Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 21st, 2006

[Mark Davidson]

I would have to agree that the two ways of doing it are either amending IRPA or having a much more dramatic amendment to the Citizenship Act that would involve amending many different provisions of the act and would potentially lead to issues about the motion being inadmissible.

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

So I make the point again to this committee that however well intentioned it is--and I think for two reasons.... To do it properly, we could do it in a different setting by amending those acts, but not here. I still think the point that Madame Folco made.... Certainly, to do it properly is going to be a new expenditure or a different expenditure of funds to ensure it can be carried out.

For those two reasons, I think this motion should not be passed. I think it would be inappropriate. Also, it wouldn't accomplish what the committee intends to accomplish. I think proceeding through the means of this bill is not the place to do it, and therefore I think we should vote against that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like to put a question to the officials who are here in the room.

At present, given that we do not have the regulations, we do not know how this will be applied. Will parents be advised to simultaneously present an application for permanent residency and an application for citizenship? That is what they will risk doing if there is no appeal and if the rights are not the same. I simply wish to ensure that that will be the case, in other words that parents will be able to present an application for permanent residency at the same time they make an application for citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Davidson.

[Mark Davidson]

The way the bill is structured, and it's structured this way intentionally, is to leave the option to the parent to either apply for a grant of citizenship or to apply for a permanent resident status for the child. The reason is that in some cases the parent may want to maintain the potential for that child to keep his or her foreign citizenship. So that two-track option is intended. It's up to the parent or the adult adoptee to make that choice to apply through the citizenship or the immigration process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Telegdi.

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

I have a follow-up question. Could somebody apply simultaneously under both acts--apply for citizenship under one and apply for status under the other?

[Mark Davidson]

It's conceivable that someone might want to do that. Clearly, we would encourage them to make the choice, because it would be a lot less work for them not to have to fill in applications under both provisions.

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

Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm getting at. It would be a lot less work for the government as well, if you could accomplish those things in one process versus two processes.

I can see the situation very well. If you get turned down in one, because you don't have an appeal to the appeal division, you're going to go with the other one in case you need to, as a safety thing. It ties up more resources for the government. It makes sense, in terms of what the lawyer said, to match them up as much as possible and eliminate the inconsistencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I raised that with the lawyer and asked him if that was a possibility. But whether that happens or not is not the issue here; the issue is that the amendment, as it stands, does not accomplish what you would like it to accomplish. The government didn't put a bill forward with the idea of a substantive appeal. That's something that could come under a different situation, through different pieces of legislation, or within the bill itself. It's not something we can do here, because it's amending another act. That's the point. Yes, it may be that two processes are used, but that's just the way it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

Madame Faille, and, then, if you're ready, we'll call for the vote.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Before voting on this amendment, I would like to know if either of these two procedures could prevent the entry of a child into the country. If the parents file a request for permanent residency as well as an application for citizenship, the two are concurrent. Will one of the two procedures prevent the child from entering Canada and prevent the adoption from being finalized and officialized in Quebec?

[Mark Davidson]

The short answer is no.

The Citizenship Act is about making people citizens and, by doing so, giving them the right to enter. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act--I'm being rough here--is about allowing individuals to become permanent residents, and therefore they can come to Canada. So the two acts work in tandem. It's not a question of one superseding the other, or one act talking to the other act and that having an implication.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ready for the question?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Abstention, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Madam Folco abstains.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The next one, of course, is identical to the NDP motion, so we'll just skip that.

Next we have the motion on page 4.

Madam Folco, are you ready to do your amendments?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comments relate to amendments L-1, L-2 and L-3. We could discuss each one of them in turn, but the same logic applies to all three age-related adoption categories.

For example, there are adoptions of children younger than 18 years of age, adoptions of young people aged 18 to 22, and, between the two, there are children who, when the adoption process is launched, are younger than 18, but have reached this age by the conclusion of the process.

It seems to me that for the latter two categories, namely those adoptees who are older than 18 and are therefore adults when they are accepted as adoptees, the applicants should be treated as adults under the legislation. This is where these sections come into play, for purposes of security and criminal record checks.

Therefore, amendment L-1 to Bill C-14, stating that "[...] be issued a certificate of renunciation [...] because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will engage in activity [...]", deals with the security and criminality checks that are normally carried out for adults.

In fact, it's the same logic that prevails for all three of the amendments. It's simply that they come in at different places within the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Maybe we should stop it there, because all three amendments are inadmissible, according to the advice I'm getting. Amendment L-1 seeks to amend section 19 of the Citizenship Act so that certain prohibitions to the gaining of citizenship would apply to persons under proposed subsection 5.1(2), and the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654 that:

An amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act not specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 19 of the act is not being amended by Bill C-14, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, L-1 is inadmissible. Amendments L-2 and L-3 have the same objective and also seek to amend sections of the Citizenship Act that are not amended by the bill, and they are also inadmissible.

So all three amendments, Madam Folco, are inadmissible.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Before you rule on that altogether, Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could have a copy of what you just read out. Because quite frankly, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure I understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, that makes two of us.

So we'll go on to amendment BQ-3 while Madam Folco's looking at that. That's on page 9.

Madam Faille, could you go to your amendment, please?

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Are we debating Madam Folco's motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's been rendered inadmissible.