Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

The second thing is that we've heard some very remarkable statements by both Mr. Khan and Ms. Siddiqui.

I've gone a little deeper. I noticed on your Muslim Canadian Congress' website that it says that “We believe that fanaticism and extremism within the Muslim community is a major challenge to all of us. We stand opposed to the extremists and will present the more humane and tolerant face of our community." I assume you adopt those comments.

Mr. Khan, you said this morning that your community is against all forms of terrorism and extremism and that it supports any policy that protects the principle of loyalty to Canada. Whether we are Christians or Jews or we subscribe to any other community in this country, your condemnation of fanaticism and extremism is a really powerful statement which I hope will be crowed from the rooftops. It is a wonderful consequence of my colleague Mr. Shory introducing this bill that we have this commentary.

I wonder if you could just comment on how deeply held this conviction is in each of your communities.

[Asif Khan]

Just two days ago, we held a peace conference in London, in the United Kingdom, where His Holiness made an address speaking to these points. The newly appointed Ambassador for Religious Freedom, Andrew Bennett, was actually present and made a comment there as well.

We are continually doing events such as this. We do interface symposiums in Canada, and we've conducted about 200 to 300 of them across the country. Many of the topics are along the lines of generating peace within society, eradicating extremism, and taking measures for world peace. We will always speak for this, and we will never stop. We hope that we will have world peace one day.

[Salma Siddiqui]

What you have read is what we are standing for. We are speaking out. We're not a large group like the Ahmadiyya, but the fact is that our message is resonating. We get a lot of opposition.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask both sides to look at what we are doing at the Muslim Canadian Congress, a small group but a group that has a voice. Please let's look at having non-partisan support. Let's not look at political correctness the way we have come to know it today, because it only impacts people who want peace. One group goes and talks to some so-called leaders and their wrong habits get reinforced, for example at the conference that took place in Toronto where, if I may say, Prime Minister Harper's message went in...and Justin Trudeau actually appeared as a keynote speaker.

Let's look at where we are going, not just for political correctness, but that we are there for everybody. We're looking for help from the politicians, so keep your doors open to us, please.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you for your comments.

I am going to ask this question again. In terms of the bill, what recommendations can you give us to promote loyalty to Canadian citizenship? What else can we do in terms of the citizenship oath that people take when they become Canadian citizens?

Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Khan?

[Asif Khan]

The majority of people who are coming to this country are loyal to the country, and Canada's doing a wonderful job of promoting that. I think it just speaks to the fact that everybody who could possibly apply and become a Canadian citizen from different parts of the world would love to do so. I don't think we have any issues in promoting these concepts of loyalty to the country.

Unfortunately, it's just some prevailing forces on the other side that are creating the issue. I don't think there's anything more that we can do to the oath or anything else that will attack those ideologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the final word.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here.

Professor Scoppio, you were talking about the impact or the effect on the Canadian armed forces and that it would be such a small number of people who would be impacted by this bill. When Mr. Mr. Shory introduced it, he said that it was to try to accomplish a state of being able to increase diversity within our Canadian Forces. You mentioned that it probably won't really accomplish that because of the statistics we got last week from the officials from the forces, which indicated that only about 15 people per year would be affected.

If this bill were to be enacted, do you think the Canadian Forces could actually end up creating positions that are specifically for permanent residents and—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, but we have a point of order. Stop the clock.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I just heard the member opposite say that my colleague, Devinder Shory, had said something about the intent of this bill that I actually don't recall his saying its purpose was. I'm raising this now because I'm sitting here and don't recall that being said.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have no idea.

Proceed.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just quoting the quote that you had cited today.

My question, again, in case you missed it, was do you think the Canadian Forces could actually end up creating positions that are specifically for permanent residents? Would it be targeting permanent residents by creating new positions within the Canadian Forces to accomplish some of the goals here?

[Prof. Grazia Scoppio]

To be fair, what Mr. Shory actually said in his speech—which I listened to a recording of—was that the bill would provide new Canadians with more pathways to integration.

