Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to reduce the distinctions in eligibility for citizenship between adopted foreign children and children born abroad of Canadian parents.

Bill C-257—Canada Labour Code

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I have more information to add to the arguments that I presented on Bill C-257 and the admissibility of the amendments that affect this bill.

During the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Thursday, February 15, the chair ruled on the admissibility of two amendments, and despite contrary opinions from the witnesses and the committee clerk, he nonetheless ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill.

The purpose of the amendments is essentially to include in the anti-scab legislation the concept of essential services for the maintenance of activities in labour disputes in clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the bill to amend section 94 of the Canada Labour Code.

The committee chair's ruling was overturned since three of the opposition parties, forming the majority in committee, felt that this concept was not beyond the scope of the bill.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons brought this up again in a point of order and went a step further in his argument than the chair of the committee did. He said that the three amendments proposed in committee were inadmissible.

Our current situation is rather unusual. Precedents concerning the admissibility of amendments proposed in committee are rare in this House. However, we note that, in 1992, Mr. Speaker Fraser faced a similar situation. The context was this: during a committee review of Bill C-54 concerning farm products marketing agencies, the committee chair ruled that three amendments were inadmissible, because two of them sought to amend the incorporating act, and the third amendment went beyond the scope of the bill. As in the current situation, the committee chair's ruling was reversed. Regarding the constraints imposed on the amendment process in committee, Mr. Speaker Fraser said:

It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker Fraser gave a clear example:

In some cases, this last cardinal rule is graphically clear. For instance, if a committee is examining a Criminal Code bill dealing with lotteries, a member cannot reach back to the parent act to propose amendments to those sections dealing with firearms. In certain other cases, this principle is more difficult to explain.

Based on this ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser, it is quite simple to demonstrate to the House that the amendments proposed to Bill C-257 concerning the provision of essential services in the event of a labour dispute do not go beyond the scope of Bill C-257.

Moreover, during this session, you yourself ruled on the admissibility of committee amendments to Bill C-14. These amendments sought to include an appeal process in the Citizenship Act (adoption). At that time, you reversed the decision of the committee chair. Your ruling was completely justified, because including an appeal process in a bill designed to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring that they be permanent residents was quite logical and, as in the case before us today, did not go beyond the scope of the bill. I want to quote your decision, which was very wise:

Having reviewed the bill as reported to the House, I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. In the view of the Chair then, the amendment is admissible in that respect.

The purpose of Bill C-257 is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out.

The bill also provides for the imposition of a fine for an offence. In this particular case and in the original version of clause 2.3, which set out some exceptions for protection of property, specifically in cases of labour disputes, I do not see how stipulating situations where the new conditions should be relaxed could be considered going beyond the scope of the bill. These are additional clarifications, exactly as you ruled in the case I mentioned previously.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons initially said that we could not amend Bill C-257 by making reference to section 87.4, claiming that this section was not in the original bill. This is not true. In the original bill, we referred to section 87.4 in clause 2.1. I suggest that he reread the original bill. The argument by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons therefore simply does not hold up, because it is based on a falsehood.

In fact, this first amendment clarifies how section 87.4 is affected. Since the initial bill mentions subsection 94(2.1) and section 87.4 of the Code, this amendment merely clarifies how these two provisions relate to one another. It is very easy to understand.

Let us now move on to the clauses that posed problems in committee.

Bill C-257 amends certain sections of the Canada Labour Code, including section 87.6, subsection 94(2) and section 100. A reference to section 87.4 also appears in clause 2.1, as I was saying earlier.

Bill C-257 amends subsection 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code to include additional prohibitions against employers using replacement workers during labour disputes.

By adding a reference to section 87.4 of the Code—the section that covers the maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout—we are specifying that maintaining certain activities is sometimes essential to public health and safety, even during serious labour conflicts.

Section 87.4 of the Canada Labour Code is known as the essential services section. Integrating this concept illustrates that we recognize the risks a labour conflict may entail.

In fact, as I was saying yesterday, the amendments introduced in committee do not go beyond the scope of the bill. On the contrary, they reduce its impact and have the same effect on the replacement workers bill as the board of referees has on the Immigration Act, a situation you considered acceptable.

This provides further clarification. To say that it is impossible to introduce amendments that limit the application of a bill, that define and clarify it, would be to say that all committee work is totally useless because it cannot change the application of any bill being studied anyway.

