Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference received by the committee on March 21, 2016, the committee will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Before clause-by-clause consideration begins, we have department officials here who would like to make a short clarification of some earlier testimony.

Go ahead, Ms. Hubers.

[Mary-Ann Hubers, Director, Citizenship Program Delivery, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to correct my response to Mr. Tilson's questions during my April 12 appearance about the new seizure of document authority in Bill C-6. Mr. Tilson asked about the grounds under which the new seizure authority could be exercised. During that exchange, I responded that in the act it says that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent. The regulations would prescribe the factors that could go into that and then in dealing with the detained document.

I want to clarify that officers will rely on the authority in the act, and not the regulations, to seize fraudulent documents if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the document is fraudulent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Hubers.

Before we begin the clause-by-clause study, I would like to provide the many new members of the committee with a few comments on how committees proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of a bill.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there are amendments to a clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member has received from the clerk. If there are amendments that are consequential to each other, they will be voted on together as a package.

In addition, to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill, both of which were adopted by the House when they agreed to the bill at second reading, or if they offend the financial prerogative of the crown.

If you wish to eliminate a clause of the bill altogether, the proper course of action is to vote against that clause when the time comes and not to propose an amendment to delete it.

As this is the first exercise for many new members, the chair will proceed methodically to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. If during the process the committee decides not to vote on a clause, that clause can be put aside by the committee, so that it can revisit it later in the process.

As indicated earlier, the committee will go through the package of amendments in the order in which they appear and vote on them one at a time unless some are consequential and are dealt with together. Amendments have been given a number in the top right hand corner to indicate which party submitted them.

There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment, and once it has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the original amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it's voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title, and an order to reprint the bill will be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

I thank the members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6.

Go ahead, Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to put forward a motion. I move:

That, in relation to Orders of Reference from the House respecting Bills,

That, each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee wishing to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration Bill C-6 be allowed to do so; that any amendments suggested by said Member(s) be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration; and that the Chair allow said Member(s) an opportunity to make representations of not more than 5 minutes in support of all of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mrs. Zahid.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, as you'll know, the motion just put forward by Mrs. Zahid is intended to deprive members of Parliament in smaller parties and any independent members—we don't have any at the moment, but it would apply to any future independent members—from the right that now exists within O'Brien and Bosc in House of Commons Procedure and Practice to put forward amendments at report stage that are substantive in nature.

By creating I would say a false opportunity, a coercive measure, to present amendments at committee, it does the opposite. Although on the face of it, it might appear to new members to be a friendly measure toward members of Parliament in smaller parties, it's actually an oppressive measure to deprive members of Parliament in smaller parties of the right to present amendments at report stage.

In other words, if you don't pass the motion in front of you now, members of smaller parties will have the ability to bring forward amendments at report stage and will not have to show up at your committee protesting at every stage, as I assure you I will be, at being brought here for amendments that I cannot adequately present or defend.

I also find it very confusing that in this instance I received a message from the procedural clerk on Friday afternoon that should I wish to submit amendments, I would be welcome to send them, and then the committee would decide how it would like to proceed.

The motion that you have before you has time limits involved that are not met by the current circumstances.

I'm in your hands, Mr. Chair, but I want to make every member of this committee fully aware that I know that the Liberal members have been instructed to pass this motion. I find it offensive. I wish you'd reconsider. I wish the government House leader would reconsider.

I'm perfectly content with the rights I have as a member of Parliament, but this motion, which was developed under the last Parliament by the majority Conservatives, is one that oppresses smaller party members. It isn't an assistance of any kind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

(Motion agreed to)

I would also like to note that the department officials will be at the committee table for the duration to provide any consultation that may be necessary as we go through the bill sequentially.

(On clause 1)

I now call clause 1, which begins with amendment NDP-1.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In fact, this amendment comes with a number of others: numbers 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 23. This first one is actually a consequential amendment to the main changes. It was aimed to bring back the old federal appeal court system prior to Bill C-24.

I will actually not be moving this set of amendments because later on I have another set of amendments, amendments NDP-10 and NDP-21, that will propose a better appeal system that I would wish the committee to consider. It may be that the latter amendments, numbers 10 and 21, when I move them, may be deemed to be inadmissible, but we will deal with it at that stage.

If they're not admissible, I am very much hopeful that the government would consider taking those amendments and putting forward new legislation, perhaps in the fall, to address the issue of ensuring that there's an appeal process in place that addresses the many issues that witnesses have brought forward.

