Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We should get moving, I suppose, because my watch says it's half past the hour, right on the button. We'll get on to our agenda.

First on the agenda is the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

We had our first steering committee meeting on Wednesday of last week, I believe it was. Essentially, we dealt with three items on the steering committee agenda. The first recommendation was that the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-14 on Wednesday.

I think we can just leave that one and go on to Bill Siksay's motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government place an immediate moratorium on deportations of all undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks while the new immigration policy is put in place; and

That the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

The third recommendation was that the committee undertake a work plan. You have the work plan there.

Does everyone have a copy of the report? The work plan is there, as you can see.

The first one is not in any way controversial, is it—that we would try to get on to clause-by-clause by Wednesday on Bill C-14?

Okay. I guess we will talk a little bit about Bill Siksay's motion. Are there any concerns anyone would like to raise?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have a concern I'd like to raise, Mr. Chair, at some point, if Mr. Siksay wishes to address it. As I understand it, the first two motions in their entirety have been withdrawn or are not before this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

They're not before the committee.

I'll just go to Bill first on his motion. Bill.

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

Thank you, chair.

You'll remember that I tabled three motions and referred them to the agenda subcommittee. We decided that the first two could go to the times when we discuss the question of undocumented foreign workers, regularization, and temporary foreign workers, but there was some feeling at the agenda and planning committee that the third motion—the one that's before us now—was more urgent, given that there were—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That will be dealt with probably in the agenda items we're going to talk about.

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

Right. The other two will be dealt with on the back page of this report.

But there was some sentiment at the agenda subcommittee that we should deal with this one now, given that undocumented folks were currently being deported, notably Portuguese workers in the Toronto area, mainly in the construction industry, but also folks originally from Pakistan, and that this was causing considerable hardship for their families. Also, there was considerable concern that they were making a substantive contribution to the Canadian economy, that their work was necessary, particularly in areas like the construction trades, and that to remove these people despite the fact of their adaptation to Canada and their contribution to the economy was an inappropriate way to proceed.

The motion asks that those deportations be stopped where there are no issues of criminality and security, and that a new policy be put in place to deal with the circumstances of these people, and that until that new policy is in place there be no further deportations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Bill.

Ed.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I had raised the issue directly with Mr. Siksay, and certainly in my own regard I feel that the motions themselves are made pursuant to Standing Order 108. I think it would be fair to say that it would be, to my mind, inappropriate to have a report go to the House when it's really not a report, particularly in light of the fact that, as I understand it, one of the issues we're going to be dealing with in fairly urgent priority is the undocumented workers as a whole. It would be number two in our items, and it certainly could be number one. I don't have an issue with saying that it's important enough for the committee to have a look at, and I certainly would have invited Mr. Siksay to amend his motion to say that the matter would be one of the considerations of the committee. There are obviously two points of view, two issues, to the whole issue that is raised in his motion, and it should be something that the committee considers from both sides before they make a recommendation.

More importantly, I find that Standing Order 108 was not meant for the purposes that we are now using it on a regular basis, to do motions of various kinds for whatever reasons. They are meant essentially to be for studies and reports. If we look at Standing Order 108(1)(a)--and this is a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like you to rule on--standing committees have a number of ways that they report to the House. First, the House under Standing Order 108(1)(a) can request that a committee study a matter and report. If we look at the words that they use, they talk about “study and report”.

We go to Standing Order 108(2), and it says:

(2) The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House.

It also says:

In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:

a number of issues that relate to its mandate, and its mandate, of course, is pretty wide and varied and deals with matters related to its general policy and operations on immigration.

When we look at Marleau and Montpetit, it talks about, very specifically, what a committee is entitled to do. It says that the committee can hear witnesses, get points of view from various interested parties, hear all of the aspects, and after they review it and after they hear it, they then put forward a report. It indicates very specifically what the report is to look like in terms of summarizing the evidence, the issues, and putting the conclusions forward by way of recommendations and motions such as Mr. Siksay has proposed to the House to consider, and the House then reports back. But without considering a shred of evidence, without calling any witnesses or doing anything in the nature of what's considered to be a report, we're asking this House to respond to something that has no substance to it. The House would probably report back and say, study the situation and have a look at what the appropriate recommendation should be.

