec, but downright dysfunctional and increasingly indefensible. In fact, this episode shows, more eloquently than any speech, that the federal government needs to give Quebec the chance to fully assume its constitutional authorities, including on the international scene. This is just one example that shows how important it is to Quebeckers to achieve full sovereignty, because that will correct all these situations where the federal government is refusing to recognize Quebec's authorities when the time comes to exercise them abroad.

This issue will become increasingly important, because we are living in an age of globalization where there are more and more exchanges. For example, international adoptions are increasing in number. More and more, decisions will be based on country-to-country talks. If, every time Quebec wants to go ahead, it has to engage in years of federal-provincial struggles without even being assured of having some small measure of permission to exist on the international scene, then clearly Quebec society will not be able to move forward.

We also saw this recently at the Kyoto conference in Nairobi, where poor Mr. Béchard, Quebec's environment minister at the time—get this, Mr. Speaker, I know you are sitting in your chair and I hope it is comfortable—asked permission to speak for 45 seconds. The federal government refused. If Quebec had been a sovereign country, it could have talked all week in Nairobi, just like all the other countries. This is one more example that shows the need for sovereignty.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to speak on this motion today.

This motion is intended to refine Bill C-14, an act that proposes to amend the Citizenship Act to extend automatic citizenship to children who are adopted and were born abroad.

Bill C-14 is a Liberal bill that was introduced in the last Parliament as Bill C-76 under the previous Liberal government.

This legislation seeks to minimize the difference in eligibility for citizenship between adopted and natural-born children of Canadian citizens. Under the current system, parents of children adopted abroad must first apply for a permanent residency for the children and ensure that they meet the residency requirements before they can apply for the children's Canadian citizenship.

There are countless Canadians who are choosing to adopt children who were born abroad, and they are choosing this route for a variety of reasons. Many are building their families. Others choose to adopt abroad to rescue children from very difficult situations in order to provide them with a hopeful and promising life. Canada should work to reduce any existing obstacles that adoptive parents may be facing in their attempts to build upon their family. The very act of adoption and welcoming a new member to a family is a noble act.

While the federal government should refrain from interfering with the family's decision regarding who they adopt, the same government should work to eliminate any barriers that families may face in fully integrating their new son or daughter into the community once an adoption has been approved by the welcoming province.

The process of adoption is a provincial jurisdiction, as my hon. colleague just explained. Once an adoption is finalized at the provincial level, the passage of this bill would ensure that Canadian citizenship automatically would be granted to the adopted child.

Bill C-14 is good legislation. Its objectives are meant to help Canadian families welcome their newly adopted children. This House supported Bill C-14 at second reading and forwarded the bill to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for a thorough examination. Last year the committee approved the bill, but in good faith added three amendments that were intended to improve it.

One of those amendments is the amendment that this motion before us intends to exclude. This amendment would provide the opportunity for failed citizenship applicants to appeal the decision to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

As I mentioned, this amendment was tabled in good faith. That is why it was supported by the majority of the committee members. However, upon further examination and consultation, it has been revealed that this amendment may create several problematic and unintended consequences. Many provinces have already expressed concerns that this amendment may result in an infringement of provincial jurisdiction if a province has rejected an adoption application for one reason or another.

The Bill C-14 legislation instructs the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to grant automatic citizenship to the applicant if the applicant has met all of the provincial adoption requirements, thus leaving no discretion where an error of judgment could occur. As such, the necessity for an appeal mechanism is almost non-existent.

The fear is that some may use this proposed appeal process to pressure provinces in their adoption decision process. Some provinces are concerned that if this legislation were to pass as is, an adopted child may enter a province or a territory as a citizen without first having the province formalize the adoption.

If this were to happen, it could cause serious legal and financial implications with respect to child protection. Several provinces have written to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration voicing their concerns about the unintended consequences that may arise if this bill is adopted in its current form with the amendment.

After thoughtful examination of the feedback I received and a detailed discussion I had with departmental officials from Citizenship and Immigration, I believe that it would be prudent to support this motion and agree to remove this amendment.

