I've prepared a 15-page brief, which I gather has been circulated to the committee. To start, I'll go through the recommendations at the end. I have seen the proposed amendments and they have been helpful.
The brief makes 10 recommendations. The first is that the bill encompass all acts of war or acts of armed conflict rather than just attacks on Canadian Armed Forces. I can see that the amendment picks up that suggestion.
The second proposal is to apply the bill only to citizens of a country other than Canada and not to legal residents of a country other than Canada, when it comes to laws of citizenship. Again, the proposed amendment to the bill picks that up.
The third proposal is to not apply the bill to persons born in Canada whose primary connection is Canada. That's not something in the amendments.
I'll point out that the bill right now could potentially apply to somebody who was born in Canada, has never left Canada, and has no connection with the other country of citizenship other than the fact that, potentially, one of the parents is a citizen and had that citizenship passed on. That parent may never have been to that other country in his or her life and may not speak the language of that country.
We have to think about what would happen if other countries were to pass the same legislation we did. I think we would be dismayed if we found another country shipping to our borders someone who doesn't know English or French, has never been here, and has committed an act of terrorism abroad.
The fourth proposed change is to change the consequences of the acts encompassed by the bill from deemed application for renunciation of citizenship to revocation of citizenship. One of the anomalies of the bill was that it was in a deemed application. The amendment, to a certain extent, corrects that by saying you can't withdraw the application. We still have terminology that doesn't reflect reality. This is not an application for renunciation. It is revocation, and it should be called revocation, simply to use language that conforms to the reality. Another reason, which I will get to later, is that we should have the same procedure for the same consequences.
The result of the different labelling—and this has to do with the fifth recommendation—is that we have different procedures for this type of revocation than we do for other types of revocation. For this type of revocation, which is a deemed renunciation, there would be a decision by the minister and then access to the Federal Court by way of judicial review. For other types of revocation already in the act, the issue goes to the Federal Court on the merits of misrepresentation. It's our position that in both cases the procedure should be the same and should use the same terminology.
We also say—and this is recommendation 6—there should be a removal order issued within the same procedure as the revocation or deemed renunciation. There should be consolidation of proceedings. This government proposed this in Bill in a previous Parliament. It was also a proposal to a previous government, in Bill , that revocation and removal be consolidated. The way it stands now, if this bill is enacted, you'll have a revocation, but the person will still be in Canada. So there would have to be some consideration of removal procedures.
B'nai Brith has had extensive experience with revocation. Our experience is that revocation alone is not sufficient to deal with the problem the legislation is directed towards. One has to consider removal, and removals have not been working well in conjunction with revocation.
The seventh recommendation is to limit the ground of revocation or deemed renunciation relating to acts of war or armed conflict to personal participation in such an act or membership at the time of war or armed conflict. This component of the law, for membership at least, must be prospective only. Right now we have it, even with the amendment going before the bill, as well as after the bill, and not limited to membership at the time of the armed conflict.
This is an issue that arises very often in immigration, where membership before the act or after the act is sufficient to allow for loss of status, and presumably that jurisprudence would be carried forward here. If somebody is a member before the act or after the act, but not at the time of the act—and particularly if that's the case before this legislation is passed—it would be improper to revoke citizenship or deem renunciation.
The eighth proposal is to provide as an exception to the ground of revocation/deemed renunciation for conviction for having committed an equivalent foreign terrorism offence that the conviction was imposed in disregard of accepted international standards. Again, that's an exception in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for the refugee protection definition. Right now the bill proposes that you could lose status for having committed a foreign terrorism offence, even if there was a conviction for that offence abroad, even where that conviction was imposed in disregard of accepted international standards. The reality is that many repressive governments accuse their opponents of being terrorists, and convict them of being terrorists, when the real crime is being opposed to the repressive government in place, and one has to make some allowance for that.
The ninth proposal would expand the grounds of revocation/deemed renunciation to include complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, and genocide. Right now we are limited to armed conflict and a few other specifics. We believe the concept applies, and should be applied, to these other grave international human rights offences.
Finally, we propose authorizing revocation/deemed renunciation only where prosecution is not reasonably practical, because revocation/deemed renunciation is a remedy, but for some people who are already living abroad, it doesn't have much of an impact, and prosecution, if it's available, is preferable in terms of its deterrent effect.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming this morning.