I would say that it would be an abdication by this committee to simply proceed with a motion without doing any review whatsoever, and pass it off to government to respond in 120 days, because this, at most, is all that's going to be accomplished--a response to that motion.

We look at the Oxford definition of the issue of a “report”, and it's defined quite simply as normally an account given or an opinion formally expressed after an investigation or consideration. The word “review” means an assessment of a subject or thing. These are conditions precedent to making the matter come before the House. So I don't think we can put forward motions this willy-nilly because of any particular reason without giving this committee the opportunity to actually debate it, discuss it, review it, call witnesses if necessary, and do it in a proper fashion, and then put it in the form of a report to the House.

To simply have a motion that gives a conclusion without the committee doing anything, and having any business to do anything, except make a point of order is irresponsible, I think. It doesn't put the committee members in the place where they should be, and it is an affront to them. I myself consider that having to vote on an issue without having any basis or facts upon which to rely is an abdication of my duty.

So I strongly, on a point of order, would oppose a motion that is not a report going forward to the House. I would, therefore, take issue on a point of order and say that this motion is inappropriate under Standing Order 108 and should not be allowed, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Are there any further comments on the motion?

Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't think this is quite willy-nilly. The committee has been around and has heard many witnesses on this issue. You see how the issue of undocumented workers has really moved up on the priority list on the agenda.

One of the things I mentioned when we were debating this in committee is that we have probably 2,000 to 3,000 people who have fairly serious criminal records that fall into that category on whom our resources should really be focused in terms of apprehension and deportation, versus undocumented workers who are contributing to the economy. The minister said that when he was in front of us, recognizing that these undocumented workers are making a substantial contribution.

The two previous ministers had indicated that they wanted to deal with this issue. The last minister we had before the government fell, Minister Volpe, tabled a work plan with this committee. His number one priority was undocumented workers. It didn't just start from there. It was built upon by what was done by Minister Sgro prior to that.

The reality is that we've had numbers of incidents pertaining to this issue. I must say, the government actually did the right thing, and I say that very sincerely, as it pertained to the situation in schools where officials for security were going in and using kids as bait to get their hard-working parents--which has been documented.

Again, there was a report on the news last night where an undocumented worker came forward and reported a crime, which helped to put a pedophile behind bars. The Conservative government did the right thing on that--they landed her--because there was this whole policy issue about whether we were going to punish good Samaritans.

But the fact of the matter is that this is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been around. It might be new to the parliamentary secretary, and I understand that, because the parliamentary secretary hasn't served on this committee before. I dare say, if you go through the witnesses we have heard, you'll see that quite a bit of work has been done and we have heard from witnesses on this.

It just doesn't intuitively make any sense--it's a high priority for the committee, and I'm sure it must be a priority for the department, and I hope it is--that you would be spending resources on going after undocumented workers who are making a contribution to the Canadian economy. Essentially, I don't see any problem in dealing with this at this time. I'm very sincerely hoping that the government will put their focus on those criminals who we all agree should be put out of this country, instead of going after somebody who's making a contribution to the Canadian economy on an issue that we are dealing with.

So we will be supporting this motion that is before us, and I very sincerely hope the government acts on it in good faith.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Boris, you have a point, and I will take one more point from Ed, and then we'll see what we're going to do to move on to our witnesses.

Boris.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

In fact, I'll be echoing some of the statements made by Mr. Telegdi.

This is not, as was presented, a new issue. The issue of undocumented workers has been with us for quite a while. It's an issue that's been treated with great seriousness by this committee in the past. Some of the terminology used by Mr. Komarnicki was really unfortunate, when he said that this was a willy-nilly attempt at changing the process, and he used the words “willy-nilly”.

We're dealing with human lives. The previous government had come forward with a work paper on how to deal with this very serious issue. We're in fact trying to save this government from itself, because it's this government that's been proceeding willy-nilly, sending law enforcement officers into schools to hold kids as ransom to get at their parents and separating families. Canadian-born children are being separated from parents who are being deported.

