Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 14th, 2016

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

On the question around access to citizenship and relating to language classes, I think you rightfully pointed out that it's difficult for a lot of people because they're trying to survive, and trying to work, and so on. There are some who might be required to stay with their children. Addressing that concern, what kind of capacity do you think the community needs, and what action needs to be taken from the government side, to better facilitate access to language classes, and also with the provision of child care as well to enable people to embark on this journey?

[Debbie Douglas]

What we have been encouraging, and some member agencies—we have 238 agencies across the province of Ontario—have been doing, is ensuring there are language classes available on weekends, or in the evenings after work hours.

Child care and child minding continues to be a significant issue. Not all federal government funded programs can accommodate all of the various needs of everyone. Provincial programs unfortunately, while more flexible, do not have child minding attached to them.

If the government were to look at reinvesting in language training, child minding has to be part and parcel with it, and I would argue transportation dollars as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

What about the issue of 25,000 refugees and access to citizenship?

[Debbie Douglas]

We anticipate that those who have come in and refugees who will continue to come in will meet the three out of five requirements, but once again those who have spent many years in camps may not be able to pass the test.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Chen, you have seven minutes.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be sharing the last minute of my time with Ms. Zahid.

I want to thank the panel of witnesses for coming today and for providing their input.

Mr. Bissett, earlier you talked about inherently there being more than one class of citizen, and you described at least three categories and subcategories including natural-born citizens, dual citizens, and naturalized citizens. Within the category of naturalized citizens you described a citizen of convenience. By this measure one could extrapolate and categorize citizens born in Canada who are second, third, or tenth generation. You could then look at indigenous peoples differently. You talked about if people violate laws they should be penalized. Are you suggesting that the criminal justice system has the power to revoke citizenship and that there be different rules for each of these subcategories? For example, what would you propose for a natural-born citizen who is a tenth-generation Canadian?

[James Bissett]

I'm just saying that this system is inherently set up to have three classes. It's not set up to have 15 or 20, and I wouldn't suggest it should be. The point is that if you're a natural-born citizen it's not a question of choice. It's an accident and if you become a naturalized citizen you make a choice. Not everybody who comes to Canada as an immigrant acquires citizenship; many of them don't want to. Others are afraid that if they do apply and acquire citizenship they lose the citizenship of their homeland. The choice is a matter for the naturalized; the natural-born have no choice, and if you make a choice, and if you go through the procedures of qualifying for what you're looking for and one of them is to swear allegiance to your country and to obey its rules and regulations, and if subsequently you violate those rules, even to the extent of perhaps slaughtering your fellow citizens, then I think there should be a penalty for that.

It's more a symbolic penalty than anything else because as has been pointed out someone who has been convicted—and remember they have to be convicted—of acts of terror or treason, whether you take their citizenship away from them or not may not matter much to the individual, but it's a symbol that Canadians cherish their citizenship and are not happy when fellow citizens attempt to commit terrorist acts that may kill their fellow citizens. I think that's worthy of a penalty, and the penalty is to take their citizenship away.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Given that we're one of the first committees that's starting bill review in this Parliament I want to establish a precedent for using your prerogative to speak with witnesses. I believe you said you use your prerogative to allow the witness to speak. My point of order relates to chapter 20 of O'Brien and Bosc under the role of chairs, vice-chairs, and acting chairs. Under procedural responsibilities it says, “They ensure that any rules established by the committee, including those on the apportioning of speaking time, are respected”.

I would reference the routine motions that we started at the beginning of this committee in terms of speaking order. I would then refer to the component of O'Brien and Bosc under committees under testimony where it says, “Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them”.

I would argue that would be at the direction of the member who's been apportioned time by you to answer questions. Through this point of order I would object, Mr. Chair, to your chair's prerogative in questioning witnesses. I know that chairs may ask questions, but how does your decision to do that relate to the standing order in terms of the apportioning of time if you took a Liberal spot to do so? I would ask you to clarify to the committee under what circumstances you will use your prerogative in the future to use opposition members' time to question the witness yourself and if this constitutes a change to the routine motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel.

I would like to point out to you that Mr. Ehsassi, in his round of questioning, used up three minutes and 50 seconds of his seven minutes, meaning that the Liberal round still had several minutes left in that particular round. I used my prerogative to allow the witness because I felt that the witness was in the midst of answering a question. I also believe it's my responsibility to maintain decorum in our committee.

Thank you for that point, but I don't believe it applies. It's not debatable. If you—

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

Additionally, Mr. Chair, on that point of order, I would ask this, though, because you've just introduced something that is precedent-setting. If a member chooses not to use their whole time in their slot, I would argue that the round would be deemed to be over.

Mr. Chair, are you trying to make a change to the routine motions? I believe that would need to be voted on by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

No. We were not changing the routine proceedings. I was allowing the witness the courtesy of answering a question that she was in the midstream of answering. I was using the time that was remaining from the Liberal round.

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

I do believe that this is precedent-setting, Mr. Chair. Are you saying that when a member says their time is done and you move to the next round of questions...? I would deem that, Mr. Chair, as that round is over and we're proceeding to the next round, and that there's no saving of time. Have you made a change to the routine motions? If so, I would say that it's out of order and we should take it to the vote of the committee.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wanted to comment on the two rules that were invoked by Ms. Rempel. I don't think they apply to what happened here today.

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

I would ask my colleague, Mr. Chair, to prove that in O'Brien and Bosc, because I've cited O'Brien and Bosc in my—

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You absolutely did cite it, but I don't think it applies to the facts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Order. Everything will go through the chair.

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ehsassi. I'll defer to the clerk to provide me with background on that.

Thank you, Mr. Ehsassi. It's not clear when a chair can use their prerogative to ask questions. It can be at the end of a committee hearing. It could be at the end of a particular round of questioning. I had a particular interest in hearing the interrupted answer, so I used my discretion.

Thank you.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I agree with that. I'm just saying that the two rules cited by Ms. Rempel—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Are not applicable.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

—did not apply to the facts of this.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like your ruling on whether the routine motion supersedes your prerogative to interrupt and ask questions in terms of the apportioning of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel, your time in fact was not interrupted, so the routine motions do not apply. In fact, you were provided with an extra 16 seconds in your particular round.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I'm not arguing whether my time was interrupted, but the time of other members on this committee was interrupted, including that of my colleague from the NDP. Hers was. Arguably, there would have been an opposition round that could have taken place had you not.... I'm just saying that in terms of precedent-setting, I am wondering if you're saying that the chair's prerogative supersedes the routine motions, because, if so, I believe this is probably a matter for the House of Commons to decide in terms of a point of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

It—

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Look, speaking of routine procedure and speaking of interrupting people, I believe I had the floor. I believe I was asking a question of a witness. He was in mid-sentence when this issue came up. While I appreciate the concern that's being brought forward by the member opposite, I would also appreciate witnesses not being interrupted halfway through a sentence. That's number one.

Number two, I would like it clarified as to whether my time on the floor has now been cut short because of these points of order that continue to come from a member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

The routine procedures were voted on, and they fully apply. The chair's discretion is strictly the chair's discretion, and basically that's that.

We will continue in this committee by following routine procedures. The chair will at times use the chair's discretion to ask questions of witnesses.