Mr. Chair, as everyone knows, this bill is based on my three beliefs: I believe in more pathways to integration; our troops deserve the highest respect; and in my view, Canadian citizenship is a privilege that deserves the highest esteem.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee members' taking this bill very seriously and putting in all their time. I also appreciate the witnesses for their input, and specifically those witnesses who lost their loved ones in this kind of activity. They had to listen to all the other witnesses, to an extent, with my colleagues from the opposition basically shrugging away the victims' concerns and trying to defend offenders, I would say.
In my view, Mr. Chair, the individuals who attack those who give their lives or put their lives on the line to defend Canadian values, to defend the rights we enjoy here, should not have any right to Canadian citizenship or the privileges that come with that citizenship.
Mr. Matas, as you know, eighty percent-plus Canadians from coast to coast to coast have supported this bill, and of course your organization has supported my bill—I thank you for that. On top of that, during break weeks, etc., I had an opportunity to meet numerous Canadians from numerous provinces, and I have not found one single Canadian who would not support the intention of my bill, which basically says that those who protect our privileges and the rights that come with citizenship should have the right to citizenship as well.
I have attended all the meetings during this bill's study in this committee, and it saddened me, to an extent, when I saw some witnesses—and, as a matter of fact, some of my colleagues—suggesting that there is no due process in my bill. For the benefit of those members and, if they are watching, those witnesses, assume that section 18 of the Citizenship Act simply puts up the process under which the minister is obligated to, first, notify the person or individual affected. Then there is a judge who will make a decision, and that decision is appealable in the Federal Court. On top of that, the minister will also have the right or authority to change that decision.
My question, Mr. Matas, is very simple today, because we are talking about the bill and the assumed amendments, which I have to go through minutely.
In your view, once someone is convicted of any of these offences—terrorism, act of war, or, as you call it, armed conflict, or whatever we eventually call it—what minimum sentence should be required to apply to that convicted individual?
:
The issue of what the minimum sentence should be is not an issue that B'nai Brith has taken a stand on.
I noticed you referred in your preamble to the due process, and that's something we did address in the bill. I appreciate that there is a process. As you point out, there is the section 18 process.
The concern we have is that that's a different process from the process for revocation for fraud and misrepresentation that exists now. We should have a uniform process for revocation. It shouldn't be a different process depending on the grounds of loss of citizenship. It just gets too confusing.
As well, the process we have for revocation now, in my view, is a better process than the one that's set out in section 18. It goes straight to the Federal Court, rather than to the minister, the citizenship judge, and then to the Federal Court by way of judicial review, which is a lot more limited review.
I would encourage an amendment to the bill to have the same process for loss of citizenship under this bill as already exists for loss of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.
Mr. Matas, it's great to see you here this afternoon.
When Mr. Shory introduced the bill—and we were there for second reading. I had always thought that the big push during second reading was to try to recognize the importance of landed immigrants who come to Canada, and that if they joined the forces, their citizenship requirement would be reduced from three years to two years.
Shortly thereafter, the members started to get a bit of attention or play on it. We had a Minister of Immigration who thought he would possibly exploit this particular bill's position on the order paper and bring in a totally different agenda. Now the focus seems to be more on terrorists and taking away citizenship, as opposed to bringing in his own bill. I suspect we will have a great problem with it because it denies us the opportunity to have a good, thorough discussion about what the government, as opposed to this particular private member, might be trying to do.
The charter does give rights to Canadian citizens, and they do have a right to be able to remain in Canada. With some of the suggestions that are being made in terms of potential government amendments, we could see that issue, in particular where there is dual citizenship. As you pointed out, someone could be born, raised, and spend their entire life here in Canada, and then maybe marry someone from another country, and as a result, that individual, because he or she has dual citizenship, could have their citizenship taken away.
Given your background, do you see any potential charter issue here? I would think I would have a right to my citizenship if I were born and raised here and had never experienced any other country. The only reason I might have access to another citizenship is through marriage or something of that nature. Do you see the establishment of two-tier citizenship here?
:
I was interested in your comments about the process, which relates to your question. I'll try to connect the two.