This is an important piece of legislation. I think many Canadians have been following it with great and keen interest. I think that working with the government to ensure that we have a good bill, one that both respects provincial jurisdiction and fulfills federal responsibilities, is critical. We in the Liberal Party never place politics ahead of good policy and we are determined to perform our duty of delivering good legislation.

I look forward to voting on this motion as quickly as possible so we can get back to the business of passing Bill C-14 in this chamber. I sincerely hope that once this motion is adopted the government will move quickly to bring the bill back to the House for its final reading.

In closing, I want to express my grateful thanks to the officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada for taking the time to brief me on this motion. The information session they provided was pivotal in helping me conclude that supporting this motion is the right thing to do for this bill and for Canadians.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-14, a bill designed to address a provision in the Citizenship Act. This bill reduces the distinction between natural born children of Canadian citizens and foreign born children adopted by Canadian citizens.

Every year Canadian parents welcome into their families children born in another country. These adoptive parents are Canadian citizens. The adopted children become part of a family, but their parents must complete yet another step before their children can officially be part of the Canadian family.

We are talking about the adoption of foreign born children, often barely out of infancy. Our government believes that Canada should welcome them as warmly as their adoptive family.

This government is taking action through Bill C-14 to grant citizenship to foreign born adopted children without their first having to become permanent residents. We promised to support Canadian parents who adopt foreign born children. We promised parents that we would grant citizenship to their adopted children if the adoption met the requirements of the bill which will protect the best interests of the child and Canada and which recognizes the jurisdiction of the provinces and the territories. This legislation, Bill C-14, delivers on these promises.

We need to make it easier for Canadian parents to obtain Canadian citizenship for their foreign born adopted children whether the parents reside in Canada or abroad. We need to give children adopted overseas access to citizenship without first having to apply for permanent residence. And we need to show Canadians that we want new families to be able to come together as quickly as possible.

The legislation before us today is the product of extensive study and consultation. This issue has been examined by several standing committees in previous sessions of Parliament.

Parliamentarians support the principle of this legislation, but most important of all, Canadians support the principles of this legislation. At the same, if we are to fulfill our duty as parliamentarians, we must remove the amendment to Bill C-14 referred to in the motion which adds an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for adopted persons only whose application is refused under the provisions of Bill C-14.

There are jurisdictional issues that are of significance. It is important to remember that in Canada the matter of adoption falls within the jurisdiction of the provincial and territorial governments.

In the case of adoptive parents living in Canada, the province or territory where the parent resides is an integral part of the adoption process. Bill C-14 as it was originally drafted does not alter or interfere with that. However, the introduction of the proposed amendment to create a separate appeal mechanism has the potential to undermine the role of the provinces and territories as the competent authority in a receiving country.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has consulted with the provinces and territories on the implications of the proposed amendment. In general, they are very concerned that the inclusion of the Immigration Appeal Division as a separate appeal mechanism will usurp their authority by permitting the granting of citizenship on humanitarian grounds.

I would like to quote from a letter received from the Quebec minister of immigration and cultural communities voicing the province's strong objection to the adoption of this amendment. The letter states that the authority of IRB members could interfere with Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction with respect to civil rights, as members could, in some cases, grant citizenship to a child whose adoption may not comply with Quebec requirements according to Quebec's international adoption authority. The letter also states that in addition to the constitutional issues raised here, such a decision would have a major impact on the individuals involved. It goes on to say that if an adoption is not recognized in Quebec, then a new parent-child relationship cannot be established and a pre-existing parent-child relationship cannot be terminated.

If the Immigration Appeal Division grants citizenship to the adopted child without the province approving the adoption, there is a real concern that a child could be in the province as a citizen without a legal parent. We must remove the proposed amendment to ensure that this bill respects the jurisdiction of our provinces and our territories which are partners in this issue.

The proposed amendment to Bill C-14 to add a mechanism for an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division for adopted children only would, if passed, create a discrepancy within the Citizenship Act. It would create a separate appeal mechanism only open to a select few.

For programs to work well, they must be fair and apply consistently. The current Citizenship Act has an appeal mechanism in place for the Federal Court system. The introduction of an alternate appeal mechanism in the case of adopted children would not enable us to maintain fair and equitable citizenship programs.

