Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 2nd, 2014

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see nothing but friends around this table, but I do want to put on the record once again that I'm here not because the committee has allowed me as much as that somebody on high passed the same motion for every committee, to require that, should I want to make amendments, I'm no longer permitted to make them at report stage, and any MP in my position, either representing a smaller party or serving as an independent, must report to committee on the timetable we receive from the committee.

I will be brief. I'm getting used to this rule now—60 seconds per amendment—and I'm using up my time, so let me move on to the amendment itself. I put on the record that I don't like this process very much, but I'm here, and I hope it won't be unpleasant for any of the rest of you, because you're all my friends.

I'm trying again—as previous amendments have tried to do—to clarify the intent to reside section of the bill. We don't want to put a permanent resident who wishes to stay as a citizen in a position where they have the burden of proof of intent to reside. Therefore, my amendment is very straightforward. It's based on a suggestion from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. It is a marginal improvement only, to change the language that says “intends, if granted citizenship” to “has expressed the intention, if granted citizenship”. This will make it much clearer and it will not require the minister to divine the individual permanent resident's intentions. It is consistent with what the minister said before committee in response to a number of members’ questions. I would hope that this might be accepted as a clarification consistent with the minister's testimony before this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You got a minute and three quarters, there. That's all right.

Debate.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the government does not support this amendment because, as I said earlier, the requirement in the bill sends a strong signal that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their home. We want to deter those seeking to become citizens of convenience, while at the same time not affect the mobility rights, of course, that all Canadian citizens enjoy today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would support the amendment. I'd rather see this clause gone altogether, and I think my colleague would as well. However, I think it is an improvement. I think the government's position is illogical, because they seem to be saying that the minister and the parliamentary secretary both said that once you become a citizen, you have full rights of citizenship, in which case it doesn't apply.

We've gone through this before. I guess a majority government has the right to be illogical, so I will support the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, we've heard repeatedly from Canadians that citizenship should be granted to those who intend to live in this country. Canadians are not illogical. We represent them here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of the amendment?

No, Ms. May, you don't get to vote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I know. I'm just hoping it gets counted.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Nice try.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe, I'm going to change my mind about reading the amendments. You're right; they are boring. I think that everyone making a speech will say what the amendment is. We all have copies, so I'm going to change my mind, which I do from time to time.

The next amendment is from Mr. McCallum, LIB-2.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm glad that I don't have to read it, because it's very simple. We propose returning the language testing requirements to the status quo, which is ages 18 to 55. In particular, we think it's unnecessary and somewhat mean-spirited to impose language tests on those aged 55 to 64 because they could be just as good citizens as anyone else. For those of that age coming from a certain country, whose English may not be the best, it's likely their children and grandchildren will speak perfect English.

We object to this as yet another unnecessary barrier to citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'd like to discuss the age at which the language and knowledge testing is administered. Most of those who appeared before the committee talked about the problems that could arise in that connection. For that reason, I am going to support the amendment.

Later, you will see that the NDP has proposed an amendment to that end, and for more or less the same reasons.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, this amendment proposes to decrease the upper age limit from 65 to 55 for applicants to demonstrate adequate knowledge of one of our two official languages in this country. We really cannot support it. The government will not be supporting the amendment.

We believe that an adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages, as well as knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, helps immigrants to successfully integrate into Canadian society. It makes them better prepared as they assume their responsibilities of citizenship, and provides a better opportunity for more successful outcomes for them.

By increasing the age limit at the upper end to 64, the act better reflects the age limit of working Canadians, Mr. Chair, and helps ensure that immigrants are able to find employment to support themselves and their families.

This amendment would go against the objective of the act, which is to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship. The government will be opposing this amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Next is New Democratic Party amendment NDP-2.

Madam Blanchette-Lamothe.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned earlier, according to all the input we heard from experts and those on the ground working with citizenship applicants and newcomers, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the age for the testing requirement is entirely arbitrary.

My colleague just said we need to make sure that immigrants are able to integrate into Canadian society. If that is indeed the goal of this provision, it has been completely lost. This has nothing to do with immigrants, but people who have been living in Canada for a number of years and are seeking Canadian citizenship. So this isn't directly tied to integration.

My amendment proposes that the age limit for the language requirement remain at 55, instead of being raised to 65, as the Conservatives are proposing in Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Mr. Chair, we're talking about amendment NDP-2. I will be supporting the NDP amendment, because we've had witness after witness after witness.... I think this is the one where I was doing a poll of many of our witnesses who came before this committee. This is about the value of permanent residents in this country and the value of the time of people in their pre-PR time in this country.

We've had many people testify that international students, for example, who come in through the Canada experience class program of immigration, spend at least four years here as international students doing their undergraduate degree, let's say, and usually they are working here and paying taxes. They're integrating and learning life as Canadians in our universities or in our colleges. Bill C-24 is saying that those people don't have any value and that their time spent here in Canada doesn't have any value.

This amendment actually makes it so that their time during their pre-PR time is valued. We need to make sure of that for people who are coming in through the experience class, such as the international students, or even the live-in caregivers, who, depending on their arrangement with their employer and their work permit, are spending years here raising our children in this country. Yet we're telling them that their time here in Canada—the taxes they pay to this country, their integration with our society, whether they're volunteering in our communities, our hospitals, or our nursing homes, whatever it might be—has no value. That's not right. That's why I will be supporting amendment NDP-2, which says that all of these people do have value and that their time spent in Canada does have value in their pre-PR time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, I think my colleague might have actually been speaking about amendment LIB-3, which has to do with permanent resident time while in Canada. I think this NDP amendment has to do with giving time to permanent residents working for Canadian companies overseas. We had a Liberal amendment very similar to this, which is superseded by the NDP one, so we will be supporting this NDP amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

The bells are ringing...For Me and My Gal.... I think it's a half-hour bell. We will return after the vote. I don't know whether it's one vote or more.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Let's deal with this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, we'll try it.

Is there unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

For what, Mr. Chair?