To answer your question, I can't speak on behalf of the department, but I'm not aware of positions being created for any specific group. In fact, if we go to the intent of the Employment Equity Act, it is not to have targets and not to.... It's very different from affirmative action, which would be something like what you are talking about. There are no quotas to fill. There are goals. So we, as an organization, strive to achieve those goals, but there are no quotas to achieve.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

Jinny, do you want the rest of my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I have one more thing to do, so I'm going to stop the questions for now.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming. You've made a good contribution to our deliberations on this bill. We thank you for your thoughts and insight.

The witnesses are excused, although I have a brief matter for the committee to consider. I have alerted the two critics and the parliamentary secretary.

As you know, we changed our schedule for April 18, which will result in our starting the clause by clause on Tuesday, April 23. Therefore, we need to change the motion we made some time ago that outlined the deadline to submit amendments, in order to reflect that change.

The motion that I am suggesting, which I'd like someone to move, is as follows:That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Thursday, February 28, 2013, the amendments to the Bill be submitted to the clerk in both official languages forty-eight (48) hours before beginning clause-by-clause consideration, that is, before 3:30 p.m. on Friday, April 19, 2013, and that these amendments be distributed to members in both official languages as soon as possible on Monday, April 22, 2013.

Do I have a mover for that motion?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will now reconvene.

I thank you for not listening to me when I adjourned instead of suspended the meeting. I'm glad you all know what's going on in this committee.

Our second witness for the day will be here for 45 minutes.

We're honoured to have you here, sir.

Mr. Furio De Angelis is the representative in Canada for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. With him is an associate legal officer, Nadia Williamson.

Welcome to both of you.

Mr. De Angelis, you have up to eight minutes to make your presentation. Thank you for coming.

[Furio De Angelis, Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for inviting me to participate in the debate on Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

We are pleased to have the opportunity to talk to the committee about this bill in relation to the issue of statelessness. However, before I begin, I would like to briefly introduce UNHCR's role and mandate in terms of statelessness.

UNHCR's responsibilities to stateless persons first started with refugees without any nationality, under the UNHCR Statute and the 1951 refugee convention, both of which refer to stateless persons who meet the criteria of the definition of a refugee.

Following the adoption of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, UNHCR's mandated responsibilities concerning statelessness were expanded.

The General Assembly's resolution in 1974 and 1976 designated UNHCR as the body mandated to examine the cases of persons who claim the benefit of the 1961 convention, and to assist such persons in presenting their claim to the appropriate national authorities.

Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly's resolution in 1995 and subsequent resolutions confer upon UNHCR a global mandate for the identification, prevention, and reduction of statelessness, and for the international protection of stateless persons.

UNHCR'S stateless mandate includes prevention of statelessness. As a result, it is not limited to addressing cases of statelessness which have already occurred. This means that UNHCR works to identify and address risks of statelessness, which may arise as a result of a gap in nationality laws and a conflict in laws between states; administrative obstacles, such as onerous requirements for proof of nationality; the situation of state succession; and discrimination on race, gender, disability, and other grounds.

It is in relation to this intersection, between prevention of statelessness and citizenship, and the office's responsibilities in respect to the 1961 convention, that UNHCR welcomes the opportunity to present to you one specific comment on Bill C-425.

Please allow me to clarify again from the outset that UNHCR can only comment on elements of the bill that relate to statelessness. I will therefore avoid referring to questions of withdrawal of Canadian citizenship for individuals who possess dual or multiple nationalities as in principle, statelessness is not an issue in such cases.

With respect to Bill C-425, clause 2 of the bill amending section 9 on the Citizenship Act provides for withdrawal of Canadian citizenship, as follows:

A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

In this respect, UNHCR would like to submit that the possible withdrawal of citizenship of a Canadian national who is also a legal resident of a country other than Canada is at odds with the provision of articles 7 and 8 of the 1961 convention, requiring contracted states not to permit renunciation, or provide for loss of nationality—article 7—or deprivation of nationality—article 8—where the individual concerned would be rendered stateless.

