Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 2nd, 2014

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

No, I didn't last time, but I am this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're voting on NDP-B6635060.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, we have a third amendment, which you have put on notice. We're going to call it NDP-C6631911.

You have the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We drafted this amendment based on the testimony of two witness groups we heard from in committee—the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group. According to those two groups of experts we invited to this committee, the minister should not have the discretionary power to grant an exemption on humanitarian grounds. That exemption should rather be granted automatically when there is evidence of compassionate grounds or under human rights obligations.

In a way, this amendment proposes to reduce the minister's discretion to decide whether to get involved or not. We propose instead that language and knowledge tests be automatically waived on valid compassionate grounds or under human rights obligations.

This is very important to us. The representatives of the two organizations I mentioned made very compelling presentations to this effect. They are very knowledgeable about human rights advocacy and are very familiar with compassionate grounds. We have faith in their expertise in this area. That is why we are proposing an amendment that is in line with those experts' testimony and recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, this amendment appears to attempt to make a waiver by the minister mandatory. They're using the word “shall” where there are compassionate grounds, human rights obligations. Our analysis is that compassionate grounds are already assessed on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary, as far as we're concerned, and we're not going to be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, my impression is that, over time, more and more of the department is becoming increasingly the fiefdom of the minister, who has the power, without regulation, for his office to change just about any immigration category and to run the whole system, but with very few checks and balances.

This amendment serves to reduce that discretion, and I certainly think that is a good move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're voting on New Democratic Party amendment NDP-C6631911, and yes, it will be a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum, on Liberal amendment LIB-5.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is what you might call a technical amendment which flows from our position to remove the intent to reside provision on which we've already voted, but there's another part of the bill which we had to amend in order to remove that provision. This is just part 2 of our effort to remove the intent to reside provision from the bill.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Next is New Democratic Party amendment NDP-3.

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I think that amendment NDP-3 is related to amendment NDP-1. Since amendment NDP-1 was not adopted, I will not move amendment NDP-3.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, it's withdrawn.

(Amendment withdrawn)

I'm going to try something and see how we go here.

Shall clause 3 carry?

[An hon. member]

No, debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will have debate on clause 3.

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have finished the consideration of the amendments to clause 3. However, clause 3 is huge and contains a number of changes, as you have seen. A variety of amendments have been proposed to clause 3.

I want to begin by saying that the NDP supports several elements of clause 3. For instance, we agree that access to citizenship should be facilitated for permanent residents who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have agreed with that aspect since the bill was introduced, at first reading, and we still agree with it.

We also support the fact that the bill makes certain clarifications regarding the length of residence. Indicating the number of days helps people who apply for citizenship be aware of the eligibility criteria in terms of residence. The NDP also agrees with that.

Those are just two examples. Clause 3 is broad. I just wanted to point out that the NDP supports several aspects of that provision.

Unfortunately, as we debated earlier when the amendments were put forward, clause 3 has many shortcomings. Consequently, the NDP cannot vote in favour of that provision, despite some of its worthy elements.

One of the most significant shortcomings or aberrations, if I may say so, is the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. I would like to mention a few groups that expressed their disagreement with that aspect of Bill C-24.

Representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees appeared before us and presented their brief. They said they were against the declaration of intent to reside. OCACI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers also said they were against that requirement, as did the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group and Parkdale Community Legal Services. The Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic and the Canadian Bar Association were of the same opinion.

I will not list all of them. However, you will understand that the vast majority of the witnesses who have appeared to speak to Bill C-24 expressed explicit disagreement with this element regarding the declaration of intent to reside.

Moreover, lawyer groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association, questioned the constitutionality of this aspect of the bill's clause 3.

When the minister appeared before us to discuss this bill, he answered some questions specifically about this element. He said it was not his intention to use the declaration of intent to reside to revoke the citizenship of someone who would no longer reside in Canada after becoming a citizen. So it is not the minister's intention to use this element in such a way. However, can we rely solely on a minister's intention and good faith to gauge the worthiness of a bill's provision? The answer is clearly no.