This government recognizes that Canadian citizenship is valuable. We have a responsibility to protect it and make sure it is granted appropriately. I can assure hon. members that we have taken note of the concerns that were identified through our consultations and we are taking action that is necessary to address them.

This bill addresses the possibility that some individuals may seek to adopt children merely to help them acquire citizenship, so-called adoptions of convenience, adoptions that are taken for no other reason than to acquire status in Canada. However, if the proposed amendment is allowed, Bill C-14 would no longer be able to guard against adoptions of convenience in the same way.

We designed Bill C-14 to maintain a number of safeguards to deal specifically with these concerns and to ensure that Canadian citizenship is protected. The safeguards include the existence of a genuine parent-child relationship, and that relationship must be demonstrated. It must be clear that the best interests of the child are met. A proper home assessment must be completed where applicable. The birth parents must give their consent to the adoption. No person will achieve unwarranted gain as a result of the adoption, or it will not be allowed. The proposed amendment does not contain these safeguards.

In conclusion, Canada is diligent in maintaining the integrity of the citizenship process and in protecting children. We must act in the best interests of the children and in the best interests of Canadian families who have opened their hearts and their homes to provide love and opportunity to the children.

Let us all support the efforts of Canadian families. I urge all members of the opposition to do the right thing and support the deletion of the immigration appeal division amendment, so as to ensure that this bill respects the jurisdiction of our provincial and territorial partners and can be passed without further delay, so the process is open to those who wish to proceed with adoption and have it confirmed by citizenship upon the adoption being granted.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I will now convey to the House a ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). There is one motion in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-14. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you for the question, and I do appreciate you standing in today.

We've actually achieved quite a lot. The previous government introduced a tax, if you like, of almost $1,000 per newcomer to Canada. We cut that in half. This is money that's used to help newcomers integrate into Canadian society. Whereas those levels had been frozen for almost a decade, we added $307 million of new money. That's good news.

We've made it possible for the first time for university students to work off campus for up to 20 hours a week. Prior to that they could work on campus, but we want to help them get involved in their communities, expand their work experience, and make them more valuable employees in the future.

We've also made it possible for temporary foreign workers and for the self-same university students with experience to apply under certain conditions to stay in Canada, apply for their permanent residence from within Canada. No longer will they have to leave and make application and then come back.

As well, we've improved and streamlined the temporary foreign worker program, making it more responsive by opening up special offices in the west to help employers. We've worked with the provinces, with B.C., Alberta, and Ontario, and we're in the process with others, on making lists of occupations under pressure. These are occupations where we know there's a shortage of workers. So when employers come looking for a labour market opinion and ask can they bring someone in, and we're saying no, you can skip that step and go find your people and bring them over. We're accelerating the responsiveness to the labour market needs.

So we've done a lot of things. We've also brought in Bill C-14to help adoption and to help adopted children become Canadian citizens more readily. We've introduced Bill C-57, which is to help protect and keep newcomers to Canada from becoming sexually exploited or abused or subject to human trafficking, and then today I just announced that we want to bring forth further legislation, amendments to the Citizenship Act, to help.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

First of all, what I'd like to do is congratulate the committee on the fine work it has done in terms of what needs to be done with the Citizenship Act and the changes to be made to it. Unfortunately, the three prior bills that were brought forward by the previous government all got dropped on the table; that's why we're making efforts now with Bill C-14, Bill C-57, and the legislation that I'm proposing to table in the fall to address some of the problems that have been raised by this committee. I hope that because of that we will have the support of the committee.

In terms of revocation, there is a process that was followed with these individuals. The process was initiated under the previous government. It has taken many years because as a country, and regardless of political party, Canada has taken the position that we will not be a safe haven for war criminals. It's just that simple. There is a legitimate process in place through the Federal Court, and that is the process we have begun.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'm sorry. I thought I'd lost my audience for a moment. As an actor, I feel bad when that happens. I recognize Madam Redman is hanging on my every word, and she was interrupted, so I just thought I'd give her the chance not to miss anything.