There's been a long history—over 10 years now—of various governments introducing amendments to the Citizenship Act to deal with revocation, for example, Bill , Bill, and Bill, which have some good suggestions in them that we like. We've proposed that some of them be incorporated in here.
It's of some concern to us that all these proposed amendments—which would change the revocation process, which is not working now—are put aside, and instead we have this bill. There are some good things in the bill, and we support many of the components of it, but because it's a private member's bill—and this is a point your colleague Irwin Cotler has mentioned—it doesn't go through Justice charter scrutiny the way government bills do.
To answer specifically, yes, there's a charter right of citizenship, which is not limited necessarily to the way citizenship is defined in the Citizenship Act. It's open to anybody who loses their citizenship to say that this is a violation of their charter right to citizenship, regardless of what the Citizenship Act says.
I can't tell you whether a charter challenge like that is going to succeed or not, but it's certainly potentially there.
[Translation]
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
[English]
My name is Nicole Girard. I am the director general responsible for the citizenship and multiculturalism branch at Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
As the chair has mentioned, I am accompanied here by my colleagues, Ms. Mary-Ann Hubers, acting director of legislation and program policy; Mr. Eric Stevens, legal counsel for CIC; and Mr. Glenn Gilmour, legal counsel at DOJ.
I'd like to thank the committee for providing us with this opportunity this morning to contribute to your discussion of MP Shory's private member's bill.
As you are aware, the bill consists of two key elements. First, the bill proposes to fast track citizenship for members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are permanent residents by reducing the residence requirement for citizenship by one year for members.
The second element of the bill, which has generated quite a bit of discussion, consists of provisions that would deem a person to have applied to renounce their Canadian citizenship or to have withdrawn, in the cases of permanent residents, their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.
I'd like to take just a few minutes to address some of the concerns raised by the committee members, other witnesses, and stakeholders over the course of recent hearings. These include concerns about the term “act of war”, concerns about statelessness, and some of the issues raised about due process.
First of all, concerning an act of war, as the committee has heard, the term “act of war” is problematic. This is because there is no clear definition in law of the term “act of war”. As a result, the term “act of war” would be very difficult for us to apply and could render the deemed renunciation provisions in the second part of the bill ineffective.
To address this issue and to ensure that the bill achieves its intent, proposed that the committee consider amending the bill by replacing the reference to persons who commit an act of war and specifying instead that the act would apply to persons who have served as a member of an armed force of a country or any organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada; have been convicted of high treason under section 47 of Canada's Criminal Code; have been sentenced to five years or more of imprisonment for a terrorist offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, or an equivalent foreign offence for terrorism; or have been convicted of specific offences under the National Defence Act involving traitorous or terrorist acts.
These amendments would be in line with one of the main objectives of the bill, which is to deprive or deny citizenship to those who commit acts of violence and treason against Canada.
[Translation]
It is worth noting that similar provisions existed under the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act.
[English]
Under that act, for example, Canadians could have their citizenship taken away if they committed acts of treason, if they served in the armed forces of another country that was at war with Canada, or if they unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy during a time of war.
Under the current act, as was noted this morning, citizenship can only be revoked in cases where it has been obtained by fraud. Other democratic countries have analogous legal provisions to deprive people of their citizenship for reasons of treason or terrorism. For example, citizens of the United States can be deprived of their citizenship for being a member of an armed force at war with the United States and/or following a conviction for high treason. Australia also has a provision where citizens who become members of the armed force of a country at war with Australia can be deprived of their citizenship.
With regard to statelessness, the committee has heard and expressed concerns that Bill 's provisions could render people stateless. The deemed renunciation provisions, as currently written, would apply to dual Canadian citizens as well as legal residents of a country other than Canada. The challenge with this is that the potential result is that a Canadian citizen who is a legal resident of another country but who does not have another citizenship to fall back on could be rendered stateless. This would be in contravention of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a party.
To ensure that Canada respects its international commitments in this area, Minister Kenney asked the committee to consider an amendment to ensure that only Canadians with dual citizenship, whether they were born or naturalized in Canada, would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship. It's important to note that similar provisions to take away citizenship in other countries, such as in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, also include restrictions to apply such provisions only in cases where it would not lead to someone becoming stateless.
