Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay. Fantastic.

I was just trying to help. I'm going to move forward, Madam Chair.

The reason I'm speaking of the countries that we like to compare ourselves to on a regular basis—that is New Zealand, Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—is that on a regular basis in our committee we like to compare our practices and policies to these four countries. Bill C-425 has already been made clear to us by the witnesses who have presented themselves in front of this committee and presented testimony, reports, or follow-up, which they've sent to our committee and that all of the members of the committee have read. We already know what we've heard from the witnesses.

So the reason I'd like to make sure that I'm putting this to you now, Madam Chair and to the members of the committee, is to prove—to demonstrate—that we don't need another 30 days of extension of study because the witnesses have already proved it to us. If we were to invite them again after extending this study period for another 30 days, they're going to come and make very similar arguments. We already have very clear arguments that have been made by witnesses.

That's why I'm providing this evidence to you, that these arguments have been made, the ones that I've been making to you. These arguments have been made and they're very clear. These are the reasons why we don't need to extend our study period. It's why I will not be supporting this motion that is on the table in front of us right now. I hope that's clear for the members opposite.

When I was speaking of statelessness there were actually a few members of the committee who wanted to hear the evidence of these countries because they felt it was important to make sure that this evidence for the countries that we like to regularly compare ourselves to is actually put on the record.

Let's talk about safeguards against statelessness in Australia, which they have in their legislation with respect to the voluntary renunciation of citizenship. In case we've now forgotten which legislation I'm quoting from, it is the Australian Citizenship Act of 2007.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Could I have a little bit of order, please. Please lower the volume a little bit. That would help.

I'm not saying it was from this side. When I hear it I just say it.

Let's carry on.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Australian Citizenship Act of 2007, subsection 33(7) reads: The Minister must not approve the person renouncing his or her Australian citizenship unless the Minister is satisfied that the person: (a) is a national or citizen of a foreign country immediately before the Minister's decision on the application; or (b) will, if the Minister approves the application, become a national or citizen of a foreign country immediately after the approval.

So in Australia, another country we like to compare ourselves with, one cannot voluntarily give up Australian citizenship unless, before the minister approves—of course, through the official forms, format, and processes that they have, and I'm not going to talk about those—the person can clearly demonstrate to the minister that they have already received citizenship of another country or will receive citizenship of another country as soon as the minister signs that application or declaration or form or whatever it's actually called, and approves that application for renunciation of citizenship.

With the voluntary renunciation of citizenship in Australia, the prevention of statelessness is clear. We want to make sure—and I'm going to keep hammering this home—that Canada is not in contravention of the convention that we are signatory to. We signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

As legislators, as people who have been given the responsibility to ensure that we are doing our due diligence, we in this committee who provide advice to the other members in the House need to ensure that we are not giving them wrong advice, and that we are listening to the advice that has already been presented to us by witnesses.

We don't need to hear more from witnesses on this topic, because it's clear that if we continue with Bill C-425, we will be creating stateless people in this country. We don't want to do that. This has already been made clear to us by witnesses, Madam Chair. That's why we don't need to study this bill further. This bill has been studied. It's a private member's bill and it has received the due process that is warranted, based on the schedule that the government members of this committee set as to when we would study this bill in this committee.

The evidence I'm presenting to you—and I have much more to present to you, Madam Chair—is very clear. We have heard much testimony, and it is clear that we don't need to study this bill further. That's why, Madam Chair, I will continue presenting evidence to you that will demonstrate to you further that we don't need to study this bill any further.

[An hon. member]

They want to expand the scope, don't they?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

They do want to expand the scope. They're changing the scope of the bill, and that's also something that is outside—

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I would remind members around the table to talk through the chair and not with another colleague sitting next to you, just to be respectful of the process we have here.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

We are a committee. It's always better if we remember that it's not a two-way conversation; it is actually a debate.

Thank you.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. You're correct that we should be going through the chair.

Through the chair, to answer one of the queries I think I heard in the room, Madam Chair, yes, the government is actually changing the scope of this private member's bill, which has come before this committee. As I read earlier from O'Brien and Bosc, second edition, a committee on its own doesn't have the powers to change the scope of a bill. It's beyond the powers of a committee to expand or narrow the scope of a bill.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

On a point of order we have Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Chair, I just want to suggest that the member is now speaking again about the scope of the bill rather than the relevant motion that's on the table regarding the extension of the private member's bill, Bill C-425.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I want to draw everybody's attention to the second part of the motion. That is where it says: On...April 23, 2013, the Committee recommended to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-425 to expand the scope of the Bill. The Committee is awaiting for a decision of the House before further considering the Bill. Therefore, your Committee requests an extension of thirty sitting days.

That's what it is, and it does capture the question of scope. But debate still has to be relevant. I will stress that.

Please carry on.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I think there is another person on the point of order.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Mr. Harris is first.

Mr. Harris, you heard my brilliant comment—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I was satisfied with your brilliant comment, because I was going to point out in response to Mr. Dykstra that the desire of the government members to change the scope of the bill is perfectly within the motion that's before us right now. If I were speaking about this bill, that's the kind of thing I would be talking about, and I think I would be in order, as I think you've ruled.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Thank you.

Ms. Sellah, is it a point of order?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Please carry on.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I thank my colleague for the point of order. I am intervening in the same spirit. As I have already mentioned a number of times, our colleague from the government side…

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

I want to remind you, Ms. Sellah, that I have already ruled on the point of order you are discussing. I ruled in favour of the person who is speaking, and that is that members can choose to speak to the expansion of the scope of the bill and that doing so is certainly within the parameters of what they can talk about. I think that's what you were trying to say. That was the question raised, and I responded.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

No.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Oh, you have a different point of order?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, Madam Chair. I hadn't finished what I was saying when you interrupted me because my colleague opposite raised his hand.

[The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims), NDP, Jinny Sims]

Please carry on.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I was talking about broadening the scope of this bill. I would like to repeat that my colleague's speech is related to this motion. She was explaining why we are not studying this bill and was talking about that expansion. That is a point I wanted to raise.