The main argument is, I repeat: how can anyone claim that these amendments go beyond the scope of a bill when the purpose of these amendments is, in fact, to limit its scope? These amendments fall within the framework of the bill; they do not allow the boundaries of the bill to be overstepped. All these amendments do is limit the application of this law.

In my opinion, given these additional arguments and the wisdom you showed in the decision I quoted earlier, Bill C-14, if you apply the same principles and the same logic, which is always unshakeable in your case, Mr. Speaker, you will find you must tell the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to redo his homework.

Opposition Motion—Citizenship and Immigration

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration I am proud to rise today to discuss our government's record on citizenship and immigration.

This debate is my first opportunity to address the House as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

While I am proud of our government's record, I am quite frankly surprised that the Liberal critic has chosen to give us an opportunity to highlight his own party's dismal record on these issues, especially since his party has one of the worst records on immigration in Canadian history.

Let us just take a look at the Liberal legacy on immigration. The LIberals imposed a $975 head tax on immigrants. They promised to cut it and then did not. They allowed the application backlog, that is, people who want to come to Canada, to grow from 50,000 to the staggering number of 800,000 people. The Liberals froze settlement funding for new immigration for over a decade and then had the audacity to vote against us providing $307 million in new settlement funding for newcomers to our great country.

That is right. The Liberals voted against funding that will help new immigrants learn to read and write in one of Canada's official languages. They voted against providing new immigrants with funding that will assist them to integrate and become productive members of Canadian society.

To sum up the Liberal legacy on immigration, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party himself said, “I have to admit...that we didn't get it done on immigration”. I hate to admit this, but for once I have to agree with the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

The deputy leader of the Liberal Party is not the only Liberal who has been critical of the Liberal record, but here is what the Liberal member for Etobicoke Centre had to say about his party's neglect of the immigration system:

I'm almost reaching the point where I believe that our whole immigration system has become dysfunctional. That in fact it's at the point of being broken.

He said this on CBC, according to CBC.ca, on September 14, 2004.

These are not Conservative criticisms of the Liberals. They are actually from Liberals criticizing the Liberal record on immigration.

While the Liberals stood idly by for 13 long years, we, Canada's new government, are taking real action to address the needs of immigrants. We have cut the permanent resident fee in half, from $975 to $490, because we want to reduce the barriers to newcomers so they can have a good head start for their new lives in Canada.

We are providing $307 million in additional settlement funding to new immigrants, funding that is critical to help newcomers adapt and integrate into the Canadian way of life, funding that is vital to enhancing the lives of people who are new to Canada.

We are committed to establishing an office that would help qualified foreign trained professionals understand what they need and the paths they must follow to become accredited so they can practise in their chosen fields in Canada sooner than ever before.

The 2006 federal budget set aside $18 million over two years to take the first steps toward establishing this entity. Advantage Canada reaffirmed that the government will do more and move forward on this commitment. Improved labour market integration is critical so that Canada can continue attracting and retaining the skilled immigrants that we need.

All levels of government have a role to play in integrating immigrants into Canadian society and into the economy. My colleague, the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, and I are engaging our partners as we move forward, including provinces, territories, the 440 regulatory bodies, each of which is provincially or territorially regulated, post-secondary institutions, sector councils and employers right across this country. We look forward to making future announcements about our progress in the coming weeks.

We are making it easier for international students to stay in Canada and work off campus. In this regard, we have granted over 11,000 off campus work permits to international students. These students are young, they are motivated and they have a good feel for our country. Why not give them some Canadian work experience and do our best to have them stay after their student visas have expired to use their new skills and knowledge in our country?

We have set the highest target for immigration in 12 years. We are processing a record number of temporary foreign worker applications. In fact, just last year we took in over 100,000 temporary foreign workers. We have opened new temporary foreign worker units in Calgary and Vancouver to better serve those high demand areas. We have created regional lists of jobs where there are clearly identified worker shortages. We have made it faster and simpler for employers to hire a foreign worker for an occupation that is on one of those lists.

We welcomed some 32,000 refugees in the last year. I was at an event in London just a short time ago to announce that Canada will be accepting an additional 2,000 Karen refugees. This is further to the 800 we announced last summer.

We have also issued over 8,900 permanent resident permits based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

We have introduced legislation, Bill C-14, to make it easier for foreign-born children adopted by Canadian parents to become Canadian citizens once the adoption is finalized.

