Bill C-425 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.
It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship, if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Madam Chair, I'm happy to have an opportunity to speak to this motion. This motion asks for an extension of 30 days to study private member's Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). Though its title refers to “honouring the Canadian Armed Forces”, we have learned through the 60 days of study we have already had on this bill that it is not really about honouring the armed forces. There is a small piece that honours some people who served in the armed forces, but there are other parts of the bill that go far beyond that.

I don't think at this point it is necessary for us as a committee to give that time extension as we've already spent the 60 days allotted for the study of a private member's bill in committee. As we know, a private member's bill has two hours of debate in the House at second reading stage. After second reading stage it is sent to committee for further study and to be reported back to the House.

When we did that study, we learned of the many flaws and the many different aspects in the bill, and I don't even know whether the sponsor of the bill intended them to be part of the nature of the original bill.

We know that many government members and the minister himself have spoken about the bill and have suggested amendments to it. We know that the government's amendment proposed changes to the private member's bill that made it something absolutely new, something very different. It changed the scope of the bill. The amendment proposed by the government members changed the bill dramatically. They knew it was flawed because of what was presented to us by all of the witnesses who came before the committee.

Let me go through some of the items that the witnesses and the government's own members identified as containing flaws, or some of the facets of this bill that they wanted to change, or that weren't appropriate, that may not have been in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or may not have been in compliance with the Constitution. Whatever it may be, let's have a look at what our expert witnesses had to say, and let's have a little bit of a discussion about some of those things.

I'll just list a few for now, and I'll try to get through as many as I possibly can.

First of all, in the bill itself, the sponsor of the bill refers to “act of war”. Many have identified that this is not a term that Canadian law understands or recognizes. The sponsor spoke of “pathways to integration” and increasing pathways to integration for permanent residents and newer immigrants to this country. Issues of statelessness were introduced and outlined for committee members by many people.

The concept of revocation of one's citizenship, which is clearly part of the bill, was highlighted by many of the witnesses who appeared before us.

Another issue is that this bill casts the net far too wide. Too many people get caught up in this bill. Even the sponsor of the bill himself mentioned that he recognized that maybe some people were getting caught in the cracks of the legislation, for example, people who were child soldiers or people who had foreign convictions.

Another thing is that if this bill went forward, it would actually create multiple tiers of Canadian citizenship. I'll make sure to go through that as well in as much detail as I can to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to understand what our experts have told us.

Another topic that was brought forward is the concern that was raised about ministerial discretion and accountability. What we've seen with this current government, especially in immigration-related bills and others, is that more and more powers are being given to fewer and fewer people, so rather than have a tribunal or a group of experts make decisions on things, it's actually the one minister who has more and more discretion on many more topics.

Another problem that was identified was with respect to citizenship wait times and the government allowing queue jumping for asylum seekers and refugee claimants in this country. The government was very clear that it didn't want people to jump the queue, but when there's a citizenship wait time of years in this country, the government is trying to have people jump the queue.

One more topic that I will be touching on is how we can actually honour people who have served in our armed forces.

These are some of the topics, Madam Chair, that I will be delving into throughout my discourse.

Pardon me, Madam Chair. I think I just made a French-to-English bad translation. I used the French word instead of the English word.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Very well.

Madam Chair, I will address and compare the provisions that have been made by this government. They concern the three mammoth bills of the current legislature, the lack of transparency in the matter of the resignation of the Prime Minister's chief of staff, the numerous ethical scandals and many other things. We cannot trust this government. So why should we put forward this motion?

Canadians are not fools. They know that the Conservatives will not hesitate to benefit from a potential flaw in the legislative process to bypass the current verification and monitoring mechanisms. The worst thing to do would be to support this motion, which would give them free rein.

Moreover, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism's proposals are not at a dead end. If he wants to table such a range of measures concerning the revocation and renunciation of citizenship, he is free to do so through a government bill. At that point, we would be able to spend more time debating it in the House of Commons and in committee, which is important.

We know just how important it is to have a lengthy debate on these issues, which involve profound changes within our country. We will then be free to ask witnesses about the content proposed by the minister, which is unfortunately not the case now, in the context of the study of Bill C-425.

More checks will be done on the constitutionality of the legislative initiative. A number of times, I highlighted just how central constitutionality was. I also stressed the need to look into it to determine whether the bill and the amendments truly fit with our constitution.

Lastly, the members of this House will be in a position to do their job properly and effectively. Our duty and our job, as parliamentarians, is to carefully study bills submitted to Parliament, be they government initiatives or private members' initiatives. In this case here—I will end on this, if I may—I would say that we need to say no to this motion because it clearly limits our duty and our work as parliamentarians.

Since citizenship is at the heart of the minister's amendments, we must do our work in a rigorous and transparent manner. We must be able to handle these issues, but through a government bill, so that the debates are longer and the issue is studied much more in depth.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has reached a new low. It is defending the interests of terrorists rather than protecting law-abiding Canadians. The NDP has been instructed to try to block my private member's bill, Bill C-425, in committee and prevent it from moving forward.

Bill C-425 would strip convicted terrorists of their Canadian citizenship. Eighty per cent of Canadians support strong measures like this to combat terrorism.

The leader of the NDP and his party are completely out of touch with Canadian.

Our Conservative government is committed to strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. We do not think convicted terrorists deserve the privilege of calling themselves Canadians.

I urge the leader of the NDP to stop trying to dilute the values of Canadian citizenship and standing up for the interests of terrorists, and let us move forward with my bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will summarize what I've said. Obviously our witnesses' arguments are telling. They provided some clarity and clarification by sharing certain concerns and by discussing where problems may arise.

In fact, we truly believe that it is essential to pay significant attention to those comments. Obviously, in terms of what I have presented, we think it is important to consider all these guidelines I have presented, be they national guidelines under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international guidelines established by the UN or by other international conventions we have signed and ratified. It is essential that we put forward bills that take into consideration these warnings, if I may call them that, that must provide a democratic and fully responsible framework for the measures put forward in certain bills.

We have seen that the amendments proposed by the minister went beyond this initial bill and led us down a path where we are creating, as I said, differences between citizens in a country that, let's remember, is a land of immigration. We know that a lot of people flee their countries and choose to come to Canada and become Canadians so they can benefit from the democracy and freedoms offered by our great country. This bill will create two classes of citizens and, by the way, it will make a distinction between someone with sole citizenship and people with multiple citizenships. Those people may be at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship, even if they were born in Canada and have never been to the other country where they hold citizenship. Canadian citizenship must not be viewed as a driver's licence that could be taken away at any time.

I would also like to come back to what I was saying—I'm not sure if it was yesterday or earlier this morning, but that doesn't matter—about the decision by the Speaker of the House, in response to the question of privilege raised regarding the tabling of the committee's eighth report, which covers expanding the scope of Bill C-425.

The Speaker of the House ruled that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was admissible, strictly speaking. However, he had significant reservations about broadening the scope of the bill. He referred to the absence of explicit jurisprudence in the matter and the dangers related to that.

