Evidence of meeting #63 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
For our officials, in regard to this subamendment, my understanding is that all this does is take the former section 8 people who were added with the G-3 amendment we passed and make sure they are added in the listing of folks in NDP-3.
Could I ask whether that's correct?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that's correct.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.
Seeing no further discussion, we will take the vote on the amendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Go ahead, Ms. Kayabaga.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to move a second subamendment.
I move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the text of the proposed subparagraph 3(3)(a.01)(ii):
(ii) neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada;
This makes a change to the list of people who can meet the substantial connection requirement introduced by NDP-1. NDP-3 proposes that it should be the parents or a grandparent, but this makes it so it can be only the parents.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I'll speak very quickly about this.
My personal perspective is that we should include the grandparents so they can establish that connection test. I can go into all the reasons that would be important, but I understand the government does not agree with me on that. I don't like it, but I also recognize that sometimes in life there are many things I don't like but just have to learn to live with.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Perhaps I can ask this of both the officials and my colleagues opposite, just so I am keeping score appropriately here.
The amendments we have made so far in the list of orders.... Does what is being proposed here keep it consistent?
So far on the list, we have not yet introduced the concept of grandparents. Is that correct?
Director General, Citizenship Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm sorry. This is just coming up now.
You've heard the proposed subamendment to limit it to parents.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Through you, Madam Chair, to my colleague, Ms. Lalonde, could she run through it one more time? I am not clear now, with the two Liberal subamendments, on what the amendment actually does overall. If it weren't here at all, how does it change it substantively? If this Liberal subamendment passes, what is the function of the amendment as amended? What cohort would it affect?
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I certainly would like the officials....
My understanding, again, is that we are removing grandparents from the NDP-3 amendment. It's a subamendment to remove...because if you read NDP-3, it refers to parents or grandparents. What we're proposing is to take grandparents off.
Certainly, my colleague and the officials can share that.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Basically, instead of bringing the subamendment, we can just defeat Madam Kwan's amendment. That will probably do the job anyway. Is that true? The one we passed is just the first generation. She was trying to introduce the grandparents. If the grandparent category doesn't go through, then it's fine. Even bringing in the subamendment does the same thing we will do, as it is.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I need another coffee before we get into these technical points.
What I'd like to ascertain is....I understand what this subamendment is doing now, and I think I understand what the motion as amended does. It places a restriction on what has already been passed, correct?
I guess I would ask, is there a more...? It seems to me we're confusing two matters in the same motion. I'm feeling negative energy vibes from the law clerk table, because whenever we confuse two matters in the same amendment, it can sometimes lead to confusion in the legislation. Is there a more elegant way for us to achieve what Ms. Kayabaga originally proposed with the subamendment? There seems to be a consensus emerging to delete the remaining substantive parts of this amendment.
I might look to the law clerk for advice on that, as well. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it. To be clear, I agree, and it's the reason we supported the last subamendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga, which was to clarify what happened in the first instance. What I think is happening now is that we are amending the rest of the motion, so that it doesn't do what it was originally supposed to do. I'm wondering whether it should all be defeated, and then we can put that clarification in a different way.
If I'm misunderstanding, I'm happy to be corrected. I just want to know what I am voting on?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
Next, we have Ms. Kayabaga, and then Mrs. Lalonde.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
NDP-3 proposes to allow either a parent or a grandparent to meet the criteria for substantial connection to Canada.
What I'm proposing as a second subamendment is to make it only parents, not grandparents. That's what we're proposing. It's a very minor change. It doesn't affect the entire NDP-3. This is a technical amendment. We're basically changing grandparents to parents. That's what you're voting on.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I'm certainly happy to reiterate what my colleague said. NDP-3 is needed, because it talks about who can meet the substantial connection. We're proposing to limit the substantial connection requirement to only a person's parents, and not their grandparents.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I feel it's pretty clear that the subamendment aims to exclude grandparents.
The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Seeing no further discussion, I will ask the clerk to take the vote on the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
I will go back to Ms. Kayabaga.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Now I would like to move subamendment number 3.
I'd like to move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by adding the following after the proposed text:
(2.2) The portion of paragraph 3(3)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:
(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at any time, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:
(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a.2), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(c) if the person was born after April 16, 2009 and
(i) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (viii), or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those provisions, and
(ii) at the time of their birth, neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada.
Madam Chair, NDP-3 is proposing automatic citizenship by descent, beyond the first generation, for anyone who has a parent who meets the requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. However, as written, it would exclude someone who has a Canadian parent who was born before February 15, 1977, even if they meet the substantial connection requirement.
We believe that this is a simple oversight, and this subamendment fixes the oversight and allows the parent to meet the substantial connection requirements, regardless of when they were born.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.
We have a subamendment proposed by Ms. Kayabaga.
Is there any discussion?