After years and years of Liberal neglect, we are getting things done for immigrants and for all Canadians.

With respect to citizenship, Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. Just this week, they attempted to blame our government for 13 long years of their former government's inaction on the Citizenship Act. They had the audacity to suggest that if only they had been left in power they would have passed a new citizenship act.

I will remind members of this House that it was the Liberal Party that chose to call an early election. In fact, there were several of them. Not one but three citizenship acts died as a result of that. If the Liberals were truly serious about amending the Citizenship Act, they could have done it. After all, they had 13 years, six ministers, four mandates, and three majority governments to do so, and they chose not to.

For the Liberals to claim the moral high ground on this issue of citizenship when they did absolutely nothing for 13 years is, once again, the height of hypocrisy.

I will remind members opposite that while the Liberals were in power it was the Conservative Party that introduced Bill S-2, the only citizenship legislation to receive royal assent.

The Liberals can fearmonger all they want with respect to Canadians losing their citizenship, but as I said earlier this week at committee, some context is desperately needed with respect to the current situation.

Recently, the media have reported on a number of people who have been affected by the loss of Canadian citizenship.

Let me be clear. This problem and those who are affected by it has been taken very seriously by myself as minister and by the government. I have directed my department to deploy whatever resources are necessary to look after the individuals affected. However, while the problem is real and deserves immediate attention, there is little evidence to suggest that it is as massive as it has been reported in the media or portrayed by some members opposite. These reports have mentioned thousands, hundreds of thousands and even possibly over a million people being affected.

To repeat my comments from earlier this week to put things in perspective, we are talking about approximately 450 individuals whose cases have come to our attention and who merit further consideration. Now despite all the attention on this issue, that number has not grown significantly lately. In fact, many of the calls that we have received have been about Canadians who have simply lost their documents. These Canadians have not lost their citizenship. They have lost their proof of citizenship and have needed to replace it, much the same way as anyone who loses a birth certificate has to apply to replace it.

I understand that this may be a frustrating step for someone who needs that proof to apply for a passport, for example, but in this age of heightened security concerns, it is important that we take steps to verify identity and check for potential fraudulent applications.

To address this issue in the short term, my focus is on the 450 cases. This includes people who, by law, had to take steps to retain their citizenship but did not do so, people who never became citizens and people who could have registered as citizens but did not.

For the interest of all concerned, I will outline some of the actions that I have recently taken to address the issues discussed since becoming minister last month.

As I mentioned earlier, I am using the powers available to me as minister under the Citizenship Act and moving to resolve cases just as quickly as possible. I have recently obtained approval through the governor in council for a special grant of citizenship for 33 of the affected individuals. With respect to the outstanding cases, I have made it a priority for my department to review each case on an individual basis. We have assigned additional staff and created a dedicated unit in our call centre for people with questions about their citizenship. Where appropriate, a program officer is being assigned to each case individually.

We are working with our partners to ensure that, while cases are under review, nobody is removed from the country and benefits such as health care and old age security are continued for those individuals. We are working with the Passport Office to refer people to our call centre to speak directly with our citizenship agents.

Finally, we are helping to expedite the process for people who have not lost their citizenship, but rather have lost the proof of their citizenship and need to apply to replace it.

We did not cause this problem. It arises out of the 1947 and 1977 acts, but we will fix it in the short term and the long term for the benefit of all Canadians.

To give additional context, up until the end of last week, we received 692 calls on our dedicated line. These calls were about the possible loss of citizenship. Of the 692 calls, in 675 of those cases their citizenship has been confirmed and no further action is required. Of the remaining 17, 7 have been invited to apply for a discretionary grant of citizenship, another 3 have been identified as permanent residents and have been asked to apply for a regular grant of citizenship, 2 more have been asked to apply for permanent residence and 5 require further examination. That is out of 692. That is a far cry from the hundreds of thousands, indeed, the millions of cases that we have been hearing about in public as well as in the House.

In the longer term, to address the issues, I am open to considering appropriate amendments to the Citizenship Act. That said, my immediate focus is on helping people caught up in this situation right now.

Legislative change could take quite some time. I believe that affected individuals should not have to wait infinitely for the Citizenship Act to be amended and passed. They should be helped right now.

