Evidence of meeting #30 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizenship.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alexandra Hiles  Acting Director, Citizenship Program Delivery and Promotion, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Karen Hamilton  Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Do you want to go one by one? We're on clause 4.

It's up to the committee whether you want to proceed with them individually.

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

It's 5:30.

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I don't hear a motion for adjournment, so I am prepared to continue for a little bit.

Shall clause 4 carry?

(Clauses 4, 5, 6 agreed to on division)

(On clause 7)

Shall clause 7 carry?

5:30 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Chair, can we have debate?

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Of course you may. Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor for debate on clause 7.

5:30 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

The NDP is opposed to clause 7 because that provision once again has to do with the minister's right to revoke. Moreover, in the case of citizenship applications or revocation, proceedings can be stayed as the minister sees fit under this provision. That's another source of concern for us.

The minister's discretionary powers were discussed earlier. We are not necessarily opposed to all his discretionary powers. However, we see that the Conservatives have a marked tendency, in several areas and bills, to grant more and more discretionary powers to ministers. We are concerned by this state of the affairs, especially when it involves something as fundamental as the revocation of citizenship or the suspension of citizenship processing. This seems very worrisome to us, and that is why we are opposed to clause 7.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Is there further debate on clause 7?

5:35 p.m.

An hon. member

A recorded vote, please.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 8)

Ms. May has an amendment, PV-4.

June 2nd, 2014 / 5:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Chair, the amendment I propose is intended to remedy one of the most egregious parts of this bill, which has to do with the powers that are being proposed to strip citizenship from people who have been born in Canada or those who have otherwise shown no misrepresentation. Also my proposed new subsection 10(3.1) would ensure:

a person shall not cease to be a citizen nor shall the renunciation of citizenship by that person be deemed to have had no effect without having had access to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker.

I know I don't have much time, Mr. Chair. I take the point of my friend Mr. McCallum that he is the third party. Well, we're the fifth party here. I don't want to take much time, except to say as clearly as I possibly can that what is happening with this bill is a retreat from the fundamental understanding of the nature of citizenship. It violates sections 7 and 15 of the charter, and essentially it amounts to, as this committee has heard from numerous witnesses.... I want to just quote briefly from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the “deprivation of citizenship breaches security of the person under s. 7; citizenship, lawfully obtained, ceases to be a secure status and becomes contingent and insecure”.

In face of that, Mr. Chair, my amendment would delete everything that appears between line 24 on page 20 and line 11 on page 25, and would replace it with confirmation that citizenship shall not be withdrawn from any person unless that person obtained, retained, renounced, or resumed citizenship under this act by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. Those would be the only grounds for deprivation of citizenship.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Menegakis.

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Chair, in effect, this particular amendment would eliminate the additional grounds and streamlined process for revocation and would add a new requirement for a hearing before an independent decision-maker. We cannot possibly support this amendment. Under the additional grounds contained in the bill, the government would be able to revoke citizenship from dual citizens who have served as members of an armed force or organized crime group engaged in armed conflict with Canada or from those convicted of terrorism, high treason, or spying, depending on the sentence imposed. These new grounds for revocation would bring Canada in line with most other democratic nations. For example, the U.K. already has the power to strip citizenship. The new model for revocation will improve the efficiency of the process while still ensuring fairness and recourse mechanisms for affected individuals.

Under the new model, revocation decisions will be made by either the Federal Court or the minister. Revocation cases decided by the CIC minister or delegate would include those related to various types of fraud, which, had they been known about at the time of decision-making, would have prevented a grant of citizenship. Those include residence fraud, concealing criminal inadmissibility, and identity fraud. Decisions of the Federal Court would be subject to appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal of the Federal Court of Canada certifies a serious question of general importance.

There are a whole bunch of things we could say, but we definitely cannot support this amendment, because we believe that this particular clause is a very significant part of the bill.

I should add that treason was in the original Citizenship Act in 1947. Removal of citizenship was in the act of 1947 if someone perpetrated a crime against the Canadian Armed Forces or treason or terrorism against Canada. I think most Canadians would expect that those people don't respect the fact that they are Canadians and that we live in the most welcoming country in the world. We do not expect those who come here to obtain their citizenship fraudulently or to have partaken in or to partake in activities that are against the fundamental values and principles of our nation by attacking our armed forces or perpetrating treason against our country.

We will be opposing this amendment.

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I don't see any further debate.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Some of my colleagues will have to leave. Can we adjourn the meeting and continue this discussion tomorrow?

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We're adjourned until 3:30 tomorrow.