Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

As NDP-8 has been negatived because it was consequential to NDP-1—it was withdrawn I should say—we have no amendments to clause 2.

Shall clause 2 carry?

(Clause 2 agreed to)

(On Clause 3)

We're moving to clause 3.

Similarly, NDP-9 has been withdrawn when NDP-1 was withdrawn because it was consequential to NDP-1. We will move to NDP-10.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

This amendment, NDP-10, reference number 8222883, attempts to address the lack of procedural safeguards in the revocation of citizenship by creating a new process where appeals and reviews can be made at the immigration appeal division.

This amendment comes with two amendments. The organizations in support of this change are many. They include the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, The BC Civil Liberties Association, the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, the Canadian Council for Refugees, and Legal Aid Ontario. Individual supporters include Peter Edelmann, Stephen Green, Audrey Macklin, and Richard Kurland.

The goal is to ensure that individuals facing citizenship revocation for misrepresentation or fraud should have at least the same degree of procedural fairness and safeguards that are extended to individuals facing revocation of permanent residence or fighting a parking ticket. Prior to Bill C-24, individuals could appeal to the Federal Court. Because of the cost, duration, and availability of the courts, this has been called an inefficient system by many experts. The immigration appeal division currently undertakes similar appeals and reviews of decisions for statuses such as permanent residence. For that reason, this board is adequately situated to handle citizenship cases as well and can handle them more effectively and efficiently than the Federal Court system.

These amendment would institute this concept. It provides for a number of procedural processes in the amendment itself. I won't go through all these processes, but I do want to highlight a couple of them.

One of these allows for humanitarian and compassionate considerations related to the person, particularly in situations where the best interests of a child are directly affected. I feel quite strongly that this ought to be considered.

With respect to making a report to the appeal division, this amendment calls for the minister to provide the person, before that report is made, with a written notification that specifies a) the person's right to make written representation, b) the period within which the person may make his or her representations and the form and manner in which they must be made, and c) the grounds on which the minister is relying to make his or her decision to make a report. The minister shall provide his or her decision on whether or not to make a report to the person in writing.

Bringing forward these procedures allows for a better approach to revoking someone's citizenship. With something as serious as citizenship, it is important for notification to be provided to the individual as well.

I won't go through every aspect of the amendment, but that's the thrust of it. I would move this amendment, amendment NDP-10, reference number 8222883.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Bill C-6 amends the Citizenship Act and another act in consequence. The amendment seeks to amend subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act. The bill seeks to repeal subsection 10(2) of the act. Whereas in subsection 10(1) of the act the minister has the power to revoke a person's citizenship, the amendment brings forward a new concept by giving the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board the power to decide the revocation of someone's citizenship.

This would go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed by the House at second reading. As the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading...is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Consequently, it's the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that ruling. Just to put it on the record as well, this is a change that I've stated many of the witnesses had called for. To be frank, I think it's a better system. It's a more effective system. It's a more equitable system. It is a more efficient system. I've been given some indication that there is interest by the minister to address this issue, and in fact, during second reading, and before this committee, the minister was asked these questions specifically by me about addressing the appeal process.

The minister indicated that he would be inclined to make amendments accordingly, subject to the presentation of the witnesses. So now through the presentation of the witnesses, this amendment has been presented to this committee but is deemed to be out of the scope for this committee. I am hopeful that the minister will adopt these amendments later on in the fall to address this particular issue.

It's worthwhile to note as well, as my last point, Mr. Chair, that currently there are court cases right now challenging the provisions of this act. It would be remiss of the government to not address this through legislation and to rely on the courts to address this issue, and only to be forced to come back to make the amendments accordingly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We'll now move to PV-5, reference number 8223269.

Ms. May.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair, on this amendment, this is to ensure that we remain compliant with the international convention against creating stateless persons. This is to clarify and to ensure that despite anything in subsection (1) the minister may not revoke citizenship unless the minister is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person is a citizen of another country. It's quite essential that we do not create stateless persons. That is a commitment that Canada has made globally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Debate?

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm in need of some clarification as to the intent of this amendment.

Ms. May indicates that...so that we don't create individuals who are deemed to be stateless. Am I assuming correctly that by revoking someone's citizenship, to revoke that person, that person may then become stateless because they don't have status in their country of origin? Am I understanding this correctly, the logic behind that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. May.

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

I reject the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman. I'll lose all my time for my other amendments, sorry.

