Bill C-24 (Historical)

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things, update eligibility requirements for Canadian citizenship, strengthen security and fraud provisions and amend provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions.
Amendments to the eligibility requirements include
(a) clarifying the meaning of being resident in Canada;
(b) modifying the period during which a permanent resident must reside in Canada before they may apply for citizenship;
(c) expediting access to citizenship for persons who are serving in, or have served in, the Canadian Armed Forces;
(d) requiring that an applicant for citizenship demonstrate, in one of Canada’s official languages, knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
(e) specifying the age as of which an applicant for citizenship must demonstrate the knowledge referred to in paragraph (d) and must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of one of Canada’s official languages;
(f) requiring that an applicant meet any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income;
(g) conferring citizenship on certain individuals and their descendants who may not have acquired citizenship under prior legislation;
(h) extending an exception to the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent to children born to or adopted abroad by parents who were themselves born to or adopted abroad by Crown servants; and
(i) requiring, for a grant of citizenship for an adopted person, that the adoption not have circumvented international adoption law.
Amendments to the security and fraud provisions include
(a) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who are charged outside Canada for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament or who are serving a sentence outside Canada for such an offence;
(b) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, while they were permanent residents, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring those persons from acquiring citizenship;
(c) aligning the grounds related to security and organized criminality on which a person may be denied citizenship with those grounds in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and extending the period during which a person is barred from acquiring citizenship on that basis;
(d) expanding the prohibition against granting citizenship to include persons who, in the course of their application, misrepresent material facts and prohibiting new applications by those persons for a specified period;
(e) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after having been convicted of certain offences;
(f) increasing the maximum penalties for offences related to citizenship, including fraud and trafficking in documents of citizenship;
(g) providing for the regulation of citizenship consultants;
(h) establishing a hybrid model for revoking a person’s citizenship in which the Minister will decide the majority of cases and the Federal Court will decide the cases related to inadmissibility based on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights or on grounds of organized criminality;
(i) increasing the period during which a person is barred from applying for citizenship after their citizenship has been revoked;
(j) providing for the revocation of citizenship of dual citizens who, while they were Canadian citizens, engaged in certain actions contrary to the national interest of Canada, and permanently barring these individuals from reacquiring citizenship; and
(k) authorizing regulations to be made respecting the disclosure of information.
Amendments to the provisions governing the processing of applications and the review of decisions include
(a) requiring that an application must be complete to be accepted for processing;
(b) expanding the grounds and period for the suspension of applications and providing for the circumstances in which applications may be treated as abandoned;
(c) limiting the role of citizenship judges in the decision-making process, subject to the Minister periodically exercising his or her power to continue the period of application of that limitation;
(d) giving the Minister the power to make regulations concerning the making and processing of applications;
(e) providing for the judicial review of any matter under the Act and permitting, in certain circumstances, further appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal; and
(f) transferring to the Minister the discretionary power to grant citizenship in special cases.
Finally, the enactment makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would delete the “intent to reside” provision related to the resumption of citizenship. Again, the Liberals are opposed to the intent to reside provisions of this bill, and this amendment would delete them from the resumption of citizenship provisions of Bill C-24.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was reading a quotation when I was interrupted. I was wondering whether I could read that quotation. It was by Ms. Sheryl Saperia from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Here is the quote again:

I understand from last week’s hearing that Minister Alexander envisions a two-step process in his ministerial discretion. The first step would be to examine the substance of the foreign offence and whether it is equivalent to a Canadian Criminal Code terrorist act. This is set out in the legislation. But the second step of the review, which was described as an examination of the fairness of the process by which the conviction was achieved, is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. I would recommend an amendment in this regard.

That's the same point I was making earlier. That second piece, whereby the examination of whether a person had a fair trial before the conviction that they may have reached in another jurisdiction in another country, is not clearly articulated in this bill, and there has been no change made to that effect. That is another reason I cannot support clause 8.

Time after time, the Canadian Bar Association, CARL or the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, CASID, the local Toronto legal clinic.... There are many other organizations that presented as witnesses or that just sent in a written submission to our committee speaking to the unconstitutionality of this clause in Bill C-24. Considering that it has not been amended at all....