But back to the relevant—We are not talking about substantially what's in the bills. We're talking about if they are substantially similar. If they are found to be substantially similar, then you must rule it non-votable. That's the rule. It's not about whether, in my party or in your party, this is the type of bill we'd like to see move forward. That's not what this is about, because as I've already explained, with Mr. Benoit or even Mr. Dion's bill or even Ms. Bell's bill, we're totally non-partisan as to what's not votable. We seem to have done it all. So this is about this committee defending its subcommittee and letting it go forward and doing its work.

The subcommittee has done its work well. We think it's moved forward on the changes to the criteria. We think we've moved forward on the changes to the remedies to what happens should somebody's bill be moved non-votable, and of course we believe we've done the work well on moving forward the legislation as being non-votable. That was one of our true missions. That's what we're really discussing here today: Is Bill C-415 votable or non-votable, versus the criteria we've already set?

Mr. Silva came before us the other day and talked about some of the other additions to the bill. But as I said, we've already covered the fact that “substantial” and “substantially” is what we're trying to deal with here. Is the bill substantially the same? If you really compare them—clause-by-clause, word-by-word, word search versus word search—you find them to be, with a few changes, with the word “essential” added a couple of times, but the purpose in the end seems to be fairly identical, I dare say substantially similar. I dare say it because “substantially similar” is the only criterion we need to meet. If we would like to, in fact—and that brings me to the point in the work of the subcommittee—the subcommittee was charged by the Speaker to look at the criteria used for private members' business. We did, and we've added a small piece to this one criterion so in the future we could come to non-votability at an earlier stage.

But I challenge this committee, if you would like us to look at the word “substantially”. If that's not the criterion you'd like us to use for finding similarity between two pieces of legislation, then please bring forward—this is procedure and House affairs—that you'd like us to look at the criterion we're using. We have looked at it already. With the help of the great researchers and the clerks, we'd be happy to look at the criteria again. If you're judging your subcommittee on doing its work improperly, perhaps you're misinterpreting the word “substantially” and perhaps you're misinterpreting some other words in there. Or perhaps we are. Perhaps you'd like us to change the word to be “—if two exact bills come forward—”. If that's indeed what you're looking for, then that's easy. It would have to match word for word and we'd be able to set that and set the criteria that would be very easy for us to judge. We could almost do it on paper without even having to meet.

But it has a subjective meaning to it in the fact that it says “substantially the same” or “substantially similar”. So here we are trying to deal with substantially similar pieces of legislation. Your subcommittee has ruled they are substantially similar and has written a report to this committee that says that. We'll be looking forward to this committee's backing up the subcommittee to that effect and saying we agree with the work the subcommittee has done.

As I stated earlier, we also brought back a full report, not only on the non-votability of this bill, but on the changes to those criteria. I think I've covered that enough. But the other piece we also covered in there was the remedy. I referred before to how hard it was in previous years for private members' business to come forward.

So we really do look forward to the fact that now, even if we find a piece of legislation non-votable, even if that truly does happen, we have a remedy for those people to move forward and put forward other pieces of private members' business. So they can, in fact, represent the people in their ridings and the people of Canada well by still putting forward legislation. Your subcommittee has also done that work. There are some true changes built in there, because it could be treated differently.

I'll start down the road of summarizing where I've been. I think we'll talk about the different rulings we've made here. We've talked a lot about the overall subcommittee report on private members' business and what was votable and what was non-votable. And we've moved that forward to give Mr. Silva the chance to come forward. And Mr. Silva did come forward the other day and told us his views on why he thought the subcommittee had perhaps gone too far in thinking of what was votable and what was non-votable.

The other piece he discussed with us was a ruling from the chair. I think I covered a bit of that earlier, but I'll look at this. These are really two different events in the course of this same private member's bill. The Speaker made a ruling from the chair at a point the day before or the day after the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business had met. He was being asked at the time to rule it in order or out of order, and he was in the middle of his ruling when the member for Scarborough—Rouge River, I believe, stood and asked the Speaker that day if he knew that the subcommittee was meeting and that their decision was pending. And the Speaker said thank you very much for the information and carried on.

So we recognized at that point that we were really dealing with two different rulings, if you will. There was the ruling on non-votability by the subcommittee, and that's what we're discussing here today, and then, as Mr. Silva brought up, there was the ruling by the Speaker.

