Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 3rd, 2014

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

The NDP will vote against clause 11 because it has serious concerns about the power to treat an application as abandoned if the applicant exceeds response times.

We know that a person who responds often encounters obstacles and that some documents are lost in the mail or at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. As a result of these concerns with regard to response times, we will vote against this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any further debate?

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't really want to belabour this point either. My colleague mentioned the discretionary powers for the minister. I've spoken about it already extensively, and I don't want to speak about it much more. This clause increases further discretionary powers for the minister and allows the minister to suspend processing or treat an application as abandoned if a person doesn't respond within the prescribed timeline. But there are many reasons why someone may not be able to respond.

I can't really know the motivation on this for certain, but it looks like it's another example of how this government is trying to deal with the backlog, because we know there is a huge backlog. If someone's not responding within whatever prescribed timeline is set out, then their application is deemed as withdrawn or abandoned and gotten rid of, deleted from the list and deleted from the backlog. There are many other ways to actually get rid of the backlog. You actually process the applications, not create side doors and back doors to say that applications have been abandoned as a way to get rid of the backlog.

That's all I'll say.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The inference of that comment is that there's some kind of back door that's going to be created to try to reduce the backlog. For the member's benefit, this new section provides the minister with the authority to deem an application abandoned if the applicant does not—I'd like the members of the opposition to hear this clearly—provide additional information or evidence, both in the situation where an appearance is required and when an appearance is not required; appear for an appointment with the minister's delegate or with a citizenship judge, either in person or by other means such as telecommunication or via email; or appear at a ceremony to take the oath of citizenship.

The provision also clarifies the effect of abandonment. This provision is supported by proposed section 23.1, which gives the minister authority to require applicants to appear at certain appointments or provide additional information. The new authorities under proposed sections 13.1 and 13.2 will apply to applications that are under processing at the time of the coming into force of these provisions.

Now, it's worthy to note, Mr. Chair, that there are over 154,000 cases of abandoned applications clogging up the system for those people who did show up, who did complete their applications, who did go through the process, and who want to get their citizenship process completed.

So of course we'll be supporting this particular clause, clause 11.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

I'll call the vote.

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

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

(On clause 12)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go now to Green Party amendment PV-6.

You have the floor, Ms. May, if you're going to propose that amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My amendment is deemed to have been made through the mysterious process that moves without my volition. I am presenting this amendment in a further effort to repair what has already been discussed around this table as being a concern, the intent to reside provision.

My amendment would amend clause 12 by adding, after line 32, a new subsection, which would say the following:

(1.01) The onus is on the Minister to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the citizenship judge that, on a balance of probabilities, the person lacks the intention referred to

in previous subparagraphs.

So this is a further safeguard. One might say that this is only for purposes of greater certainty that the minister has the onus of proof and it is not placed on a citizenship applicant or citizen to show that he or she does not intend to reside in Canada. This would ensure that the power is not used in an arbitrary fashion; or rather, it would help to ensure that the provision is not used in an arbitrary fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. All those—

Mr. Menegakis? I'm sorry.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Once again, the impact of this amendment would require the citizenship judges to decide on an applicant's intent to reside in Canada based on the evidence provided by the minister. The reason we're not supporting this particular amendment is that it would be inconsistent with the new decision-making model and the government's intent to deliver quicker decisions for grant of citizenship. We cannot be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to call the vote on Green Party amendment number 6.

(Amendment negatived)

Ms. May, the next one is under clause 12, Green Party amendment number 7. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is a change to revert to some of the language that exists in the current act. Currently what we have before us removes subsections 14(1.1) to 14(6), and replaces them with a new section. What my amendment does is ensure that those new clauses only replace subsections 14(1.1), 14(2), and 14(3), thus preserving subsections 14(4), 14(5), and 14(6) of the current act in order to provide access to judicial review.

If I still have time within my minute, I will refer to the testimony of Audrey Macklin from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, who reminds us that the short answer is that judicial review is a basic requirement of the rule of law. It is designed to ensure that public power is exercised within the boundaries set by the state.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

We're going to vote on Green Party amendment 7.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe, we have New Democratic Party amendment number 4 under clause 12. You have the floor.

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

Thank you.

The NDP amendment is somewhat similar to my colleague's previous amendments. Its aim is to address our concerns respecting the right of appeal and the right of judicial review.

The purpose of this amendment, which is quite simple, is to ensure that applicants can make their submissions before a judge. That is why we are introducing this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The impact of this amendment would not allow the citizenship judge to make a decision without an oral hearing. The government does not support this because it is not consistent with the new decision-making model and the efficiencies it is intended to achieve. We're committed to significant improvements in efficiency in the citizenship and immigration system. When necessary, the citizenship judges will be able to request oral or written submissions from individuals in relation to their applications. We will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm going to call the vote.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, of course.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'm going to call the vote on clause 12.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

I'll try this again. All those in favour of clauses 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17?

[An hon. member]

One at a time, please....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

One at a time. Thank you.

All those in favour of clause 13...?

(Clause 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there debate on clause 14?

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.