I can go on for many more hours, but I choose not to, Mr. Chair. All these reasons and more are reasons that I cannot support clause 8.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we're going to resume. We are debating clause 8 of Bill C-24.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is pretty clear that I will not be supporting clause 8 as well, as per what my colleague mentioned.

It's quite unfortunate that members of the government on the committee are not willing to actually listen to any of the recommendations we heard in the pre-study we did of this bill. We heard.... I'm not going to give you an exhaustive list of the witnesses and what they said, but I do want to talk about some of the issues that were outlined by some of our witnesses and about why I can't support clause 8 of the bill.

For example, you have heard me speak at length about UNICEF, because I think the best interests of the child are important. In the written submission they sent to us, UNICEF mentioned that the “best interest” determination process should be applied in cases in which there is the potential for families to be separated following the revocation of citizenship of a parent, when there are children involved.

If a parent is going to lose his citizenship, what is going to happen to the child? It's not clear now, if the parent is going to be deported because they lose their Canadian citizenship, what will happen to the child. If the family is being separated and a child is left to fend for themselves, is that acting in the best interest of the child? We are a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we are not acting in the best interests of the child.

I won't belabour that point any further; however, with respect to the new section 10 of the Citizenship Act that would be created through clause 8 of Bill C-24, we heard from the Canadian Council for Refugees, who suggested deletion of the new proposed powers to strip citizenship as a whole and amendment of the bill to include a provision explicitly stating that citizenship cannot be removed.

Citizenship shouldn't be treated like a driver's licence; it's not a privilege. I feel that it's a huge privilege to be a Canadian citizen, yes, but it's not something that can be taken away for punitive reasons. If you are a citizen, then you are a citizen—period, end of sentence. It's not something that a partisan minister should have the ability to take away from you for whatever reason.

What we've seen as a pattern in the bills that have affected this citizenship and immigration committee, whereby the minister has more and more discretionary powers to do x, y, or z—and this time it's about the revocation of citizenship—is that every bill that has come before this committee has seen an increase in discretionary powers for the minister, and that just isn't right.

We even had the minister appear before the committee and say many things about the clause 8 revocation section when crimes committed in another jurisdiction are involved. He said that's not really what they were trying to do, and that he's a nice guy, so he wouldn't revoke somebody's citizenship for something that wouldn't be treated as an equivalent crime here in this country. That's great that he's a nice guy and won't do that.

But that's not what the law says; that is not what is written down. What happens if tomorrow he's not the minister and somebody who is not a nice guy becomes minister? Does that mean that this new person will revoke someone's citizenship, and is that the plan?

I don't know. I can only go by what is in ink. The ink on the paper and the experts who have come before this committee have told us that it's very much not clear. Who was it, was it the Canadian Bar Association...? I remember Professor Macklin, who was representing the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

I'm going to quote very briefly from her. She said: “I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional.” She then said, “I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine.”

She's right. If we're dealing with the criminal justice system, when a crime is committed in our jurisdiction or in another jurisdiction outside of this country, it shouldn't be the Minister of Immigration who acts as judge and jury. It really should be a judge—or maybe a jury—and not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who has the powers to just take away somebody's Canadian citizenship.

We heard from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, OCASI, and also the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, who both said that all of the new grounds for revocation of citizenship for dual citizens should be removed, because clause 8 in this bill is actually discriminatory.

The Conservatives on this committees are happy to write a law that is discriminatory towards people who have dual citizenship just because, through their birthright or because they were born in another country or because they choose to keep citizenship in another country.... They are going to be treated as another class of Canadian citizen. That's just not fair. It is discriminatory practice, a prejudiced practice. As lawmakers, we can't condone that type of behaviour.

That is another reason I will not be supporting and just can't support clause 8.

Once again, OCASI and the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic—I wish they had come up with a brilliant little name like OCASI for them as well—said to remove all of the new discretionary powers that are given to the minister. I agree with them. These are two groups that are representing a large number of people who live in the greater Toronto area. I, representing that community, agree with these organizations, who are speaking on behalf of so many of our constituents in the GTA.

We also know—I think it was from the lawyer Robin Seligman, when she appeared before the committee.... She is the one who mentioned that people who have a parking ticket have more rights than people who are having their citizenship revoked.