I look forward to the standing committee's recommendations and to hearing from the various witnesses who will be presenting on this subject over the next few weeks. It is my hope that these hearings will provide viable options for consideration in looking at the most effective ways to address these issues over the long term.

I would like to say to all those involved that I will carefully examine all the options, legislative or not, so that we can create a system that is fair for everyone.

Our new government is getting things done on citizenship and immigration. To paraphrase the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, the Liberals just did not get it done.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

At the moment, I don't have any plans to table a whole new citizenship act. As I explained earlier, we set our priority on Bill C-14. However, I have indicated that when it comes to a long-term solution for the citizenship anomalies, I'm willing to consider a wide range of solutions. They could be administrative, regulatory, or legislative. If it's legislative, then I'm seeking your input. Actually, I'm seeking your input whatever the solutions are that you come up with.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What about these issues that I just raised? The IRB appointment review process; the dual citizenship review process; the Bill C-14, which is supposed to be a priority--you just said it's a priority--and the foreign credentials issue, which has been announced. The creation of the agency was announced earlier in 2006, but as far as we know, nothing has happened yet.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Okay. You'r bringing up an interesting point. I want to note a pattern that we're seeing here. We're seeing that there's an IRB appointment review process on the go. There is a dual citizenship review process as we understand it. There's Bill C-14. There's the foreign credentials issue that we still haven't seen any progress on. So it looks as though there's a lot of inertia or lack of political will. None of these things has moved forward. It appears to us that none of them has moved forward.

I'm just curious: is this a pattern? What is going on? Why is there a lot of foot-dragging?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We had a couple of choices to make. We could go ahead with a complete review of the Citizenship Act and replace it, or go with Bill C-14. We chose to go ahead with Bill C-14 as a priority.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay.

I wanted to ask another question, Minister, about another citizenship issue that we dealt with here at this committee, Bill C-14, on extending citizenship immediately to children adopted by Canadians abroad.

The committee has done its work on that and sent it back to the House, but it hasn't come back to the House for further debate. I'm wondering if there's some problem with the legislation. What's the delay in actually moving on something that everybody at this table thinks is very important legislation?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

With respect to citizenship issues, I would simply say that we moved forward on Bill S-2 when we were in opposition. There is a pathway now to citizenship for the children of Canadians who moved out of the country. There is a pathway for that now, because of a Conservative initiative, Bill S-2. We are moving forward with Bill C-14. We're trying to get that through and make changes so that Canadian parents of foreign-born children can have their children get citizenship more quickly.

So we are making changes, and we'd like to make other changes in the future, but we don't need to reinvent the act just to do that.

Citizenship Act--Bill C-14--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on October 6 concerning the admissibility of an amendment to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. members for Burnaby—Douglas and Vaudreuil-Soulanges for having made submissions on this matter.

In his presentation, the parliamentary secretary asserted that an amendment to Bill C-14 adopted by the standing committee was inadmissible for three reasons: it was contrary to the principle of the bill, it was incomplete and it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown. The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas presented arguments to the contrary.

To summarize the situation briefly, at its meeting of June 21, 2006, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted an amendment which reads as follows:

Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

That amendment was ruled admissible by the chair of the committee after a point of order was raised by the parliamentary secretary in committee. The ruling was then appealed and sustained. Following further consideration of the bill, the committee reported it to the House on October 2, 2006.

As all hon. members know, the Chair has always been extremely reluctant to be drawn into procedural arguments over committee proceedings since to do so would reopen matters which are properly left to committees themselves to resolve. Perhaps more significantly, such a practice would also undoubtedly tie up the time of the House in reviews of committee decisions defeating the very purpose of committees.

The one exception to this practice is, however, the one cited by the parliamentary secretary in relation to legislation before the House. As he has indicated, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at pages 661 and 662, indicates that the Chair will become involved if the question at issue is whether a committee has exceeded its powers in its clause by clause review of a bill.

As Speaker Fraser indicated in a ruling found at page 9801 of the Debates for April 28, 1992:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

The first issue raised by the parliamentary secretary in his presentation to the House relates to the amendment being contrary to the principle of the bill. As the parliamentary secretary himself stated at page 3769 of the Debates:

The principle of Bill C-14, as adopted by the House, was to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring them to be permanent residents.

Having reviewed the bill as reported to the House, I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. In the view of the Chair then, the amendment is admissible in that respect.