Therefore, Bill C-425 cannot necessarily be amended in this manner, and we had to be very careful. However, the government does not seem willing to be careful, since it came back with this new motion requesting a 30-day extension to study Bill C-425 in order to broaden its scope.

Clearly, the fact that a private member's bill is being turned into a government bill does not respect the tradition that goes on in Parliament. If the minister wants to implement a legislative agenda, he should do it directly through a government bill, not through a private member's bill.

At the end of May, after their first setback from the chair, the government came back with a new motion presented in committee. This new manoeuvre is a big concern for us, Mr. Chair, because it leaves room for major slip-ups and it especially would set a precedent that might be damaging for the jurisprudence relating to how bills are handled by Canada's Parliament.

Mr. Chair, these practices that aim to bypass the customary procedures and processes are becoming particularly worrisome and require constant vigilance.

Let's go back over a few facts that deserve particular attention.

On March 21, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism appeared before the committee. During his testimony, he literally dictated numerous amendments that broadened the scope of Bill C-425 considerably and radically changed the meaning of the initial version.

It should be noted that these amendments fit on two pages per official language, while the document tabled by the member for Calgary Northeast fit on a single page, including the French and English versions. Already, without even taking the time to read the proposed amendments, we can see by the number of pages that these amendments will really distort the bill in question which, itself, fit on only one page.

These amendments, which were the only ones proposed by the Conservatives, were then tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the very end of the process of studying the bill. Therefore, the members of the committee were not able to ask witnesses about what could have become the very essence of the bill.

Let's remember that the legislative text tabled by the member for Calgary Northeast, in addition to being significantly broadened, was completely changed. In the end, less than 10% of the final document came from the initial bill. Even the title of the bill no longer had any purpose because the section on honouring the armed forces became purely secondary and was really swept aside. In fact, the amendments were no longer in line with honouring of the Canadian Forces.

That shows you just how imposing the amendments were, so imposing that the amendments proposed by the minister were rejected by the chair. Indeed, the chair had no choice but to reject the amendments. There was no other solution. The chair had to make that choice and say, pure and simple, that the amendments proposed by the minister could not be received. Since they went against the initial principle of the bill, they were deemed inadmissible by the chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

As a result, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had to table a report in the House. Mr. Chair, the report tabled by the government was quite worrisome. It requested that the scope of the bill be broadened to include aspects that had nothing to do with the Canadian Armed Forces, when that formed the very basis of Mr. Shory's bill.

Two related problems stem from that.

First of all, the minister has just skirted around the work done by the committee members by imposing his amendments on his parliamentary secretary and, obviously, the committee. Then—and this is the heart of the matter—the bill…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm now at point B of the B'nai Brith brief:

B. Statelessness The bill as it stands applies to both citizens and legal residents of a country other than Canada. It would potentially remove Canadian citizenship from either. A person who is a legal resident of another country but not a citizen of another country, on losing Canadian citizenship, would become stateless. Canada is obligated by international treaty to avoid statelessness, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to which Canada acceded in 1978. The obligation has an exception worth nothing, that a person may be deprived of nationality even if it creates statelessness where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. This exception means that the revocation provisions in the current law conform to the dictates of the convention. The possibility of loss of Canadian citizenship now in the bill for someone is a permanent resident of another country but not a citizen of another country should be excised. We note that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney on March 21 asked this committee to consider an amendment so that only those with dual citizenship would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship under the provisions proposed in the bill. … We note the observations of former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler in the parliamentary debate on Bill C-425 at second reading on February 15 that a private member’s bill does not go through the same constitutional scrutiny as a government bill before it is tabled in the House of Commons. The right to citizenship is a constitutional right.

It’s important to remember that. The way I see it, these are very important observations that MP Irwin Cotler has made, but it is clear that they are not made unanimously.

Pursuant to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to citizenship is a constitutional right. Later, I will probably compare the bill and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will let us consider from that perspective the amendments that we want to make to this private member’s bill.

Revoking citizenship for whatever reason of a person born in Canada, raised in Canada, whose primary connection is Canada is arguably a violation of the constitutional right to citizenship.

These remarks, like many others I have read so far, are really crucial. This involves a direct violation of the constitutional right to citizenship, according to section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates that the right to citizenship is a constitutional right.

A person born in Canada who has a connection primarily with Canada and has little connection with the country of dual citizenship should not become subject to deemed renunciation/revocation of Canadian citizenship under this law.

We are again at the very heart of amendments that some want to make to the bill and that ensure that acquiring and maintaining citizenship is completely overhauled. By the way, if I may say so, these measures are going to create two-tiered citizens. We need to say that the right to citizenship is a constitutional right that can and must be respected.

I will now address the part of the B’nai Brith brief that covers foreign convictions:

d) Foreign convictions The fourth category raises the question of the appropriateness of taking into account a foreign conviction. Many repressive governments label their opponents, particularly their armed opponents, terrorists. We must not take that labeling at face value.

Obviously, we know some democracies, which claim to be democracies but are not, that do this. We have seen it already. Unfortunately, every day certain people are labeled terrorists because they simply wanted to oppose a repressive government in a particular way. So be careful.

Not every act of rebellion against a repressive government is an act of terrorism. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act denies refugee protection to those subject to “lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards”. There needs to be a similar caveat here. The bill should say that a person could have his citizenship revoked for a foreign conviction for terrorism, “unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards”. ii) Additional grounds Beyond that, once Parliament is expanding the grounds of revocation, as it is with this bill, why limit the grounds to acts of war, treason and terrorism even more broadly encompassed?… This anomaly, at first glance, may not seem that significant since a person complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism or genocide is unlikely to disclose that complicity on application to enter Canada and, if he or she did so, would likely be refused entry. However, the Nazi war criminal experience has shown us that sometimes it is easier to establish complicity in massive criminality than misrepresentation on entry, since entry records may have been destroyed and memories of entry officials unreliable. If we can prove complicity in massive crimes, but not lying on entry, that complicity should be enough for revocation. Right now the war crimes unit in the Department of Justice has a policy for Nazi era cases that the department would not seek revocation unless the department is satisfied that the person is complicit in war crimes or crimes against humanity. However, that is an internal policy only and not a legal requirement.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue, even though I have lost my momentum. I am very passionate about these issues because they fundamentally and strikingly change the Citizenship Act, as I have mentioned in my comments so far. We are completely distorting the precepts that have applied so far when it comes to citizenship.

The proposed amendments send a message that Canadians are not all equal and that the loyalty of some Canadians is called into question. Yes, it is an essential issue and argument. Some of our fellow Canadians have already expressed their concerns. In fact, they felt in some way that they were being maligned by the messages being conveyed. They were concerned. Sometimes, as I mentioned, Canadians do not know they have dual citizenship and might become stateless persons.

There is another important aspect. I truly believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to ensure that the Canadians who make up our country, the builders, the immigrants who came to build Canada, are truly regarded and considered as full-fledged Canadians. That is not what the bill's proposed amendments say, which raises the following question: are all Canadians equal? Is there discrimination when a person belongs to a certain category? These are vital questions, and they need to be asked. We need to find some real answers.