I'm pretty sure it was her who also outlined to us the way in which Canada can revoke the citizenship of people who may have a second citizenship—for example, Jewish Canadians who have a right to citizenship to Israel, who have never been there before, but just because they are practising, they have that right to that citizenship—for a crime that may have happened.

That is “may have happened”. It's not something we have clear, distinctive proof for, because we can't necessarily trust the judicial system in another country. Do we know that it's of the same quality or calibre as the Canadian judicial system? We don't. In many of these countries in which there are civil wars happening, do I necessarily trust the independence of the judiciary? No. I come from Sri Lanka, and many of the members of the committee have heard me speak about that country and the crimes that take place in that country. Do I trust the judiciary in that country? No. I know that the judiciary is not independent in that country, because the chief justice was impeached by the government because she issued a decision that wasn't supportive of the government.

So I know that in the case of that one country, for example, I can speak with confidence. We can't trust what comes out of the judiciary in that country, because they might say that somebody was convicted of a crime and had a fair trial, but does that mean we're now going to accept it?

It's not clear in the law. That's why I'm belabouring this point; it's not clear. I want to look at witness testimony from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It was by Ms. Saperia. She said:

I understand from last week’s hearing that Minister Alexander envisions a two-step process in his ministerial discretion. The first step would be to examine the substance of the foreign offence and whether it is equivalent to a Canadian Criminal Code terrorist act. This is set out in the legislation

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are at clause 8 of Bill C-24. No amendment could be made to this clause. I think it is important to discuss it.

As I said earlier, clause 8 concerns the revocation of citizenship under the minister's discretionary power. This is one of the main points that has been debated in Canadian civil society and among the experts who appeared before this committee. I will mention only some of the witnesses who opposed this provision of Bill C-24, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and, of course, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. The Canadian Arab Institute stated in a brief that it had sent to the committee that it was opposed to the possible revocation of citizenship.

Several experts appeared before the committee. Some expressed their disagreement with the revocation of citizenship, and others pointed out that the act of stripping a Canadian citizen of citizenship and not allowing that person to appeal the decision was probably unconstitutional.

Now I am going to recall the remarks made by Ms. Macklin, who is an executive member, professor and chair in human rights law on the faculty of law at the University of Toronto and a member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. When she appeared before the committee, she told us these citizenship revocation provisions were probably unconstitutional. She said the following on that subject:

Can you revoke somebody's citizenship in order to punish them for what we'll call crimes against citizenship?... Here's what the Supreme Court of Canada said about that kind of approach:

Then she cited the Supreme Court, which had rendered a judgment on the subject, and she made the following comments on its decision:

In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada stated quite clearly that punishing somebody by depriving them of their constitutional rights, indeed, by denying them all constitutional rights and casting them out in the name of the social contract, is not constitutional.

This lawyer, who is a member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, raised some major concerns about the constitutionality of this clause. And she was not the only one who did so. The Canadian Bar Association, which also appeared before the committee, has published its opinion several times in newspapers, in briefs and on the Internet.

Here is an excerpt from what the association says about the revocation of citizenship:

Taking away citizenship from someone born in Canada because they may have dual citizenship and have committed an offence proscribed by the act is new. That's a fundamental change. For people who are born here and who have grown up here, it can result in banishment or exile. It's a step backwards, a huge step backwards—and it's a huge step being taken without any real national debate or discussion about whether Canadians want their citizenship amended in that way.

Once again, a group of legal experts raised major concerns about the constitutionality of this aspect. I think we have to take this seriously. We have often seen the Conservative Party make decisions that were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. I think there is probably a lesson to be learned from that. Bill C-24, which preceded the one we are studying today, also encountered quite serious problems regarding its admissibility.

There is the constitutionality aspect, of course, but there are also all the issues surrounding the debate on justice and the creation of two classes of citizens. That is also a major and fundamental element. I am taking the time to discuss them because we are voting on a clause that has raised enormous concerns among the civil population and the experts in this country and that will make a fundamental change to Canadian citizenship.

We must ask ourselves the following question: why two classes of citizens?