To that end, Mr. Chair, for the clarification of committee members, I will not be moving amendments 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 23. All those amendments deal with a package of changes to bring back a federal appeal court system related to this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

In that case, we'll move to NDP-2.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

NDP-2 is an amendment to deal with statelessness as it pertains to second-generation Canadians born abroad.

Committee members will recall that a number of organizations and individuals came forward and presented to us on why this needs to change. These organizations include the Canadian Expat Association in a written submission, the Canadian Centre on Statelessness, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Bar Association, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, and the Ontario legal clinic.

There are in fact two amendments related to this. The goal here is to address the issue of what's known as “lost Canadians”. In the case of those lost Canadians who remain after the previous government's changes to the Citizenship Act, their citizenship has not yet been restored. While the previous government did address some aspects of these stateless Canadians, without changes in the legislation, second-generation Canadians born abroad would not be considered Canadians, potentially leaving them stateless.

There are implications for individuals who are impacted, particularly those who may have work obligations abroad. I can think of the many diplomats and officials who are particularly impacted, for example, with their children. I won't reiterate all of the comments that have been made by the various witnesses who raised this issue.

That being said, I move amendment NDP-2, which is in my name. The reference number is 8213672.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Sorry, but just for one further clarification, Mr. Chair, there is a related companion piece to this as well. Will we deal with these separately, then? Shall I move that second amendment separately?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

It's up to you, Ms. Kwan. If they're related, we can deal with them together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I'm being advised that as they arrived separately in the package, it's probably at this point easier to follow the package amendment by amendment.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Okay. I'm happy to follow your instructions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

In regard to NDP-2, the amendment seeks to amend section 3 of the Citizenship Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states the following on pages 766 and 767:

...an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 3 of the Citizenship Act is not being amended by Bill C-6, it's therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is not admissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

May I make a comment, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You may.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm not challenging the chair—thank you very much for that ruling—but I do want to put it on the record that I hope the government and the minister would take into consideration bringing forward in the fall a piece of legislation that would include addressing the issue of statelessness, as has been indicated here.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, you have the next amendment as well, which is NDP-3.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment, NDP-3, is also an amendment to address the issue of statelessness. In particular, this amendment is attempting to prevent individuals from becoming stateless.

Again, a number of organizations have presented to us and raised their concerns around this and felt there needed to be action taken with Bill C-6 to fix the problem. These include the Canadian Centre on Statelessness, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Dr. Patti Lenard, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Legal Aid Ontario.

The issue, as I indicated, is trying to address the concern to prevent individuals from being stripped of their legal status in Canada, resulting in their being stateless. The notion of statelessness is not considered as a factor in the assessment of granting citizenship by subsection 5(4), as it applies to cases of special and unusual hardship. The unique circumstances of statelessness present a challenge with respect to applying for subsection 5(4) grants. It challenges one's legal existence by nationality, citizenship, or birth certificates. This amendment is attempting to fix that problem accordingly.

One of the issues that has been raised, which I thought was particularly useful for consideration in this regard, is from the Ontario Legal Aid Association. Andrew Brouwer actually said, and I quote:

We are certainly hopeful that the new government's renewed recognition of the importance of international law and global engagement will result in our signing the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, but there is something that we can do right now with this act to make sure that we are better protecting stateless persons and coming into better compliance with international law and norms.

To that end, three recommendations were made to which these amendments speak. Those were to provide a definition of statelessness within subsection 2(1) of the act. Then it also asks to include both a de jure statelessness as well as a de facto statelessness.

Practically speaking, the whole point of dealing with statelessness and assisting stateless persons to get protection is to make sure that every member of society has a connection to a state. There are concerns that have been expressed by various people, including those in a case in the United Kingdom that shows the problems when we have an overly legalistic and narrow definition of statelessness.

That's what these amendments are aiming to fix. Again, this is an issue I think that crosses all partisan lines because those constituents are everywhere in every part of the community.

I move the NDP-3 amendment in my name, Mr. Chair, reference number 8223108.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Similar to my previous ruling, the amendment seeks to amend in this particular case section 2 of the Citizenship Act, which is not being amended by Bill C-6, and it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for that ruling. I appreciate that clarity. Again, I would advance this and hope that the minister would consider bringing this set of amendments forward again in the fall to address a non-partisan issue but critical issue impacting a number of people in our communities today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

We'll move on to NDP amendment 4.