Evidence of meeting #24 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terrorism.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Geraldine Sadoway  Staff Lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group
Nicole Veitch  Law Student Case Worker, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group
Shimon Fogel  Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs
Sheryl Saperia  Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Maureen Basnicki  Co-Founder of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror, and Founder and Executive Director, Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation
Audrey Macklin  Professor and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, and Executive Member, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

4:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Leung, you have the floor.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to Mr. Fogel on one or two points.

First, I wish to mention that we've been discussing the revocation of citizenship and I want to interject that it is for persons who are convicted of those crimes and not simply accused. I think that is very clear in the minister's view. I hope the interpretation is also clear in the act.

Mr. Fogel, what I would like you to elaborate on is a bit more of a theoretical issue, perhaps, and that is this intent to reside. You mention in your statement that there's attachment to Canada and why attachment is so important.

Let me give you an example. There are members of my family who came to Canada, got educated, and acquired citizenship. Then they had to go overseas to work, but they eventually did work for Canadian corporations overseas. There's a net contribution to Canada and after, now I guess, 20 years, they have the full right of citizenship. They haven't committed any illegal act. They have certainly helped build this nation, build our international reach in trade, finance, and commerce.

These are fully bona fide Canadian citizens. They have contributed to Canada. The intent to reside issue is not actually an issue because they still have an attachment to Canada. As Madam Sadoway also mentioned, they happened to marry someone from abroad.

I don't think those are the issues. I think the intent to reside is strictly directed at people who want to use Canada's passport as a passport of convenience to conduct heinous crimes or conduct an act of terror here because we are so generous and considerate in that. Therefore, I don't think a time limitation is of concern in this case. I'd like to hear your comments.

4:10 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

Again, I agree with the premise of your observation; namely, that it's a very slippery slope to start attaching motivation and intent to people's actions. All of us here, I think, can contemplate a whole range of scenarios where someone legitimately has to go and set up a home abroad, whether it's to care for an aged, ill family member, for work consideration or study, or any number of other things.

I don't think that the intent of that clause is to constrain to that degree the movement or decisions of individuals about where they're going to live.

I think you focused in on the true motivation over here when you made reference to passports of convenience or citizenship of convenience. I can think of a couple of specific scenarios in which that applies and where I think it isn't inappropriate for us to challenge the intent of a person with respect to their commitment to Canada.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON

Could you share some of those with us?

4:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

Well, I'll share a couple and somebody else will determine how long I can go on.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

You have three minutes so you have a lot of time.

4:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

In 2006 the Lebanese-Israeli conflict became a hot war and some 15,000 Canadian nationals who had naturalized Canadian citizenship—they weren't born in Canada but they had acquired Canadian citizenship—were airlifted out of Lebanon at a cost of almost $100 million. They were Canadian citizens. The government correctly felt a responsibility to try to offer them refuge and protection and commenced the airlift, which was a very complicated operation. We can see that just in terms of the cost attached to the effort.

Within three months, more than half of them had returned to Lebanon. So the question that I think comes forward is, what actually is their connection to Canada other than a safe haven to be used when circumstances are such that they don't feel comfortable where they're living?

But there are more egregious examples than that. There was a country—and for the moment I can't recall the country but I'll look in my notes because it's here somewhere—where an individual, who was associated with a despotic regime in the course of the Arab Spring and had been convicted subsequently of crimes against humanity, had already acquired permanent residency here in Canada for both himself and his family, even though he wasn't living here.

In order to escape justice in the Middle East, he sought to seek refuge in Canada—not because he had an intention of establishing a life and family and home over here—but rather as a way of circumventing having to be accountable for the crimes he had allegedly committed.

I'm not sure, under those circumstances, it's appropriate for us to be extending that kind of protection.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON

I certainly share with you that it's a difficult decision to make when you assess intent, especially in situations of citizenship of convenience, and marriage of convenience, and birth of convenience, where people do come in here, give birth, and then they leave.

But I thank you for your remarks.

You also mentioned something about attachment to Canada. Can you elaborate on what kind of attachment you are thinking of, and what was behind your reason for making that comment?

4:15 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

You have 30 seconds to answer.

4:15 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I'm a first generation Canadian. My parents were Holocaust survivors who came after the war.

It wouldn't take me 30 seconds to demonstrate what attachment to Canada means if you were to look at my parents and the pride and the gratitude that they express in having come to Canada and having been given the opportunity to build a life over here.

