Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

NDP-4 seeks to provide a path to citizenship for youth under 18 years of age without a parent or guardian who is, or is in the process of becoming, a Canadian citizen.

Again, a number of organizations presented this to us during the witness stage of our committee meetings. They included Justice for Children and Youth; the Canadian Council for Refugees; the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic; an individual named Richard Kurland, who showed up at the committee; and UNICEF Canada.

The goal of the amendment is to ensure that young people without parents or guardians who are, or are becoming, Canadian citizens have a path to citizenship beyond having a less secure status and waiting until they turn 18.

It was presented to us that, for example, for a variety of different circumstances, an individual may well not have a parent here in Canada to help them make an application, and to that end they should not be discriminated against in having access to make application for citizenship. This amendment seeks to address that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

The Chair rules this amendment admissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Victory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Chair, I believe this is very similar in scope and nature to an amendment I presented as well that will be discussed later. For the same reasons, we support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Chen.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Chair, through you, there are several reasons we cannot support this amendment.

First, the minister already has the authority to waive the age requirement under paragraph 5(1)(b) so that minors can apply for a grant on their own behalf. With this authority already in place under the act, it's not necessary to introduce this amendment.

Second, I would be very concerned about the unintended consequences, given the lack of clarity around family law issues and the definition of “custody.” It's not clear what “having control of the child” means, nor whether the term “custody” covers all of the possible scenarios.

Third, the proposed amendment lacks parameters that would help guard against possible mischief that might work possibly against the best interests of the child. For example, it's not clear whether it would apply only to minors who lack a parent or guardian, or whether it could also apply to minors who are estranged from their parents or guardians. Additionally, the proposed amendment does not recognize the fact that a minor would be able to apply for citizenship against the wishes of his or her parents or guardians.

Finally, the amendment would not prevent parents or guardians from being able to coerce the minor into applying for citizenship, potentially against the best interests of the child. Under the current paragraph 5(3)(b)(i) one-way waiver, there is discretion to refuse a waiver to guard against possible mischief.

For these reasons, this motion is not supported.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Speaking to some of the points that the member has raised, I think the amendment actually says the following: “is eighteen years of age or over, unless the person is a child who does not have a parent or a person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of the child in Canada.” It does speak specifically about the circumstances in which a child under 18 could make application, so the scenario or the suggestion that somehow a child could make an application with a parent or a guardian, who may not approve of such application, is actually not relevant and not applicable.

With respect to definition of how one could define a person to be in custody or in control of a child, there are actually a number of different applications that apply to define custody, and on the issue around control of the child in Canada, those would be of course children or individuals who are under 18 and therefore are in the control of the state, if you will, so I think it actually defines quite clearly what it means to allow for this to proceed.

At the end of the day, and let me cite this from the Canadian Council for Refugees:

In the case of refugee youth in particular, they may be stateless. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada has an obligation to protect the child’s “right to acquire a nationality”, and this obligation is underlined “where the child would otherwise be stateless” (Article 7).

This amendment that I put forward fixes this issue, and I urge committee members to support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I would like to call the vote.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On division, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

It will be on division.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

We next have Green Party amendment 1.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it's hard for me to put into words how devastated I am by the motion that was passed, so I will put on the record that I'm here under protest and would have preferred to have tabled my amendments at report stage.

However, I do want to commend the Liberal government for this bill overall. I didn't get a chance to speak to it—I speak to these amendments one at a time—but let me say how thrilled I am to see that the damage done in BillC-24 has largely been removed and that citizenship is citizenship is a principle. Much in this bill is to be celebrated. It's doubly hard for me to be so sad at a moment when I thought I would be enjoying a sense of restoration of good principles in our Citizenship Act.

Let me move quickly to this particular amendment before I run out of time.

This amendment seeks to deal with criticisms that you've heard in committee testimony, particularly from the Canadian Bar Association, about injecting, as we do here, in subclause 1(4) the bill....

My amendment is very simple. It essentially removes subclause 1(4), which sets out requirements for income tax returns and ties income tax returns to applications for citizenship. The Canadian Bar Association brief was very clear on this point in its concern that any innocent mistake in an income tax return could have a negative impact on citizenship applications or could even cause confusion such that someone either delayed applying for citizenship or delayed filing their tax return because of an unnecessary linking of the two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

I would like to pause for a couple of minutes so that all committee members can receive a copy of this amendment.

I will also point out that we may run overtime in this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

At this point, everyone has received the Green Party package. I'd like to call on Ms. May.

Just as a prior clarification, if PV-1 is adopted, it would mean that CPC-1 can't be moved because of a line conflict. The reference number that has been issued for Green Party 1 is 8223209.

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

Mr. Chair, for members who might be wondering, it can be referred to as PV-1, for “Parti vert”. That's the way Parliament had chosen to deal with my amendments in the last session. The Conservative majority thought that if they put “G” for “Green”, it would be confused with government amendments. PV is the way my amendments will be designated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there any debate? If not, I would like to call the vote.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I'm sorry, but I have a point of order on the issue you just raised, which is that if this fails, CPC-1 fails.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

No. It's the reverse, Mr. Tilson. If it's adopted, then it fails CPC-1. If it's not adopted, we will proceed and in fact CPC-1 goes ahead.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you. I'll call the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we move to Mr. Tilson on CPC-1.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're moving that proposed subparagraph 5(1)(c)(iii) of the act be replaced by the following:

met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file, as a person resident in Canada, a return of income in respect of three taxation years that are fully or partially within the five years immediately before the date of his or her application.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, came about as a result of submissions by Mr. Kurland, one of the witnesses who spoke to us on this issue. The principle of it is that we want to ensure that someone who is applying for citizenship is living here. It's reasonable that we require that they file income tax as a resident during the same three-in-five period. The clause as it now stands isn't clear on that. That was Mr. Kurland's comment.

This amendment would therefore emphasize that the applicant for citizenship file their income tax as a resident of Canada. That's the principle of it and is the principle of the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson. This amendment is admissible.

Is there debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Ehsassi.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a few remarks about this amendment.

As you know, as things currently stand with that provision, I think it can be concluded that it satisfies the worthy goals of ensuring, first of all, that there is an awareness of the need to file taxes as well as the requirement of having an attachment to Canada. That said, I would say that there doesn't appear to be any need to introduce this amendment.

In addition to that, the other aspect of it that flummoxed me somewhat is the fact that this provision that has been proposed appears to add a physical residency requirement. I don't think that's what we would intend to do. I am very much against it.