The next issue relates to the amendment being incomplete. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains at page 656:

—an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is incomplete.

Here again, in reviewing the bill, as reported to the House, I have not found any difficulty. As I read it, the amendment is intelligible, grammatical and complete as to the course of action that it is proposing. I cannot concur with the parliamentary secretary.

In his third and final argument, the parliamentary secretary claims that the amendment creates a new and distinct purpose for the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond its existing legal mandate under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that this infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. The member for Burnaby—Douglas disputes this conclusion, arguing that no expansion of the mandate is contemplated.

The Chair has noted that Bill C-14 proposes no amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Nor does the disputed amendment propose modifications to that act. As I read it, the amendment only provides that decisions arrived at under the terms of Bill C-14 may be appealed to the IRB's Immigration Appeal Division. Although immigration and citizenship issues are inextricably inclined, Bill C-14 deals solely with the issue of foreign adopted children and not with the mandate of the Immigration and Refugee Appeal Board. In effect, the Chair must limit itself to the bill currently before the House and cannot delve into the provisions of acts not addressed in the bill. The same principles apply to the amendment.

The Chair has concluded that the amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has respected the rules of admissibility. It may be that the amendment to the bill will require other legislative actions in order to be fully implemented, but that is a legal question and not a procedural one. The Chair is limited to the narrow confines of Bill C-14 and must conclude that, standing alone, the amendment does not create a new and distinct purpose. Nor does it authorize the expenditure of public funds for a new or distinct purpose.

In summary, then, I find that the bill, as reported to the House, is procedurally in order. Of course, the House may choose to revisit the particular amendment that gave rise to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, using the appropriate mechanisms provided for under the report stage rules.

The Chair wishes to thank the House for its patience in dealing with this rather unusual situation.

Citizenship Act--Bill C-14

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I, perhaps, have a somewhat tamer point of order which is in response to a previous point raised. I want to clarify the facts referred to in the comments made by the member for Burnaby—Douglas on Tuesday, October 17, when responding to the point of order I raised in respect to Bill C-14.

Before making a ruling, I believe it is important to note that the member was incorrect when he asserted that the denial of citizenship to an adopted child was a de facto denial of an immigration visa and permanent residence status. The member made this argument to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that there was no difference between citizenship and immigration matters so that you would conclude that the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board may hear citizenship matters.

The fact is that citizenship and permanent residency each have a very different status in law. Indeed, so substantial are the differences that each is defined in separate statutes, as are the procedures and applications relevant to them.

Mr. Speaker, the member would have you overlook the fact that there is nothing in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that provides the Immigration and Refugee Board with powers or a mandate to deal with citizenship. The procedures and process for citizenship are limited to the Citizenship Act. None of those procedures or processes refer to or relate to the IRB.

More fundamental to the argument by the member for Burnaby—Douglas is his incorrect assertion that one can look past the lack of a citizenship mandate of the IRB by finding that citizenship decisions have an impact on the applicant's visa or permanent residence status application. The member, simply put, was wrong.

The fact is that denial of citizenship has little impact on permanent residence status. It is certainly incorrect to say that a denial of citizenship is a de facto denial of permanent residence. Under the current law it is possible for a permanent resident to apply for citizenship and be denied with the denial having no effect on his or her permanent residence status.

The second significant error to the member's submission that I wish to clarify is his suggestion that the incompleteness of the amendments may be addressed by regulations to Bill C-14 by stating:

...that requirements as to its operation can be delineated in regulations developed to implement the act, and therefore the amendment meets all the tests of completeness.

The member made this argument hoping to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, to overlook the fact that the legislation that creates the Immigration and Refugee Board does not already recognize citizenship or a role for itself in dealing with citizenship matters.

The member's submission that a new role for the IRB can be delineated in regulations to Bill C-14 is incorrect. I gave my remarks on October 6 on the inadmissibility of an amendment that requires subsequent amendment of an act that was not before the committee. I do not propose to repeat those comments here but to simply respond to the member for Burnaby—Douglas' contention and clarify that there are no provisions in the Citizenship Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would permit the making of regulations that would change the existing mandate of the immigration appeal division.

If his submission is to be taken as being that the regulations to Bill C-14 can speak to the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division and broaden them to allow the immigration appeal division to deal with a citizenship matter, then I would refer to my previous comments on October 6 only to add that regulations to an amendment of the statute may not amend another statute that was not before the committee.