This negative message affects some Canadians in particular, including Muslims and Arabs, who have been persistently and unfairly associated with terrorism. Unfortunately, some Muslims or Arabs have suffered from the direct impact of this hatred toward these communities, something we have unfortunately seen since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's appalling.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to pay attention and ensure there are no differences. When certain citizens are singled out, it further stirs up these disparities and this hatred that, unfortunately, we know exist. It's our responsibility to see to that.

I will now share with you the brief from B'nai Brith on Bill C-425, which was prepared for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and tabled for the April 18, 2013 meeting:

Bill C-425 proposes that those who are citizens or legal residents of a country other than Canada and who engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces would be deemed to apply for renunciation of Canadian citizenship. The government has indicated that it would propose amendments to the bill. These amendments have not yet been tabled.

I need to clarify that at that point, these amendments had not yet been tabled.

The absence of the text of the amendments has both an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that their absence makes it difficult to be specific about matters of potential concern. The advantage is that the situation is now fluid. The government may well be more flexible before the amendments are introduced than afterwards. A. Acts of War The first question is: what is intended by the phrase “an act of war”? The member of Parliament who introduced the bill, Devinder Shory, said to this committee on March 19 that what he intended “was to address those individuals who are either members of some armed forces or armed group who attack our men and women in uniform.” So for him, an act of war was an attack on Canadian men or women in uniform. In terms of international law, an act of war is an act which justifies a military response. An act of war permits going to war in response without the response being considered an act of aggression. An act of war against Canada can be committed in a number of ways. One way, to be sure, is to attack the Canadian armed forces. However, it is not the only way. Other ways are to attack a Canadian merchant vessel, blow up public buildings, assassinate the political leaders or diplomatic representatives, bomb civilian centres and so on. Why would there be a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship for an act of war in one way but not another? Surely, if an act of war justifies a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship, that justification stands no matter how the act of war was committed. The bill suggests that there is a right way and a wrong way to commit an act of war against Canada, or perhaps more accurately, a bad way and a worse way and that the worst way of all is to attack the Canadian armed forces. We are reluctant to rank acts of war against Canada in terms of their gravity. We consider them all bad. How could one possibly say that an attack on a civilian centre of any of the major Canadian cities ranks less in gravity than an attack on the Canadian armed forces? We recommend that this bill, instead of mandating revocation of citizenship for those who committed acts of war against the Canadian armed forces, mandate revocation for those who have committed acts of war against Canada pure and simple. We note that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney stated to this committee on March 21 that there is no clear definition of what constitutes an act of war and suggested that the committee amend the bill by replacing that term with other acts that are more clearly defined in law. The phrase the minister suggested at the committee to replace “war” was “armed conflict”. Our position is that, whatever…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to clarify something. At the outset, I suggested going back over certain testimonies. I will now say that these testimonies are at the heart of Bill C-425 and of what the amendments have in relation to its expansion.

I will continue to provide clarification that I feel is essential. It will make it possible to fully understand our position and the arguments that explain why today we are opposing a motion that was tabled by the government and that we do not agree with. I would therefore like to be able to continue to present those arguments in the manner I see fit.

When the government members take the floor and present arguments to justify their position, I never question that. I simply listen and provide counter-arguments when necessary. I do not question what any of them say on any issue. That is why I would like them to extend the same courtesy to me.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue then. I was talking about the shortcomings of Bill C-425 and the repercussions of the provisions in the bill.

I would first like to go back to the two classes of citizens, which I mentioned. Clearly, according to this bill, Canadian citizenship can be considered a privilege and can be revoked just like a driver's licence can. However, we are not talking about a traffic violation for which someone's driver's licence may be suspended. We are talking about people's citizenship, after all.

Let us look at the legal aspect. Bill C-425 imposes a double penalty on those affected by the initiative, because a legal penalty might be combined with a revocation or withdrawal of the Canadian citizenship. That is commonly known as a double penalty. Obviously, people with dual citizenship would be subject to a harsher ruling than those who solely have Canadian citizenship.

To substantiate my comments, I would like to refer to some presentations that were given at our committee meetings. They clarify in a very relevant and meaningful way all the discussions that we had in committee regarding Bill C-425. They also provide additional information on whether this bill is appropriate and whether it is appropriate to expand its scope.

I will start by reading the comments made by the Canadian Bar Associations regarding Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces):

Dear Mr. Tilson: I am writing on behalf of the National Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA Section) regarding Bill C-425, Citizenship Act amendments (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). The CBA is a national association of over 37,000 lawyers, notaries, students and law teachers, with a mandate to promote improvements in the law and the administration of justice. The CBA Section comprises lawyers whose practices embrace all aspects of immigration and refugee law. Citizenship and the rights and obligations that flow from citizenship are the fundamental cornerstones of a democratic society.

I think those comments are fundamental because they really place the concept of citizenship in a context of paramount importance for our democratic societies.

Bill C-425 would amend the Citizenship Act to deem dual citizens who “engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces” to have applied to renounce their Canadian citizenship. The CBA Section opposes such a significant alteration of the nature of Canadian citizenship without a greater opportunity for discussion and participation in the drafting process.

As you can see, the section emphasizes that we are dealing with a major amendment to the very nature of Canadian citizenship. As I said earlier, it is not the same thing as having your driver's licence suspended because of an offence. We are talking about a fundamental precept of our society.

The Bill proposes to create two classes of citizens. Dual citizens would risk losing Canadian citizenship in certain unclearly defined circumstances, even if they were born in Canada and had lived their entire lives here.

What is this bill trying to do? As the Bar noted, someone born in Canada who committed any wrongdoing would lose their citizenship de facto. As a result, this type of designation would create a category of first-class citizens, if you will, and a category of second-class citizens. This principle is completely and utterly in disagreement with the very concept of citizenship, according to which, in principle, an individual who is a member of a nation is a full-fledged member.

Although it is implied in some of the public discourse on the Bill that it targets naturalized citizens, it does not in fact make that distinction. A naturalized Canadian who does not have another nationality or had renounced their other nationality would be protected from loss of Canadian citizenship. A citizen born in Canada who had acquired another nationality through their parents or other means would, however, be at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship even if they had remained in Canada since birth.

Earlier, I mentioned that some people were not even aware that they had dual citizenship. This means that they would be caught off guard if this provision of the law would inadvertently left them without their Canadian citizenship.

The CBA Section is troubled by comments from the government suggesting that substantial additions could be made to the Bill in the review by this committee. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has suggested that the Bill may be expanded to include loss of citizenship for individuals connected to certain acts of terrorism. Without these proposed amendments, it is difficult for the CBA Section to comment, although our experience with the breadth of the “terrorism” sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act gives reason for concern.