This is an impossible situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Perhaps there's someone from the department who might want to comment?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That would be helpful but it's not.... I will have to make a decision as to how best to proceed given that I don't have the full scope of understanding of the intent of the amendment.

[Mary-Ann Hubers]

It's difficult to state, Mr. Chair, the impact of the amendment without seeing the wording of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. May, the motion as proposed by Ms. Zahid allows you five minutes in total to speak to the motions when you propose them. It doesn't limit you in regard to questions that are posed by committee members.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, that's a very useful clarification. In that case, I would be grateful to respond.

Yes, indeed, if a declaration is made that revokes citizenship, the minister must be assured that there is a valid citizenship in another country. We can't, as a nation, create a stateless person. We have an international obligation not to do so under the convention against statelessness. While it's an obligation in law, given that this is the only section of the act that allows the minister to revoke Canadian citizenship, this is an important protection to make sure that the minister, under consideration, turns his or her attention to the question of whether or not there is, on the balance of probabilities, a valid citizenship for that person in another country.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In that instance, I think the request from Ms. May is that the minister will take into consideration the factor on the bounds of probability the individual is not a citizen of another country. If that's the case, the amendment doesn't indicate that, but rather it says the minister may not revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship unless the minister is satisfied on the bounds of probability the person is a citizen of another country.

There's a difference. It's perhaps subtle, but nonetheless it's an important difference to automatically deem the minister may not revoke versus the minister needs to take into consideration and take into account that issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Seeing no further debate, I will call the vote on PV-5.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have PV-6, and the reference number is 8223275.

Ms. May.

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

This particular amendment seeks to repair the damage done to the citizenship process under the previous parliament and Bill C-24. Prior to Bill C-24, a minister would always consider factors of equitable concerns. In the words of the Canadian Bar Association's immigration law section's testimony at this committee, due to Bill C-24, neither the minister nor the Federal Court has discretion to consider humanitarian or compassionate factors. Some form of safety valve is warranted for deserving cases. The amendment I'm putting forward speaks to this absolutely crucial ability of a minister to exercise discretion. There is no requirement of the minister to stop the renunciation of citizenship. Without this amendment, no matter how much the minister might recognize the situation would create grievous humanitarian and compassionate harm, the minister wouldn't have the power to decide not to renounce, unless you give the minister this discretion by accepting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May.

PV-6 is admissible. Debate?

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I will support this amendment. This amendment was a component within my other amendments in addressing the appeal process, which was to incorporate a humanitarian and compassionate component to the consideration of revoking someone's citizenship. As the entire package for those amendments was deemed to be inadmissible, I don't have a separate amendment dealing specifically with humanitarian and compassionate factors. Nonetheless, that is consistent with one of my original intentions with that package, so I will support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have PV-7, reference number 8223266.

Ms. May.

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

This amendment seeks to reverse and repair the damage done by Bill C-24 in removing the right of appeal for someone whose citizenship has been revoked. This was supported by numerous witnesses before the committee, including the BC Civil Liberties Association, the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association, and the Canadian Council for Refugees. The new process under which we're working with Bill C-24 creates a paper process. There is only one opportunity to seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the decision, but there isn't meaningful oversight to the decision a minister makes. My amendment is straightforward. It restores what we always had before Bill C-24, which is a right of appeal to the Federal Court to a decision made by the minister under this act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. May, and it is admissible.

Is there debate?

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will speak to this amendment.

This amendment is consistent with the original set of amendments I put forward to restore the old Federal Court appeal system prior to Bill C-24. That included amendments 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 23, if we were to address this issue comprehensively and to restore the appeal process to what it was prior to Bill C-24. I did not end up moving these amendments because I have some understanding from the minister—in his presentation at this committee, as well as in second reading, and other conversations—that there is interest from the government in pursuing a better path.

That better path would include enhanced amendments that are incorporated in what I call CARL amendments under NDP-10 and NDP-2 that were deemed to be out of scope and out of order, Mr. Chair.

To that end, while I don't disagree with the need to enhance the appeal process, many people have spoken to it, and they've raised legitimate reasons as to why it needs to be dealt with. Given that we have an opportunity to bring in better legislation in this regard, I am hopeful, and I'm going to take a leap of faith that it will happen in short order in the fall sitting of the House. To that end, I will not support this amendment, not because of its intent, but because I think a better amendment will be forthcoming at a later time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

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

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 3 carry?