If that is the minister's intention, we have to make sure that the bill's wording reflects it appropriately. The current wording makes it seem like, if someone must declare their intent to reside in Canada, they could have their citizenship revoked under the pretext of having obtained it by making a false statement. This is not only the opinion of the NDP, but also of a number of experts I mentioned earlier.

A door is being left partially open, and that is very dangerous. This requirement could be unconstitutional.

Let's consider the following case. Members of a family have obtained their citizenship. Before becoming citizens, they had to declare their intent to reside in Canada. However, a few months after they obtained their citizenship, a relative living abroad became very ill. Some family members had to go to the other country to take care of the sick relative, as we know perfectly well Canada is unlikely to allow an ill relative to come live here. So those individuals, who may have made the declaration in good faith, could be forced to leave the country. In addition, owing to the bill's wording, those individuals could have their citizenship revoked.

This raises many concerns, in addition to creating instability in the plans of individuals who become Canadian citizens. That's a huge problem.

We cannot allow Bill C-24 to be passed as it is currently worded without ensuring that the minister's supposed intention is expressed properly. Legal experts who have testified before this committee are almost unanimous in saying that this is not the case.

For that reason, we will clearly not be able to support clause 3 of Bill C-24. There is reason for concern because, if the Conservatives support the bill as it is worded, precedent could be created. That would allow the minister to revoke the citizenship of an individual who, after obtaining their citizenship, may leave the country for potentially legitimate reasons.

That's only one example. I could go on about this for a long time. However, I have summarized the main reasons for the NDP's strong opposition to clause 3.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't want to repeat too many of the arguments that my colleague made, but I was just flipping through the bill and clause 3 is actually a giant clause. It's about five pages long. It touches many subject areas. It touches the residency requirement. We're talking about the physical presence of people since becoming a permanent resident before they can qualify for the citizenship application. It increases the presence to four years out of six years from three years, which is currently the requirement.

It talks about the eligibility, when a person becomes a permanent resident, the time to count, so the pre-PR time that I spoke about earlier. I will come back to that.

It also touches on tax returns and submitting tax returns.

It talks about the age and language requirements. It changes the age for the language requirement and the knowledge test. I've already spoken about the changing of the age, and how children are unfairly treated by this clause, but I didn't get a chance to speak about how older people in the community are also being unfairly treated. I don't have the study and the witness testimony in front of me to tell you off the top of my head, but there are many studies that show that later in life it is more difficult to acquire a language. Now the government is making it more difficult for people to qualify for their citizenship test based on increasing the age requirement for the language test.

Many changes have been requested and suggestions and recommendations have been made by many of our witnesses. Almost all of our witnesses who came before the committee at one point or another suggested a change to clause 3. Many of those changes were suggested by our expert witnesses, whether it's the Canadian Bar Association or OCASI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, or the Pre-PR Time Counts group, or local legal clinics.

I come from Toronto. The Metro Toronto Chinese and South Asian Legal Clinic mentioned the changes that they wanted to see happen. The South Asian Women's Centre, all of these organizations, and I know there's more, mentioned how they wanted to see these changes. We proposed these changes. Many of these changes were proposed by these community organizations, national boards like the Canadian Bar Association, and international organizations. Representatives of international organizations, like UNICEF and UNHCR, wanted to present before this committee but didn't have an opportunity. Amnesty International wanted to make a presentation before this committee, but didn't have an opportunity because the Conservative members on the committee didn't want to extend the time to see more witnesses.

We have local, small community organizations, provincial organizations like OCASI, national organizations like the Canadian Bar Association, and international organizations, all saying that this clause cannot be passed as is and needs to be amended. We proposed those reasonable propositions. We're not just opposing the Conservatives' proposals that they're bringing forward in this bill. We are making reasonable propositions that are sound, and are supported by multiple organizations and multiple levels of organizations, yet the Conservatives have shot down all of them.

