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.