Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 30th, 2014

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The CBA seems to be recommending to just get rid of it because it's just going to create way more difficulties than it could possibly alleviate.

I'm sure that certain Canadians are deeply offended by some activities of some Canadians.

[David Matas]

Well, I wouldn't say get rid of it completely. I would say get rid of it for a Canadian citizen, if you commit the offence after you are a citizen, that is. But if you've committed the offence before you're a citizen and it meets the test of international standards, which I acknowledge in some countries will never happen, and you are a dual citizen, then it makes sense conceptually in that context. Because you will get, and indeed this happens, people who, before they become Canadian citizens, commit terrorist offences in Britain, the United States, Europe, and then come to Canada. I don't see why the law couldn't deal with that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I appreciate those comments. I must admit, from the experience in my own office processing the citizenships and seeing the endless delays between someone’s PR and their getting final citizenship, if you could junk this whole bill and just fix that problem, it would solve 98% of the grief that comes with doing this.

I'll end there. I'm not a member of this committee and I did come in late on the testimony and I don't want to take away from members who are—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, you did an outstanding job, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Well, thank you. I appreciate that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed. And you've run out of time unfortunately.

Mr. Shory, it's your turn.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses also.

Bill C-24 carries the provisions of my private member’s bill, particularly when we talk about revocation of citizenship and also giving some credit to those who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces.

Before I talk about that, I want to clarify something in this bill.

First of all, Mr. McKay, I want to thank you for recognizing this government's stand on the position in Sri Lanka, which shows that when we talk about foreign jurisdictions, criminality, we simply do not “take it”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for listening to all members of Parliament on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock for a minute.

Mr. Shory, you know, this isn't the time to get into a debate with members.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I'm not getting into a debate, Mr. Chair.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

That was a compliment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please ask a question or make a statement. Thank you, sir.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by clarifying a couple of things. In this bill, when we talk about language requirements, there is a provision for a waiver on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Also, when we talk about criminal actions, we talk about our Criminal Code. The action taken in any country has to be on the same lines as mentioned in our Criminal Code.

Let me get back to the provisions that I strongly believe must become the law of the land.

The committee has heard some opinions for revoking the citizenship of convicted terrorists. I personally, as I've said, stand firmly in the belief that citizenship is predicated on loyalty, and if you seek to destroy the stability of the state through terrorism, you should not hold a Canadian passport.

A Canadian passport is highly regarded. It is very highly respected. Here, on what we are talking about, I'm just shaking my head. We are talking about those few convicted terrorists who intentionally and knowingly use their Canadian passport to go to a third country, maybe go through all kinds of training there, stay there for a few months or maybe years, and then get involved in gruesome actions against humanity. I have heard some witnesses proposing that they should still have the opportunity to stay in Canada and use a Canadian passport, whereas they chose to go somewhere else.

Mr. Collacott, my question is this: what is your view on the justification for the revocation of citizenship for convicted terrorists?

[Martin Collacott]

On this specific question of revocation of citizenship because of involvement in terrorism? Is that the question, Mr. Shory?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

That's correct, Mr. Collacott.

[Martin Collacott]

Well, I think you've summed it up very well. We're not talking about people who have been charged with terrorism in some country that doesn't have a good legal system, and I think that's taken care of in the bill. We're talking about the very obvious cases of people who have gone and gotten involved in very nasty terrorism operations. I don't see the problem.

Of course, if we started taking away citizenship from every Canadian who was charged with a terrorism act, say, in Russia, for activities in Ukraine, or in a lot of other places, we would have a problem, but I don't think that's what the bill is aimed at, and I don't think the bill will be misused for that purpose. I think the safeguards are there and I think they make sense.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Let me share another thing with the witness. We have learned some pretty disturbing news over the past few weeks. First, it was confirmed that one of the suspected terrorists in the gruesome bombing in Bulgaria is a Canadian citizen. Over the weekend, it was confirmed that now two Canadian citizens are alleged to be involved in the horrific terrorist act of bombing in Algeria, and a third and fourth may be involved as well. We have also learned from another committee the again disturbing news that many Canadians have been going abroad to commit terrorism, to commit terrorist actions.

Number one, do you think the radicalization of Canadian citizenship is a growing problem? Number two, do you think it is important for us to send a message to these terrorists who are Canadian citizens that their actions will not be tolerated and will be seen for what they clearly are—a violent renunciation of their loyalty to Canada—and that their citizenship can be revoked?

Mr. Collacott, I want to start with you.

[Martin Collacott]

No, I agree with you. I think that message has to be sent. I might mention that in 2006 I published a paper wherein I recommended that people who are coming here to be naturalized take an oath saying that they won't commit a terrorist act. That particular recommendation wasn't acted on.

On the issue of whether we have two-tier citizenship and treat naturalized Canadians differently from those born here, I think we do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen, but I think there are some cases where there is a strong justification for telling that to people who may come here intentionally to get a base in Canada and get Canadian citizenship to commit terrorism. I don't think there will be that many cases, but there are increasing numbers where that's happening, and it's a serious issue. I believe the safeguards in this bill are sufficient to see that it's not misused or abused.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Collacott.

Do I have some time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

One minute, sir.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Matas, would you agree with me that a convicted terrorist should not have the ability to use a Canadian passport to travel overseas where they may associate with extremist groups or involve themselves in terrorism?

[David Matas]

What I would like to see—you might even want to do this—is to have an amendment added to the act so that the wording of the act would conform to your understanding of it. Right now the act sets an equivalence on the basis of offences, not on the basis of acts.

Your understanding is that if a terrorist act is committed abroad it would be considered a terrorist act here. But the legislation says that if somebody is convicted of an offence of terrorism, and the wording of that offence is an equivalent to the wording here no matter what the act abroad, then the person could lose citizenship. That's a problem. If it were an act rather than an offence, that particular problem that I was worried about would in fact disappear, because then we would look at the quality of the act rather than at the quality of the conviction, or an absence of the quality of the conviction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Shory, I'm afraid that's the end.

Mr. Matas, you were referring to some notes. One of my colleagues has asked if you would be prepared to make them available to the committee.

[David Matas]

In fact I've done so for the interpreters.

I've made a few typographical corrections here, so....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Oh, we don't mind those, or spelling errors.