Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;
(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;
(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;
(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54;
(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used;
(f) change the process for the revocation of Canadian citizenship on the grounds of false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances; and
(g) remove the requirement that an applicant be 18 years of age or over for citizenship to be granted under subsection 5(1) of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

On this amendment, I would actually support it. To do a review five years hence is not a bad thing. In my understanding, it does not mean that the changes made in Bill C-6 would come to an end, so that is to say it is not a sunset clause at all. The laws that have been passed accordingly after receiving third reading in the House will continue to be the law. It only means that it should come back as a bill to be reviewed by the committee and to determine or have an evaluation of how the changes have been.

This is the reason I support this. For example, I raised a number of amendments, though few of them were within scope, and the majority of them were defeated by the government members. The government members' argument is that we already have provisions in place. The ministers already have those authorities, and this is not an issue, and so on. But in reality is it going to turn out like that to say really, it's not an issue?

From my perspective, it is worth looking into it to see five years hence am I right, or are the government members right? If my concerns are not valid, it would be really good after five years to come back to indicate that, and then I could say that I didn't have to worry about that and it was all going to be okay and those issues were in fact addressed through different provisions, etc.

To that end, I would support this review, which is all it is. It's just a review and it does not create a sunset clause for the act itself, nor does it preclude the government from bringing forward additional amendments that we talked about at this committee meeting, which I suspect and hope will be forthcoming in the fall.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply unnecessary. It essentially establishes a sunset clause on Bill C-6. As this committee well knows, the committee has the authority and power to conduct any study at any given time on any citizenship or immigration program in this country. Passing this amendment to ensure that after a five-year period an automatic study and review is carried out is simply not necessary. In fact, the committee may wish to look at some aspect of the legislation and its effects before the five-year period is up. I think that simply by the nature of the authority this committee has, this amendment is not needed, so I will not be supporting it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Essentially this amendment proposes a five-year review clause. It would add a five-year review clause to trigger a parliamentary review five years after the coming into force. The text of the clause is before you, but I would like to read it.

At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.

Proposed subclause 26.1(2) says:

The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it's reasonable that this committee review the progress and the state of this legislation from time to time. Asking for this sunset type of clause is not unusual. Five-year review clauses are not uncommon here or in other committees. It seems that this is an appropriate piece of legislation to contain one. Our immigration patterns over the past quarter of a century have shifted, and that shifting is unlikely to change. It seems prudent, Mr. Chairman, to include a five-year review clause to monitor the health of one of Canada's most precious commodities, and that is our citizenship.

Bill C-6 is making some substantial changes to the law, and I think it's fair, Mr. Chairman, that we need to monitor. We've heard witnesses make some submissions. The committee hasn't agreed with some of them; we've agreed with others. I think it's prudent that this committee pass this proposed new clause to give us an opportunity in five years' time to review what we have done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that ruling. This amendment is another important one related to process. Perhaps it was an oversight at the time when the government brought in Bill C-6 that didn't address this, and it makes a better process. It makes for a more efficient process and a less costly process for individuals who are faced with such a circumstance. I hope the government will take this into consideration for potentially a fall piece of legislation around this issue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of clarification on clause 3, Mr. Chair, if it passes—and it will, accordingly—that means we keep the system intact as it is under Bill C-6 and as it is proposed with all the flaws, accordingly.

Am I correct in that understanding? I want that on the public record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act and another act in consequence. The amendment seeks to amend subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act. The bill seeks to repeal subsection 10(2) of the act. Whereas in subsection 10(1) of the act the minister has the power to revoke a person's citizenship, the amendment brings forward a new concept by giving the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board the power to decide the revocation of someone's citizenship.

This would go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed by the House at second reading. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “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.”

Consequently, it's the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This amendment deals with the second generation “born abroad” issue as well. As I stated earlier on some of the concerns with respect to that, this aims to remedy the situation in which a person born outside of Canada was adopted by a parent, as referred to in paragraphs 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) of the act, and is either a citizen under prior legislation or the former act or was granted citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(a) of the act as it read before April 17, 2009. In that respect, as committee members may know, the amendments that were brought forward around April 17, 2009, abolished the provision for those born outside, prior to their turning 28, but those who turn 28 after that period are actually now in a state of statelessness or are, as some would call them, lost Canadians.

This is another way to address this for those born in the second generation by bringing forward a provision such that all these individuals are Canadians so that they're not lost in the system per se. There was actually a really good submission from the Lost Canadians, on two small categories in need of better remedies, that was presented to all committee members, which outlines the history of this, and the rationale of calling for this change so that we can prevent a situation in which people are somehow lost in the system.

I'd just like to also point out comments made by the Canadian Council for Refugees. They actually stated that there are no measures in Bill C-6 to address the unfair situations created by the 2009 amendments, and that by denying citizenship to the second generation born abroad, Canada is creating a new set of lost Canadians and making some children born to Canadians stateless. Avvy Go, in her presentation as a witness, gave a really clear example of why this is a problem. She said:

Yes, I think that's an area that needs to be improved.