In this instance, regulations to an amendment to the Citizenship Act may not amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the mandate and powers of the immigration appeal division.

With respect to the royal proclamation, the argument essentially was that since there would no longer be appeals under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, somehow these funds could be applied to appeals under the Citizenship Act, is somewhat circular in the sense that if there is no appeal provision in respect to the adoption provision in the Adoption Act, moneys would be saved and in order for the appeal to happen we would require additional funding which would require a royal proclamation. For that reason, also, it would not be acceptable.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the point of order raised on Friday, October 6 by the parliamentary secretary, regarding Bill C-14. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the House on Friday October 6 regarding the admissibility of an amendment to Bill C-14 that was passed when the bill was under consideration in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As the mover of that amendment at the standing committee, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the point of order. As we know, the amendment in question adds a new subsection to clause 2 of Bill C-14, which reads:

Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I would first point out that this amendment was found by the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to be in order, and it was discussed and debated by the committee and approved by a majority of members of the committee in that context.

I would like to emphasize that the parliamentary secretary made his arguments before the committee at that time.

As well, there was a vote at the committee, after hearing the arguments made by the parliamentary secretary and after hearing from other members, upholding the chair's ruling that the amendment was in order. The committee voted to sustain the chair's ruling.

I appreciate that the committee's actions do not preclude an approach to the Speaker and the House on this issue, but I want it to be clear for the Speaker that these issues were considered by the committee. I know that the Speaker has repeatedly found that in most cases committees know best when dealing with the matters before them, so I thought the fact that this amendment was debated and found in order by the committee is important.

I submit that the amendment does not go beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House at second reading. Bill C-14 and the amendment in question are amendments to section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Section 5 deals with the question of grants of citizenship and sets out the minister's obligation with regard to the granting of citizenship. It also grants discretionary powers to the minister to waive requirements of the act in certain cases.

Bill C-14 amends this section of the act by adding a new section 5.1 that addresses the citizenship of children adopted by Canadians overseas, granting them citizenship upon application at the time of the finalization of adoption. This removes the discriminatory effects of the current law, which requires adopted children to apply for permanent resident status and then meet the residency requirements before subsequently applying for Canadian citizenship, but grants children born to Canadians overseas immediate Canadian citizenship without such an application.

Section 5 currently establishes criteria for obtaining Canadian citizenship, as well as noting situations where the minister may exercise discretion. Bill C-14 proposes a new section 5.1, which adds new criteria when dealing with children adopted overseas by Canadians. The amendment proposed by the standing committee to Bill C-14, rather than stepping outside the scope of the bill passed at second reading, merely adds a further consideration to the decision making powers of the minister as outlined in sections 5 and 5.1 by allowing an appeal of the minister's decision. I submit that this is in keeping with the principle of the bill as passed at second reading.

With regard to the parliamentary secretary's contention that this amendment provides new powers and a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond what is provided in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, I would submit that denial of citizenship to an adopted child is a de facto denial of an immigration visa and permanent resident status to that child and, as such, the Immigration and Refugee Board is exactly the body that exercises judgment and rules on such cases.

The board is the body that understands the issues related to the validity of adoptions of children by Canadians overseas by currently ruling on appeals of the denial of permanent resident status to children adopted overseas. I would maintain that the issues investigated and criteria applied currently to rule on an appeal of permanent resident status to a child adopted by a Canadian overseas will be the same issues and criteria used to rule on an appeal of the denial of citizenship to such a child should Bill C-14 and the amendment be passed into law by Parliament.

This does not, therefore, add new powers or a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond those already mandated and exercised. The final result of decisions appealed will change as a result of a decision, given that under Bill C-14, should this amendment carry, an adopted child will become a Canadian citizen instead of a permanent resident, but the decision making process of the appeal is essentially the same.

In this respect, no new powers or mandate are conferred by the amendment, and no royal recommendation would be necessary since no new activities are being contemplated or undertaken. No new public funds should be required in these circumstances and therefore I would argue that it does not impinge on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment was presented and its procedural admissibility was approved by the committee. In your ruling on the form and content of report stage amendments, made on March 21, 2001, you implored members to use every possible opportunity at committee to make amendments and therefore save report stage for the purpose it was intended.