Attachment means that you feel you have a responsibility to contribute to the upbuilding of this country, to add value to Canada, to enrich it with what you bring to the table. You can't do that from a distance. You can only do it by getting your hands dirty here in Canada, going through the winters, and for some of us, the mosquitoes in the summer.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Mr. Leung and Mr. Fogel.

Mr. Toone, it is over to you for five minutes.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again I thank you all for coming today. It has been a very interesting discussion.

I want to underline the unusual nature of the hearings we're having today. We're in committee debating these matters before this bill has been presented to the House for a vote on second reading, which means that we're essentially having a pre-hearing. I think it speaks to the complexity of the nature of the questions in front of us that the government would ask us to do this. It's very unusual. Again I'd like to underline the gratitude I have for your participating in this unusual process.

I want to raise a couple of concerns that I have with the bill. One follows from Mr. Leung's interventions. Concerning the quality of the person requesting citizenship, one element is whether or not they've been found guilty of a crime. I think we have to be careful here, because we've already mentioned—I think, Mr. Fogel, you brought it up yourself—that when some of those crimes happen overseas, the criteria are different. We have people performing legitimate political protests in other countries that, by those countries' definitions, are quite illegal and not permissible, and they end up in jail.

My first exposure to that was when I was quite young, when my parents admitted somebody from Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring as a refugee in this country. I think it was the first opportunity I had to realize that in some other places people are living lives a lot more difficult than ours.

I just want us to be very careful about how it can be that people can be discriminated against by the nature of laws abroad when they are making applications here in Canada. I know you touched a little bit, Ms. Sadoway, on the question of being discriminated against by virtue of the nationality laws of other countries. Could you continue to elaborate on that?

4:20 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group

Geraldine Sadoway

We don't have any control over the nationality laws of other countries. They vary quite dramatically throughout the world. If someone could be a dual citizen and then in another country—and this has happened in Canada, actually, whereby people have become stateless because of the passage of a law in another country. It happened to about 100,000 Canadian-born women whose citizenship was attached to their spouse. When the U.S. passed the Cable Act in 1927, I believe it was, they became stateless. A lot of them were living in Canada with their American husbands at that time.

We have no control over those laws. Taking away citizenship with the understanding that the person may have access to another citizenship is, I think, very dangerous, and it will lead to statelessness.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

I'm interested in that especially because the onus of proof is on the applicants to prove that they are not in fact dual citizens. As happens many times even in Canada, some people in this country do not know all of the rules and all the laws that we adopt here in Parliament, for instance.

4:20 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group

Geraldine Sadoway

We know that some people are dual citizens who don't even know that. Because of the laws in the country of their parents' birth, they are dual citizens. They were born in Canada, yet have no idea of the reality of their situation.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Yes, I too have gone through many cases in which we have to determine under what law somebody is married in international law. It's a classic case. When somebody is at sea and marries, under what law do they fall? Most of the time the person being married has no idea. They haven't the benefit of several years in university to figure this out. I think the burden of proof here is a fundamental problem.

When it comes to residency requirements as well, we've seen it. The Canada Revenue Agency, for instance, has massive amounts of documentation on how to define residency. In the U.S., the revenue agency there has I think given up even trying to define it. Now they've decided they're going tax anybody, regardless of where you are and whether or not you have any intention of returning.

I have 20 seconds left.

Intent clearly poses a problem. I'm going to ask very quickly: within 15 seconds, can you summarize it for us?

4:20 p.m.

Staff Lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group

Geraldine Sadoway

Yes, I think it's absolutely impossible. We've seen it already with just establishing or continuing your permanent residence in Canada. There's a great difficulty for some people who have had to live abroad for very good reasons—to care for relatives or because some accident happens abroad.

So yes, it's difficult.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you, Ms. Sadoway.

Mr. Daniel, your turn.

May 5th, 2014 / 4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here. I, like most of the panel here, am a first generation immigrant. We know the importance of being Canadian and the privilege it is to become Canadian.

I would like to ask Mr. Fogel a question regarding some of the things he has said.

Last week we had a witness who wrongly informed us that Jews had the Law of Return to Israel, so could have their citizenship revoked. But you explained it earlier, and I wonder whether you can elaborate on this and explain it again so that we get it.

4:25 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

Very briefly, the Law of Return was a basic law passed, really, at the establishment of the state in 1948. It was done partly as a way of reflecting the experience that Jews had in Europe. They codified those categories of individuals who would be entitled to automatic citizenship, if they applied, by virtue of being Jewish. They used the same set of criteria that the Nazis had used in reverse, identifying who was a Jew for the purposes of selecting them out for what turned out to be the Holocaust.