I wish to state from the outset UNHCR's acknowledgement and appreciation for the minister's comment before this committee, that since Canada is a party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the bill needs to be amended in order to ensure Canada follows its international obligation. The minister stated that, as written, the bill would apply to citizens who are legal residents of another country and should they not have dual citizenship, it would render them stateless. The minister urged the committee to consider amendments so that only those with dual citizenship would have their citizenship renounced to ensure that no one is made stateless.

UNHCR fully concurs with this position and highlights that this is the only section of the bill that, if not amended, would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the 1961 convention. Therefore, UNHCR respectfully recommends the words “or a legal resident” be deleted from the text.

I would like to add a few words on renunciation laws and the provision of nationality in accordance with the 1961 convention. The 1961 convention prohibits renunciation laws and deprivation of nationality when this results in statelessness. There are exceptions to this general rule, as foreseen in article 7 with regard to loss of nationality and article 8 with regard to deprivation of nationality. These exceptions are not applicable to Bill C-425. The exceptions are narrowly defined.

With respect to loss of nationality, the only exceptions to the general rule are in relation to prolonged residence abroad by naturalized citizens and failure to register for individuals born outside the territory. With respect to deprivation, the exceptions to the general rule relate essentially to nationality acquired by misrepresentation or fraud and conduct that is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty toward the state. However, this latter set of exceptions to the general rule prohibiting deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness may be applied only by those states that made a declaration at the time of signature, the ratification of accession that they retained the right to apply. Canada did not make such a declaration upon accession to the 1961 convention in 1978.

The convention also requires that these grounds needed to exist in national law at the time the declaration was made. Canada, together with the U.K., put forward the drafting for these elements of article 8 of the convention when the text of the 1961 convention was negotiated.

International human rights law foresees differences in treatment depending on the specific circumstances of different groups of people. This approach can be summed up with the axiom that people in the same situation must be treated the same, people in different situations may be treated differently, however there must be a legitimate reason for a difference in treatment. In support of this principle, the United Nations Human Rights Committee states, “The enjoyment of rights and freedoms on an equal footing, however, does not mean identical treatment in every instance”. This is paragraph 8 of “General Comment 18”, the Human Rights Committee, 1989.

It is necessary that the Citizenship Act differentiates between the impact of specific elements of the Citizenship Act on people who have another nationality and on those who do not. The former are left without the protection of another state, while the latter are stateless. The difference in treatment therefore serves a legitimate purpose, which is the prevention of statelessness.

Chairman Tilson, honourable committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Your Excellency, thank you very much for your remarks. I think you were here for Bill C-31, and we thank you for that, too.

As you know, members of the committee will now have some questions for you, and perhaps for Ms. Williamson as well.

Mr. Menegakis is first.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Your Excellency, for your presentation and for appearing before us this morning.

We know that a Canadian citizen can have his or her citizenship taken away if it was obtained fraudulently. Almost all our peer countries have the ability to strip citizenship for reasons such as treason and terrorism, among other things, yet critics of this bill claim that Canadian citizenship is an inalienable right. How do you respond to that?

[Furio De Angelis]

As I expressed, there is a general rule that is the basis of the 1961 convention. I remind you that in the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, the general rule is that no action of the state should render a person stateless—no action in terms of accepting renunciation when we allow persons to renounce citizenship or revocation of citizenship. There are two different articles in the 1961 convention. Article 7 deals with renunciation by the individual, and article 8 deals with revocation of citizenship, which means it's an act of the authority.

In both situations this cannot happen if that action renders the person stateless. There are exceptions, as I said. There are exceptions to this general principle on both articles, on article 7 with respect to renunciation and on article 8 with respect to revocation. Certain exceptions are linked to the concept of loyalty to the state.

But as I said, unfortunately in this context, there was a declaration that had to be made at the time of accession to the 1961 convention on the basis of article 8.3 of the same convention, which at that moment of accession in 1978 Canada did not make.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

But this bill specifically addresses people with dual citizenship, so in effect no one is going to be deemed stateless. They will have another country; they would have another nationality. We're talking about people with dual citizenship in the context of this bill.

Do you believe that citizenship should never be taken away regardless of how violent or disloyal one's actions are? Is that part of the UNHCR policy?