In the opinion article, the Minister says ”there should be a high legal threshold for triggering deemed renunciation of citizenship, with appropriate legal safeguards.” We agree. However, the Bill provides neither protections nor clarity. The concept of “act of war” is not defined in the Bill, nor is there a clear reference to a definition elsewhere. Given the nature of contemporary warfare, defining the limits of an “act of war” could prove to be a challenging task. Considering that even the most egregious criminal offences would not put Canadians at risk of losing their citizenship, the precise nature of activities that might carry such a penalty should be very clearly defined. Should the government wish to make a critical change to the nature of Canadian citizenship, it would be more appropriate to do so by presenting its own Bill to Parliament...

Mr. Chair, this relates to the key issue that we started with a private member's bill that was expanded only to become a government bill. Our questions and concerns have also been shared by our witnesses. As illustrated in what I just read, the Canadian Bar Association also refers to this aspect. In addition, the CBA feels that:

...it would be more appropriate to do so by presenting its own Bill to Parliament and providing the time and opportunity for adequate consideration and public discussion.

Mr. Chair, in this context, the legislative procedures that usually take place must be followed. In other words, debate must take place and the same amount of time should be allocated to debating this issue as the amount of time usually allocated to debating a government bill. That would make it possible for everyone in the parliamentary precinct, for every member of the House to debate a very sensitive and important concept and dimension of our society. As a result, the debate, in this case a public debate, can be conducted properly, as the Canadian Bar Association suggests:

Informed debate and discussion are at the core of the democratic process of legislating.

Mr. Chair, let us remember that the democratic process is an essential process for our House of Commons without which we would not have a reason to exist or we would not be able to represent our constituents. Without this process, we would not be able to make public some important changes that are part of such a broad context that, democratically speaking, we need to be able to discuss them freely.

Yours truly,

I will continue by reading the very enlightening comments sent to us by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG). The comments were submitted to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on April 17, 2013.

The ICLMG is a pan-Canadian coalition of civil society organizations that was established in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. The coalition brings together 39 NGOs, unions, professional associations, faith groups, environmental organizations, human rights and civil liberties advocates, as well as groups representing immigrant and refugee communities in Canada. Active in the promotion and defence of fundamental rights within their respective sectors of Canadian society, ICLMG members have come together to share their concerns about the impact of new anti-terrorism legislation and other anti-terrorism measures on civil liberties, human rights, refugee protection, minority groups, political dissent, governance of charities, international co-operation and humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Chair, that shows the magnitude of the issue and all the ramifications of these new legal provisions that could be implemented. They could have a major impact on the granting or retention of Canadian citizenship.

In the introduction, the monitoring group says:

Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) is a private member’s bill, introduced by Devinder Shory, MP. The bill would allow permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces to obtain Canadian citizenship more quickly, and would provide for Canadians to be stripped of their citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. Bill C-425 is currently before committee. On 21 March, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration told the committee that he is proposing a number of amendments to the bill. Among these is an amendment to have the power to strip citizenship of people who have been convicted of various terrorism offences.

Mr. Chair, the monitoring group provides the following explanation in a footnote:

The exact wording of the amendment was not tabled, but the Minister proposed that citizenship could be stripped from “those who've served as a member of an armed forces of a country or as a member of an organized armed group that was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada; or have been convicted of high treason under section 47 of the Criminal Code; or have been sentenced to five years or more of imprisonment for terrorism offences, as defined in section 2 of the code, or equivalent foreign offences for terrorism; or have been convicted of offences under sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because they acted traitorously; or have been convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or have been convicted under section 130 of the National Defence Act for committing high treason punishable under section 47 of the Criminal Code or for committing a terrorism offence and it is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to at least five years in prison.”

The comments I just read indicate that the minister also proposed that citizenship be stripped only from dual citizens so that people would not be left stateless.

Here are some concerns raised by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. First of all, according to the ICLMG, all citizens must be treated equally. I was just talking about this fundamental issue and about not discriminating between a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen. Yet this type of rhetoric is brought forward and the monitoring group is concerned about that:

1. All citizens must be treated equally It is unfair and discriminatory to have citizens face different consequences for committing the same crimes. Creating separate rules for dual citizens creates a two-tier citizenship, with lesser rights for some citizens.

That is where we are at, Mr. Chair. We are faced with an important decision in light of the amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism brought forward to expand the scope of this private member's bill. In so doing, instead of pursuing the initial objective of the bill, we would replace it with considerations that are basically not consistent with fundamental human rights.

The second concern expressed by the ICLMG is as follows:

2. Vagueness of terrorism definition The term “terrorism” is problematic because it is vague, broad and politicized. In fact, there is no consensus on its definition at the United Nations, nor are there any definitions of the concept in any important international instruments such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

That means that there are benchmarks and we cannot legislate based on a concept that would make us ignore those restrictions or pretend that they no longer exist. We would be interfering with the issue and proposing changes to the Citizenship Act that go far beyond those national and international benchmarks.

Earlier, I referred to the charter that no longer limits our laws in a meaningful and necessary way. The definition introduced...

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue then. Perhaps I should first remind you of what I have been saying this morning, since I was interrupted.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will go back to Bill C-425, which is a private member's bill. I will first remind you of its purpose and provide you with a little background. In this context, I will also talk about its substance and remind you of the bill's title, which is quite telling in terms of the bill's scope. If the bill were expanded to include the amendments introduced by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, even the title would no longer fit the proposed content. Let me remind you that the title of this bill is An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

The bill introduced by our colleague Mr. Shory was definitely talking about acts of war, not of terrorism. In fact, the minister's amendments are so broad that they would have a significant impact on Bill C-425, by creating two classes of citizens. I think that is an important point we need to keep in mind. However, that will have little or no impact on terrorism. Actually, if we include the additional amendments, Mr. Shory's bill will no longer promote citizenship, but it will devalue the fact of having dual citizenship. Quite clearly, that goes against the principle of fairness in law and it brings in an arbitrary component, as well as an idea of discrimination, as I mentioned before.

In terms of the context of this bill, let me remind you that Mr. Shory wants to reduce from three to two years the required years of residence in Canada for a member of the Canadian Armed Forces wishing to obtain citizenship. In so doing, the bill proposes that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada who has another citizenship and who engages in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship. In addition, a permanent resident of Canada who engages in such an act of war is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship.

I will therefore read what the bill says:

1. (1) Subsection 5(1) of the Citizenship Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (e) and by adding the following after that paragraph: (e.1) is not a person to whom subsection 9(1.2) applies; and (2) Subsection 5(4) of the Act is replaced by the following: (4) In order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada, and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, (a) the Governor in Council may, in his discretion, direct the Minister to grant citizenship to any person and, where such a direction is made, the Minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named in the direction; and (b) in the case of any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training, the Minister shall, on application, reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) or subsection 11(1). 2. Section 9 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. (1.2) A permanent resident of Canada who has made an application for Canadian citizenship is deemed to have withdrawn their application if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. 3. Subsection 11(1) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after that paragraph: (c.1) is not a person who has ceased to be a citizen by virtue of subsection 9(1.1); and

Mr. Chair, if we take a look at Bill C-425, we see that the first page is the cover page that mentions the title of the bill. On the second page, there is a short summary. On the third page, we see the subsections of the Citizenship Act and the desired amendments.