In good conscience, I cannot support this clause as is without any amendments. Mr. Chair, this is one of the many reasons I will be opposing clause 3, because it's not amended at all.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I wasn't aware that votes on clauses were supposed to be preceded by lengthy speeches of one's views, but since the NDP has given such a rendition, I will say a few words. I will be brief, perhaps as fitting for a member of the third party to not be too long.

Basically my objections to clause 3 come in two parts.

One, it is likely unconstitutional. The lawyers have told us that, particularly with respect to intent to reside. There are two options. Either it is meaningless, which would be the case for the version presented by the minister, where he says it's totally irrelevant the minute the person becomes a citizen, in which case it's probably not unconstitutional, but neither does it mean anything—it's totally redundant—or, in the interpretation of the minister's officials and most of the lawyers that we heard from, it is indeed likely to be unconstitutional. On either of those grounds, it should be opposed.

The second and arguably more fundamental point is that

we disagree with the government's assumption that, the more difficult it is to obtain a citizenship, the more valuable that citizenship becomes. No logical argument confirms that premise.

There's no evidence to think that the more you erect barriers to citizenship, the more valuable that citizenship becomes. We have no evidence that if people have to wait for years and do incredible feats to become a citizen, they will subsequently become better citizens than if they didn't have to do those things.

Indeed, I would say the opposite. When you give the minister dictatorial powers to remove a Canadian citizenship, you rather devalue the citizenship. You reduce the value of the citizenship because it can be so arbitrarily taken away. You reduce its value rather than increase its value as a consequence of this bill.

The erection of all these multiple barriers impedes the flow of people to become citizens. It's a disincentive for them to come to Canada and an incentive for them to go to Australia, the U.K., or the U.S.

Whether one is talking about barriers on language tests, barriers to totally exclude time spent here by international students as any kind of credit, the intent to reside provision, or the increasingly rigid definition of residency, not to the mention the doubling of the waiting time to become a citizen, all of these things are barriers that are central to this clause which will favour other countries that are trying to obtain good-quality immigrants and will work to the detriment of Canada.

I think there's good reason to oppose this clause.

That is my brief statement on this subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, indeed clause 3 is a comprehensive clause, but we feel it deals with some very key points that are fundamental to citizenship of any country.

Regarding the intent to reside, I think all Canadians would expect that someone who is granted citizenship rights, the same as their rights, has an intention to reside in the country. I don't think it's asking an awful lot to ask someone to speak, at an elementary level, either of our two official languages. It's reasonable to ask someone to have a physical presence in the country as an expression of their intention to live here.

To look at these things as barriers, as some of the opposition members might have us believe, is bordering on the illogical, to use one of the terms they used earlier today. They don't even speak about the provisions in the bill for exemptions for family emergencies and so forth.

They do have the same mobility rights as all Canadians. They come and go as they please. We've given them flexibility here, in this particular clause in this bill. We want to ensure that new Canadians have a real connection to Canada.

This government is making it clear that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their home. I have an extensive list of witnesses, who appeared before us and who supported, in a big way, many elements in this bill.

I would refute the argument that the majority, or most, or so forth.... I don't want to highlight that in the interest of time. I guess I'm done with my explanation of why we are supporting this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

My colleague said that a number of witnesses supported several elements of the bill. I also support several of them, but that's not the issue here. I would be curious to see whether my colleague can name ten or even five witnesses who would not want to make any changes to clause 3 of this bill. I'm not sure he could do that.

Should we vote according to the Conservatives' common sense or according to the opinion of the vast majority of the witnesses the committee has heard from? Sorry, but I will not base my vote on the Conservatives' common sense. I will rather vote based on what was said by the witnesses named earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to vote whenever there is no more debate, and I see no requests for debate.

There has been a request for a recorded vote on clause 3.

(Clause 3 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Shall clauses 4, 5, 6, and 7 carry?