Evidence of meeting #12 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was karygiannis.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If that child's citizenship flows through the adoption, they would be treated the same as if the parent had—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
So they will not be able to adopt anybody else in the future?
4 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
They may be able to adopt in the future, but citizenship would not flow directly from that adoption.
4 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
That is correct, just as, if they had a natural-born child outside of Canada, that natural-born child would also not have citizenship directly.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chairman, in that particular clause on page 8, I would like to include the words:and a parliamentary review happen within five years from the adoption of this bill.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You are going to have to have that properly drafted, according to the legislative clerk. You just can't....
Are we getting into amendments here now?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
No, I just want to know whether the legislative clerk could put the words I said on paper. It's not very hard to do. It was done in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which plainly stated that a parliamentary review would be done within five years.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, perhaps if we could agree on the principle, we could then discuss the wording. However, if, as I believe, the committee cannot agree on the principle, then the next step, discussing the wording, is out of the question.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I think it's a fair point. We can put a vote to that principle, and if it's defeated, you don't have to look at the specific wording, if that's the issue. I think we know the intention of where he wants to go. Put it to a vote, and if it fails, let's move on.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
It's that a parliamentary review be done on this legislation within five years.
This is not a sunset clause. This is a legislative review that asks, are we succeeding; are we going in the right direction; has the department done the right thing in advertising and letting people know, if they're first and second generation?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You've heard Mr. Karygiannis' motion, I suppose you could call it, that a sunset clause be included—not a sunset clause, but that a parliamentary review take place in a five-year period.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 13)
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
There was an issue that Mr. Davidson can explain, but there seems to be, at least in the English version, either a typo or something missed in subclause 13(3), where it says—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
This is page 9 in the bill, page 43 in your book. Does everyone have clause 13 open, on page 9?
13. (1) In this section, “other Act” means An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption), chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007. Is it right there?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
February 13th, 2008 / 4:05 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, thank you, sir.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes. If the committee members go to page 44 of the clause-by-clause, I think they'll find the little typo that exists here.
This clause is repeating a lot of the language that exists in Bill C-14, which has recently received royal assent and come into force. There are three provisions here that use the phrase “on or after January 1, 1947” in the English.
In the third example of this phrase, which is the example on page 44—again, only in the English—the word “or” is missing from the provision.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's the word “or”. You'll see on line 8 of page 10 of the bill that it says—and it doesn't make sense, of course—“a decision was made abroad on after January 1, 1947”. That's a typo. It should be “on or—
