Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

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

Thank you.

I just want to say that this was not a point of order. It was a comment on a ruling the chair had already made. I would remind all my colleagues that we do have processes and that they are there for a reason. Once the chair has made a ruling, to comment on it is not always necessary.

Thank you. I know that you are new to our committee and that other committees may operate differently, so I just want to put that out.

I will go back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

I might get the pronunciation right one day; I'm sure she will teach me.

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

Actually, Madam Chair—if I don't get interrupted to say that I am off the point again—that was perfect. You've said my last name perfectly. Thank you for your efforts.

This government wants to expand the scope of the bill, and doing that is outside the powers of committee especially when a private member's bill comes to the committee. That was just a response to one of the comments I heard from a member in this committee who seemed uncertain as to whether that was the goal of this. So I just wanted to make it clear that what the government, through the government members, is trying to do is to expand or change the scope of this bill.

Nevertheless, I would like to continue on how the issue of statelessness has been hammered home by witnesses and how we don't need to hear more from witnesses. We don't need to expand the length of study of this bill. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, there are two parts of the motion, the first part being the extension of the time to continue the study another 30 days and the second part being that there has been an application for the extension of the scope. So far I've only touched on the first piece. I have much more to go on the first half before I even comment on the second half.

I just finished showing you that the evidence already put forward to the committee has clearly demonstrated how Australia, another country that we compare ourselves to quite regularly, has safeguards to prevent statelessness with its voluntary renunciation of Australian citizenship. So let's move on to the revocation or the deprivation of citizenship in Australia and what they have in place to ensure that safeguards are available.

I'll let you know that for those who have citizenship by descent or by conferral, the minister may revoke a person's Australian citizenship if the minister is satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. So that was basically capturing the sense of paragraphs 34(1)(c) and 34(2)(c) instead of reading them all to you here. This provides the ability to revoke one's citizenship. The safeguards that they have to prevent statelessness here are within subsection 34(3), which reads that:

However, the Minister must not decide under subsection (2) to revoke a person's Australian citizenship if... (b) the minister is satisfied that the person would, if the Minister were to revoke the person's Australian citizenship, become a person who is not a national or citizen of any country.

So, clearly, in their legislation in the Citizenship Act of 2007 they have a safeguard mechanism to prevent Australian citizens whose citizenship is revoked from becoming stateless. Once again, this is a country we like to make sure we're on a par with or we like to make sure we have better laws than in order to protect people. Yet, witnesses have demonstrated to us that if we move forward with this bill we will be creating situations of statelessness in Canada, which is, of course, in contravention to the convention that we are signatory to. We don't need to debate this further.

We don't need to discuss Bill C-425 further to learn this, because it's already been made quite clear in the comparison between Canada and Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

I've gone through all three of these countries that we like to compare ourselves to regularly. This is yet another reason, Madam Chair, why I believe we don't need to extend the time of this study for another 30 days, and it's another reason why, Madam Chair, I will not be voting to support this motion.

Another country is, of course, our biggest neighbour and friend, the United States of America. They also have their legislation, and let's look at the U.S. immigration legislation. I can go quite into detail, but I have a feeling that the members may not want me to go into ultra detail. Much of the evidence that I am reiterating here, Madam Chair, is evidence that all the members of this committee have already read.

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

May I interrupt you for a moment?

Colleagues, it's understandable that people want to talk, but if you take it to the back of the room I don't hear every word.

Sometimes I am doing this more for the protection of the people who want to huddle because there are times when I can hear every word that's being said, and maybe those are words people don't want me to hear.

I'm just saying—

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

What about me?

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

I can always hear you, even when you're over there.

Anyway, the reason is that I have reminded people over and over again—members around the table, my apologies—that what we are going to do here is be respectful to the person who is speaking. If you want to whisper, that kind of thing goes on all the time but if I can actually hear the content of your conversation then you have crossed that line and I will call you back to order.

Ms. Sellah.

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

Madam Chair, I'm sorry if this caused a problem with what you heard. I simply wanted some clarification. The way I understand it, the text of the motion we need to debate today is on this sheet, right?

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

Yes, it is, the one that says “Option 1”.

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

Let me finish, please.

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

Yes. Is it a point of order?

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

Yes, it concerns this motion.