Mr. Chair, when this private member's bill was referred to the committee, we quickly reached a unanimous conclusion about its scope and limitations, as well as the need for clarifications and amendments to improve it. That is actually why it was referred to committee before second reading. Of course, we had no idea then that the amendments that the committee and various parties were ready to bring to this bill would go beyond its scope and purpose, which is to honour the Canadian Forces.

We discussed it and listened to witnesses before reaching the unanimous conclusion to appropriately recognize our armed forces. One way to recognize and honour the armed forces is to make it easier for permanent residents to obtain citizenship so that they can strengthen the number of our military men and women serving our nation.

That said, Mr. Chair, when the minister himself appeared before us and told us that he might propose additional amendments to Bill C-425, we obviously wondered about the new scope of the bill. Mr. Chair, I stress and reiterate that we were concerned right away about the possibility of new amendments being added to the bill to include measures that no longer corresponded to the initial bill at all. That is why we in the official opposition have expressed our deepest concern and clearly pointed to the magnitude of the changes made to the initial bill through these new amendments. We are simply noting that, by continuing down this path, making additional amendments will distort the bill to such an extent that this bill will no longer be a private member's bill, but rather a government bill altogether.

I would like to remind you that, since this bill is no longer a private member's bill, but rather a government bill, from a minister in this case, the minister could himself prepare a government bill with the amendments he wants to make to Bill C-425.

So concerns and questions definitely come to mind. The motion we are debating today dealing with the 30-day extension of the bill is not in order. In that context, I will continue to refer to some of our discussions in committee on Bill C-425.

Initially, we supported this bill with good will. We actually voted to have it sent to committee to be amended and to move forward the way it was supposed to in the beginning, with a view to honouring the Canadian Forces. The goal of the bill was to create another pathway to integrate permanent residents, to underscore the incredible worth of Canadian citizenship and to honour the contribution of our brave men and women in uniform. Clearly, we could not be against the intent of a bill like that, on the contrary.

This diversity is one of our country's characteristics. Canada's diversity is incomparable to other countries and I think we are fortunate because of that. Initially, this bill was supposed to specifically allow permanent residents, who represent this diversity, to enrol in the Canadian Forces. Under those circumstances, we were in agreement. We were all for bringing this diversity to our military. We actually supported the idea of fast-tracking Canadian citizenship to reward the dedication of permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces. We were also in favour of Canada's diversity being reflected in the Canadian Forces.

But now some aspects of the bill dealing with applications for renunciation of Canadian citizenship and the withdrawal of applications for Canadian citizenship are problematic. As stated, the bill proposes that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada who engages in an act of war against the Canadian Forces is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship. Similarly, a permanent resident who engages in an act of war will be deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship. However, the bill does not clearly indicate whether legal proceedings are needed to determine whether someone did engage in an act of war and does not specify who would make that decision. That is one of the bill's shortcomings. We talked about that issue in committee. We were supposed to explore it further and decide on amendments that would address this shortcoming.

In addition, some key terms were not defined. For instance, the term “act of war” is not defined in Canadian law. Likewise, the term “legal resident of a country other than Canada” is not defined.

We still had to deal with a bill that, as I have just described, had a great deal of limitations and shortcomings. In a way, we had to take a second look at the bill and its limitations in light of its purpose of honouring the Canadian Forces, instead of extrapolating under the pretext that the minister wanted to make amendments to this bill. But there was so much extrapolation that the initial bill clearly became a government bill. Let me remind you that the minister will have full latitude to introduce a bill like that if he wants.

I also wanted to stress the fact that the major changes made by the Conservatives to the Canadian immigration system have not made it more effective or fair, unfortunately.

The NDP supports the idea of Canada's diversity being better reflected in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, the circumstances under which Canadian citizenship could actually be revoked or an application for citizenship withdrawn must fully comply with the law and follow the normal legal process. Yes, it is true that some witnesses talked about the concept of natural justice, where anyone can have an opportunity to defend their own situation or case, since that is provided for under the law. Since many aspects of Bill C-425 had limitations, the justice system would not be allowed to have a say in a measure dealing specifically with the potential withdrawal of citizenship.

Witnesses clearly told us that this was an arbitrary way of doing things. This is really a situation where the rule of law has no place, which is not normal. Let us not forget that, constitutionally speaking, we have the charter to give us the necessary benchmarks so that every individual has a right to a defence and to an appeal under any circumstances.

In addition, we must not forget that this bill will create two classes of citizens, those with only one citizenship and those with more than one citizenship. Those with more than one citizenship would quite simply run the risk of losing their Canadian citizenship, even if they were born in Canada and have never gone to those other countries whose citizenship they have.

If we take into account those considerations, it is clear that statelessness is a possibility. When we talked about the implications, witnesses told us that we really had to be rigorous and pay attention to potential situations of statelessness resulting from a bill like this, since it makes it possible to withdraw the citizenship of people who, for whatever reason, would not be able to establish their second citizenship.

They also mentioned that there were similar measures in other countries that could also lead to statelessness. One of the witnesses clearly mentioned that this was likely to lead to a race between countries to revoke citizenship. It would simply be a matter of which country would be first to revoke the citizenship of a person who committed a particular act. As a result, we were told that an actual bidding war for withdrawing citizenship could take place between various countries.

Another very important dimension is the risk of children being forcibly enlisted in the army by adults who give them weapons and allow them to play soldiers in the same way an adult enlisted in the army would. Those child soldiers can therefore also be affected by a bill like that. Actually, their citizenship could be revoked for having participated in acts of war in the past, while they are not responsible for being forcibly enlisted in the armed forces.

Statelessness was therefore at the heart of our debates on Bill C-425.

I would also like to go back to the issue of citizenship. By having two classes of citizens, those with Canadian citizenship only and those with dual or multiple citizenship, this bill imposes an additional penalty, which is not related to the crime, but rather to the fact of having dual citizenship. That creates an arbitrary and discriminatory concept. As a result, individuals could be charged with crimes they have not committed, just because they have dual or triple citizenship.

I found the comments of one of our witnesses very wise. He drew a parallel and said that citizenship was not like a driver's licence that could be revoked from any offender who went over the speed limit or caused an accident. We really must keep that in mind. Citizenship is much more than a driver's licence, and our role is not to revoke it from offenders in any way, shape or form.

In addition, this bill is discriminatory since some people are not even aware that they have dual citizenship. What will we do with all those people? In this case, witnesses told us that some people don't know that they have dual citizenship.

This bill is arbitrary because it imposes a penalty that cannot be applied to everyone, by stripping some people of their citizenship. This bill is also dependant on what other countries in the same situation as ours do and on many other factors such as the number of citizenships that people have.

As I said, distinctions are being encouraged between individuals. Of course, the content of Bill C-425 is not complete. The limited scope of the bill means that there are a lot of gaps that need to be filled. However, by making additional requests and proposing amendments to completely change the bill, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism seems to go beyond the mandate of this committee.

