Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

I have outlined the accommodations that we provide already to applicants, and we are subject to the Canadian human rights legislation. As to what additional obligations this may pose in law, I can't say.

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

I just listened to what you both said and what was said about the amendment, and it seems to me it's duplication. We're already doing these things, so why would this amendment be approved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Virani.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

As the question was posed to me, I'll say to Mr. Tilson that the argument could be made with respect to law-making as a general proposition. We are required to comply with the Constitution of Canada, the charter, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. When you entrench language such as this in the statute, you elevate the importance it is accorded by the government as an act of Parliament. By entrenching disability rights in the Citizenship Act, we are emphasizing that the Canadian Parliament and its government takes the matter of “reasonable accommodation” very seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

Mr. Chen.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

It is important for us to recognize that there are people with disabilities. Although we have legislation and laws that protect their rights, it's important in the context of immigration, within the minister's discretion, that there be a legal obligation for the minister to consider these factors. That is why I believe it's important for us to pass this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

Ms. Rempel.

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

Chair, I'm just wondering if the officials could tell us if there have been any cases or are any cases pending now where this change would apply, or if there have been cases where the existing statute has not been sufficient to clarify obligations under this section.

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

I'm sorry, could you repeat your question, Ms. Rempel?

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

Mr. Chair, through you, I'm just wondering if there have been any cases that the department has seen where this particular wording that we're considering would have an impact.

Have there been cases that the department has experienced where the existing provisions and case law have not been sufficient that would justify this further clarification?

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

I'm aware that there are cases where people complain through the human rights complaint mechanism, and where we sometimes come to an agreement, for example. Whether or not the wording that's proposed here would result in a different treatment for those individuals is hard to say hypothetically.

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

Could you give us a sense of the volume of this type of traffic?

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

I don't have the exact number of Human Rights Commission complaints, but I'm sure that the Canadian Human Rights Commission website would have an indication of examples there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Hubers.

Seeing no further debate, I call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now move on to amendment PV-4, and the reference number is 8223202.

Ms. May.

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

Do you have it on the clock how much time I have for my amendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Approximately two minutes.

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

Okay, thanks. I have four to go.

This one is very similar in rationale to the amendment you just accepted. I think the issue here is very clearly to ensure that the Citizenship Act waiver provisions are consistent with the requirements of section 15 of the charter and with the Canadian Human Rights Act. We did have a lot of evidence before the committee of real-life cases of people having difficulty with the responsiveness of the department to requests for waivers and requests for medical dispensation for the medical opinion form. There have been delays and roadblocks to people with disabilities. My amendment would assist in making sure there was greater flexibility in accommodating the waiver requirements for people with disabilities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is there debate?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to the end of the amendments for clause 1.

Shall clause 1 as amended carry?

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

Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Yes.

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

The difficulty with this is that the Conservatives are in favour of some of them and opposed to others. If you're going to vote on the overall clause 1, I'd like to comment on some of the individual parts. It's difficult for us, because we're actually in support of some of them and opposed to others.

Subclause 1(2) is part of the overall repeal of the four-in-six residency requirement. We believe that as the requirement stands now, people can better help newcomers understand Canadian society, and that it helps them to better integrate into Canadian society. Wouldn't it help people, if we were to leave it the way it is, to understand Canada's social and cultural norms? Wouldn't this help people to experience these things? Wouldn't that time reinforce the value of citizenship? The amendment takes away the need to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship. That's with respect to subclause 1(2).

Subclause 1(5) removes the intent-to-reside provision, and the effect of this is that they would no longer have to sign a declaration of their intent to reside in Canada when applying to become a citizen. I'm concerned that this clause would be interpreted as encouraging citizenship of convenience; that is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return, but retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport. This is their right, of course, but it sends the wrong message, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the value and obligation of Canadian citizenship.

