Evidence of meeting #13 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, we're calling for a vote for a dissenting opinion to be attached to the report, for that report to be delivered to the House at tomorrow morning's sitting, for it to be sent to the clerk tomorrow morning electronically, and for it to be attached to the report to be presented in the House at that time. Is that what we're voting on?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Did you pass the main motion yet, Mr. Chair? We've dealt with amendments, but we haven't done the main motion as amended.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay, the main motion. A recorded vote has been called for.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
For clause 2, we have some amendments. The first one is by the Bloc--Madame Faille, I would imagine.
The amendment is that Bill C-14, in clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 26 on page 2 with the following:
was made abroad after February 14, 1977 if the Quebec authority responsible for international adoptions advises, in writing, that in its opinion the adoption meets the requirements of Quebec law governing adoptions.
Do you want to move that motion, Madame Faille?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I move that bill C-14, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 26 on page 2 with the following:
was made abroad after February 14, 1977 if the Quebec authority responsible for international adoption advises, in writing, that in its opinion the adoption meets the requirements of Quebec law governing adoptions.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The amendment in effect would eliminate the department's ability to prevent adoptions of convenience. No one from the Quebec government asked for the removal of safeguards against illegitimate adoptions or adoptions of convenience. In fact, the government has consulted with the Province of Quebec on this provision. They are in support of the safeguards that this motion proposes to eliminate, and we are opposing it for that reason. So we will be voting against that amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I am all in favour of the rights of the provinces, especially those of my own, Quebec.
However, I would like to hear Ms. Faille explain to us why she believes it is necessary to add this amendment, despite the fact that the rights of the provinces are clearly recognized in Clause 2 of the Bill, namely in subparagraph 5.1(3), where the text reads:
(3) The Minister shall on application grant citizenship to a person [...] if
(a) the Quebec authority responsible for international adoptions advises, in writing, that in its opinion the adoption meets the requirements of Quebec law governing adoptions; and
I do not understand. It would seem that Quebec's authority is clearly recognized in the process, under proposed paragraph 5.1(3)(a). I would like Ms. Faille to explain why she believes it is necessary to add this amendment.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Indeed, it is not an addition but rather a substitution, precisely because there was a paragraph to this effect. After consultation with the legislative clerk, we realized that the bill already covers this possibility of revoking a person's citizenship if he or she obtained it without a legitimate reason.
This section was included for the very purpose of reinforcing that. When we consulted the various interested groups, they very simply told us that they failed to see the relevance of this section.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I wonder if the department could comment on that proposed amendment and their view of it.
June 21st, 2006 / 4:30 p.m.
Mark Davidson Director, Citizenship (Registrar), Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In working on Bill C-14 we have consulted quite extensively with all the provincial governments, and particularly with the Government of Quebec, in crafting this particular clause. As drafted in Bill C-14, it would include a safeguard to ensure that adoptions of convenience were not permitted. The amendment would remove that safeguard in the context of children who are being adopted by residents of Quebec.
The clear indication we have had from the Province of Quebec is that they support the necessity of protecting against adoptions of convenience and would support Bill C-14 as originally adopted.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
I wonder if I could ask the departmental folks if there's perceived to be some deficiency in Quebec's adoption law that it would allow for adoptions of convenience. Is that why this is required, or is it redundant to repeat that here if it's covered by Quebec's adoption law?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Citizenship (Registrar), Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That provision is replicated in proposed paragraph 5.1(1)(d) when it also refers to adoptions of convenience, which would be the case for other adoptions. So this clause is not suggesting that there are more problems with adoptions of convenience of individuals destined for Quebec than for any other province. It's a problem across the board, therefore there need to be protections for individuals destined for any province, or for Canadians who are resident overseas and not coming back to Canada, where the provinces are not involved.
(Amendment negatived)
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Excuse me, but don't we still have to vote on clause 2, seeing as the amendment has been defeated?
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
There are more amendments. I think this amendment came from Mr. Siksay. It's identical to the next Bloc motion.
Mr. Siksay, do you want to proceed with that amendment, please?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Sure. I move that Bill C-14, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 2 the following:
(4) Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
I propose this motion specifically because of concerns raised by the Canadian Bar Association and others, who want to ensure that there is an effective and accessible appeal process for people who are denied citizenship under the provisions of this bill. That's why this motion is here.