The bill also provides for discretionary powers. Once again, we find a provision in a bill that allows for additional discretionary powers. In fact, appeals will not be governed by specific rules and will depend on a political will.

Granting discretionary powers through a bill means ignoring all our legal and court benchmarks, which I think is dangerous. The government will grant itself the power to interfere in decisions, to take the position of a judge or a court and to decide whether or not to revoke the citizenship of a given individual. In addition, the right to appeal, which is a legal procedure, is not even proposed in this case. Under these circumstances, clearly, the line between politics and the law is being completely erased. We are at a point where the minister can give himself the power to make rulings on cases, which should be the responsibility of the courts.

I would also like to turn to what witnesses told us about the scope of Bill C-425. Clearly, we applauded the possibility of fast-tracking the citizenship applications of permanent residents. However, the remarks of some witnesses enabled us to understand that the number of permanent residents affected by this bill would be minimal.

It goes without saying that questions come to mind. Given that approximately 15 permanent residents are recruited annually by the Canadian Forces, why would we have a bill that has a negligible impact? Its purpose is to honour the Canadian Forces and to give them an opportunity to be more open to diversity, but given those numbers, we are wondering whether the objective actually corresponds to the intent expressed in this bill.

It was important to look at that together in committee. The bill being limited in its application, the honouring of the Canadian Forces became purely symbolic. So are we still talking about symbols, are adjustments being made or are we going to continue to debate the substance of this bill? Our witnesses told us nonetheless that, with a limited scope, the result would be a symbolic honouring of the Canadian Forces rather than a genuine honouring, which was the intended effect.

The government keeps throwing around the possibility of making Canada safer and the deterrent effect of this bill. Mr. Chair, we know full well that this bill will not have any real deterrent effect on terrorist acts or any other crimes. Witnesses told us so. We also know that, in the U.K., for instance, 13 revocation procedures have been brought forward since 2002. Basically, there is no real reason for making those amendments to the bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I mentioned the Speaker's ruling, which takes us back to the very heart of Bill C-425. I would now like to continue talking about the whole process, not just the procedure, that led to what happened with Bill C-425 during our committee discussions and witness testimony. Clearly, expanding the scope of this bill has raised various questions and concerns.

As I said, this is not the first parliamentary manoeuvre brought forward to expand the scope of Bill C-425. In the spring, the government submitted a committee report to the House that was not unanimous in order to expand the scope of Bill C-425 at that time. That first attempt was subject to a point of order, to which I will probably come back later.

The fact remains that today's manoeuvre is not the first one to unilaterally expand the scope of Bill C-425. As I mentioned, on May 21, the Speaker of the House ruled that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was in order, strictly speaking.

However, he expressed major reservations about expanding the scope of the bill and he pointed out that there was no explicit case law on the matter. He reminded members of the dangers associated with this situation.

Before I continue, I would like to go back to the substance of the bill and therefore provide you with the content.

First, I will start by putting things into context. As was mentioned before, Bill C-425 proposes three main reasons for granting or revoking the citizenship of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, under the Citizenship Act. The bill provides for the following two points. First, it provides for a new ministerial power to reduce the length of residency in Canada required for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to obtain citizenship. Second, it provides for the following two things:

(1.1) A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. (1.2) A permanent resident of Canada who has made an application for Canadian citizenship is deemed to have withdrawn their application if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

To turn to the explicit content of Bill C-425, I will read amendment G-1, which proposes:

That Bill C-425, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 29 on page 1 with the following: e.1 is not a person to whom subsection [9(1.2)] applies: [...] (2) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1): (1.2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not apply to a permanent resident who, within the period referred to in that paragraph, completed a number of years of service in the Canadian Armed Forces that is equal to the length of residency required under that paragraph less one year. However, that paragraph...

I am sorry, Mr. Chair; I think I made a mistake.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I will continue to read the Speaker's ruling:

In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopted a motion recommending that the House grant the committee the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to allow for the consideration of what he called “amendments that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has asked be added to the list”.

This is the crux of our current debate. We are genuinely concerned about the expansion of this bill.

I will continue:

This led to the presentation on April 23, 2013, of the committee's eighth report. He found this approach to be problematic in two respects. First, he argued that pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees examining private members' bills are restricted as to the types of reports they can present to the House. He argued essentially that since the eighth report falls outside these parameters, it is out of order. His second argument centred on the impact such a manner of proceeding could have. Specifically, he expressed concern that if committees examining private members' bills were to be allowed latitude to proceed in this fashion, the effect of this practice “will be that the government could, by extrapolation, even add an omnibus feature to a private member’s bill...”

This is one of our concerns, Mr. Chair. Another concern raised by the possibility of turning it into an omnibus bill is, as I said at the beginning of my speech, all this latitude handed en masse to the minister to take over a bill, thereby making it a government bill.

I will continue reading the Speaker's ruling:

The Government House Leader explained that, in view of the differences of opinion expressed in the committee as to whether the amendments proposed were within the scope of the bill, the committee was seeking guidance from the House on the matter. In making this observation, he pointed out that this process would result in a number of hours of debate in the House on the committee report before a decision was taken. In his presentation the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued that Standing Order 97.1 does not preclude a committee from seeking an instruction from the House in relation to a private member's bill. He further explained that the committee remains seized of Bill C-425 and that its eighth report in no way supersedes the 60-sitting-day deadline to report the bill back to the House. At the outset the Chair wishes to clarify what appear to be certain misconceptions about the nature of private members' bills. The first of these has to do with the arguments made by the House leader for the official opposition and the member for Saint-Lambert in reference to the constitutional compliance of legislation sponsored by private members.

As pointed out by the member for Saint-Lambert, constitutional compliance is among the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to determine non-votability of private members' bills. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes these criteria at page 1130, including one requirement that “bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. The Chair is not aware of further constitutional compliance tests that are applied to any kind of legislation, whether sponsored by the government or by private members, once bills are before the House or its committees. In addition, hon. members will recall that in a recent ruling delivered on March 27, I reminded the House that as Speaker I have no role in interpreting matters of a constitutional or legal nature. Another apparent source of confusion has to do with the difference between private bills and public bills. Virtually all the bills that come before the House are public bills, whether they are sponsored by private members or by the government. As O'Brien and Bosc explains at page 1178: Private bills must not be confused with private Members' bills. Although private bills are sponsored by private Members, the term “private Member's bill” refers only to public bills dealing with a matter of public policy introduced by Members who are not Ministers. Thus both government and private members’ bills are subject to the same basic legislative process, namely introduction and first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage and, finally, third reading. At the same time, the House has seen fit to devise specific procedures for dealing with public bills sponsored by the government and private members alike. For example, Standing Order 73 allows the government to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading after a five-hour debate. The purpose of this rule is to allow greater flexibility to members in committee by enabling them to propose amendments to alter the scope of the measure. The procedures in place for dealing with private members’ bills are likewise many layered, and have evolved in response to particular situations faced by the House in the past. This is the case with the provision for a maximum of two hours of debate at second reading, which came about to allow the House to consider more items and thus to allow more private members to have their measures considered. Similarly, Standing Order 97.1 was originally brought in to ensure that private members’ bills referred to committee would be returned to the House and to the order of precedence in a timely fashion.

