CIMM Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Minutes of Proceedings
Mary-Ann Hubers made a statement.
Salma Zahid moved, — That, each Member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the Committee wishing to participate in the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-6 be allowed to do so; that any amendments suggested by said Member(s) be deemed to be proposed during the said consideration; and that the Chair allow said Member(s) an opportunity to make representations of not more than 5 minutes in support of all of them.
After debate, the question was put on the motion and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.
The witnesses answered questions.
At 11:34 a.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 11:43 a.m, the sitting resumed.
On new Clause 0.1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following new clause:“0.1 (1) Subsections 3(3) to (5) of the Citizenship Act are repealed.
(2) The portion of subsection 3(5.1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(5.1) A person who is born outside Canada to a parent referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) and who is either a citizen under prior legislation or the former Act or was granted citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(a) of this Act, as it read before April 17, 2009, or under subsection 5(1), (2) or (4) or 11(1) of this Act is deemed, as of the coming into force of this subsection, never to have been a citizen by way of grant:”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
“0.1 Section 2 of the Citizenship Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
stateless refers to the condition of a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law, and includes de facto statelessness;”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
On Clause 1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 1 with the following:“1 (1) Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act is replaced by the following:
(b) is eighteen years of age or over, unless the person is a child who does not have a parent or a person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of the child in Canada;
(1.1) The portion of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 25 on page 1 with the following:
“pealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
“come Tax Act to file, as a person resident in Canada, a return of income in respect of”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of David Tilson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 2 with the following:
“plication, demonstrates that he or she has an adequate knowledge”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 2 the following:
“(1.002) Any part of a day during which an applicant for citizenship was physically present in Canada 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 and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(8.1) The portion of subsection 5(2) of the Act before paragraph (b) is replaced by the following:
(2) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any minor who is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act if
(a) an application for citizenship is made to the Minister by the minor or by a person authorized by regulation to make the application on behalf of the minor; and
(9) Paragraphs 5(2)(c) and (d) of the Act are repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Michelle Rempel and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 4; NAYS: 5.
“(13) Subsection 5(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, in his or her discretion, grant citizenship to any person to alleviate cases of statelessness or of special and unusual hardship or to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada.”
The question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
“(13) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
(3.1) For the purposes of this section, if an applicant for citizenship is a disabled person, the Minister shall take the measures that are necessary to accommodate the needs of that person.”
Debate arose thereon.
Salma Zahid moved, — That the amendment be amended by adding, after the word “take”, the words “into consideration”, and by replacing the word “necessary” with the word “reasonable”.
After debate, the question was put on the subamendment of Salma Zahid and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 1.
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan, as amended, and it was agreed to, by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 1, be amended by adding after line 6 on page 3 the following:
“(13) Subsection 5(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (b.1), by adding “and“ at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(d) in the case of a disabled person, any requirement unfulfilled by the person as a consequence of their disability.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8
After debate, Clause 1, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 6 on page 3 the following new clause:“1.1 Paragraph 5.1(4)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if, at any time, both of the adoptive parents were citizens under any of subparagraphs 3(3)(b)(i) to (viii), as they read immediately before the coming into force of section 0.1 of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
1.2 The portion of section 5.2 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
5.2 A person born outside Canada who was adopted by a parent referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) and who is either a citizen under prior legislation or the former Act or was granted citizenship under paragraph 5(2)(a) of this Act, as it read before April 17, 2009, or under subsection 5(1), (2), or (4) or 11(1) of this Act is deemed, as of the coming into force of this section, to have been granted citizenship under section 5.1:”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 2 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 3,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:“3 Section 10 of the Act is replaced by the following:
10 (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (in this section referred to as the “Appeal Division”) may, on a report from the Minister and if satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,
(a) revoke the person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship; or
(b) maintain the person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship, if it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to the person, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected.
(2) Sections 162 to 169, 174 and 175 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to proceedings under this section.
(3) Before making a report to the Appeal Division, the Minister shall provide the person with a written notice that specifies
(a) the person’s right to make written representations;
(b) the period within which the person may make his or her representations and the form and manner in which they must be made; and
(c) the grounds on which the Minister is relying to make his or her decision to make a report.
(4) The Minister shall provide his or her decision on whether or not to make a report to the person in writing.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:
“3 Subsection 10(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Despite subsection (1), the Minister may not revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship unless the Minister is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person is a citizen of another country.” Que le projet de loi C-6, à l'article 3, soit modifié par substitution, à la ligne 24, page 3, de ce qui suit :
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 3 with the following:
“3 Subsection 10(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(2) Before deciding whether to revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship, the Minister shall consider whether humanitarian and compassionate factors justify the retention or renunciation of citizenship.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Pursuant to the order adopted by the Committee earlier today, the following amendment, submitted by Elizabeth May for the consideration of the Committee, was deemed moved:
That Bill C-6, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 3 the following:
“(2) Section 10 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):
(6) An appeal from the decision of the Minister made under this section lies to the Federal Court in accordance with the Federal Courts Act.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 0; NAYS: 9
After debate, Clause 3 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
After debate, Clause 4 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
On Clause 5,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 3 with the following:“5 Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of the Act are replaced by the following:
10.3 Sections 10 and 10.1 do not operate so as to authorize any decision, action or declaration that would render a person stateless or that would otherwise conflict with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 5 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 1.