For instance, I have relatives where the husband was born in Canada and the wife wasn't. They're both citizens. I was advising them to make sure, when the kids are born overseas, that it's the father who applies for their citizenship, because if they apply for citizenship under the mother, their children may not become Canadian citizens. I think that example highlights the unfairness of the situation. I would certainly recommend that this provision be amended.

This illustrates the flaws of the current act as it stands, and this amendment is proposed to remedy that, Mr. Chair. So to that end, I move my amendment NDP-7, reference number 8213690.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Similar to my previous ruling, the amendment seeks to amend in this particular case section 2 of the Citizenship Act, which is not being amended by Bill C-6, and it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment, NDP-3, is also an amendment to address the issue of statelessness. In particular, this amendment is attempting to prevent individuals from becoming stateless.

Again, a number of organizations have presented to us and raised their concerns around this and felt there needed to be action taken with Bill C-6 to fix the problem. These include the Canadian Centre on Statelessness, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Dr. Patti Lenard, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The issue, as I indicated, is trying to address the concern to prevent individuals from being stripped of their legal status in Canada, resulting in their being stateless. The notion of statelessness is not considered as a factor in the assessment of granting citizenship by subsection 5(4), as it applies to cases of special and unusual hardship. The unique circumstances of statelessness present a challenge with respect to applying for subsection 5(4) grants. It challenges one's legal existence by nationality, citizenship, or birth certificates. This amendment is attempting to fix that problem accordingly.

One of the issues that has been raised, which I thought was particularly useful for consideration in this regard, is from the Ontario Legal Aid Association. Andrew Brouwer actually said, and I quote:

We are certainly hopeful that the new government's renewed recognition of the importance of international law and global engagement will result in our signing the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, but there is something that we can do right now with this act to make sure that we are better protecting stateless persons and coming into better compliance with international law and norms.

To that end, three recommendations were made to which these amendments speak. Those were to provide a definition of statelessness within subsection 2(1) of the act. Then it also asks to include both a de jure statelessness as well as a de facto statelessness.

Practically speaking, the whole point of dealing with statelessness and assisting stateless persons to get protection is to make sure that every member of society has a connection to a state. There are concerns that have been expressed by various people, including those in a case in the United Kingdom that shows the problems when we have an overly legalistic and narrow definition of statelessness.

That's what these amendments are aiming to fix. Again, this is an issue I think that crosses all partisan lines because those constituents are everywhere in every part of the community.

I move the NDP-3 amendment in my name, Mr. Chair, reference number 8223108.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

In regard to NDP-2, the amendment seeks to amend section 3 of the Citizenship Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 766 and 767:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 3 of the Citizenship Act is not being amended by Bill C-6, it's therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.

[Mary-Ann Hubers, Director, Citizenship Program Delivery, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to correct my response to Mr. Tilson's questions during my April 12 appearance about the new seizure of document authority in Bill C-6. Mr. Tilson asked about the grounds under which the new seizure authority could be exercised. During that exchange, I responded that in the act it says that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent. The regulations would prescribe the factors that could go into that and then in dealing with the detained document.

I want to clarify that officers will rely on the authority in the act, and not the regulations, to seize fraudulent documents if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Before clause-by-clause consideration begins, we have department officials here who would like to make a short clarification of some earlier testimony.

Go ahead, Ms. Hubers.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Tabbara.

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today.

My question is directed to you, Ms. Go and Mr. Wong. I want to first congratulate the work of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic for their advocacy on immigration and other related issues. I'm aware that the majority of your clients are of Chinese descent. I speak as a member of this committee but also as a Chinese Canadian to say that I know how two-tier citizenship doesn't work. We know that Chinese Canadians arrived in Canada in the late 19th century and were subject to the Chinese head tax, the Chinese Exclusion Act, and were treated as second-class citizens. I always say that we use history to learn from the mistakes of the past and to guide us moving forward.

My question is related to what you believe can be done to better support marginalized groups that come to Canada. The Chinese were in Canada to help build the railroad, a job that Canadians at the time were not prepared to do. As we all know, the House issued a formal apology 10 years ago. The last spike, which was presented to the Prime Minister at the time, was lost, and most recently found again. This symbolizes how the Chinese were not given a pathway to citizenship and were not treated as equal citizens.

We know that many people come to Canada as live-in caregivers, as temporary workers. Do you believe Bill C-6 goes far enough to provide them with a pathway to become full citizens?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

In the case where minors are without a parent—for a whole variety of reasons—they are precluded, under Bill C-6, from making an application for citizenship. Other witnesses have come forward to say that we should have provisions to address that issue, along with that of people with disabilities.

I have probably less than 30 seconds now, so I'm splitting that among all of you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

If a group of individuals are deemed to be stateless and are in that situation for a whole variety of reasons, I wonder if you have any suggestions as to whether or not an amendment should be brought forward under Bill C-6 to address these groups of individuals.

I'll open it up to all the presenters.