Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 3rd, 2014

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

Once again, clause 14 concerns the revocation of citizenship and a very brief period of time in which to respond to this notice of revocation.

As the NDP thinks that revocation of citizenship is a major act, a person should have the time to be made aware of it and to put together a file in order to present it if that person wants to go ahead and contradict or try to reverse the revocation decision.

This clause grants a period of 30 days in which to respond, which is very short. The NDP will therefore oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to call for a recorded vote, Madam Clerk, on clause 14.

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 15)

Is there debate on clause 15?

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The NDP will oppose clause 15, which once again concerns the minister's power to ask that citizenship be denied on the basis of suspicions that the applicant poses a security threat. It is very vague and once again opens a disturbing door. It does not necessarily guarantee that people who might be innocent or wrongly accused will be protected.

We feel this clause is very disturbing and we will oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I will call for a recorded vote on clause 15.

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to sequentially)

(On clause 18)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On clause 18 we have New Democratic Party amendment number 5.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe has the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment reflects a suggestion by the Canadian Bar Association that the practice of students-at-law be regulated. We consider this proposal reasonable and interesting, and that is why we propose to add it.

This is a relatively minor amendment that would not prevent the NDP from voting for clause 18. We nevertheless believe it would be an improvement. That is why we are submitting it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Regan, go ahead, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the officials could tell us what effect this would have and how it compares with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Karen Hamilton, Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you for your question.

If the amendment were to be added, it would be a distinguished point from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which doesn't include this particular clause.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

This amendment would allow students-at-law to represent or provide advice on their own, without the supervision of a member in good standing of the law society, as long as they are authorized by the law society to do so.

The government does not support this amendment, because it would go beyond the intent of the bill, which is to align the Citizenship Act with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. With respect to those who can make representation or provide advice under the Citizenship Act, the intent of the bill is to ensure that those who are representing or advising are accountable for their actions. Because students-at-law are not members of a bar, to ensure the protection of the public the students are held accountable under the supervision of a member in good standing. Hence, a member of the provincial bar or the Chambre des notaires du Québec is ultimately responsible for the actions of the students under his or her tutelage.

We will not be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'll call the vote on New Democratic amendment number 5.

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

We'd like a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

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

(Clause 18 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of clauses 19 through to 20—

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

Is there debate on 19?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, I'm sorry. I just go until someone stops me. You stopped me, so we'll have debate on clause 19.

(On clause 19)

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

I will be brief, Mr. Chair.

I would like to note that the NDP will oppose this clause, which concerns offences committed outside Canada, charges laid and sentences imposed outside Canada. My colleague and several other colleagues have discussed this.

Since this clause concerns this recognition of sentences imposed outside Canada, we will oppose it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have the floor, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Liberals will be opposing this clause, as withholding citizenship from someone who is charged with an offence abroad raises the same concerns as the revocation procedures. Bill C-24 does not require the government to take into account the nature of a foreign judicial system. Foreign countries could issue charges in order to prevent someone from receiving Canadian citizenship. Currently the Citizenship Act prevents the granting of citizenship or the administration of the oath of citizenship to any person who is subject to a Canadian criminal proceeding.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate?

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We're supporting the clause for the reasons that I stated earlier, which I think were fairly clear, about the issue of equivalency. It would have to be equivalent to a crime in Canada. There are enough proper safeguards in the bill to ensure that it will be administered properly.

I'm pleased to say that the government will be supporting this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Regan mentioned, this section is very similar to, I think, clause 8 regarding revocation for an offence committed outside Canada. I don't want to belabour the point, but I would argue that this clause is not clear regarding how to assess the validity of the jurisdiction or the courts in another country in which an offence may have been committed.

We are effectively saying that we implicitly trust all other jurisdictions and their legal systems. Someone could say we'll be making a judgment call here in Canada as to whether we trust another country, but we don't know who will be making that judgment call. It might be the minister. It might be somebody who works for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We don't know. It's not written in the legislation, and if it's not written in the legislation then, as the minister said, he's a nice guy, but the next person might not be a nice person. We don't know. We can only go by what's written in the legislation, and it's not clear regarding how that decision will be made and whether we should trust another country's judiciary or not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I see no other hands up. I'm going to call the vote for clause 19.