Evidence of meeting #30 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizenship.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Good afternoon.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 30. Today's meeting is televised.
We are in clause-by-clause discussion of Bill C-24, which is an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
Before we start the process, we have four individuals before us.
We have Nicole Girard, director general of the citizenship and multiculturalism branch. Good afternoon to you.
Next is Alexandra Hiles. Is that correct?
Alexandra Hiles Acting Director, Citizenship Program Delivery and Promotion, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's Hiles.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're the acting director of citizenship program delivery and promotion.
Karen Hamilton is a lawyer from the Privy Council Office—
Karen Hamilton Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Sorry, I'm from the Department of Justice for CIC.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
Also, we have Mary-Ann Hubers, a senior policy analyst.
Members of the committee, these ladies are here to answer any technical questions you may have.
I guess we'll just start at the beginning and see how we do today. We will leave the short title, which is clause 1, until the end, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), which says we should do that.
(On clause 2)
We move to clause 2, and we have a proposed amendment by the New Democratic Party.
Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have indeed proposed an amendment to clause 2 of the bill. It deals with the citizenship of second-generation individuals. The legislation passed in 2009 eliminated these people's ability to access Canadian citizenship. And the NDP has been opposed to the measure ever since.
Bill C-24 on citizenship—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry. I was remiss.
I think the procedure I'd like to follow when amendments are made is to actually have them read. I think most members have the amendment in front of them. This is a public meeting, and I think we should do that before you start into your rationale for the amendment. That was my fault, so could you read the amendment?
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No problem.
The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 2, be amended (a) by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following: “(1.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(f)(iii) of the Act is repealed. (1.2) The portion of paragraph 3(1)(i) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (i) the person had been a citizen other than by way of grant, ceased to be a citizen for a reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (f)(i) and (ii), was subsequently granted citizenship before the coming into force of this paragraph under any of the following provisions and, if it was required, he or she took the oath of citizenship:” (b) by deleting line 36 on page 5 to line 25 on page 8. (c) by adding after line 16 on page 9 the following: “(15.1) The portion of paragraph 3(7)(a) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following: (a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(c) who was, before the coming into force of this subsection, granted citizenship under any of the following provisions after ceasing to be a citizen by way of grant for any reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (1)(f)(i) and (ii) is deemed to be a citizen under paragraph 1(c) from the time that he or she ceased to be a citizen:”
Now I will explain the rationale behind my proposed amendment.
Although it may sound a bit dry, the amendment, in a nutshell, is intended to give Canadian citizenship to second-generation children, a right they lost when the 2009 legislation came into force.
Since then, the NDP has viewed the measure as an injustice and believes that Bill C-24 can rectify the situation. So we are proposing an amendment to right the wrong done in 2009, whereby second-generation children lost the right to have Canadian citizenship passed down from their parents.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, we support the NDP amendment because we think it represents an improvement.
We also support the overall clause on lost Canadians, but would just caution that work is not totally done there. There are still some quirky cases that have not been resolved, but it's certainly an improvement.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, this amendment would provide citizenship to more individuals who currently do not meet the requirements for citizenship, including to persons born abroad beyond the first generation, and it would remove the first-generation limit.
The government does not support this amendment because it would extend citizenship to persons born beyond the first generation who do not necessarily have a closer attachment to Canada. This prevents the passing on of Canadian citizenship to those with little or no attachment to Canada—the original clause—so we would prefer to keep it that way.
The provision in the bill addresses most cases of lost Canadians. Any remaining exceptional cases will be examined on a case-by-case basis, and there may be a case on occasion for a discretionary grant of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.
For those reasons, we cannot support this amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
(On clause 3)
We have a Liberal amendment, LIB-1.
Mr. McCallum.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Mr. Chair, the technical amendment is:
That Bill C-24, in Clause 3, be amended (a) by deleting lines 7 to 22 on page 11 (b) by deleting lines 31 and 32 on page 14.
In general, we oppose the government on eligibility requirements for citizenship. We think that by increasing the barriers to citizenship the government is devaluing citizenship and sending a message to prospective new Canadians that they are not welcome here.
On the specific amendment, we delete the intent to reside provisions of clause 3. We're opposed to these provisions because this committee has been repeatedly warned by lawyers that these provisions are almost certainly unconstitutional.
Minister Alexander has effectively told us that these would be for show and nothing more, but he was later contradicted by his own officials, so it's not clear that the government itself understands these provisions, and we don't think they should be in the bill. That's the foundation of our proposed amendment.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
On the subject of the declaration of intent to reside in the country, I agree that Bill C-24 contains a flaw. A tremendous number of witnesses said they were against the declaration of intent to reside.
If the committee is serious about the study that was done and the expert testimony heard, it cannot turn a blind eye to the major flaws tied to the declaration of intent to reside. One concern the experts raised was that citizenship could be revoked if someone declared their intent to reside and then, owing to an unforeseen circumstance in the future, had to leave the country after obtaining their citizenship.
The minister said that the current wording of the bill wasn't intended for that purpose and that he didn't view the declaration of intent to reside in that way. According to experts, however, including Canadian Bar Association representatives, regardless of what the minister intended, the bill in its current form could result in someone's citizenship being revoked, precisely because of the declaration of intent to reside.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chair, the amendment would seek to remove the intent to reside requirement from citizenship grant applicants. It would also remove the minister's ability to waive the intent to reside in Canada requirement in the case of minors.
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment because the requirement in the bill sends a strong signal that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their home, which would help deepen their attachment to the country and deter citizens of convenience. Once newcomers become citizens, Mr. Chair, we all know that they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians.
For those reasons, we will be opposing this amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You have a proposed amendment. We do allow for that, as you know, and I'll just clarify it. I know you've appeared in other committees as an independent member—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
—and I'm not going to read our Standing Order 12, except the last paragraph. You are allowed to make the amendment; in fact, it's deemed to have been made. This is for other members:
(c) during the clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill, the Chair shall allow a Member who filed suggested amendments, pursuant to paragraph (a), an opportunity to make brief representations in support of them.
That's always an interesting question, what brief means. This whole process of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 is time-allocated. That's essentially what the motion that was passed said. So I'm going to allow for an amendment.
You're allowed a minute to make representations to the committee, Madam.