The motion puts a moratorium on this to try to prevent the Canadian government from proceeding in a manner that's having a tremendously negative impact on people's lives, people who've lived here for many years, worked hard, and have no criminal records. There are no security concerns about them.

We can proceed with evidence to take a look at and to give careful thought on how we should start the process of landing these people. In the meantime, let's do the right thing and put a moratorium forward so that we don't make mistakes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Borys.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So we're not confused on the issue, there's obviously much in terms of compassionate grounds that we as a Conservative government have taken into account. As Mr. Telegdi has indicated, we have acted compassionately and will continue to do so. When you compare the record of what we've done in the short term that we've been in government against what the Liberal governments have done, you will find that we've done fewer deportations than the Liberal governments have done.

Why was there not a moratorium after 13 years? It's a problem that didn't arise yesterday; it's been there. It's been there for a long time, and you've done absolutely nothing.

I don't take issue with the substance of the motion, because it's something we need to consider in the study, it's an important issue, and it's an issue that needs direction from this committee. What I am taking issue with is this committee abusing Standing Order 108, using it for something that it was never intended to do, and trying to do a report, which is not a report, by way of a motion. It's a discredit to this committee.

If you follow this particular Standing Order 108, you need to do a report. A report would require you to bring forward the evidence that you have, put it before the committee, and put it in report form so that it can go forward to the House.

The compassions are great, the importance of the case is great, and we've done more in the short term than you've done in 13 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

But that's not the issue. The issue is jurisdiction. You're trying to abuse Standing Order 108, and I don't want to be a party to it or responsible for that kind of report, which is not a report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A point of order has been raised and some authorities have been quoted. I've asked the clerk to check the various authorities.

We'll take it under advisement and we'll get back to the committee. If we have a committee meeting tomorrow on Tuesday, we can get back to you then. If not, we'll be back on Wednesday.

We'll check the various authorities that you've quoted.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Chair, if Bill was here, he'd tell you that the committee does what the committee does. I don't feel that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki has raised a point of order.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Well, he's raised a point of order. We can have a ruling on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

He's cited various authorities. We need time to check out the authorities, and I've asked the clerk to do that. We'll come back on Wednesday with a ruling at that time.

Mr. Siksay, I'm reluctant, because it's 10 minutes before 4 o'clock.

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

I hear you, Mr. Chair.

I only want to say very briefly that I believe the committee has often proposed this kind of motion to a very specific issue, recommended a very specific action, passed it after debate at the committee without necessarily hearing witnesses, and reported it to the House. I see that as being very consistent with our past practices and I take serious issue with the parliamentary secretary's arguments on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll certainly take that into consideration when we're checking the various authorities.

Can we move along to number two on the agenda?

We have witnesses today on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.

I want to welcome on your behalf four people from Citizenship and Immigration: Rose Kattackal is director general of the Integration Branch; Mark Davidson is director of Citizenship (Registrar); Alain Laurencelle is counsel, integration and admissibility team, legal services; and Karen Clarke is acting manager, policy and program development, citizenship division.

Welcome to our meeting to talk about Bill C-14.

I will pass it on to Rose.

[Rose Kattackal, Director General, Integration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Chair.

I will present a short deck to you and then we'll be very happy to answer your questions. The experts are here with me today, so hopefully we'll be able to do that.

I am delighted to be here today to talk about Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption). I would like to explain the proposed amendments.

Bill C-14 is the culmination of many years of work involving stakeholders, members of Parliament, standing committees, and Parliament as a whole. This is a redesigned, modern piece of legislation that reflects Canada's national and international obligations.

The content of today's presentation is as follows: the purpose of the amendments, a summary of the bill; information with respect to who is eligible; certain criteria to be met with respect to adoption; adult adoptions; the review process; a brief discussion of the coming into force of the legislation; and a comparison between the current Act and what is proposed in the bill.

As regards the purpose of the amendments, the proposed legislation would facilitate access to Canadian citizenship for foreign-born children adopted by Canadian citizens. It would reduce the difference in treatment between children adopted by and children born to a Canadian parent outside Canada.