With regard to due process, concerns were also raised in this area under the proposed bill and ensuring there would be appropriate safeguards in place. Under the current act, citizenship judges, who are independent decision-makers, are the decision-makers for renunciation cases. As the minister explained, for deemed renunciation of citizenship under this bill, the appropriate legal safeguards would be in place. CIC would gather available information to determine if the deemed renunciation provisions apply. The individual would then be notified and given an opportunity to provide additional information relevant to the decision. A citizenship judge would then make the decision as to whether or not individuals are deemed to have renounced their citizenship. In addition, individuals would be able to seek review by the Federal Court of a decision to take away citizenship.
Concerns were raised with regard to the possibility—and it was mentioned this morning—that an equivalent terrorism conviction may be from a country where there are questions about the independence of the judiciary or where membership in an armed force may have been the result of coercion. As the minister explained, to ensure that individuals in these situations are not unfairly penalized, the minister would retain discretion not to pursue applications for deemed renunciation for individuals, for example, where they may have been compelled to do something against their own volition. Such a provision would be in line with discretionary provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Once again, Mr. Chair, I wish to thank you for inviting us to appear before you today. I hope these remarks have been helpful, and we would be happy to answer your questions.
[Translation]
Thank you.
There are some key differences. This bill opens up section 9 of the act, which relates to the renunciation of citizenship. The key differences between renunciation and revocation of citizenship under section 10 of the act are as follows.
Canadian citizens can renounce their Canadian citizenship, whether they were born in Canada, whether they were born abroad to a Canadian parent as a Canadian citizen, or whether they're naturalized citizens. That decision is made by an independent decision-maker who is a citizenship judge.
This contrasts with section 10 of the act, which is the revocation provisions. The revocation provisions only apply in cases where citizenship has been obtained by fraud, and the revocation provisions only apply to naturalized citizens.
The third difference is that in fact it's not the Federal Court that makes a decision on revocation cases. That is a decision made by cabinet. The step of the Federal Court is an interim step, but revocation decisions are made by cabinet.
I want to ask about Canada's international obligation to prevent statelessness, with reference to those proposed amendments.
One of our most significant concerns with this bill has been its potential to render someone stateless. The government's amendments, if adopted, would ensure that anyone with citizenship would not be rendered stateless via its proposed changes to clause 2, but the proposed amendments to clause 1 would not ensure that permanent residents couldn't be rendered stateless.
The Library of Parliament estimates that there were 84 stateless refugees accepted into Canada between 2003 and 2010. That totals approximately 12 annually.
We know it is quite possible that no one would ever encounter this problem via the legislation, if passed, with the government's amendments. Nonetheless, our international obligations are important. Can you comment on the problem of statelessness?
:
If I may, there are a number of ways in which the bill and the amendments before the committee for consideration provide key elements of due process, and they are as follows.
First of all, there are limited circumstances in which the provisions of the bill would apply under the amendments because there's a very specific and limited list of specific circumstances, and those are the listed categories in which someone could be subject to the deemed renunciation provisions, the conviction for terrorism or treason, etc. That's the first element of due process.
The second very important element of due process is that the amendment requires the minister to provide notice to an individual who could be subject to these provisions, and as part of that notice the person would be invited to make a submission to provide any information they wish to with regard to their own case.
The third element of procedural fairness is that the amendments clarify that it would be a citizenship judge who is an independent administrative decision-maker who would be making the decision based on all the evidence before them. That would be the evidence put together by the department and the evidence provided by the person concerned.
The fourth element of due process relates to a provision that's already in the Citizenship Act, and it is that any decision of a citizenship judge is subject to review by the Federal Court.
So there are four very important elements of due process.
I think everyone supports many of the principles put forward by my colleague Mr. Shory. We all want to discourage terrorists and strengthen Canadian citizenship around the world and in the minds of all Canadians.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is the one mentioned by my colleague Mr. Dykstra when he spoke about charter compliance. He asked you what you thought about it. I do not want to make a habit out of asking the simplest questions to support my colleague; rather, I prefer asking the most difficult questions.
You have already said that, according to the department, this bill complies with the charter. However, we have heard some people say that this bill would have a different impact on certain people, such as those with dual citizenship.