For a single offence, if a person had or might have a second citizenship, he or she would not be entitled to the same judicial process as another person who had only one citizenship. I am not saying here that the sentence might be minor or undeserved, on the contrary. The experts agree that our judicial system provides for harsh penalties for crimes such as high treason and terrorism.

However, consider someone who was born in Canada of Canadian parents, who knows only one country—Canada—and perhaps only one language and who has no attachment to another country. Why should he be denied the same judicial treatment as a person who was born in Canada, and has only Canadian citizenship, simply because a parent has given him or her citizenship in another country? That is the problem. The question here is not whether committing terrorist acts is a serious matter. I believe everyone agrees on that. The NDP agrees that terrorism is an act that merits penalties consistent with the seriousness of the crime.

The bill goes a little too far because it could have the effect of revoking the citizenship of Canadians who were born in Canada to Canadian parents. I am not the only person who has said this. I am echoing the public and the experts who appeared before our committee. This is what disturbs me, just as it disturbs the official opposition and a lot of other people. I am startled to see that the government has accepted no amendments to clause 8 and that we are preparing to vote on a measure with such serious consequences.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Okay.

Liberal amendment 7 would reverse the onus in Bill C-24 so that the minister would have to prove that the affected Canadian has a second citizenship. In our view, reverse onuses are rarely used in Canadian law. When they are, it's only in the most extreme of circumstances. If the minister has gone through all the work to prove that a Canadian should have their citizenship revoked, then they should also be able to prove that their target also has a second citizenship. It shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the Canadian to prove a negative.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a major problem that witnesses pointed out during the study of Bill C-24. One witness even said that a person whose citizenship might be revoked had fewer legal rights than another who had received a parking ticket. I think that shows how ridiculous this provision of Bill C-24 is. For that reason, the NDP will support the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 31. We are studying, clause by clause, Bill C-24, which is amending the Citizenship Act and other acts.

We have the same officials before us that we had yesterday from the department, in case members have technical questions.

(On clause 8)

I think we finished Green-4, which failed, and we now have Green-5.

Ms. May, I assume the legislative clerk has spoken to you and he has pointed out to you that he's recommending to me that the amendment proposed by you is inadmissible. I concur with him. Do you wish me to go further?

Basically the amendment intends to delete the entire clause. When you do that it's out of order because simply voting against the adoption of the clause would have the same effect, and that comes from O'Brien and Bosc at page 768. So the ruling essentially is that parliamentary practice does not permit a member to do something indirectly what cannot be directly. Therefore, Ms. May, I declare that the amendment is inadmissible.

So, we now proceed to....

Well, there doesn't seem to be anyone to move, so we will proceed with Liberal amendment 7. I don't see anyone making the amendment for that either.

You know, I'd like to be reasonable here.

I'm going to suspend for a minute.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have finished the consideration of the amendments to clause 3. However, clause 3 is huge and contains a number of changes, as you have seen. A variety of amendments have been proposed to clause 3.

I want to begin by saying that the NDP supports several elements of clause 3. For instance, we agree that access to citizenship should be facilitated for permanent residents who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have agreed with that aspect since the bill was introduced, at first reading, and we still agree with it.

We also support the fact that the bill makes certain clarifications regarding the length of residence. Indicating the number of days helps people who apply for citizenship be aware of the eligibility criteria in terms of residence. The NDP also agrees with that.

Those are just two examples. Clause 3 is broad. I just wanted to point out that the NDP supports several aspects of that provision.

Unfortunately, as we debated earlier when the amendments were put forward, clause 3 has many shortcomings. Consequently, the NDP cannot vote in favour of that provision, despite some of its worthy elements.

One of the most significant shortcomings or aberrations, if I may say so, is the declaration of intent to reside in Canada. I would like to mention a few groups that expressed their disagreement with that aspect of Bill C-24.

Representatives of the Canadian Council for Refugees appeared before us and presented their brief. They said they were against the declaration of intent to reside. OCACI, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers also said they were against that requirement, as did the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group and Parkdale Community Legal Services. The Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic and the Canadian Bar Association were of the same opinion.

I will not list all of them. However, you will understand that the vast majority of the witnesses who have appeared to speak to Bill C-24 expressed explicit disagreement with this element regarding the declaration of intent to reside.