Under the proposed amendments to the Act, children adopted by a Canadian citizen would be able to acquire Canadian citizenship as soon as the adoption was finalized.

Now I have a few words on the summary of the bill.

The bill would allow any person adopted outside Canada after February 14, 1977, by a Canadian parent to become a Canadian without first having to become a permanent resident. Adoptive parents may still choose to sponsor their child through the immigration process. And you may ask why. For example, this may occur if the adoptive parents are concerned about the child losing his or her nationality of origin should the child's country of birth not recognize dual citizenship.

Adoptive persons would no longer have to meet the citizenship grant requirements of permanent residents seeking citizenship, including, where applicable, residence, language, knowledge, and oath of citizenship.

To respond to charter concerns, all adopted persons would no longer be prevented from acquiring citizenship for any criminality or security issues. The reason for this is to reduce the difference in treatment between children born to and those adopted abroad by Canadians. Adopted persons cannot be subject to prohibitions. This is a matter of equity. Children born to Canadians outside Canada are also not subject to these prohibitions. Also, making a distinction between persons based on age may also raise charter concerns; for example, having prohibitions apply to adoptive persons who are 18 and older, but not those under 18.

The proposed criteria for adopted persons seeking citizenship reflect the criteria listed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations.

Who is eligible? As soon as the provision comes into force, any person residing in or outside Canada who is adopted abroad by at least one Canadian parent after February 14, 1977, can apply for citizenship under this process. The provision is available to persons adopted after this date because this is the date the current act came into force. Children born outside Canada to a Canadian parent after that date are citizens.

Persons not eligible: neither parent is a Canadian citizen at the time of the adoption; and it is not a full adoption, that is, a simple adoption or guardianship.

Slide 6: I'll say a few words on children adopted in Canada. Some countries, as you may know, do not allow adoptions or do not allow people who are not their citizens to adopt a child from their country. Other countries may only allow a guardianship arrangement to allow the child to leave the country and enter Canada with the intention of being adopted in Canada. IRPA contains a provision to allow a child to be sponsored and enter Canada as a permanent resident with the intention of being adopted in Canada by the sponsor.

If there is an intention to adopt the child, until the adoption is completed in a province or territory, the child is not considered to be adopted. The proposed provision would only apply to children who have not yet been adopted and who enter Canada with the intention of being adopted. It is important to note that immigration recognizes a broader set of relationships for sponsorship purposes than the relationship recognized for citizenship. Citizenship only recognizes the parent-child relationship. Until the adoption takes place, the legal relationship between adoptive parent and adopted child does not exist. Once the adoption is completed, application for citizenship is possible.

At the same time, the adoption must meet certain criteria: first, the adoption of a minor must be in the best interest of the child; there must be evidence of a genuine parent-child relationship, it must meet the legal requirements of the country of adoption and the country where the adoptive parent resides, and finally, it must not be an adoption of convenience.

Adoption of adults must meet the above criteria, with the exception of “the best interests of the child”, and be approved once it has been established that a genuine parent-child relationship existed prior to the child turning 18, and at the time of the adoption.

I will cover a few of these criteria for you in slide 8.

The adoption must be in the best interests of the child. CIC will check that there is evidence that an approved home study has been completed and that the child has undergone a medical exam for the purpose of providing the prospective adoptive parents with information about the medical condition of the child. An application will not be refused for a medical condition.

As part of the citizenship process for children destined for Canada, CIC visa officers will request confirmation from the province or territory where the adoptive parent resides to confirm that the province or territory approves the international adoption, or has no objection, as the case may be. This process will reflect what already happens under immigration and refugee protection regulations, and it acknowledges provincial-territorial jurisdictions in adoptions.

Slide 9: genuine parent-child relationship. The adoption must have created a genuine parent-child relationship that permanently severs legal ties to the child's biological parents. Simple adoptions and guardianships do not meet this requirement, but may qualify for permanent residence. As you may recall, I said earlier that some foreign countries do not allow or provide for full adoptions to take place in their country. They may allow the child to leave the country and enter Canada with the intention of being adopted in Canada. So the adoptive parents will still have to sponsor their child through the immigration process, in cases where the adoption is going to take place, and/or be finalized, in Canada.