In the present case, it appears to the Chair that the essence of the procedural question before me is to determine whether the House has the power to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a private member's bill after that scope has been agreed to by the House at second reading and, if so, whether this can be achieved by way of a committee report. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, is helpful in this regard. It states at page 752: Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. Clearly then, by way of a motion of instruction, the House can grant a committee the power to expand the scope of a bill, be it a government bill or a private member's bill. An example can be found at page 289 of the Journals for April 27, 2010, where an opposition member moved a motion of instruction related to a government bill. Having established that the House does have the authority to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill through a motion of instruction, the question becomes whether a committee report is also a procedurally valid way to achieve the same result. The member for Toronto Centre is correct in saying that the explicit authority to present this type of report is not found in Standing Order No. 97.1, which exists to oblige committees to respect deadlines for reporting back to the House on private members' bills. In that respect, Standing Order No. 97.1 continues to apply. However, Standing Order No. 108(1)(a) does grant committees this power under their more general mandate to: …examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House [and] to report from time to time… In describing the three broad categories of reports that standing committees normally present, O’Brien and Bosc, at page 985, describe administrative and procedural reports as those: in which standing committees ask the House for special permission or additional powers, or those that deal with a matter of privilege or procedure arising from committee proceedings.

An example of a committee reporting on a matter related to a bill may be found in the Journals of April 29, 2008, where, in its sixth report, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development felt compelled to provide reasons why it did not complete the study of a particular private member’s bill. Finally, O'Brien and Bosc, at page 752, further state: A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House. This undoubtedly could be done only through the presentation of a committee report to the House. What this confirms is that the authority of the House to grant permission to a committee to expand the scope of a bill can be sought and secured, either through a motion of instruction or through concurrence in a committee report. O’Brien and Bosc summarizes this well at page 992: If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House—by far the most common approach—or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers. Later, O’Brien and Bosc explain, at page 1075: Recommendations in committee reports are normally drafted in the form of motions so that, if the reports are concurred in, the recommendations become clear orders or resolutions of the House. Just as the adoption of a motion of instruction to a committee would become an order of the House, so too would the adoption of a committee report requesting the permission of the House to expand the scope of a bill. Of course, it has always been the case that instructions to a committee must be in proper form. According to O’Brien and Bosc, at page 754, such instructions must be “worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants”. It is nevertheless clear to the Chair that there is genuine disquiet about the impact of this attempted procedural course of action.

At this point, Mr. Chair, the Speaker of the House is acknowledging well-founded and potentially genuine concerns about this course of action and about a request of this nature when made through a committee report.

Going back to the words of the Speaker of the House:

The Chair is not deaf to those concerns and, in that light, wishes to reassure the House that this manner of proceedings does not obviate the need for committees to observe all the usual rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill, which are described in detail at pages 766 to 771 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition.

He mentioned the admissibility of amendments, Mr. Chair. The Speaker of the House made this clarification in order to reply to the concerns raised by the tabling of the eighth report with reference to the expansion of Bill C-425.

Going back to the Speaker's ruling:

In particular, granting a committee permission to expand the scope of a bill does not, ipso facto, grant it permission to adopt amendments that run counter to its principle. Were a committee to report a bill to the House containing inadmissible amendments, O’Brien and Bosc at page 775 states: 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 admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. For all of the reasons outlined, I must conclude that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is in order. I thank all hon. members for their attention.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to continue with the reminder that the constitutionality of private members' business is studied only at the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business before the bill is debated at second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).

In attempting to expand the scope of the bill after second reading, the government is quite simply bypassing the constitutionality test and seeking to be able to amend private members' bills as it wishes instead of presenting its ideas in the form of government bills that must, as a requirement, go through the Department of Justice's constitutionality test.

The difference is huge, when one works on the assumption that a private member's bill does not necessarily have to go through the constitutionality test and is revised and studied by a subcommittee. But the principle for a government bill is quite different.

So I will conclude by urging you to pay particular attention to the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration which, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party, should be declared out of order. A motion of instruction like this is much too broad for the House to be assured that subsequent changes made by the committee will not include concepts that are foreign to the bill and will not conform to the charter.

Earlier, I was talking about conformity with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I feel that it is also an essential point in the debate we are having about this motion. Giving so much latitude to a committee will create an extremely dangerous precedent, which will most certainly used by this majority government in a partisan and antidemocratic way.

Thank you for your attention to my remarks. To help you with your study of this important question, I am going to make available to you the testimony that resulted from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's study of Bill C-425. I feel sure that, when you examine this testimony, you will also agree that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is out of order.

So I will now move to the reply given to that point of order by the Speaker of the House of Commons. That reply makes us aware of the legislative principles behind the introduction of a government bill and a private member's bill. The reply also shows us the extent to which it will be necessary to define those two categories of bills, categories that differ in part.

So here is the Speaker's reply to the point of order.

Before moving on to questions and comments, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 25 by the hon. member for Toronto Centre regarding the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, recommending that the scope of C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)be expanded. I would like to thank the hon. member for Toronto Centre for having raised this issue, and the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Winnipeg North, Saint-Lambert and Calgary Northeast for their interventions. In raising this matter, the hon. member for Toronto Centre explained that during its consideration of Bill C-425,…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to clarify that it really is an interpretation problem, I feel, because I did not say that they were playing the victims.

Madam Chair, if we needed proof that this bill is no longer what it was at the outset, a private member's bill, that is, we had that proof yesterday evening. We certainly have confirmation that it is now a government bill. The 30-day extension in order to expand the scope of Bill C-425 shows the same thing.

Let us tell those who are listening to us that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism is perfectly capable of introducing a government bill himself. It will give him all the freedom he needs to include his own amendments that he wants to make to Bill C-425 and, not to put too fine a point on it, that he wants to impose on this committee.

Before resuming the remarks that I was making last night, or, perhaps I should say, very early this morning, I would like to insist once more on the importance of the level of decorum and respect to which we as parliamentarians are held.

As a result of this request for the extension and the amendments submitted during the study on the amendments introduced during the discussion on Bill C-425, this became a question of privilege. I would like to share the matter of privilege with the committee and also the decision made by the Speaker of the House in reply to that request:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the question of privilege—which is not truly a question of privilege—raised by my colleague from Toronto Centre. The question has to do with the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which recommends to the House that it: ...be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) to expand the scope of the Bill such that the provisions of the bill be not limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Clearly, a question of privilege had to be raised so that we could see if the eighth report could make a claim for Bill C-425 to be extended.

From the outset, Bill C-425, the bill the committee has been dealing with, was a private member's bill, and I can never remind you of that enough. With the request to expand the scope of the bill, here we are again discussing the procedure.

I would like to review for you the reasons why the request should be ruled out of order. However, before I do so, I would like to set the record straight about what my colleagues have said up to now.

