Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments in response to the motions brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland with respect to Bill C-16, beginning with Motion No. 1, which would amend clause 4.
While the intent of the motion seems to be reasonable, the reality is that the member is calling for quite a shift from the way Canada has been doing things for over 100 years and what many democracies around the world have been doing.
I do not understand the motivation for his motion, which would deny a child born in Canada the right to citizenship. The member is indicating that there is a problem. Aside from the very few cases that have been reported in the media, I do not believe there is a problem.
Many people were born in Canada while their parents were visiting or on a diplomatic assignment to our country. When these individuals returned to their home countries, many of the children turned out to be people who held high positions in their country's government and they became very good friends of Canada.
On many occasions when I served as a parliamentary secretary I came across people who were very successful in their own countries. The only link to Canada which these individuals had was the fact that they were born here, and they are very good friends of Canada.
Many Canadian diplomats and tourists travel abroad and give birth to children in foreign countries. Their children require citizenship in those countries.
This issue cuts both ways and I do not see it as being a problem. I do not consider it to be a major issue that we need to be concerned about. I hope to God we do not spend a lot of money studying the magnitude of this issue because I believe it is not a major problem.
I also want to make reference to Motion No. 2, which would amend clause 6 of Bill C-16. If a refugee claimant claims refugee status in Canada, he or she would be required to wait up to 365 days for citizenship.
I believe that what we have in place at the present time is fairly efficient and fairly good. A claimant who has already been accepted as a convention refugee can accumulate that period. I do not think that amendment to the legislation would make any sense at all.
I find that the two amendments put forward by my hon. colleague are a bit odd, a bit out of place and just do not fit into the bigger picture.
The member indicated in his first amendment that a child would have to be born to a person who is either a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant. What would happen in the situation where someone is a convention refugee and his child is born here? Would that mean we would have to start a process for the child in order to process the child through the system? That would create a huge amount of unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary complications.
It is my hope that the House will not support those two motions.
With respect to Motion No. 3 brought forward by a member of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Rosemont, new clause 8(2) is unnecessary because provincial jurisdiction over adoption is already provided for in the Constitution. The Citizenship of Canada Act in no way interferes with Quebec's authority in this regard. In addition, clause 8( c ) stipulates that citizenship may not be granted until the adoption is in accordance with the laws of Quebec.
If we were to approve the motion, citizenship would then be granted even though an adoption was not in accordance with the laws of Quebec.
In addition, the motion introduces the new concept of “domiciled or ordinarily resident”, which is incompatible with the definition of residence in the Citizenship of Canada Act, which requires physical presence.
The proposal does not take into account the criteria in clause 8, which were developed so as to cover both the best interests of the child as well as international adoption fraud.
Clause 8 has been drafted in such a way as to treat the provinces and territories on a equal footing, while ensuring that their respective adoption laws are respected without interference from the federal government.
We note the difference between the “laws of the country of residence” in the English text and “lieu de résidence” in the French. The English is the equivalent of the French. The applicable law involves all of a country's adoption legislation.
The term is general and was chosen because it was also necessary to take into account the adoption of a child in another country by a Canadian resident.
For Canada, “laws of the country of residence” can only refer to laws of the provinces and territories, because the Constitution has expressly given them full jurisdiction over adoption.
For all these reasons, the government will not be supporting this motion.