Slide 10: legal adoption. The adoption must be completed in accordance with the laws where the parent resides and the laws where the adoption took place. For parents residing in Canada, the province or territory must confirm that the adoption is valid and that it meets Hague Convention standards. Included is a special provision recognizing the unique adoption provisions of the Quebec Civil Code. Uniquely, Quebec law does not finalize an adoption until the child is residing in Quebec, even if a full adoption takes place outside Canada. Without this provision, children destined for Quebec would have to go through the immigration process to enter Canada, because they would not have access to the provisions in Bill C-14 until after they arrived in Quebec and after the adoption was recognized by the Quebec Superior Court. This provision must be in the act, not in the regulations, to allow access to citizenship for children destined for Quebec.

For adoptions where the families are remaining abroad, the decisions of the country of adoption and the country of residence of the parents will be respected. Where the foreign authorities do not require home studies or medical examinations, this provision will provide CIC authority to request such evidence.

Slide 11: adoption must not be undertaken primarily to gain immigration or citizenship status, or the primary purpose of acquiring privilege or status under IRPA or the Citizenship Act. Essentially this refers to adoptions of convenience, which would be refused. Officers are given the delegated authority to grant citizenship to foreign-born children adopted by Canadian citizens because they have the necessary knowledge and experience to assess foreign adoptions. This is how we will make sure that adoptions of convenience do not happen.

Slide 12: adult adoptions. Persons who are adopted when they are 18 years of age or older at the time of the adoption will be eligible for citizenship under this provision, providing there is a parent-child relationship that existed before the person turned 18 and at the time of the adoption.

The adoption must also meet other criteria, including that the adoption was legal and met the applicable requirements as to where it took place and where the adoptive parents reside; that it created a genuine parent-child relationship; that it not be subject to the “best interests of the child” criterion, because after the age of 18 you're considered not to be a child; and that it not be an adoption of convenience.

An example of where this might occur is when the child is residing with a foster parent before the age of 18 and, only later when the child is an adult, it is decided to make the parent-child relationship permanent through adoption. Including adult adoptions is necessary for charter reasons.

There will be a review process, which is explained on slide 13. Applicants whose application is refused by a citizenship officer may apply for judicial review. This is the same review mechanism available for other negative decisions rendered by the minister or his delegate under the Citizenship Act. If the judicial review is negative, failed applicants would also have access to the Federal Court of Appeal and, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Other applications for which the minister or delegate is a decision-maker are those for the grant of citizenship for children under 18 and the issuance process for citizenship certificates; that is, proof of citizenship.

Delegated citizenship officers determine who is and who is not a citizen under the act. A judicial review would allow the court to review the reasonableness of the decision of the visa officer, who would be acting as a citizenship officer. Currently, a full appeal to the Federal Court on fact and law is not available in either the citizenship or immigration context. From a policy perspective, giving full appeal rights to the Federal Court to one group creates an inequity. The same can be said for giving access to the IAD for refused citizenship applications for adopted children.

Slide 14 deals with coming into force. The provisions will come into force after the regulations and adoption are completed and on a date to be set by the Governor in Council. This means that applications can be submitted on or after the date the provision comes into force. Adoptive persons who have an existing application for citizenship when the provision comes into force can be assessed under the new provision.

Finally, slide 15 compares the current and proposed legislation. Under the current act, you would have to apply for permanent residence for the adopted child; and if qualified, the child would enter Canada as a permanent resident. Under the proposed Bill C-14, it would then become the same: an application for Canadian citizenship; if qualified, granted citizenship; and then entering Canada as a Canadian citizen.

That's the end of my presentation. We'd be very happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Before I go to Andrew, you mentioned charter concerns--that adopted persons were subject to criminality or security prohibitions. Can you tell us the nature of the charter concerns there would be? I don't think you explained to us what the nature of the charter issues would be if adopted people were subject to criminality or security prohibitions. Do you have any information you can share with us on that?