Moreover, lawyer groups, such as the Canadian Bar Association, questioned the constitutionality of this aspect of the bill's clause 3.

When the minister appeared before us to discuss this bill, he answered some questions specifically about this element. He said it was not his intention to use the declaration of intent to reside to revoke the citizenship of someone who would no longer reside in Canada after becoming a citizen. So it is not the minister's intention to use this element in such a way. However, can we rely solely on a minister's intention and good faith to gauge the worthiness of a bill's provision? The answer is clearly no.

If that is the minister's intention, we have to make sure that the bill's wording reflects it appropriately. The current wording makes it seem like, if someone must declare their intent to reside in Canada, they could have their citizenship revoked under the pretext of having obtained it by making a false statement. This is not only the opinion of the NDP, but also of a number of experts I mentioned earlier.

A door is being left partially open, and that is very dangerous. This requirement could be unconstitutional.

Let's consider the following case. Members of a family have obtained their citizenship. Before becoming citizens, they had to declare their intent to reside in Canada. However, a few months after they obtained their citizenship, a relative living abroad became very ill. Some family members had to go to the other country to take care of the sick relative, as we know perfectly well Canada is unlikely to allow an ill relative to come live here. So those individuals, who may have made the declaration in good faith, could be forced to leave the country. In addition, owing to the bill's wording, those individuals could have their citizenship revoked.

This raises many concerns, in addition to creating instability in the plans of individuals who become Canadian citizens. That's a huge problem.

We cannot allow Bill C-24 to be passed as it is currently worded without ensuring that the minister's supposed intention is expressed properly. Legal experts who have testified before this committee are almost unanimous in saying that this is not the case.

For that reason, we will clearly not be able to support clause 3 of Bill C-24. There is reason for concern because, if the Conservatives support the bill as it is worded, precedent could be created. That would allow the minister to revoke the citizenship of an individual who, after obtaining their citizenship, may leave the country for potentially legitimate reasons.

That's only one example. I could go on about this for a long time. However, I have summarized the main reasons for the NDP's strong opposition to clause 3.

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

Mr. Chair, I spoke of the UNICEF brief earlier. There are recommendations that are clearly outlined by UNICEF in their brief, and I'm going to read recommendation number three for the committee so that everybody is aware of it. The recommendation is as follows:

That the proposed amendments requiring children aged 14 to 18 to successfully complete both language and knowledge testing be removed altogether or, at a minimum, that testing be adjusted in a manner appropriate to such children’s age and/or experience.

That's very clear. That is what UNICEF is recommending, and we're not doing that in Bill C-24. This amendment proposed by the NDP, amendment B as we're calling it, actually does that. We're listening to what the witnesses have had to say.

I know that Madam Blanchette-Lamothe went over the other agencies who suggested the same thing, such as the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, and OCASI. I think the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers might have also. I don't remember off the top of my head; there are a lot of briefs that have come to this committee.

We're also not taking into account the migratory paths that these children may have taken before they came to Canada. If you were a child of war, or of many precarious situations that these children may have come through, they may take more than the four years that a child who hasn't had a more precarious, or more of a—I don't want to say that one situation is better or worse than the other. We have to be looking at the fact that these are children, and these children's minds and lives are impacted in different ways than those of adults.

It seems the government is going to oppose NDP amendment B, which would protect these children. It just doesn't make sense. We're saying that it doesn't matter how this young child's mind is impacted by their migratory path; we're saying that it's the same requirements for them as for all adults who come into this country. We're trying to get them citizenship, and it's just not fair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to add to what my colleague has mentioned. She outlined how many of the witnesses spoke to how this is unfair. I want go through a bit of what UNICEF mentioned, because we are signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and by creating this situation through Bill C-24, we are creating a situation whereby children may be separated from their parents.

If parents here in Canada don't pass the test and are not able to be become citizens, but the child passes it, or vice versa, then we are effectively separating a child from its parents. According to all definitions that I am aware of, “under 18” is the definition of a child, and in this bill, this government is effectively trying to say that children 14 and above are actually not being considered as children and not being treated as children and given that special treatment.

We need to make sure that we have a child rights-based approach to the legislation that we are putting forth and the changes we are making, because we are a state party to the convention. UNICEF clearly outlined that in their presentation and in their brief they sent to us. The changes being proposed here are actually in contravention of quite a number of the articles of the convention that we are engaged in.

