Evidence of meeting #6 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was adopted.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Further to what Ms. Rempel Garner just said and what Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe said, I want to get a point across here. This is a bill that was copied. It was Bill C-71 and now it's Bill C-3. Basically, we changed the title. The government changed the title and presented the bill. This was a bill that was presented in the previous Parliament. It was debated here at this committee at great length, from what I understand—I was not here—where these provisions....
Mr. Erskine-Smith was a member of the previous government as well. He is presenting this here today. I don't know if he presented it beforehand.
You had an opportunity to discuss Bill C-3, at some length, I assume, with the minister. The minister did not deem it necessary to implement this particular amendment as a change to the bill that she copied, that she cut and pasted. You have just testified before us that this amendment to the bill will affect absolutely no one, so I fail to see the benefit of even discussing this any further. This is a non-amendment.
If Mr. Erskine-Smith—and I agree with Ms. Rempel Garner—feels so inclined to make this his private member's bill, if it's a very important issue to him, he can speak to his government and somehow get on the Order Paper to ensure that he has an opportunity to do that. He can do that. However, to simply come here and posture for the sake of perhaps who's listening, for something that will do nothing to help the people he is referring to, it doesn't appear to make any sense to me.
Would you care to comment on that, or is that a fair assessment?
Director General, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Again, in terms of this amendment in front of us, I would say it has no effect. Depending on whether Mr. Erskine-Smith moves the other amendment, there would be effects to adoptees, to that specific cohort.
Perhaps I could turn it over to my colleague Mr. Laurencelle to explain to you why Bill C-3 was structured that way for the adoptees.
Conservative
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
It's interesting. We're arguing about this amendment when the other amendment is also relevant, because they're effectively aiming to effect the same change and are covering all bases.
The lawyer who took the case and successfully won the case.... I don't practice immigration law, so you go to the legislative drafters. I went to the legislative drafters and said that I want to effect this change. They came back with drafts. They came back with certain advice. I consulted with counsel who's an expert in immigration law. I asked whether this was redundant or not. The argument I got back was no.
All I want to do is to cover all the bases here. Just so that we're absolutely clear, with all of the arguments I've laid out, you're suggesting that this particular amendment is effectively unnecessary, and it's the second amendment to subsection 5.1(4) that would effect the change that I'm after.
Director General, Citizenship Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm going to refer it to my colleague Jody to elaborate.
Jody Dewan Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Perhaps, if it may be helpful, I can explain in more technical terms why this particular amendment is of no effect. This doesn't mean that any of the other potential amendments would be the same, but for this particular amendment, I can explain why that happened, if you would like.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Ms. Dewan, is it possible for you to just answer the question as to whether the other amendment that Mr. Erskine-Smith was talking about would do what it is that—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'm happy to hear a more detailed explanation.
If I have the comfort that this doesn't effect the change and that it's the other amendment that effects the change I want, then I'm happy to move on to the other one. It would be good, based on the fact that I'm not the expert in the room and that it's based on other counsel who have suggested that I should put both forward. I would welcome a more detailed explanation.
Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you.
I can try to provide that for you.
As the amendment is drafted, it proposes to remove mention of paragraph 3(1)(c.1) from two places where it appears in subclause 1(8) of the bill. Paragraph 3(1)(c.1), which it is proposing to remove, describes—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
No. That's not the amendment we're talking about.
Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm looking at the wrong one. I'm sorry. I can still—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
The amendment we're talking about is the one that effectively says subsection 3(3) does not apply to internationally adopted kids.
Senior Policy Analyst, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
What this amendment would do is add a new subsection to the act that appears to intend to exclude parents who were themselves adopted from being affected by the first-generation limit, which is described in subsection 3(3) of the act, in cases where their adoption was recognized by the province or territory in which their adoptive parent resides or was in accordance with the Hague convention.
However, as it is currently drafted, the amendment would not have an effect because it cannot apply to anyone. Subsection 3(3) as amended by Bill C-3 would refer only and specifically to persons described under paragraph 3(1)(b), which is people who were born outside of Canada. The proposed amendment specifies that it would only affect or refer to “a person who, while a minor child, was adopted” as a citizen. This is contradictory because any person who was adopted as a minor child and became a citizen cannot by definition be described in subsection 3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act. Those people who are adopted and get the section 5.1 grant are described as citizens under paragraph 3(1)(c.1). If they naturalize and get a regular minor grant of citizenship, they are described under paragraph 3(1)(c).
Adopted people can be either 3(1)(c.1) or 3(1)(c). The amendment as drafted only affects subsection 3(3), which only refers to paragraph 3(1)(b). If the paragraph only refers to paragraph 3(1)(b), and adopted people are only 3(1)(c.1), the two do not connect. Therefore, the amendment does not refer to any specific person who could be affected by it. That is why it is of no effect.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Thank you so much, Ms. Dewan.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, as we've heard, if the amendment were to move forward.... We could do one of two things right now. We could either go to a vote—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
All I care about is the substantive change. It doesn't matter to me how it's drafted or how it's effected, so long as folks who are adopted internationally—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Unfortunately, Mr. Erskine-Smith, right now, you need to make a decision. Either you withdraw this amendment or we go to a vote.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'm happy to withdraw it, so long as I have clarity that.... I would welcome the view of officials that if this is withdrawn—
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
On a point of order, Chair, we have a non-member of our committee wasting our time on something he should be doing his own research for. I'd like to move on because we'd like to get through this today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dzerowicz
Yes.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, I have Mr. Fragiskatos, and then we'll have to make a decision.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London Centre, ON
Yes, Mr. Erskine-Smith is not a full member of the committee, but he is subbing in and he is an elected member of Parliament with full rights to put forward an amendment.
If Mr. Erskine-Smith wants to withdraw his amendment because of what we've heard, that's his choice. Perhaps it would make sense to understand which of Mr. Erskine-Smith's amendments has an actual effect and is not redundant—