I brought it up earlier, and I certainly have a copy of the Speaker's ruling here. As I said, other than when he may have been interrupted and asked by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River about the non-votability of it, the word “non-votability” is not in here. So he ruled the bill in order, and as I stated earlier, I certainly interpret that to mean that it's in order.

Mr. Silva's bill could easily go forward and be discussed, as could Mr. Benoit's bill. Mr. Benoit chose to do that when his was deemed non-votable. He chose, in fact, to move forward, because his bill was still in order as a private member's bill; it had just been deemed non-votable. So he was able to bring the bill forward and then have it discussed at each reading in the House. At the end of the day, it certainly wasn't voted on, because it was non-votable. Mr. Silva has exactly the same ability to do that if he would like.

There are other options, as I said. There are other remedies he could seek such as putting forward a different piece of legislation or another one of his own that he already has on the order paper or something else that could come forward.

Mr. Chair, I think we are sometimes, in this House, drawn along party lines. There are certainly times during votes in the House when we can expect to see which party will stand for which issues and which parties will stand for other issues. I know that in the party I serve and am proud to serve, we have the ability to vote differently when it's private members' business. We have the ability to stand on our own conscience on private members' business. We have the ability to vote our conscience.

It may seem from time to time that our conscience is always right, that that's true, but we do have that ability. I recognize that there are other parties in this House that do the same thing. Mr. Godin I'm sure would say it about his. I'm sure that all parties would say that when it comes to private members' business, we get a little bit different on how we vote. This is a piece of government legislation, and of course it may challenge us to the end.

Sometimes you read into it because you know the person whose piece of private members' business it is, you've had personal time with them at some point or you've been on committee with them, and you know them from other places, so you know them to be good and honourable people, so you choose to vote with them or against them, not only based on the piece of legislation that comes forward, because a lot of times it may or may not affect your individual riding directly, so you sometimes will make the decision based on even who the person is who's bringing forward the legislation.

That does happen in private members' business. I'm sure I've seen it on your side of the House or on other sides of the House, and it's the same as ours. When it's one of our colleagues whose private member's business is up for vote that night, they're extra friendly, they're coming around and making sure you're going to be there, they're coming around to see how you'll vote, and sometimes I think that truly happens in all parties.

Truly, I've met some of my colleagues from all of the other parties when it was there, for their bill to be voted on, and that surprisingly I'm running into them, even just outside my lobby to try to give that little extra twist at the end to say yes, I need your help tonight, and I hope you'll give it. As I said, sometimes you know the person well, and other times you know them only from passing, but it's a wonderful sight to see when a standing vote takes place. As you see, we often try to apply so many votes in this House because we like to get on to other things sometimes, but in private members' business we often don't; we give the member the courtesy of watching the members stand for a standing vote. Even when we sometimes know what the outcome will be, whether the outcome will be a sheer pass or even unanimous, as we've seen in some of the votes that we've done even this year in this House.

We see the numbers wanting that standing vote to take place because it's a special time for them, they've taken a lot of work and effort not just to put the bill forward. That may sometimes be the easy part, but the work and effort of seeing it through different readings in the House, and seeing it through the committee work that sometimes has to happen on a piece of private members' business, there's something very special about having a piece of private members' business move forward. I'm very pleased to say that I find that part of the job a very enjoyable piece, and I don't take the job lightly of looking at private members' business to ensure that we're bringing forward true and good pieces of legislation.

Pardon me for just a second.

Truly, the answer isn't about your colleagues putting forward pieces of legislation and whether they're good people. As I said, Mr. Silva and I know each other reasonably well, but that wasn't about whose name was on the bottom of the bill; it was about the criteria we used in order to look at the bill and compare it to others and compare it to the fact, and compare it to what will move forward. I guess that's the answer.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I dare say we will have many more meetings at which we'll get to discuss this, because the answers we are getting and the rationale we are getting are, I think, totally unsatisfactory.

You know, to say that a law exists.... Well, instead of fixing discriminatory laws that have been judged by the courts to be not compliant with the charter, they're litigating them. We're wasting resources litigating them. And to say that Bill C-14, on international adoptions, is the priority I don't think is acceptable.

