Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

They will have it.

I'm going to suspend for a moment to let all members digest your proposal, and then we'll continue.

I understand you are going to be proposing three amendments.

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

Precisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

For the record, we will describe the first one as NDP-A6631874. This will be your first amendment. I think all members have copies of it, so you can tell us what you want.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll keep it brief for this amendment since I talked a bit about it earlier.

The amendment would delete lines 23 to 26 on page 11, which pertain to the age limit under which people are subjected to the language and knowledge tests.

As I said earlier, Bill C-24 seeks to raise the age limit for the testing requirement to 65. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, my amendment seeks to keep the age limit where it currently stands, at 55.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Debate.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I read this, the amendment would repeal completely the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of one of the two official languages, or some ability to speak one of the two official languages, for adults. This amendment is totally in contrast to what we're trying to accomplish in this bill, which is to give people the opportunity to obtain a certain proficiency in one of the two official languages so that they can be better integrated as newcomers into Canadian society.

I don't believe that there's any way we can support this particular amendment, so we will not be supporting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum.

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

Well, in listening to the NDP, I thought it was very similar to our amendment, which opposed the raising of the age and recommended the status quo, but if it is, as Mr. Menegakis says, to have no language tests for anyone, then I would agree and I would oppose it. But I don't know if that is the case or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll vote on amendment NDP-A6631874.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's a recorded vote, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you have a second amendment, which we will call NDP-B6635060.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Along the same lines as the previous one, this amendment deals with the knowledge and language testing that Bill C-24 would impose on youth between 14 and 18 years of age.

The committee heard from a number of experts who voiced their concerns and opposition to this part of the clause, for very obvious reasons. Even department officials weren't able to tell us what would happen to children who failed the test, but whose parents had passed it. The only answer we were given was that it would be a rare occurrence.

It may be a rare occurrence, but it could happen. And the committee did not receive a satisfactory answer regarding what would happen to these children in this case. If a child in a family doesn't receive citizenship but their siblings and parents do, will the family have more trouble at the border when leaving Canada for a trip?

UNICEF representatives were among witnesses who voiced those types of concerns to the committee. They objected to imposing language testing on 14 to 18 year olds. A number of other groups and organizations were also opposed to the measure, including the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Canada, the Canadian Council for Refugees and OCASI. All of these witnesses appearing before the committee denounced the measure in Bill C-24 targeting 14 to 18 year olds.

There is a long list of people who object to the provision. And that is why the NDP wants to propose an amendment to prevent children in that age range from being subjected to the testing; if they do not pass, they will be denied citizenship, while their siblings and parents could receive it.

That is my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to add to what my colleague has mentioned. She outlined how many of the witnesses spoke to how this is unfair. I want go through a bit of what UNICEF mentioned, because we are signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by creating this situation through Bill C-24, we are creating a situation whereby children may be separated from their parents.

If parents here in Canada don't pass the test and are not able to be become citizens, but the child passes it, or vice versa, then we are effectively separating a child from its parents. According to all definitions that I am aware of, “under 18” is the definition of a child, and in this bill, this government is effectively trying to say that children 14 and above are actually not being considered as children and not being treated as children and given that special treatment.

We need to make sure that we have a child rights-based approach to the legislation that we are putting forth and the changes we are making, because we are a state party to the convention. UNICEF clearly outlined that in their presentation and in their brief they sent to us. The changes being proposed here are actually in contravention of quite a number of the articles of the convention that we are engaged in.

In UNICEF's brief, they talk about article 1, which talks about the definition of the child, and that's the age piece we're in breach of with this bill. Article 2 is on equality and non-discrimination for children, which we're in breach of. Article 3 is on the best interests of the child, which we're not looking out for. Article 5 is on the integrity of the family, which we are in breach of. Article 6 is on the survival and development of the child, which we are in breach of. Article 7 addresses birth registration, nationality, and protection from statelessness, and we are creating a situation whereby these children might become stateless. Article 8 relates to family relations. Article 9 is the protection from arbitrary separation from their parents, which we would be in breach of. Finally, there is article 10, which is family reunification.