Clause 6 carried on division.
Clause 7 carried on division.
On new Clause 7.1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 8 on page 4 the following new clause:“7.1 (1) The portion of section 13.1 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
13.1 (1) The Minister may suspend the processing of an application for a period not exceeding 90 days if it is necessary to receive
(2) Section 13.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):
(2) The Minister may, after notifying the applicant, extend the period of suspension for further periods each not exceeding 90 days if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to receive the information described in paragraph (1)(a) or (b).”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 8 carried on division.
Clause 9 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
On Clause 10,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 4 with the following:“10 (1) The portion of paragraph 22(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
22 (1) Despite anything in this Act, a person shall not be granted citizenship under subsection 5(1) or (4) or 11(1) or take the oath of citizenship
(1.1) The portion of paragraph 22(1)(a) of the”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
(a) by adding after line 34 on page 4 the following:
“(2.1) Paragraphs 22(1)(a.1) and (a.2) of the Act are repealed.
(2.2) Paragraph 22(1)(b.1) of the Act is repealed.”
(b) by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:
“(4) Subsection 22(1.1) of the Act is repealed.
(5) Subsection 22(3) of the Act is repealed.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
“(4) Section 22 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.1)
(1.2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person was dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act or would have been if the offence had been committed in Canada.
(5) The portion of subsection 22(2) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(2) Despite anything in this Act, but subject to the Criminal Records Act, a person shall not be granted citizenship under subsection 5(1) or (4) or 11(1) or take the oath of citizenship if the person has been convicted of an offence under subsection 21.1(1) or 29.2(1) or (2), or an indictable offence under subsection 29(2) or (3) or any other Act of Parliament, other than an offence that is designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act,”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 10 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 1.
On new Clause 10.1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following new clause:“10.1 The headings before section 22.1 and sections 22.1 to 22.4 of the Act are repealed.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
“10.1 Sections 22.1 to 22.4 of the Act are replaced by the following:
22.1 For greater certainty, an application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act may be made in accordance with the Federal Courts Act.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
Clause 11 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
On Clause 12,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following:“12(1) Subparagraph 27(1)(d)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(ii) has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
(2) Subsection 27(1) of the Act is amended by”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Jenny Kwan and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 8.
Clause 12 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 9; NAYS: 0.
Clause 13 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 8; NAYS: 0.
On new Clause 13.1,
Jenny Kwan moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 5 the following new clause:“13.1 The Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship set out in the schedule to the Act is replaced by the following:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
“13.1 Subsection 28.1(3) of the Act is repealed.”
Debate arose thereon.
The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it sought to amend sections of the parent Act not amended by the Bill, as provided on page 767 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.
After debate, Clause 14 carried on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Shaun Chen, Ali Ehsassi, Jenny Kwan, Randeep Sarai, Marwan Tabbara, Salma Zahid — 6;
NAYS: Michelle Rempel, Bob Saroya, David Tilson — 3.
By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 to 24 inclusive carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
After debate, Clause 25 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
At 12:56 p.m., the sitting was suspended.
At 1:08 p.m., the sitting resumed.
After debate, Clause 26 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 3.
A point of order was raised by David Tilson regarding the end time of the meeting, as it was past 2 p.m.
The Chair put the decision to the Committee to adjourn, and seeing that the will of the Committee was to continue, so ruled.
David Tilson raised a question of privilege regarding the release of in camera information by Shaun Chen.
The Chair ruled that although the release of in camera information would be a breach of privilege, there was no such breach in this case.
Whereupon, Michelle Rempel appealed the decision of the Chair.
The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was sustained on the following recorded division:
YEAS: Shaun Chen, Ali Ehsassi, Randeep Sarai, Marwan Tabbara, Salma Zahid — 5;
NAYS: Jenny Kwan, Michelle Rempel, Bob Saroya, David Tilson — 4.
On new Clause 26.1,
David Tilson moved, — That Bill C-6 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 8 the following new clause:“26.1 (1) At the start of the fifth year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent, the provisions enacted by this Act are to be referred to the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that may be designated or established for the purpose of reviewing the provisions.
(2) The committee to which the provisions are referred is to review them and submit a report to the House or Houses of Parliament of which it is a committee, including a statement setting out any changes to the provisions that the committee recommends.”
After debate, the question was put on the amendment of David Tilson and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 5.
Clause 27 carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The Title carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
The Bill, as amended, carried by a show of hands: YEAS: 6; NAYS: 0.
ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
ORDERED, — That Bill C-6, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.
At 2:19 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.