However, while it's a right, it's not an obligation. For example, I'm a Canadian-born, Montreal-born Jew. I've been to Israel more than a few times in my life. I carry a Canadian passport because I was born in Canada. I do not carry an Israeli passport. I'm not a citizen of Israel, because I haven't made application to be a citizen of Israel. So there are no circumstances under which I as a Jew, as a Canadian citizen, could have my citizenship revoked by virtue of being a national of another country, be it Israel or any other country.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Joe Daniel Conservative Don Valley East, ON

We've constantly discussed the idea that citizenship here is not for sale, and through this legislation we're looking at strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship.

What type of message would we send to those who are seeking to exploit Canadian citizenship as a means to obtain a Canadian passport and commit acts of terrorism through this legislation?

4:25 p.m.

Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Shimon Fogel

I hope, Madam Chairman, that I'm not going off too far afield here, but our community deals with many controversial issues, not least of which is the ongoing Arab-Israeli dispute. One of the concerns we have had—and this is by no means a blanket statement about any particular group—is with the tendency to import to Canada certain attitudes and orientations that really come from somewhere very far away, rather than allowing Canadian values to assert themselves as the defining set of criteria that inform a person's attitudes.

When we talk about Canadian values as they relate to new Canadians, I think what we're trying to say is that they're a set of values that define us as a country and define us as Canadians, and those are the things that we want new Canadians to embrace. If we allow into that basket attitudes or allegiance to certain things that are antithetical to Canadian values, then what are we saying about the value of the Canadian character?

I think it becomes increasingly important for those contemplating a move to Canada or for those seeking Canadian citizenship to understand that there is a social contract involved. It means embracing those things that are inherently Canadian. They're not just Canadian—other countries share those same values—but they define what we are as a country and who we are as a people.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

Thank you.

Unfortunately, that's all the time we have.

I would like to once again thank the three witnesses for appearing before the committee to contribute to our study of Bill C-24.

I am now going to suspend the meeting and ask our next panel of witnesses to take their seats.

4:35 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

We now reconvene for the second half of the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Joining us, we have three witnesses, two in person and the third via videoconference in just a few minutes. She'll be with us just as soon as we get the technological issues squared away.

In the meantime, we'll have the two witnesses here with us start things off with their presentations.

We have, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Sheryl Saperia, director of policy for Canada. Welcome.

We also have, from the Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation, Madame Maureen Basnicki, founder and executive director, and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. Welcome.

Madame Sheryl Saperia, I will give you the floor for opening remarks of eight minutes.

4:35 p.m.

Sheryl Saperia Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me here today.

I want to give credit; many of the ideas I'll be discussing today were formulated with my friend Danny Eisen, who's with the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. I just wanted to mention him by name.

My comments will focus exclusively on the provisions in Bill C-24 that deal with the revocation of citizenship for treason, terrorism, and armed conflict against Canada. As I have stated in previous testimony, I support these provisions conceptually. They amount to a 21st-century updating of the social contract that has always existed between Canada and its citizens. This contract, common to liberal democracies, broadly refers to the understanding that citizens consent to abide by certain obligations towards the state in exchange for other benefits. Bill C-24 suggests that Canadian citizenship, whether bestowed by birthright or naturalization, is predicated on a most basic commitment to the state: that citizens abstain from committing those offences considered most contrary to the national security interests of Canada.

Treason and armed conflict against Canada are actions clearly intended to damage the country as a national entity and political community. It is therefore fitting that one consequence of these crimes may be loss of citizenship to the country the offender seeks to harm.

What about terrorism? One could make a persuasive case that terrorism, as a unique crime—it’s not me saying this, it's the Canadian courts who call terrorism a unique crime—is so antithetical to Canadian values that anyone choosing to embrace such violence has effectively declared that his or her allegiance lays elsewhere.

Nonetheless, I personally would recommend that the bill stipulate a tighter connection between the crime and the consequence of losing one’s citizenship. Specifically, I suggest that revocation of citizenship for terrorism be triggered only by either terrorist offences in Canada or against a Canadian target elsewhere, or in association with a listed entity. Listed entities have been publicly designated by Canada as terrorist organizations, and in effect have become public enemies of the state. Working with a listed entity in the commission of a terrorist act is a clear statement of allegiance to forces acting to damage Canada.