Despite that, you still find that it complies with the charter. Is that right?
:
I think that's very helpful.
As I say, what most of us aim for in this committee is consensus, ideally unanimity. It seems to me that my friends on the other side have raised some serious questions about the bill. But even with the most serious questions, ultimately I've found an answer to them in your responses this morning. That gives me the ability to see the good things that are being promoted here, especially having heard the problems. The minister, working with the private member to make sure the bill succeeds to the best of our ability, can promote these important principles that all Canadians care about.
Could you comment on what we could do better as a committee, or what we could do better as Parliament, in order to put forward what we're doing here and to make sure it works?
Ms. Girard, would you like to respond to that?
I understand your explanation, but that said, a Canadian citizen without dual citizenship could, eventually, commit this kind of act. So, it is really important to think about the comparison between someone with dual citizenship and someone with single citizenship, in this case Canadian citizenship. In this case, we are faced with a somewhat arbitrary decision, as one of our witnesses said. That was really the context for my question.
I have a second question. One of our witnesses, Catherine Dauvergne, talked about a cost of $40 million to process 13 cases of citizenship revocation since 2002. Do you think we will have to take on similar amounts to apply Bill ?
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.
Prior to 1976—I think Mr. Dykstra alluded to part of this question earlier—Canadian citizenship could be stripped for high treason. The Liberal government at the time chose that it should no longer be grounds for stripping a person of citizenship, even though almost every other peer country would disagree, and many have since added grounds for revocation or deemed renunciation.
In addition, it is legal to strip citizenship from someone who is found to have obtained it fraudulently. I think that's pretty obvious. Clearly there used to be, and there still are, legal and constitutional grounds to strip citizenship from someone.
Would you agree that this would still be the case with this bill and with the suggested amendments?
I'm going to refer to an example that happened this week—the Boston marathon, with 26,000 participants. Hundreds of thousands of individuals were on the streets watching that event take place. We're all aware of the tragic consequences of what has now been deemed a terrorist act. In fact, at this committee we had a moment of silence on behalf of the individuals who not only perished but were injured in that event. There were over 2,000 Canadians who participated in that event, not to mention those who went along to witness those Canadians participate.
I know this is only a hypothetical position, but because we're studying this bill, it stood out for me in terms of understanding the consequences of what these individuals have done. If one of those individuals, hypothetically, were to have dual Canadian citizenship, how would this bill impact those individuals?
:
We were also deeply saddened by the tragic events.
Speaking hypothetically, whether it's in the United States or any country abroad, if there's a situation where a Canadian who has another citizenship, as contemplated under the amendments of the bill, makes a conscious choice to engage in heinous acts and participate and commit terrorism, and that person is ultimately convicted of terrorism, as the amendment to the bill contemplates, there is the potential that an individual, under those circumstances, could become subject to the provisions of the bill.
The two key considerations there would always be, under the proposed amendment of the bill, first, whether the person is an individual who has dual or more citizenships to fall back on; and secondly, whether they are described in one of the categories in the amendments that are put forward for consideration of the committee.
:
I would address your question in the following way with regard to avoiding situations of statelessness, which is a very important consideration for us, given our obligations under the 1961 convention to which Canada is a party, under which we have an obligation to ensure that we're not rendering Canadian citizens stateless.
How we propose to address the issue under the bill would be in the following two ways.
First, there's the amendment before the committee on ensuring that the bill is limited to circumstances where someone has at least one other citizenship to fall back on.
Second, as a matter of procedural safeguard to ensure that problem doesn't present itself, another amendment for consideration before the committee is the one where the minister is required to provide the person notice, and as part of that notice the person would be invited to make submissions in their own case. The person would be enabled to know the case against them, including the department's evidence that the person is a dual citizen and the other part of the evidence with regard to the actions they've committed.
At that time, the person would be in a position to make submissions to the decision-maker, to identify whether they may be at risk or whether the evidence may not be correct that the person is a dual citizen in fact, so that would be a safeguard.
If, for example, the government has evidence suggesting that the person is a dual citizen but for some reason that evidence may not be up to date or correct, the person would have the opportunity to put forward their own evidence on that count. If it turns out that the person doesn't have access to another citizenship, the case wouldn't be able to proceed.