No.
Evidence of meeting #10 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizenship.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #10 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizenship.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:45 p.m.
Liberal
May 3rd, 2016 / 1:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak against clause 14.
This makes the bill retroactive to the date of coming into effect of Bill C-24. Opposition has been expressed in the House, but I'd like to express it again.
Effectively, the bill means that the government will be returning citizenship to Zakaria Amara, who was the ringleader of the Toronto 18 terror group that planned al Qaeda-style violence in southern Ontario to push Canada to abandon Afghanistan. The faction led by Amara built detonators and acquired explosive materials for large truck bombs, which were to be detonated in 2006 near the Toronto Stock Exchange and CN Tower. An Ontario military base was also to be attacked. Parliament was on the list of targets, and the Prime Minister of Canada was a target to be beheaded.
There was a piece in the National Post, Mr. Chairman, on February 25 of this year. I'd like to quote from part of it. Essentially this clause will reinstate this man's citizenship, as outlined here:
The plot by the al-Qaida-inspired Toronto 18 to detonate truck bombs, storm the CBC and the Canadian Parliament, and then behead prime minister Stephen Harper was foiled 10 years ago.
As the trial judge said, the potential for loss of life on a scale never seen before in Canada was “spine-chilling.”
Those were the judge's words.
Right-thinking Canadians everywhere will then, be relieved to learn that the man who masterminded these terror attacks, and was subsequently given a life sentence, is the main beneficiary of the Liberal government’s citizenship act reforms.
Because that's what this clause 14 will do.
Zakaria Amara had his Canadian citizenship stripped under a bill brought in by the Conservative government in 2015.
Under the legislation just introduced by the Liberals, he will have that Canadian citizenship reinstated. The Conservative Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act ensured dual citizens convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying could have their citizenship revoked.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just draw it to the committee's attention that by passing this legislation, the citizenship of this man, who intended to do all these “spine-chilling” events, to use the judge's words, to institutions, the CBC, and Parliament, and to behead the Prime Minister, will be reinstated.
Quite frankly, that's not good. In fact, it's terrible.
I urge members to vote against this retroactive clause.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
We'll have a recorded vote.
(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
Currently we have clauses 15 through 26, which have no amendments.
Do we have the committee's consent to vote on them as a group?
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you for that help in identifying where the problem may be.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We have no problem with the first group, but we're opposed to clauses 25 and 26.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
In that case, do we have the committee's consent to vote on clauses 15 through 24 as a group?
1:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you.
We shall vote on clauses 15 through 24.
Shall clauses15 through 24 carry?
(Clauses 15 to 24 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This brings us to clause 25.
Mr. Tilson, I believe you wish to speak to clause 25.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you.
Seeing no further debate, I call the question on clause 25.
(Clause 25 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are on clause 26.
Mr. Tilson.
1:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Thank you.
(Clause 26 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
There's a proposed new clause 26.1 that would result from amendment CPC-3, which is found at reference number 8222415.
Mr. Tilson.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Essentially this amendment proposes a five-year review clause. It would add a five-year review clause to trigger a parliamentary review five years after the coming into force. The text of the clause is before you, but I would like to read it.
At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.
Proposed subclause 26.1(2) says:
The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it's reasonable that this committee review the progress and the state of this legislation from time to time. Asking for this sunset type of clause is not unusual. Five-year review clauses are not uncommon here or in other committees. It seems that this is an appropriate piece of legislation to contain one. Our immigration patterns over the past quarter of a century have shifted, and that shifting is unlikely to change. It seems prudent, Mr. Chairman, to include a five-year review clause to monitor the health of one of Canada's most precious commodities, and that is our citizenship.
Bill C-6 is making some substantial changes to the law, and I think it's fair, Mr. Chairman, that we need to monitor. We've heard witnesses make some submissions. The committee hasn't agreed with some of them; we've agreed with others. I think it's prudent that this committee pass this proposed new clause to give us an opportunity in five years' time to review what we have done.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Shaun Chen Liberal Scarborough North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment is simply unnecessary. It essentially establishes a sunset clause on Bill C-6. As this committee well knows, the committee has the authority and power to conduct any study at any given time on any citizenship or immigration program in this country. Passing this amendment to ensure that after a five-year period an automatic study and review is carried out is simply not necessary. In fact, the committee may wish to look at some aspect of the legislation and its effects before the five-year period is up. I think that simply by the nature of the authority this committee has, this amendment is not needed, so I will not be supporting it.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Through you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if Mr. Chen can explain how this creates the sunset clause.
1:55 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I was going to ask for clarification exactly about that issue around a sunset clause and also say this amendment to my understanding does not preclude any changes that would be made by the government in terms of amending the act at any time.
I think all this amendment does is call for it to be reviewed by committee in terms of how was the act, and how it worked. It does not preclude any of those actions, nor is it to my understanding a sunset clause.
If I'm incorrect in understanding this, I would appreciate it if someone could identify that for me, so we can be clear on what the intention of the amendment is.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Shaun Chen Liberal Scarborough North, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To clarify, I said specifically it was essentially like a sunset clause, and did not say the amendment itself is a sunset clause.
The wording of the amendment says that with this review there be a statement setting out any changes to the provisions the committee recommends. In some sense you are saying there need to be changes. I would humbly suggest if committee members have changes to propose then this is the venue to do so, as we have been discussing over the past couple of hours.
At any time if the committee wishes to study the legislation or its impact over the coming years, as well as conduct any study it wishes on any citizenship and immigration program in this country, the committee has the authority to do that. I don't see the point of having this amendment set in stone for the five-year review.