In UNICEF's brief, they talk about article 1, which talks about the definition of the child, and that's the age piece we're in breach of with this bill. Article 2 is on equality and non-discrimination for children, which we're in breach of. Article 3 is on the best interests of the child, which we're not looking out for. Article 5 is on the integrity of the family, which we are in breach of. Article 6 is on the survival and development of the child, which we are in breach of. Article 7 addresses birth registration, nationality, and protection from statelessness, and we are creating a situation whereby these children might become stateless. Article 8 relates to family relations. Article 9 is the protection from arbitrary separation from their parents, which we would be in breach of. Finally, there is article 10, which is family reunification.

I'm of the understanding that because we are a party to the convention these are all issues that are important, and they are really fundamental to who we are as Canadians, which is that we look out for the protection of our children. There are far too many articles of the convention that we are in contravention of with the changes that Bill C-24 creates. That's why I will be supporting the NDP amendment, which protects the rights of the child through citizenship. We're trying to ensure that there's a child rights-based approach to Canadian citizenship.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you.

Along the same lines as the previous one, this amendment deals with the knowledge and language testing that Bill C-24 would impose on youth between 14 and 18 years of age.

The committee heard from a number of experts who voiced their concerns and opposition to this part of the clause, for very obvious reasons. Even department officials weren't able to tell us what would happen to children who failed the test, but whose parents had passed it. The only answer we were given was that it would be a rare occurrence.

It may be a rare occurrence, but it could happen. And the committee did not receive a satisfactory answer regarding what would happen to these children in this case. If a child in a family doesn't receive citizenship but their siblings and parents do, will the family have more trouble at the border when leaving Canada for a trip?

UNICEF representatives were among witnesses who voiced those types of concerns to the committee. They objected to imposing language testing on 14 to 18 year olds. A number of other groups and organizations were also opposed to the measure, including the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community of Canada, the Canadian Council for Refugees and OCASI. All of these witnesses appearing before the committee denounced the measure in Bill C-24 targeting 14 to 18 year olds.

There is a long list of people who object to the provision. And that is why the NDP wants to propose an amendment to prevent children in that age range from being subjected to the testing; if they do not pass, they will be denied citizenship, while their siblings and parents could receive it.

That is my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I'll keep it brief for this amendment since I talked a bit about it earlier.

The amendment would delete lines 23 to 26 on page 11, which pertain to the age limit under which people are subjected to the language and knowledge tests.

As I said earlier, Bill C-24 seeks to raise the age limit for the testing requirement to 65. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, my amendment seeks to keep the age limit where it currently stands, at 55.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Green Party it is.

We're talking about Green Party amendments PV-2 and PV-3. I've looked at them and I'm going to rule them inadmissible. I believe, Mr. Méla, the legislative clerk, has spoken to you.

For the record, I happen to agree with the legislative clerk. One of the goals of clause 3 of Bill C-24 is to provide faster access to Canadian citizenship for permanent residents who are enrolled in or attached to or seconded by the Canadian Armed Forces. The amendment speaks about permanent residents who are not part of the Canadian Armed Forces, and therefore it goes beyond the scope of the bill. In that case, we refer to the procedure book of O'Brien and Bosc, page 766, which says:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

I make the same ruling for Green Party amendment PV-3, and therefore I declare that the Green Party amendments PV-2 and PV-3 are inadmissible.

We now move to Liberal amendment LIB-5.

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

As my colleague mentioned, I was talking about the wrong amendment. There are so many I got confused. My apologies.

The amendment currently before the committee would amend how the amount of time spent in Canada is calculated for individuals who travel outside the country for professional reasons. That would include airplane pilots or salespeople who travel abroad for work.

Many permanent residents have to travel for work, and it is extremely beneficial to Canadians for them to do so, especially in the case of airplane pilots. But, in its current form, Bill C-24 would penalize these individuals for time spent outside Canada, even for professional reasons. The NDP finds that unacceptable and believes the situation has to be rectified. These are working individuals who are doing what is expected of them as future citizens, and they shouldn't be penalized for that.

Thank you for giving me a chance to correct myself.