Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for your testimony this morning.

Minister, if an individual is deemed to have renounced his or her citizenship, will they be able to reapply at a later date? If so, how long afterwards?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

How long after what?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

If someone renounces their citizenship, can they reapply for it? And how long—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

A permanent moratorium is imposed on individuals whose citizenship has been revoked. Those people cannot reapply. So the decision is final.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

You mentioned that there are several other countries that strip citizenship for treason or terrorism or other reasons. In fact, Canada seems to be a bit of an anomaly for not having these provisions in place. Can you expand a bit on the practices in other countries? Are they more strict or more arbitrary than what we have in Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

They're much wider. I've mentioned some of the countries that we've looked at. In Australia, for example, the minister may revoke citizenship if it would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. That's based on the minister's opinion. It's a very broad discretion. In the United States they can pursue revocation for a conviction of high treason, or for being a member of an armed force at war with the United States.

In the United Kingdom an individual may be deprived of citizenship if it is “conducive to the public good”. There have been a number of recent cases where the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom, based on an amendment that had been adopted by Parliament under the previous Labour government, revoked citizenship because it was conducive to the public good. They did this to people who had been advocating violent extremism in the United Kingdom but who had not been convicted of the kind of serious terrorist defences that we are proposing.

New Zealand may deprive an individual of citizenship if the person has acted in a manner contrary to the interests of New Zealand.

These are just some examples of our closest peer countries, common law countries, that like Canada are great champions of human rights. All of them have in their respective citizenship laws much broader grounds for deprivation of citizenship than what we are proposing.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to who this bill would impact, especially after the suggestion was made by you to strip the citizenship of dual nationals who commit terrorist acts. Some people seem to think that it would apply only to foreign-born Canadian citizens. Can you clarify that? Would it apply to everyone, regardless of whether they were born here or naturalized into the country?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

In fact, I think the most frequent criticism that I've seen in public commentary against Mr. Shory's bill and suggested amendments is the idea that the bill somehow creates two-tier citizenship, one for naturalized Canadians and another for those who obtain their citizenship through birth on Canadian soil. This is a complete misunderstanding.

The bill, either as drafted or as potentially amended, would apply equally without respect to whether people are born in Canada or were naturalized as Canadians by immigrating here. But there is a limitation because of our obligations under the international Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which we ratified in 1978, which convention does not allow acceding states to take an action that would result in someone becoming stateless. That's a legal limitation we have.

In principle, I would prefer for us to be able to deprive traitors and terrorists of citizenship regardless of whether or not they are dual citizens, but we cannot take that step, based on the legal advice I have, because of our obligations under the convention.

But you could be born in Canada and inherit citizenship from your parents, or you could go out and become naturalized in a second, third, or fourth country, or multiple countries, or you could immigrate to Canada, having retained the citizenship of your country of origin, or you could immigrate to Canada and renounce that original citizenship and go out and seek citizenship in a third country. So the notion that this is discriminatory vis-à-vis naturalized Canadians is completely inaccurate.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I know you touched on this a little earlier, Minister, but critics of this bill claim that Canadian citizenship is an inalienable right. Could you respond to that one more time? I just want to get clarification on that.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Citizenship is alienable. It always has been alienable. It is alienable in every other democracy. It is alienable based on the volition of the citizen. They can choose to renounce their citizenship. It is also alienable based on an initiative of the government under enumerated grounds, those enumerated in the Citizenship Act.

Under the current act, the enumerated grounds are essentially if the citizenship was obtained through the commission of fraud, but prior to 1977 another enumerated ground for revocation was an act such as acts of high treason or acts of war against Canada.

It is alienable. It always has been alienable. That only makes sense, since it is predicated, as I say, on a reciprocal loyalty.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow, please.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

For the 15 soldiers overseas, some of them might be born outside Canada and have children who also might become soldiers and have children who are born outside Canada. Like 2.8 million Canadians living abroad, any children who are born to a second generation—kids like myself, Canadians—will not have citizenship, because the Citizenship Act has a flaw in it: a second-generation cut-off, whether it's diplomats, soldiers, ordinary Canadians, or adopted kids. If I adopt a kid and the kid comes in as a Canadian citizen, and if their kid then happens to be born abroad, their kid wouldn't have citizenship.