I'm of the understanding that because we are a party to the convention these are all issues that are important, and they are really fundamental to who we are as Canadians, which is that we look out for the protection of our children. There are far too many articles of the convention that we are in contravention of with the changes that Bill C-24 creates. That's why I will be supporting the NDP amendment, which protects the rights of the child through citizenship. We're trying to ensure that there's a child rights-based approach to Canadian citizenship.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I listened carefully to what the members of the NDP had to say on this issue. The amendment, in effect, would remove the new requirement for minors—at pages 14 and 17—to meet a language requirement before they can apply for Canadian citizenship. These are youngsters who would have been in this country for potentially four out of the last six years, and in the four of the last six years the opposition would have us believe that they would not have obtained a level of some proficiency in English or French.

I would suggest, in addition, that it would repeal the minister's ability to waive the requirement for minors. Minors who are in this country for four years would have a proficiency level in one of the two official languages that would be considerably higher than the minimum requirement under the bill.

Primarily for the fact that we do believe it will help those 14-year-old to 17-year-old youngsters moving forward to better integrate into society, they should have a level of knowledge of English or French for them to do better in their studies in school and work. Moving forward in their lives, they need to be able to speak an elementary level of either of Canada's two official languages.

We will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague for making that argument, which I was referring to earlier. In his opinion, children should have acquired the minimum language skills needed, so he doesn't understand our objection to the testing.

It's important to consider the issue from the opposite perspective. It is true that, after having lived in Canada for a number of years, minors who would have attended school in one of the two official languages should, under normal circumstances, have attained a certain level of language proficiency; I don't disagree with that. But what will happen to those who don't? That is the problem.

When a major organization like UNICEF raises concerns that Canada could be in violation of a convention it has signed, they cannot be taken lightly. That is cause for serious reflection.

Even though the vast majority of minors will already have the proficiency level needed to pass the test, we still need to ask what will come of the small minority who don't, either because of stress, a difficult family situation, an undiagnosed learning disability or any other reason. A 14-year-old should not have to bear that burden. And the opposition party isn't the only one who feels that way, so too, do the people at UNICEF. It's absolutely appalling for Canada not to take these concerns seriously.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, and then Mr. Menegakis.

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

Mr. Chair, I spoke of the UNICEF brief earlier. There are recommendations that are clearly outlined by UNICEF in their brief, and I'm going to read recommendation number three for the committee so that everybody is aware of it. The recommendation is as follows:

That the proposed amendments requiring children aged 14 to 18 to successfully complete both language and knowledge testing be removed altogether or, at a minimum, that testing be adjusted in a manner appropriate to such children’s age and/or experience.

That's very clear. That is what UNICEF is recommending, and we're not doing that in Bill C-24. This amendment proposed by the NDP, amendment B as we're calling it, actually does that. We're listening to what the witnesses have had to say.

I know that Madam Blanchette-Lamothe went over the other agencies who suggested the same thing, such as the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, and OCASI. I think the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers might have also. I don't remember off the top of my head; there are a lot of briefs that have come to this committee.

We're also not taking into account the migratory paths that these children may have taken before they came to Canada. If you were a child of war, or of many precarious situations that these children may have come through, they may take more than the four years that a child who hasn't had a more precarious, or more of a—I don't want to say that one situation is better or worse than the other. We have to be looking at the fact that these are children, and these children's minds and lives are impacted in different ways than those of adults.

It seems the government is going to oppose NDP amendment B, which would protect these children. It just doesn't make sense. We're saying that it doesn't matter how this young child's mind is impacted by their migratory path; we're saying that it's the same requirements for them as for all adults who come into this country. We're trying to get them citizenship, and it's just not fair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think the members opposite are discounting the fact that language requirements can always be waived on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. If they're referring to those few cases where there are humanitarian and compassionate grounds, there's a provision for that in the bill, for sure.

Mr. Chair, the overwhelming majority of 57,000 students who participated in writing the citizenship test based on the “Discover Canada” guide in 2014 passed the test. Actually, adequate knowledge of either English or French has been a requirement for citizenship since the Citizenship Act was first introduced in 1947. We don't think it's too much to ask that a 14-year-old, 15-year-old, 16-year-old, 17-year-old, have a basic language skill in either English or French.

As I said before, the opposition's arguments have not convinced us to change our minds, and we are not going to be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum.

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

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that humanitarian and compassionate grounds appeals succeed maybe 2%, 3%, 4% of the time, so I don't think it's prudent to put the fate of these children in the hands of a mechanism that hardly ever works. Therefore, I will be voting with the NDP.

[An hon. member]

Of course.