CIMM Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met at 3:40 p.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, Norman Doyle, presiding.

The Committee reverted to the stood report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure:

It was agreed, - That the Committee commence Clause by clause of Bill C-14 on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.

It was agreed, - That the Committee proceed with Bill Siksay's following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government place an immediate moratorium on deportations of all undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks while a new immigration policy is put in place.

That the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that the Chair present this report to the House.

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that the Government provide a comprehensive response to this Report.

It was agreed, - That the Committee undertake the following prioritized workplan:

• 1. Refugee Issues

• private sponsorship of refugees

• the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD)

• persons in sanctuary (churches)

• persons from countries where there are moratoria on removal

• 2. Undocumented Workers

• examination of point system

• Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC)

• 3. Temporary Foreign Workers

• conditions of work for vulnerable workers

• 4. Application Backlog
• 5. Foreign Credentials Recognition
• 6. Family Reunification

Debate arose thereon.

Ed Komarnicki moved, — That the motion of Bill Siksay be amended in paragraph 1 by deleting “That pursuant to Standing Order 108 (2) the Committee recommends that the government place“ with the following “That the Standing Committee review and report to the House with respect to the issue of placing“

and that motion be further amended by deleting paragraphs 2 and 3.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Ed Komarnicki and it was negatived.

Meili Faille moved, — That the motion of Bill Siksay be amended in the French version only by adding after the words “qui subissent“ the

following “avec succès“.

The question being put the amendment, it was agreed to.

By unanimous consent, it was agreed, — That the Committee append to its report dissenting or supplementary opinions provided it be submitted electronically in both officials languages to the Clerk of the Committee no later than 9:00 a.m. on June 22, 2006.

The question: "That the report of the Subcommittee be concurred in." was put and was agreed to on the following recorded division: YEAS: Johanne Deschamps, Meili Faille, Raymonde Folco, Bill Siksay, Mario Silva, Andrew Telegdi, Blair Wilson — 7; NAYS: Barry Devolin, Nina Grewal, Rahim Jaffer, Ed Komarnicki — 4.

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

The Chair calls Clause 1.

Clause 1 carried.

On Clause 2,

“was made abroad after February 14, 1977 if the Quebec authority responsible for international adoptions advises, in writing, that in its opinion the adoption meets the requirements of Quebec law governing adoptions.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Meili Faille and it was negatived.

On Clause 2,

“(4) Any decision of the Minister under this section may be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.”

Debate arose thereon.

A point of order was raised regarding the procedural admissibility of the proposed amendment.

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment admissible.

Whereupon, Ed Komarnicki appealed the decision of the Chair. The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained.

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Bill Siksay and it was agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, carried.

“2.1 The portion of subsection 19(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

(2) Where the Minister is of the opinion that a person should not be granted citizenship under section 5 or subsection 5.1(2) or 11(1) or administered the oath of citizenship or be issued a certificate of renunciation under section 9 because there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person will engage in activity”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Amendment L-1 seeks to amend section 19 of the Citizenship Act, so that certain prohibitions to the granting of citizenship would apply to persons under the new subsection 5.1(2).

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 19 of the Citizenship Act is not being amended by Bill C-14, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, L-1 is inadmissible.

Amendments L-2 and L-3 have the same objective and also seek to amend sections of the Citizenship Act which are not amended by the Bill, and are also inadmissible.

Whereupon, Raymonde Folco appealed the decision of the Chair. The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained.

“2.1 Subsection 12(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(2) Where an application under section 5, 5.1 or 8 or subsection 11(1) is approved, the Minister shall, not later than thirty days after the citizenship judge has made a decision under subsection 14(2) or, if there is an appeal from that decision, not later than thirty days after the time for final appeal has expired, issue a certificate of citizenship to the applicant.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Amendment BQ-3 seeks to amend section 12 of the Citizenship Act, which relates to the issuing of citizenship certificates.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 12 of the Citizenship Act is not being amended by Bill C-14, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, BQ-3 is inadmissible.

The debate adjourned thereon.

At 5:23 p.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 5:30 p.m., the sitting resumed.

At 5:32 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.