I want to commend you, Mr. Davidson, for pointing out to the committee that the previous government had $20 million to fix the Citizenship Act. When this government came into office, they cancelled it. So I just want to thank you for making the committee aware of that.

Yes, it's a good thing you know this: $20 million, just to repeat it.

Now, one of the problems I have is dealing with the bureaucracy. This whole citizenship thing is incredibly Kafkaesque, as was stated by The Economist. We're the laughingstock of the world. It seems to me that if civil servants in Trinidad and Australia can fix their acts, we should be able to fix our act too, instead of wasting money on putting people like Mr. Chapman...or else turning a tenth-generation Québécois into a first-generation Canadian, denying her heritage. It's a bad law.

I've been on this committee for a long time, Mr. Davidson. I sat through Bill C-63, twice introduced to Parliament, to the committee, with extensive hearings. I sat through Bill C-16. I sat through Bill C-18. In not one of those cases has the department alerted the committee or the minister...because I don't believe the ministers knew about this problem. It wasn't until Mr. Chapman came forward, I believe in 2003, that I was alerted, that the committee was alerted that this problem existed.

This problem has been going on for a long time; I think it's really critical that we understand it. And I believe it is the job of the bureaucracy to alert the minister.

I will read from a letter written in 2005 to Mr. Siksay, signed by Minister Volpe, as follows:

The Canadian Citizenship Act, which came into force on January 1, 1947, automatically granted Canadian citizenship to women who were married to Canadian soldiers overseas before that day. Children born to these couples also obtained citizenship automatically, by birth on Canadian soil or through their Canadian father, if born outside Canada.

I mean, that's what a politician will know. That's what a minister will know. And if you believed that, Mr. Chapman wouldn't have a problem. All those folks wouldn't have a problem.

In 1999, on the CIC website, it said that if you were born in Canada, you were a Canadian. The fact of the matter is that I have served that length of time on this committee, and I did not know about this whole issue until it came to 2003.

I think the lost Canadians listening to us—and they are many—are pulling out their hair. They really are pulling out their hair at the complacency and the answers they are getting from the bureaucracy.

Conferring subsection 5(4).... This was done to Magali. It turned her from a tenth-generation Québécois into a first-generation Canadian—just unbelievable.

My question to you—And there are going to be many more coming, because this just won't do. I have the question for every member here.

Will you tell us, Mr. Davidson, did you get together and caucus and talk about what you were going to say at this committee—that you're going to stick to your 450 numbers and about what kind of evidence you're going to get? Did you do that?

I want an answer from every one of you at the table; just yes or no.

[Mark Davidson]

I understand Bill C-14 is in the House at report stage.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Where is Bill C-14 now?

[Mark Davidson]

They have all died on the order paper. The minister has indicated and the former minister had indicated that their legislative priorities were Bill C-14.

[Mark Davidson]

Probably the best example would be that piece of legislation the minister has indicated is a priority, and that's Bill C-14. We're aware that the treatment of adopted children, or children who have been adopted by Canadians outside of Canada, is not what it should be. Via the subsection 5(4) mechanism, we have a way to resolve these individual cases, but it's not an ideal situation. There is a bill in the House at the moment that is dealing with resolving that particular problem in citizenship.

Bill C-257—Canada Labour Code—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

On February 26, 2007, a point of order was raised by the Leader of the Government in the House to the effect that amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in its consideration of C-257, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers) and reported to the House on February 21, 2007, are inadmissible.

The hon. members for Davenport, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, Scarborough—Rouge River and Windsor—Tecumseh have also now presented their arguments on the matter.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after a report has been presented to the House.

In terms of amendments adopted by committees on bills, if they were judged to be inadmissible by the Speaker, those amendments would be struck from the bill as amended because the committee did not have the authority to adopt such provisions. As the hon. Member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean reminded us, this is succinctly explained in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on April 28, 1992 at page 9801 of the Debates:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

This is precisely the kind of case that I am being asked to adjudicate today.

Before getting into the substance of that case, I want to comment briefly on a precedent cited earlier today where the admissibility of an amendment adopted in committee was challenged, though on rather different grounds than the case before us now.