When the honourable government House leader, the member for York—Simcoe, spoke last April 25, he misled the House by insinuating that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was asking for:

…the House to debate it for a number of hours and decide whether we think it is within the scope…

As you know, Madam Chair, that is not the case at all. The report does not ask us to judge whether the suggested amendments are within the scope of the bill. On the contrary, as I will explain later, the committee has clearly demonstrated that it knows the proposed amendments go beyond the scope of the bill. In fact, the bill, which was really limited to recognizing and honouring the Canadian Forces, was all of a sudden fixed up with amendments that clearly went beyond its scope and changed it into a different bill entirely. The report asked the House to empower, or not empower, the committee to expand the scope of the bill, not to pass judgment on amendments that could subsequently be introduced at committee.

I must also add that the honourable member for Toronto-Centre clearly did not do his homework by hastily talking about adopting the report before a motion to adopt it had appeared on the Order Paper. Procedure follows procedure and things are moving quickly, but they did not really conform to the legal procedures of the House. This caused some problems and led us to turn to the Speaker of the House.

So a committee is within its rights to ask for instructions from the House about extending the scope of a bill. In the second edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc are clear on the matter:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example:…consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

That is precisely what the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is seeking to do through its eighth report. However, and I am now getting to the point of my comments, there is a limit to the instructions that the House may give to a committee. Once again, I quote O'Brien and Bosc:

A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying a principle that is foreign to it …)

Madam Chair, this passage is critical and fundamental, because it indeed states that the main essence of the original bill will be transformed. I will continue to quote my comments on the matter of privilege:

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that you must intervene and rule that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's request for instruction is out of order. This request is far too broad and does not allow the House to determine if the committee is likely to include a principle that is foreign to the bill. There is some precedent where motions of instruction were deemed to be in order and were debated in the House. However, in each of those instances, the instructions were far clearer than those sought by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration today.

When I mention amendments that are far clearer, it simply means that, when making amendments, attention must be paid to the nature of the original bill; amendments must be restricted so that they cannot alter the nature of the original bill. We have an example on April 27, 2010, when my colleague, the honourable member for Nanaimo—Cowichan proposed the following motion of instruction:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, that it have the power during its consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs) to expand the scope of the Bill so that a grandchild born before 1985 with a female grandparent would receive the same entitlement to status as a grandchild of a male grandparent born in the same period.

Madam Chair, that motion was very clear and was rightly ruled to be in order. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was therefore given permission to expand the scope of the bill, but within very precise limits on the way in which the committee could do it. There were clear and precise instructions to prevent the scope of the original bill from being transformed and diverted away from its original intent. By stating its position on the bill, the House could be assured that the committee would not include in the bill a principle that would be foreign to it.

Conversely, the motion of instruction that we have before us comes right out and asks the House for the power to expand the bill to the extent that it would not just apply to the Canadian Forces. Exactly what does that mean? How does the committee want to amend the bill so that it would no longer apply solely to the Canadian Forces?

As it currently stands, the bill allows, among other things, permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly. Of course, we are in favour of that. By asking that the bill apply not just to the Canadian Forces, is the committee hinting that it would like to amend the bill to allow permanent residents working in professions that have no relation to the Canadian Forces to obtain citizenship more quickly?

In our discussions at committee, in the presence of the witnesses we called, we have actually brought up the possibility of extending Bill C-425 to others, not just those who want to enlist in the Canadian Forces. Clearly, this private member's bill was limited to the Canadian Forces and our suggestion was ruled out of order.

Madam Chair, this is not clear at all. How can the House make a decision about a motion of instruction like this when it is impossible to know how the committee will proceed and whether or not it will try to include in the bill a principle that is foreign to it?

I would also add that, if this motion of instruction to the committee were to be deemed in order, it would create a dangerous precedent. If we allow a standing committee to expand the scope of a bill without precise instructions, we will be opening the door to very sensitive issues, given the current context. Let us not overlook this majority government's propensity for using private members' business to promote its own agenda. When used like that, private members' bills become a way for the government to get round the rules.

Catherine Dauvergne, a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia appeared as an individual when the committee was studying Bill C-425. She could not have more clearly expressed the danger of asking for this kind of instruction:

Second, such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.

We do indeed find ourselves in a situation where debates are scheduled as if the process were for a private member's bill. Those debates will not have the same breadth and scope as they would if we were dealing with a government bill or a departmental bill to which additional hours of debate had been assigned. This would not be the case for a private member's bill.

The question of citizenship is essential; it goes so deep that it affects all Canadians. We cannot decide on a whim that we are going to change the Citizenship Act so quickly and with such little regard for the constitution as we would be doing with the expansion that the minister is asking for in order to get his amendments through.

For the sake of our democracy and our work as parliamentarians, we must have democratic control over our procedures and over the way in which they are used. Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations stipulates the following:

3. In the case of every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown, the Minister shall, forthwith on receipt of two copies of the Bill from the Clerk of the House of Commons: (a) examine the Bill in order to determine whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;…

These examinations allow us to establish and keep our bills within a legal framework, so that we can be sure that the provisions are not going beyond the limits prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The examinations are necessary and fundamental.

By asking standing committees to expand the scope of bills to include suggestions by ministers, the government is avoiding its responsibility to examine legislation as prescribed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Examination Regulations. With the amendments suggested by the minister, we are in a situation where a private member's bill will be expanded. This makes the bill lose its original nature and turns it into a departmental bill.

With the legal procedure associated with a government bill, we have a legal rationale that allows us to identify the content of any government bill. That is a principle of Parliament and a principle of our democratic roots in the House of Commons.

The constitutionality of private member's business is studied only at the Subcommittee on Private…

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you have just reminded us, we are dealing with this Conservative motion that is at the heart of our deliberations at this committee. The motion asks for an extension of 30 days to the time allowed within which to submit a request to Parliament to expand the scope of Bill C-425.

A little later, I will come back to the topic of what may have raised this issue of expanding the scope of Bill C-425. However, I will just point out that this government has been showing us for weeks the extent to which it is possible to use procedures for ideological purposes. In the House, they have introduced a record 46 time allocation bills in order to reduce debate and stifle members of Parliament and Canadians. Once again, at this committee, they are showing an attitude that is inconsistent with our democracy and our work as parliamentarians.

After going in camera right at the start of the meeting, here they are asking for the meeting to be televised. It is just a trick that I find deplorable: last night, it would have served only to show a blatant lack of decorum and of respect on their part. As my colleague pointed out in her remarks, they went as far as to say that she was playing the victim. That is going too far, in my opinion, and it did not happen here.

After constant comings and goings, who should appear, at 2:00 in the morning, but the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. If there was ever need for evidence that this bill…

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I'd like to call the meeting back to order. I remind everybody that we are being televised—I know you all wanted to know that—and to let you know that we are here discussing, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), the committee's request for an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) referred to the committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013. The committee requires additional time to consider the bill. Therefore, your committee requests an extension of 30 sitting days. That's what we are here to debate.

Before we broke to go live on television so that all our loved ones could watch us, the person who had the floor was Madame Groguhé, so we'll go back to Madame Groguhé.