CIMM Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met in a televised session at 3:30 p.m. this day, in Room 237-C, Centre Block, the Chair, David Tilson, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of Clause 1, Short Title, was postponed.

The Chair called Clause 2.

On Clause 2,

(a) by adding after line 13 on page 1 the following:

“(1.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(f)(iii) of the Act is repealed.

(1.2) The portion of paragraph 3(1)(i) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(i) the person had been a citizen other than by way of grant, ceased to be a citizen for a reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (f)(i) and (ii), was subsequently granted citizenship before the coming into force of this paragraph under any of the following provisions and, if it was required, he or she took the oath of citizenship:”

(b) by deleting line 36 on page 5 to line 25 on page 8.

(c) by adding after line 16 on page 9 the following:

“(15.1) The portion of paragraph 3(7)(a) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(c) who was, before the coming into force of this subsection, granted citizenship under any of the following provisions after ceasing to be a citizen by way of grant for any reason other than the reasons referred to in subparagraphs (1)(f)(i) and (ii) is deemed to be a citizen under paragraph (1)(c) from the time that he or she ceased to be a citizen:”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5.

Clause 2 carried on division.

On Clause 3,

(a) by deleting lines 7 to 22 on page 11.

(b) by deleting lines 31 and 32 on page 14.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 11 with the following:

“(c.1) has expressed the intention, if granted citizenship,”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

(a) by replacing line 23 on page 11 with the following:

“(d) if under 55 years of age at the date of his”

(b) by replacing line 27 on page 11 with the following:

“(e) if under 55 years of age at the date of his”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(1.011) Any day during which an applicant for citizenship was a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and was temporarily outside the country for professional reasons shall be treated as equivalent to one day of physical presence in Canada for the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and 11(1)(d).”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5.

At 4:00 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 4:42 p.m., the sitting resumed.

“(1.011) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), for every day during which the person was resident in Canada before his or her lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of physical presence in Canada.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

“(1.011) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of physical presence in Canada for every day during which the person was

(a) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province; or

(b) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who was their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who was employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by adding after line 41 on page 12 the following:

“(1.21) For greater certainty, a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

(b) by adding after line 4 on page 13 the following:

“(1.31) For greater certainty, the person referred to in subsection (1.3) is eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

(1.4) In the event of any inconsistency between subsection (1.21) or (1.31) and any other provision of this Act or any other Act or regulation, subsection (1.21) or (1.31), as the case may be, prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

One of the goals of Clause 3 of Bill C-24 is to provide for a faster access to the Canadian Citizenship for permanent residents who are enrolled in or attached or seconded to the Canadian Armed Forces.

The amendment speaks about permanent residents that are not part of the Canadian Armed Forces and therefore goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by adding after line 26 on page 13 the following:

“(1.21) For greater certainty, a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces.”

(b) by adding after line 32 on page 13 the following:

“(1.31) For greater certainty, the person referred to in subsection (1.3) is eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

(1.4) In the event of any inconsistency between subsection (1.21) or (1.31) and any other provision of this Act or any other Act or regulation, subsection (1.21) or (1.31), as the case may be, prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

One of the goals of Clause 3 of Bill C-24 is to provide for a faster access to the Canadian Citizenship for permanent residents who are enrolled in or attached or seconded to the Canadian Armed Forces.

The amendment speaks about permanent residents that are not part of the Canadian Armed Forces and therefore goes beyond the scope of the Bill.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on page 766:

“An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 3; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, John McCallum, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 6.

(a) by deleting lines 5 to 14 on page 14.

(b) by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 14 with the following:

“ments of paragraph (1)(d) or (e);”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5.

“(3) When required to do so on compassionate grounds or under human rights obligations, the Minister shall waive”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe and it was negatived on the following recorded division: YEAS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4; NAYS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of John McCallum and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.

After debate, Clause 3 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5; NAYS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4.

Clause 4 carried on division.

Clause 5 carried on division.

Clause 6 carried on division.

After debate, Clause 7 carried on the following recorded division: YEAS: Eve Adams, Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung, Costas Menegakis, Devinder Shory — 5; NAYS: Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, François Choquette, John McCallum, Rathika Sitsabaiesan — 4.

On Clause 8,

Pursuant to order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, November 7, 2013, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:

That Bill C-24, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 20 to line 11 on page 25 with the following:

“8. Section 10 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) For greater certainty, a person shall not cease to be a citizen nor shall the renunciation of citizenship by that person be deemed to have had no effect unless that person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship under this Act by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

(3.1) A person shall not cease to be a citizen nor shall the renunciation of citizenship by that person be deemed to have had no effect without having had access to a fair hearing before an independent decision-maker.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.

At 5:42 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.