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an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship, if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

Citizenship Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion relates to Bill C-425, which is a private member's bill that remains outstanding. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the order for consideration at report stage of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), standing on the order paper in the name of the member for Calgary Northeast be discharged and the bill withdrawn.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to check whether it was indeed the passage that reads as follows:

I believe it's imperative to ensure that every single amendment the government has moved plays a role in this piece of legislation, which I think is timely, which I think is correct. It needs to ensure that every single one of our amendments is included in it. I cannot stress strongly enough that no words or actions can be ill-defined, and the bill cannot be either. As such, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion: that the committee recommend 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.

Could you please confirm that is where the definition of the expression “expand the scope” came from, or does it appear elsewhere in the evidence of the April 23rd proceedings?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

First of all, this is not an argument about whether or not Bill C-425 is or is not contrary to the charter. It has to do with the process whereby legislation that is introduced by the government is required to go to the Department of Justice for a decision. They're not permitted to bring legislation to the House of Commons if they have a ruling from the Department of Justice or an opinion that this is contrary to the charter.

That matter is under debate. It is subject of debate right now, but that's a different question.

But in this case—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It may be, sir, but it has nothing to do with the motion. It may be a valid argument as to whether or not Bill C-425 should be voted yea or nay, but it has nothing to do with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, if I can interject for a moment, you may or may not have a correct point. It may be a valid point for a court of law. It may be a valid point for debate in the House. It may, indeed, be a valid point if this committee ever gets around to debating the provisions of Bill C-425. But getting into issues of the charter with respect to this motion—

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

When I'm talking about the extension and my reasons opposed to it, I have to reference Bill C-425. I've already covered in detail the timelines allowed for the bill, but I specifically want to talk about one component of that process, and I will link it directly to why I speak against this extension, Mr. Chair, if you give me an opportunity.

We heard witness after witness—and I've made a commitment to you that I'm going to read all that testimony into the record—say that the bill had some flaws that needed to be addressed. This is why it comes to committee, because committee is an opportunity for both the government and the opposition to get a chance to change, amend, give ideas to each other, co-opt each other's ideas. We do all of those things. That's what the committee stage is about, and you know what? We've had that opportunity, and the government still has another regularly scheduled meeting—I believe it's scheduled for Thursday from 8:45 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.—to complete the process with that bill, do the clause-by-clause, and allow a vote to be taken. We would welcome that.

When I look at this bill and the seeking of the extension for it, notwithstanding that there are elements in the bill that the opposition had no objection to in principle, though there was some wording and technical changes we would have suggested, we still are of the opinion that the government has had the opportunity to use the time allocated for PMB—that is for private members' business—and it is because of that we are going to be opposing this.

I want to thank the Chair for your consideration.

I will get myself back on the speakers list because I have some new points to be made, but I don't want to keep the floor from other members who want to speak. I heard that in the bit you read out. At no time do I want the government side to feel that they are not free to get on this list.

Please speak and take part in the debate. I welcome that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I know what I said, but I'm not going to repeat it, because it was in camera.

Here we are. I am vehemently opposed to this extension of the timeline. I am opposed to it both as critic for my party and as a member of Parliament for one of the most diverse ridings in the country. It has a lot to do with the process that we have seen play out with Bill C-425. It has now been three months since we finished with all the witnesses.

We heard testimony, and I'm not going to get into reading the testimony, although I would like to do so, from both government witnesses and from witnesses put forward by the opposition parties. That's a very extensive time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. Try me. I quite frankly can't believe you can do that, but we'll start, and if we feel it's getting into Bill C-425, I will tell you.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I did not.... Chair, could you let me finish my thought?

At no time do I mean to debate what's in Bill C-425, but I do believe, when you look at the motion, that in order for me to speak for or against an extension, if I do not reference in some way what's in Bill C-425—the key elements in it—but not debate it, then it is very difficult for me to say why I'm opposed to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think so. I don't want to hear any debate on Bill C-425.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

When I look at making arguments for seeking an extension of 30 sitting days, what I can refer to has been limited in an extraordinary way, I would say. But in order to put forward my arguments, I would argue, Mr. Chair, that I do have to refer to the contents of Bill C-425.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So we're waiting for the concurrence debate in the House on Bill C-425?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Harris, this is a difficult area in terms of whether this argument should be made here or in another place. The second paragraph of the motion says:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill.

That decision has been made. I'm interested in what you have to say about that, but I believe the decision has been made. You're getting into an area where the committee has already made a decision. I'm listening to what you're saying and some of the points I agree with, but you're getting into an area that is repetitive because the decision has already been made.

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

Yes, indeed, Mr. Chair. That's quite clear. We have a specific date for those 30 additional days.

But as we mentioned, Mr. Chair, not everything is clear. Things are still rather murky. The NDP will not support the 30-day extension. Without having debated the bill in question, we are now talking about a motion that involves an extension, one that will not produce any of the results we feel it should. The 30 additional days requested will merely draw out the process without producing any meaningful results as far as Bill C-425's content is concerned. When this bill was agreed to at second reading and referred to the committee, we undertook our study without anticipating an extension of that study. We did not need the 30-day extension. For that reason, we will not be supporting the extension.

The fact remains that, in our view, this motion suggests that the government is trying to keep this bill alive. The arguments to support the extension do not add up and are not acceptable, in light of what we know from all the meetings allotted to this study. On June 21, we will no doubt hit the 60 sitting day deadline initially set out. We don't want the government to corner us into approving a 30-day extension. We sincerely hope that the government will change its mind and withdraw its motion. It is our position that more time is not necessary. And since there are certain things I cannot say, words that have been as good as banned in this committee, I won't mention them.

Still on the matter of the extension, I must say that we are quite obviously of the view that it should not happen. In every case, the limits of this bill—

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

But, with regard to the 30-day extension, it is imperative that we be given some clarification on why it is warranted. We need a clear and specific explanation of the reasons behind the extension. I'm being told that my comments are repetitive, but the fact remains that we were never clearly provided with the official reasons for the extension request.

It was pointed out that Bill C-425 remained very limited, but no statement was made—