Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 3rd, 2014

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

A recorded vote, please...?

(Clause 19 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 20)

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

Are you calling for debate on clause 20?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Of course.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm gradually learning my lesson. You go right ahead. You have the floor.

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

Once again, this is simply to say that the NDP opposes clause 20 because it concerns the right of appeal.

We have talked a lot about the opposition to this clause. It is not opposed solely by the NDP, but also by several witnesses such as the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Inter Clinic Immigration Working Group, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic and the Canadian Bar Association.

As you can see, these people have good knowledge of the statutes and are opposed to this fundamental change to our judicial system.

As clause 20 concerns this right of appeal, the NDP will strongly oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, in my view, Canadians deserve the full right of appeal with regard to citizenship. It's a very special thing, so Liberals will oppose removing this right.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The government will be supporting this clause for a number of reasons. I'll try to be brief.

Clause 20 introduces a new part V.1 into the act, setting up a uniformed system for judicial review of decisions made under the act, including decisions of the ministers, citizenship judges, and the Governor in Council.

This part is broadly similar to part 1, division 8 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. “Court” is defined in the Citizenship Act as the Federal Court. Applications for judicial review will be subject to leave of the Federal Court.

Proposed subsection 22.1(2) sets out the provisions governing an application for leave to commence a judicial review. The Federal Court's decision of whether or not to grant leave is not subject to appeal.

Proposed subsection 22.1(3) makes it clear that the minister may bring an application for judicial review in respect of decisions that are made by citizenship judges.

Proposed section 22.2 sets out the provisions governing the application for judicial review, once leave has been given.

Proposed paragraph 22.2(d) allows appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal against a decision of the Federal Court judge in a judicial review application; however, such appeals may only be made if the Federal Court judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.

Proposed section 22.3 empowers the Federal Court rules committee to set rules concerning the practices and procedures governed by this part.

Lastly, proposed section 22.4 provides that the provisions under the Citizenship Act concerning judicial review applications override any inconsistent provisions in the Federal Courts Act.

We will be supporting this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to once again state that citizenship is not like a driver's licence. It shouldn't be something that is just revoked. This section that is being added to the legislation calls for application for judicial review “only with leave”. A right of appeal for citizenship revocation is very important, and this doesn't actually allow for that. That's why the NDP will not be supporting clause 20 in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to call the vote for clause 20.

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

A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

(Clause 20 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to suspend for a minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go back on the record.

All those in favour of clause 21...?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Clause 21 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(Clause 22 to 25 agreed to sequentially)

(On clause 26)

Clause 26 has an amendment, and we're going to call it New Democratic Party amendment D.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.

This is new. I assume all members have a copy of this.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I want clarification that you're referring to 6635226, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are we all clear?

You have the floor.

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

Merci.

Yes, we have an amendment. I would ask you for a second, please, Mr. Chair. I have my papers mixed up.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're back on the air. Madame Blanchette-Lamothe has some comments to make about proposed amendment NDP-D.

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

Mr. Chair, please pardon my confusion over this. This amendment makes changes to an amendment that we previously introduced and that was defeated.

For that reason, I will not be introducing this amendment. It is no longer valid, in my view, since the preceding amendment, which concerned the same subject, was defeated.

Thank you.