Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

For serious criminality, is it in the interest of Canada to prohibit permanent residents who have committed serious crimes from becoming citizens? As my colleague mentioned in another amendment, those individuals must be free of any criminal charges for four years before applying for citizenship. The minister has the discretion to waive criminality on compassionate grounds or where there are unfounded charges.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

They are the same issues because we're dealing with youth and minors, so the issues around privacy also apply. This was pointed out by the witnesses around the concerns about breach of privacy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, I'll call the vote.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On division, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

On division, thank you.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That concludes the amendments to clause 10.

Shall clause 10 carry?

(Clause 10 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There's a new clause, 10.1, that is a result of NDP-20, reference number 8220121.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment seeks to repeal the provisions of the act that provide for Federal Court repeal or review only with leave of the courts, thereby making judicial review available according to the Federal Courts Act, as for any other decision under federal law.

A number of witnesses before the committee came forward and called for this change, including the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the Canadian Bar Association, Legal Aid Ontario, and the individual Audrey Macklin. The goal is to remove the requirement for leave of court to obtain judicial review or the appeal of citizenship refusals at Federal Court.

The concern around having to seek leave of court is an onerous requirement by many, and that's been identified and stated by the witnesses who came forward. This amendment seeks to remedy that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

The amendment seeks to amend a section of the Citizenship Act that is not amended by the bill, and therefore it's the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that ruling. This amendment is another important one related to process. Perhaps it was an oversight at the time when the government brought in Bill C-6 that didn't address this, and it makes a better process. It makes for a more efficient process and a less costly process for individuals who are faced with such a circumstance. I hope the government will take this into consideration for potentially a fall piece of legislation around this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

The next amendment is NDP-21, which is reference number 8222922.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment is a companion piece to what I refer to as the CARL amendment, and that was for amendments NDP-10 and NDP-21. It aims to create greater certainty with respect to an application for judicial review to any matter under this act, and that may be made in accordance with the Federal Courts Act.

Given that the previous amendment was deemed to be out of scope and out of order, I'm not quite sure whether this will be deemed to be in or out of scope. I'm assuming likely out of scope. With that, hopefully this would be considered as well as a companion package to the other amendment later in the fall by the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

You're quite correct that in the opinion of the chair the amendment is inadmissible, for the same reasons.

There are no amendments to clause 11.

Shall clause 11 carry?

(Clause 11 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 12)

We have amendment NDP-22, reference number 8191635.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment seeks to eliminate the requirement to pass a knowledge test in one of the official languages. Presenters who came before the committee included the Canadian Bar Association, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, individual Peter Edelmann, and also the Canadian Council for Refugees, who support this amendment. They raised the point quite eloquently, I thought.

In terms of the amendment, under the changes made by the former government, the Conservatives, the knowledge test of Canada, required to obtain citizenship, now amounts to a double testing of language skills. Prior to the Conservative changes, individuals had the ability to take the test with the aid of an interpreter. Due to the changes, the interpreter is no longer provided. This amounts to not only a second language test but a language test that is arguably more difficult than the actual level of English or French someone must have to pass the actual language test. This amendment seeks to remedy that.

At this time, I would also advance this issue. There really should be the opportunity for an amendment to eliminate the upfront proof of language levels on the question around proficiency, but as that matter is dealt with by regulation, no amendment can be advanced to deal with that. That issue was advanced by, again, a number of the witnesses before us. For many, particularly refugees and some immigrants, the proof of language levels is such an onerous measure that many of them would not be able to meet it. In that regard, hopefully the government will take into consideration the witnesses' presentations around that issue and make changes to the regulation.

At this point, because it would be out of the scope, my amendment is only to deal with the double testing issue. That's amendment NDP-22, reference number 8191635, Mr. Chair, and I move it accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

The amendment is admissible.

I'd like to bring it to the attention of the committee that PV-8, which is reference number 8223261, is identical in intent, and in fact identical in wording. So if NDP-22 is adopted, it cannot be moved, as they are identical. If NDP-22 is negatived, so is PV-8, as they are identical in wording.