If I understand correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, according to Standing Order 97.1, the committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days—and I repeat—to study Bill C-425. Is Bill C-425 actually on this sheet, Madam Chair?

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

You are correct, it is Bill C-425 that we are here to consider, but also, at the same time—

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

Let me finish, Madam Chair, please.

It's An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), referred to committee on Wednesday, February 27, 2013.

Madam Chair, I'm not going back to my first point. In my humble understanding, every time I have come to the committee, points of order on the motion have not held up because, in fact, this motion talks about the bill. So she can cite examples and talk about this bill as much as she wants.

I would like some clarification on this and correct me, Madam Chair, if I'm mistaken.

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

I have given the same clarification a number of times, but I will do it one more time.

We are here to discuss an extension, to give the committee a chance to go to the House to seek an expanded scope to the bill and then for the committee to deal with that. That's what we're here to debate.

In light of that, I have said that as long as a person is speaking to that.... As I said, when you're speaking to a motion like this, it's not a yes or a no; otherwise we would not be here to debate. You can make reference to the content of Bill C-425, as long as it is relevant, and in the same way to the expanded scope. Both those rulings have been made. Clarification is given and has been given again. This particular motion has been read into the record a number of times by me. I am pleased that you had me hear it in French. I did follow the English version because it is right here in front of me.

For any member who speaks on this motion before this committee today, as long as it relates to what is in this motion, it is admissible. There is no time limit on how long they can speak. However, if they use either Bill C-425 or the Citizenship Act or the expansion of the scope as a stepping stone to talk about something totally unrelated, and do not relate it back to these issues, then the chair will gently remind members that it's time to come back to dealing with the motion. That is what the chair has clarified a number of times.

Ms. Sellah.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your clear explanations which I understood from the start. I was very happy to hear you say that we have the right to return to discussing the content of Bill C-425. Is that correct, Madam Chair?

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

What I have said is that in order to either say whether you support or oppose the extension motion.... The extension is not about nothing. It's not about a bus. It's not about a train or the timing thereof. It is about Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, and it's also about seeking expansion of the scope of the bill. Therefore, as long as your comments fit within that umbrella then you will not be ruled out of order. That is the chair's position.

Is that a new point of order?

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

So, it's fifty-fifty

I understand that it is a broad umbrella. We aren't just referring to the motion, but everything that relates to Bill C-425, correct? Forgive me for insisting on that, but I want to make sure I understand that clearly, Madam Chair.

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

Let me clarify that it is to do with seeking an extension for Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. If you're speaking on an extension for that bill, you can refer back to the bill as you are speaking to the extension. It's the same about the scope. My colleague Rick Dykstra, the parliamentary secretary, did not question that when I explained that earlier, and it has been accepted by the committee.

Let's move on and have Ms. Sitsabaiesan continue her discourse.

Ms. Sellah.

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

Madam Chair, forgive me for insisting, but this is very important to me. I understand that you have been here for a long time and we very much appreciate the efforts you make as well as those of all the people around the table. I congratulate you on your insight. However, with a new perspective—I came in from the outside—it seems to me that my colleague on the other side was raising a point of order on my colleague's statement. Her statement was about the content of Bill C-425. She was comparing the various countries referred to every day as federal countries.

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

Madam Sellah, I have been very lenient, as you've said, because you are new to the committee and to provide you with that clarification. I think you've stretched the limits of my leniency here. I think the clarification is very clear to everybody. With that in mind now—and I'm glad you sought the clarification needed—I would really like to get back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan so she can carry on with the debate.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to yield the floor to my colleague.

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

Never apologize. The only job the chair has is to make sure that the meeting functions and functions according to the rules and that everybody is treated with respect and that we have decorum.

With that in mind, we're back to Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At this point actually I would like to amend this motion by adding to the end. After the second paragraph, adding the line:

and that this request is to take place in the House on June 21, 2013.

Mr. Clerk, do you need me to read it again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Chair....

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

Do you want to be on the list? Okay, you're on the list.

Can I get the wording first? I have a speakers list and we will be debating this, so just be patient. I don't want to leave anybody out.

Could you read the wording again, please?

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

Absolutely, I can read it again.

So, I move to add the words:

and that this request is to take place in the House on June 21, 2013.

Do you need it again, Madam Chair?