Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Ehsassi.

Mr. Tilson.

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

Just in response to that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kurland was commenting in response to issues that were raised about citizenship by convenience. People apply for citizenship, and then they're gone; they just disappear. I gave the example in one of my questions the issue of Libya—

[An hon. member]

Lebanon.

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

—sorry, of Lebanon, where a number of people, during the uprising—I don't know how many years ago it was—all of a sudden came back, and it was the first time they'd come back.

Getting your Canadian citizenship is serious business. This is the greatest country in the world, and we should honour that. People should honour their citizenship and not just get it for the purpose of convenience. This is a serious issue. People can't just come and get that blue citizenship passport and then take off. This was a suggestion made by Mr. Kurland, and quite frankly, I think it's a good suggestion. Either they're serious about becoming a Canadian or they're not.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To my recollection, a witness, Mr. Richard Kurland, presented this amendment and called for this change. In my understanding, the amendment that Mr. Tilson is advancing is to allow that a person who is a resident in Canada be required to file their income tax in order to gain citizenship. I just want to make sure that is, in fact, the intent of Mr. Tilson with respect to this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Tilson?

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

It is.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I actually support this amendment. I think it is important that if you are a Canadian and you're a resident here, you should file income tax accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Seeing no further debate, I'd like to call the vote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to amendment PV-2.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm in quite a quandary. I just had it clarified that the motion that was passed not only takes a page out of the Conservative majority playbook but also actually worsens the impact for people in my position by saying that I have five minutes in total to speak to all my amendments for any bill that comes before this committee. I have eight amendments. That means less than one minute per amendment. Having assumed that it was five minutes per amendment, I used up one minute and 42 seconds on my first amendment. I have to say I'm shocked.

My second amendment, if I can speak to it quickly, attempts to deal with some of the evidence you had before you, both from the disability law centre and from the Canadian Bar Association, that the requirement of an additional demonstration of the knowledge component as well as the language test, which has already been taken, is unfair and discriminatory, particularly to people with disabilities, and fails to take into account the commitments that Canada has made for proper accommodation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, just for clarity, the package that I received actually doesn't refer to the number that you cite but rather to a reference number. I wonder if, for each of these amendments that are being tabled, you could say what the numbers are so that we can follow accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan. Yes, it's reference number 8223257.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do wish to speak to this amendment.

This amendment is similar in intent to a number of other amendments that I put forward in my package, particularly with regard to the language testing. I think that my amendments are more specific in terms of application, so I'll get to those amendments when I come to them.

Also, there's another, separate amendment that I've advanced with respect to the issue around disability. Again, that speaks to the concerns that Ms. May identified.

While I don't disagree with the concept or the intent behind this amendment, I am going to vote against it so that my other amendments, which are more specific in nature as they apply to each circumstance, will be considered accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

(Amendment negatived)

We'll move on to PV-3, which is reference number 8223204.

Ms. May.

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

Going as quickly as I can, this is in response to suggestions that were made before the committee from the Canadian Bar Association that recommend we use this opportunity to clarify what we mean by a physical day and bring in reference to other subparagraphs that make it clearer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will now move to CPC-2, which is reference number 8222847.

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On April 8, we heard from Justice for Children and Youth. They submitted a briefing to the standing committee in which they said:

We are regularly involved with young people who are new-comers, including refugees, who have either arrived in Canada as unaccompanied minors, or who have experienced family breakdown such that they are in Canada without adult support and are without citizenship or permanent resident status.

This amendment is in response to this particular comment, as well as to those we heard throughout the committee hearings. The rationale behind this is that normally a minor's application for citizenship is attached to that of the parent or guardian. The current provisions restrict access to citizenship for unaccompanied minors, children without parents or lawful guardians, and children with parents who do not have the capacity to meet citizenship requirements or who do not wish to apply.

Often the department doesn't recognize child welfare authorities as the lawful guardian of a child for the purposes of citizenship application, which means children fleeing situations of abuse are also unable to apply for citizenship. Children who do not have a parent or guardian are already in a vulnerable position, and the current provisions in the law restrict minors from applying solely on the basis of age, regardless of whether they meet all other requirements.

I think this will rectify some of the comments we heard during testimony on this bill and will have an overall net positive effect on Canada's immigration system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

Is there debate?

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will support this amendment. This amendment is similar to the one I tabled earlier, which was defeated. The intent here is to provide opportunities for individuals under 18 to make application for citizenship. Many different individuals, under different circumstances, may not have a parent or a guardian or may be a child of the state. We should facilitate those opportunities for them to make application for citizenship, so to that end, I will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Sarai.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

I think it's a bit problematic. It technically can allow any minor to apply for citizenship, not just minors who have no parent or legal guardianship, and currently the minister has the ability to waive the age requirement so that minors can apply on their own behalf.

I think it also would be problematic if somebody came in as a permanent resident and the child can get citizenship right away, but their parents did not. It becomes a conundrum in that the child would already be a citizen but the parents would not.

In addition, I think it would not prevent the parents or guardians from being able to coerce the minor into applying for citizenship, which may be potentially against the best interests of the child. I would vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Sarai.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Chair]

We will move on to NDP-5, which is reference number 8196267.

The chair rules this one admissible.