Is there any debate?

Ms. Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Right now, the way the act is worded, it provides clarity on how citizenship applicants are going to demonstrate knowledge of Canada, ensuring that the requirement is met in both official languages, English as well as French. When the minister was here, he indicated that he's in the process of reviewing the “Discover Canada” guide, including its language level.

I would vote against this. It is very important that we recognize that applicants have already several chances to retake the test in case they fail the first time. They have another chance to take the test. As well, language proficiency is critical. It is one of the key determinants in how successfully new immigrants can integrate into Canadian society.

For these reasons, I will vote against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I want to state this on the record. I don't think anyone is in disagreement that knowing English or French, either official language, is important. I would be the last to argue that it is not important.

But the issue here is this. Immigrants, refugees, others who have English or French as a second language may have some real-life experiences or situations that they have faced that would prevent them from acquiring the level of proficiency that might be required to gain access to citizenship in some instances.

I'll use my personal experience. My mother has a grade six level of education from China in her first language. She is now 83, and she became a citizen many years ago. I, along with my sister, became a citizen under her application. At that time when she applied for her citizenship, she was able to have an interpreter to pass the test. That's how she became a citizen. Had that not been afforded her I suspect that maybe I would have applied for citizenship on my own. Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what circumstances would lead me and my family to that outcome?

For an immigrant family such as mine, we were a low-income family. When we came my mother first worked as a farm worker. She made $10 per day. She later graduated to become far more proficient, and she became a dishwasher. She worked until she retired at 65, after two years of being a farm worker. She had enough English to get by in her work and to participate in the community and vote, and she did all of those things.

If the test requirement for citizenship were to apply today to her, I dare say she would not pass. I don't think that's right. I'm not unique, by the way. This is a very common issue, and I know that members will know from their own constituents that this is a real issue.

Yes, the minister's looking at reviewing the books, and doing this and that and the other thing. But this does not preclude us from having a better system in place and facilitating access to full participation as a Canadian citizen. That's what this is aiming to do, and that's what the witnesses before us said that we should try to accommodate as well.

I urge the members to consider this. I get it that I only have one vote—such is life. I would appeal to the members to consider that because it's real, and it impacts a lot of people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Seeing no further debate, all those in favour?

Opposed?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On division, please, Mr. Chair.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

That also means that PV amendment 8 is negatived at the same time.

NDP amendment 23 has been withdrawn, which means there are no further amendments to clause 12.

I'll call the vote on clause 12.

(Clause 12 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 13 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There is a new clause 13.1 as a consequence of NDP amendment 24, reference 8213783.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment calls for changes to the Canadian citizenship oath to comply with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommendation number 94. It aims to comply with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendation to include faithfully observing the treaties with the aboriginal peoples of Canada in the citizenship oath.

As we know, the government has already made a commitment that the government would adopt all of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and that includes recommendation 94.

To that end, the proposal is to change the oath to read as follows:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

To that end, Mr. Chair, I move the amendment under my name: NDP-24, reference number 8213783.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The amendment seeks to amend a section of the Citizenship Act that is not amended by the bill, and it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair, for that ruling.

Again, I would ask the minister to consider bringing this amendment at a later date. It is particularly important given the government's commitment and stated principle that we're now in a new era, in an era of a new nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples of this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

This brings us to amendment NDP-25, reference number 8222219.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment deals with a previous amendment that was tabled and that is the leave of court provision, Mr. Chair. This is really a consequential amendment related to that piece, so I won't belabour the point but rather we'll proceed to the vote accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

It is the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

(On clause 14)

This bring us to clause 14. House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 999 states:

Moreover, a committee may decide to group a certain number of clauses and vote on them together, such as those that were not the subject of any amendments.

In this case we have clauses 14 through to clause 26 that have no amendments, and we can vote on them as a group with the committee's consent.

Do we have the committee's consent?