Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2016

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

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On a point of clarification on clause 3, Mr. Chair, if it passes—and it will, accordingly—that means we keep the system intact as it is under Bill C-6 and as it is proposed with all the flaws, accordingly.

Am I correct in that understanding? I want that on the public record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The clause has not been amended, so consequently it's proceeding the way it was written.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

If I may speak to clause 3 for a minute, and again to get this on the record, Mr. Chair, I'm going to vote against clause 3 because I do think it is fundamentally flawed and an amendment needed to be brought forward. I trust that it will be at a later date.

With that being said, there could have been a better way to deal with an entire bill, which is of course for the government to repeal all of Bill C-24 and then bring forward provisions that are supported within Bill C-24, as opposed to the other way around. That may save us a lot of grief.

In any event, we are here where we are at, and I am going to vote against clause 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Seeing no further debate I will call the vote on clause 3.

(Clause 3 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The meeting is resumed and we're on clause 4. Amendment NDP 11, reference number 8194673 has been withdrawn and there are no further amendments to clause 4.

(On clause 4)

I'd like to call the vote.

All those in favour—

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

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

On division.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Consistent with my comments earlier, clause 4 also deals with the appeal process, which needs to be remedied. As this is a flawed process, I will be voting against it in the hope that improved procedures will be forthcoming in the fall with new legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

All those in favour of clause 4? All those opposed?

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

Amendment NDP 12, reference number 8198152, which references clause 5 has also been withdrawn, so we'll proceed to NDP 13.

(On clause 5)

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This amendment deals with statelessness as well. In particular, it states:

Sections 10 and 10.1 do not operate so as to authorize any decision, action or declaration that would render a person stateless or that would otherwise conflict with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory."

This amendment is similar to the one that Ms. May had put forward, although I think it's more precise as to what action should be taken, particularly as pertaining to sections 10 and 10.1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

It's admissible.

Mr. Chen.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

I wish to make two points on this amendment. The first is that we must uphold as a country the notion that the revocation of citizenship is appropriate when citizenship was obtained through false representation, fraud, or some other unsavoury means. I also want to make the point that doing so is completely in line with international norms and laws.

As committee members might know, in 1978 Canada signed on to the United Nations 1962 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. This convention allows Canada to revoke citizenship if it was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

Western countries who have also signed on to this convention do follow this practice, and therefore this amendment is not necessary. I'm not in favour of it because, as a country, we should be able to render someone stateless if they obtained citizenship in Canada through fraudulent or other similar means.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Chen.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

In response, perhaps I could illustrate the points more clearly for committee members. The witnesses who came before us raised the issue of statelessness, and Ms. Avvy Go came forward and stated:

In our clinic, a lot of the stateless individuals are former citizens of Vietnam. Many of them have been in Canada for a long time. Some of them, for whatever reason, lost their Canadian permanent resident status at some point. Many have mental health issues. They had some criminality linked to their mental health, lost their permanent resident status, and became stateless because they have no country to return to.

This is what it's trying to remedy. In those situations, for example, what will happen to people when we deem them to be stateless? They are neither here nor there. They can't go back to their country of origin and they can't be here in Canada. We do have an international obligation through the United Nations 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which Canada has signed on to.

If we're going to follow international conventions, as has been stated, then there has to be some position to address that. Right now, as it stands, we don't have a position to address it, and this amendment seeks to remedy that, Mr. Chair.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I am satisfied that the current process for citizenship revocation does allow the minister, on compassionate humanitarian grounds as well, to consider personal circumstances. That is within the scope of the minister's power, and to me, the cases where there are circumstances that require that due consideration are within the minister's prerogative.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just on that point, actually, I don't think we do. In fact, the amendments that would remedy that and try to address that issue in the appeal process of revoking someone's citizenship have been deemed to be out of scope. We do not have those provisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

Seeing no further debate, I will call the vote on NDP-13.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

As there are no further amendments to clause 5, shall clause 5 carry?

(Clause 5 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

I have just a curious point of order, Mr. Chairman. If I say it's on division and you call the vote anyway, what does that mean? Does it mean whatever I say is irrelevant?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I wasn't quite sure how Ms. Kwan was intending to vote.

There are no amendments to clause 6. Shall clause 6 carry?

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

On division.

(Clause 6 agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

(On clause 7)

For clause 7, NDP-14, reference number 8198549, was withdrawn.

Shall clause 7 carry?

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

On division.