Subclause 1(6), and I suppose the same would be the case with subclause 1(7)—this is changing the age from 14 to 17 and from 64 to 55.... Those requirements would no longer be set for citizen applicants when demonstrating their knowledge. The notion that citizens should be able to speak one of our two languages is not unique to Canada. It has always been a feature of our citizenship law, ever since the first one was adopted in 1947 by the government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King. This is because citizenship represents full membership in our political community; it implies participation in our shared civic life. It grants the right to self-government through voting to select one's own government, or even running for public office. One cannot do these things fully, Mr. Chairman, if one doesn't have the ability to communicate with one's fellow citizens. This amendment reduces that requirement.

Subclause 1(8) repeals the intent-to-reside section. I'm concerned that this subclause would be interpreted as encouraging, in the same way I just mentioned, citizenship of convenience. That is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return but could retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport.

As I said, this is their right, but it sends the wrong message in terms of the value and obligation of Canadian citizenship.

Regarding subclause 1(11), I'd make the same submission, and the same for subclause 1(12).

Those are my submissions in opposition, Mr. Chairman. The other subsections we support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you for that clarification of the Conservative position, Mr. Tilson.

I will now call the votes.

Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There is another new clause 1.1, which results from amendment NDP-7, reference number 8213690.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This amendment deals with the second generation “born abroad” issue as well. As I stated earlier on some of the concerns with respect to that, this aims to remedy the situation in which a person born outside of Canada was adopted by a parent, as referred to in paragraphs 5.1(a) and 5.1(b) of the act, and is either a citizen under prior legislation or the former act or was granted citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(a) of the act as it read before April 17, 2009. In that respect, as committee members may know, the amendments that were brought forward around April 17, 2009, abolished the provision for those born outside, prior to their turning 28, but those who turn 28 after that period are actually now in a state of statelessness or are, as some would call them, lost Canadians.

This is another way to address this for those born in the second generation by bringing forward a provision such that all these individuals are Canadians so that they're not lost in the system per se. There was actually a really good submission from the Lost Canadians, on two small categories in need of better remedies, that was presented to all committee members, which outlines the history of this, and the rationale of calling for this change so that we can prevent a situation in which people are somehow lost in the system.

I'd just like to also point out comments made by the Canadian Council for Refugees. They actually stated that there are no measures in Bill C-6 to address the unfair situations created by the 2009 amendments, and that by denying citizenship to the second generation born abroad, Canada is creating a new set of lost Canadians and making some children born to Canadians stateless. Avvy Go, in her presentation as a witness, gave a really clear example of why this is a problem. She said:

Yes, I think that's an area that needs to be improved.

For instance, I have relatives where the husband was born in Canada and the wife wasn't. They're both citizens. I was advising them to make sure, when the kids are born overseas, that it's the father who applies for their citizenship, because if they apply for citizenship under the mother, their children may not become Canadian citizens. I think that example highlights the unfairness of the situation. I would certainly recommend that this provision be amended.

This illustrates the flaws of the current act as it stands, and this amendment is proposed to remedy that, Mr. Chair. So to that end, I move my amendment NDP-7, reference number 8213690.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The amendment seeks to amend sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Citizenship Act. Since sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the act are not being amended by Bill C-6, it is the Chair's opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, just a quick comment then.

I would urge the minister to take this amendment into consideration at a later time. It does capture a number of people. The estimates from some experts in the field are suggesting that it may be about 1,000 people who are in this kind of situation and as the days evolve, there might be more.

It is an important provision to address, so that once and for all we can deal with the issue of lost Canadians, or statelessness, in a comprehensive manner. The approaches, albeit unintentional, that were brought forward before missed some individuals in that regard.

It was missed because legislation was drafted, tabled, and then Parliament closed, so it never actually got to the floor of the House to go through the whole process. Had that happened, those who turned 28 would never have been in this current situation they are faced with right now. This actually brings back an approach that was put forward, but wasn't dealt with appropriately by the House of Commons, and this gives it an opportunity to do precisely that.

I hope the minister will take that into consideration at a future date.