Mr. Speaker, you stated:

--I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created, namely for the House to consider the committee report and the work the committee has done, and to do such further work as it deems necessary to complete detailed consideration of the bill.

This is exactly what I have been trying to do. The amendment supports both the scope and spirit of the bill, and I contend it achieves the overriding goal the government has stated that the bill is supposed to achieve.

With regard to the contention that this amendment is incomplete, I submit that requirements as to its operation can be delineated in regulations developed to implement the act, and therefore the amendment meets all the tests of completeness. Surely the government is not asking that this House consider that legislation is incomplete unless all regulations are published before report stage. That would fly against all past practices of this place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hearing my response to the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I would urge you to allow this important amendment to stand and be considered by the House.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). It is the government's view that an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to add a new clause to the bill should have been found out of order by the chair of the committee. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find that the amendment is indeed out of order.

As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 661-2:

The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.

The amendment in question added a new subsection to clause 2 of Bill C-14. It reads:

Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This amendment we suggest is inadmissible for three reasons. First, the amendment goes beyond the principle of the bill adopted by this House at second reading. As noted by Marleau and Montpetit at page 645:

If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend the bill contrary to its principle.

Speaker Fraser clarified this in a ruling on April 28, 1992. He said:

The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.

The amendment would provide new powers and a new mandate to the Immigration and Refugee Board beyond what is provided in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which creates the board and limits the board's role to immigration and refugee matters but would not involve citizenship.

The principle of Bill C-14, as adopted by the House, was to allow for a grant of citizenship to foreign adopted children without first requiring them to be permanent residents. It was not to provide a new role for the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Second, the amendment is incomplete. As Marleau and Montpetit note on page 656:

As well, an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is otherwise incomplete.

The Immigration and Refugee Board, to which the amendment proposes appeals be made, operates under the statutory authority of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, not the Citizenship Act.

Even though I believe the amendment to be outside the scope of the bill, the sponsor neglected to include further amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are necessary to make this amendment intelligible and operational, perhaps in attempting to move an amendment that would not be seen to be out of order on those grounds.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act does not provide for, and the amendment does not address, providing the Immigration and Refugee Board with the power to hear citizenship appeals, establishing potential grounds for appeals, specifying the relationship between appeals to the board and existing rights to judicial review, providing the board with the power to rule on the appeal, for example, by granting citizenship which the amendment's reference to an appeal process is meaningless.

These critical authorities are established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for other types of appeals heard by the board and its divisions. Similar legislative provisions would be required for the board to identify its mandate and be able to make orders to resolve appeals of a citizenship decision.

Third and finally, the reason this amendment is out of order is that it requires a royal recommendation. On May 9, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled that a new purpose for an existing appropriation requires a royal recommendation: He stated:

The royal recommendation is also required where a bill alters the appropriation of public revenue “under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out” in the bill.

What this means is that the royal recommendation is not only required in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in a case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered. Furthermore, on February 8, 2005, the Chair ruled:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

The same principle applies to amendments. Since the board does not currently deal with citizenship decisions, any existing royal recommendation for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act could not possibly cover this new purpose.

Moreover, the addition of a new type of appeal hearing could not be implemented without additional public funds, for example, for more board members to hear cases of new policy and administrative resources to support these hearings. The amendment, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.

Given those three reasons, I submit that the amendment is out of order.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), with amendments.

I have the honour as well to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Stateless Vietnamese Refugees in the Philippines”.

Finally, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled “Audit of the Canadian Security Intelligence Services Immigration Services”.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee issue a press release stating that Bill C-14 has been approved with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Now we will go to the confusing part of the bill. We've had a number of amendments, and some of these amendments have now been withdrawn. We're proceeding with some new ones, and I think you have copies. You have a package that contains the amendments, but I'm told that's not accurate on 11.1. Since then the parliamentary secretary has distributed Madame Faille's two amendments. Pull BQ-4.1 and BQ-5.1 out of the package; they're not relevant any more. We have the new ones.

“That Bill C-14 be amended by adding after line 31 on page 2 the following new clause”--this is what Madame Faille has submitted. Has everyone got that one, for 3.1?

I believe the copy you have is that the act is amended by adding the following after section 27:

The Minister shall cause a copy of each regulation proposed to be made under paragraph 27(d.1) to be laid before each House of Parliament, and each House shall refer the proposed regulation to the appropriate Committee of that House.

Are you going to move the amendment, Madame Faille?