The hon. Member for Roberval—Lac St-Jean referred to the ruling handed down by the Speaker on October 26, 2006 with respect to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). Although the Member for Roberval—Lac St-Jean is right in citing that decision as an example, he gives it his own interpretation. In that particular case, the Speaker carefully examined, one by one, the amendments adopted by the committee and concluded that, as regards strict compliance with procedural rules, the committee had not exceeded its powers in adopting the amendments challenged by the government.

The case before us is rather different. Given the very narrow scope of Bill C-257, any amendment to the bill must stay within the very limited parameters set by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that are amended by the bill.

I have reviewed with great care the text of Bill C-257 as adopted at second reading, the text of the amendments adopted in committee, the relevant sections of the parent act, the Canada Labour Code and, of course, the arguments presented by the hon. members who intervened on this matter. I am now ready to rule.

In relation to the first amendment, the government House leader contends that an amendment proposed in committee by the hon. member for Davenport to clause 2, subparagraph 2.1, is inadmissible because it attempts to make the bill “subject to section 87.4” of the Canada Labour Code. As the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean noted, the first reading version of the bill already contained this exact phrase within subparagraph 2.1(c); the amendment simply repositioned it within the same subparagraph.

Therefore, the Chair is of the view that this amendment can be characterized as a reference to section 87.4, rather than as an amendment to the Canada Labour Code dealing with the maintenance of services. As such, this amendment to subparagraph 2.1 does not import matters which are beyond the scope of the bill and is therefore admissible.

The admissibility of two other amendments to clause 2, both proposed by the hon. member for Davenport, is also in dispute. The first is to subparagraph 2.3 and introduces the concept of “essential services”. After hearing ample discussion in committee on the admissibility of this amendment, the committee chair found the amendment to be beyond the scope of the bill and ruled it inadmissible. That ruling was challenged and overturned, and the amendment was subsequently adopted. The second disputed amendment, this one to subparagraph 2.4 and also dealing with “essential services” enjoyed the same fate.

The hon. members for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Windsor—Tecumseh have maintained in their arguments that these two amendments serve to clarify the intent of the main provisions of Bill C-257. They argue that these amendments are admissible for they only make clearer the bill's provisions with respect to replacement workers as these relate to the continuation of essential services.

I fully appreciate the arguments that my hon. colleagues are making. However, I fear that their views are precisely what Mr. Speaker Fraser meant in the 1992 ruling cited earlier when he warned members against being led into the temptation of amendments not contemplated in the original bill.

Hon. Members will know that Bill C-257 is limited in its scope. As the summary of the bill adopted at second reading explains:

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit employees under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

Bill C-257 amends three sections of the Canada Labour Code: section 87.6 dealing with the reinstatement of employees after a strike or lockout, section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers, and section 100 dealing with offences and punishment.

Clause 2, where the two remaining disputed amendments lie, addresses section 94 dealing with prohibitions relating to replacement workers. Clause 2 in the original bill does not touch section 87.4 which is the operative provision of the Canada Labour Code dealing with essential services.

Indeed, it is worth noting that the very phrase “essential services”, although one with which we are all familiar, is not a phrase found in the Labour Code. The Labour Code does not use the term, but refers to “maintenance or continuation of activities to prevent an immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public”.

The first amendment imports the new concept of essential services into a clause originally addressing employers' right to protection of their property. As for the second amendment, while it does not actually directly seek to amend section 87.4, it nevertheless does reach back to the parent act and import into Bill C-257 the terms of reviews of orders made by the board under subsection 87.4(7), concepts not found within the bill as adopted at second reading.

Therefore, on strictly procedural grounds, the Chair must conclude that the ruling of the chair of the committee was correct: these last two amendments do go beyond the scope of the bill as adopted at second reading and are therefore inadmissible.

Pursuant to this decision, I must order that the two inadmissible amendments to clause 2, subparagraph 2.3 and 2.4 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void, and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-257 be published with all possible haste for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

Since report stage on this bill is to be taken up tomorrow, I have advised the Table officers to take appropriate action to ensure that any report stage motions of amendments submitted this evening are in proper form. As hon. members know, they must be submitted by 6 p.m. tonight.

I therefore wish to thank the House for giving me the opportunity of addressing this complicated and somewhat unusual situation.