While fast-tracking soldiers' citizenship sounds great, what about their kids and their grandchildren? They can't be citizens. They would be stateless.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Just to clarify, Ms. Chow, are you talking about the second generation, the two generations born abroad rule that was adopted in 2008?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That's right.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Okay.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So for these soldiers, while we fast-track them, what will happen to their children? Is this not something we could also fix?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

To answer the question, Mr. Chairman, I would say that whether they are soldiers who are able to accelerate the acquisition of their citizenship or not, if their children were born in Canada they will immediately obtain Canadian citizenship. If the children were born abroad and one of the two parents is a Canadian citizen, they have Canadian citizenship. And indeed, they just need one of their four grandparents—no, it's just the parents; it's two generations.

This was a provision adopted unanimously by Parliament in both houses, all parties, all members, in 2008. I don't see this as a matter of contention.

There have been some suggestions that we ought to amend the Citizenship Act to make an exception to the two-generation born-abroad rule for crown servants. Indeed, I proposed such an amendment in the last Parliament and I intend to bring that amendment forward again.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

On the whole notion of who should have their citizenship rights taken out, your suggestion is dual citizenship. As I said, there are 2.8 million Canadians who live abroad half the time, or some time, and they travel back and forth. Some of them take out dual citizenship so that it's easier to do business in that country. In the case of my mother-in-law, she travels in the south, so she took out U.S. citizenship recently because of the hassle at the border. Why would you want to discourage people from taking dual citizenship?

I hope it never happens to people, but some countries force people to get into the army. Some countries take teenagers and force them to become child soldiers. In those cases, those people could be Canadian but may have dual citizenship and are forced to become soldiers in that country. Is that then an act of treason, an act of war? What will happen to these Canadians?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Unless your mother-in-law is planning to blow up a school bus or join a foreign army at war with Canada, she has nothing to worry about, Ms. Chow. So I really don't think this is going to discourage people from becoming dual citizens.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

She is 86 and not about to do any of that.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I would also point out that the minister would retain discretion not to pursue application for deemed renunciation for individuals, for example, where they have been compelled to do something against their own volition.

There is an analogous provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as you know, which says that a serious criminal conviction in a foreign country is not considered grounds for inadmissibility if that would not also be a crime in Canada. That is to say, we will look at the actual conditions, the actual circumstances of a conviction for terrorism abroad or an act of war against Canada abroad, and if it's clear, for example, that the person was not culpable or that it was a trumped-up charge, then we would not use that as grounds for deemed renunciation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Your time has expired, Ms. Chow.

Ms. James, you're next.

But I have a brief question to ask either you, Mr. Minister, or Mr. Stevens. It has to do with the issue of whether or not we're creating two classes of citizens, which we may already have. I think it was Orwell who said all men are created equal but some men are more equal than others.

If you are convicted under clause 2 of this bill, if it passes and the committee cleans up the wording, “act of war”...if you are a naturalized citizen and you're convicted of the different charges that could happen, you would go to jail and you would serve your time and then you'd come out. If you have dual citizenship by whatever means—either you have applied for it or by some other means—you go to jail and then we kick you out of the country.

The question to you, Minister or Mr. Stevens, is whether that creates two classes of citizens. The same argument could apply for clause 1, I suppose. If we are creating two classes of citizens, does that violate the charter or something else, again referring to the Orwell statement—or whoever said it—that all men are created equal, but in this bill all men aren't all created equal.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, again, all citizens would be treated equally under this bill regardless of whether they were born in Canada or born abroad, regardless of whether their citizenship was obtained by birth on Canadian soil or through naturalization. There is, however, a limitation in the application of that as an operation of the accession to the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. As I said, in principle I would be happy for this to apply to people who are not dual or multiple nationals, but I'm advised we don't have the capacity to do that legally.

Again, I don't think this is a problem in theory or in practice. It wasn't a problem in Canadian law before. It's not a problem in the other western democracies. I'm not aware of this being an issue.

Do you want to complement that, Mr. Stevens? He was asking you as well.

[Eric Stevens]

Yes. I would say that in terms of the charter, the section that would be relevant to think about is section 15, but under section 15 we know that not all distinctions constitute discrimination. What's very important here is the reason why the distinction is being made. That is in law we have a self-imposed restriction by having signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay. We'll see how things progress.

Ms. James.