The bill provides that revocation can stem not only from a domestic terrorism conviction with a sentence of five years or more, but also from a foreign conviction. When the conviction comes from a like-minded country with legal standards similar to Canada’s, this makes sense. But what about a country whose legal system we don't trust?

I understand from last week’s hearing that Minister Alexander envisions a two-step process in his ministerial discretion. The first step would be to examine the substance of the foreign offence and whether it is equivalent to a Canadian Criminal Code terrorist act. This is set out in the legislation. But the second step of the review, which was described as an examination of the fairness of the process by which the conviction was achieved, is not mentioned anywhere in the bill. I would recommend an amendment in this regard.

One option is for the minister’s two-part analysis, which was described by his officials last week, to be codified in the legislation—to be explicit, in other words—that both the substance of the act and the fairness of the conviction would be factors taken into account when deciding on a terrorism revocation case. Alternatively, revocation resulting from a foreign terrorism conviction could involve both a ministerial recommendation and court approval, which would take into account whether, for example, the conviction was politically motivated or the judge was truly independent.

The point is that a measure as severe as the revocation of citizenship needs to be drafted carefully to ensure conformity to Canadian laws and values and of course our international obligations. To that end, I do credit the bill for its consistency with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Bill C-24 provides that if a person holds only Canadian citizenship, it is not possible for that citizenship to be revoked, regardless of the crime, because no person can be stateless.

However, this has opened up the argument that the bill unfairly creates two classes of citizens: those with dual or multiple nationalities, who are at risk of having their citizenship stripped, and those with only Canadian citizenship, who may be punished in a variety of ways but cannot lose their citizenship.

For dual nationals who have chosen that status, often because of personal connection to or benefit from more than one citizenship, this is simply not a compelling argument. Dual citizenship was not forced on them. They are not being subjected to discrimination as a result of any inherent trait. It is a choice they have made, just as they can choose to renounce their other citizenship so as to be solely Canadian and therefore not subject to these provisions.

But what about countries that do not permit renunciation of citizenship? If the government is reluctant to uphold the legal status of a citizenship that a person has unsuccessfully tried to renounce, the following could be considered as a solution.

When someone commits terrorism, treason, or armed conflict, and his or her other citizenship is from a country where renunciation is not allowed, the minister could use his discretion to assess the extent of what I've called “active relationship” to that citizenship. For instance, does the person maintain deep ties to that other country? Has he invoked any of the rights of that citizenship? Has he travelled with the passport of that country, or served in an official capacity only open to citizens? The more active the citizenship, the weaker would be any claim that it was forced on him.

I should note that while stripping away citizenship is one tool to deal with those convicted of the most serious crimes against Canada, preventive or disruptive action should be taken to prevent, in the first place, a situation leading to citizenship revocation. Counter-radicalization programs are essential, and I am heartened to hear that a federal program is set to be unveiled in the near future.

Stronger exit controls are another option. Ray Boisvert, who is a former assistant director of intelligence at CSIS, suggested last year, I believe, that:

There has to be an easy way to trigger a denial of a passport—or the removal of somebody's passport—if there is sufficient information to demonstrate this person has become highly radicalized and/or made threats, or done things to threaten lives or the welfare and well-being of others.

This could apply equally to sole and dual citizens, and unlike citizenship revocation, which is reactive, the removal of a passport might actually prevent Canadians from engaging in terrorism or armed conflict abroad. The RCMP's recently disclosed high-risk traveller case management system, which is intended “to prevent radicalized youths from leaving for conflict zones like Syria, Somalia and North Africa”, seems to employ just such a mechanism.

Western security agencies are concerned that their citizens are travelling to these countries to participate in jihad, gaining the skills and motives to pursue similar acts in their home countries. At least one study has found that terrorists with foreign experience are far more lethal, dangerous, and sophisticated than are purely domestic cells. If the citizenship revocation provisions in Bill C-24 help prevent bloodshed from being exported to or from Canada, they are worth parliamentary consideration. Let us remember that it took only 19 hijackers to perpetrate the 9/11 attacks.

I have one last comment. If this bill goes through, perhaps it should be accompanied by a change to the application for a Canadian passport. Anyone who is 16 years or older should be required to acknowledge on paper the terms of citizenship. The document would clarify to the applicant that engaging in treason, terrorism, or armed conflict with Canada entails the possible revocation of citizenship. It essentially becomes a contract, and if you break the terms of the agreement, you are subject to the penalties.

Thank you.