Evidence of meeting #27 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 citizenship.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you very much.
We've heard from the Canadian Bar Association that some of the provisions in this bill do not conform to the charter, and that it would be difficult to argue in the Supreme Court if it comes up for closer scrutiny of this particular bill. One of the provisions under this bill allows the minister to decide whether a naturalized citizen will be deported or not. Do you think that, rather than one minister deciding, the courts should be deciding?
4 p.m.
President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations
Again, I must also say that I'm not an expert coming in, but definitely I think that the government will do that. The courts will decide. We have been looking at that.
I talked to you about a personal thing that we need to see. For the immigrants to be able to move forward, we have to be perfect citizens, and that is where I think the charter will play a role.
May 14th, 2014 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Currently under Bill C-24 the minister will decide many revocation cases. Given the magnitude of these decisions, I think it's critical that they be made with due diligence and impartiality. I have trouble with the minister deciding that, so I think a better course would be for a court case or the judiciary deciding and looking at all the facts before we deport somebody from this county.
You talked about increasing the time from three years to four years. As you know, we have many students who come into this country. They are in school at universities. They are attending university for three or four years. Yet when they decide to become permanent residents, they may have been in this country for four or five years, and the government as it currently stands does not take into account the time that has been spent by those students here up to the time they get their permanent residency. Do you think we should be including that time that students have been in this country as part of the criteria to recognize the four years?
4 p.m.
President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations
You're asking the wrong person, because it's going to open the floodgates. There are a lot of people coming in just on student visas. Is there any stipulation where you can put “I want to be living there”? I think that if they're coming in on a student visa, they have to do the same time as any new applicant. So no, I don't agree with that.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Madam Siddiqui, you pointed out that some critics think this bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the government's agenda or there are other reasons for it. You said you were very proud that some of the provisions in this bill you really liked.... Can you maybe highlight the parts that you actually agree with again, please?
4 p.m.
President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations
I think I will stand corrected. I did not say that I'm proud. I'm a proud Canadian. That's what I said.
I definitely like the fact that there is an extension in the days that a person should be present here. The fact that this has been abused, the fact that it gets into the investors program, which is flawed—and I must say it is flawed. I personally know of cases where people have come to me and have said, “I can be your partner in business, but she will not be here.” So yes, this will deter people who are coming in just to be here for a short time, or at least will make it a little difficult.
4 p.m.
NDP
Jasbir Sandhu NDP Surrey North, BC
Again, Madam Siddiqui, you pointed out when you started your presentation that this immigration system has been broken and abused over the last number of years. I want to remind you—and for the record—that the last number of years have been under the Conservative and the Liberal governments.
4 p.m.
NDP
4 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to both witnesses for being with us today.
In particular, Mr. Gupta, I appreciate your willingness to share with us the tragedy of Air India. I know that we were all shocked by this and have been for many years. I know that my colleague, Bob Rae, has worked very hard on this with your group over the years.
I appreciate you both being here today with us.
I'd like to ask a question about terrorists. I think all of us agree that terrorism is a heinous crime and terrorists should be punished. We may or may not agree that terrorists should have citizenship removed, but I think we all agree that someone who is wrongly accused of terrorism and is not really a terrorist should not have his or her citizenship removed.
In other words, I'm talking about the safeguards in the system. Somebody charged and convicted of terrorism overseas could be subject to citizenship removal, and we may not agree totally with all of the courts overseas. At one point, for example, Nelson Mandela was regarded as a terrorist by South Africans in the apartheid era, and now he's regarded as a hero by many.
So my question is, how would you treat convictions for terrorism by foreign courts whose judicial systems or traditions you may not agree with? Should those convicted automatically have their citizenship removed or would it have to go through an appeal system? How would you deal with that kind of situation?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
I think the example you gave is a very pertinent one. Even though Nelson Mandela was convicted by the then South African government, we, as Canadians, did not condemn him.
I think the same thing will happen.... The bill says that it has to be equal to a conviction in the Canadian system. The wording of the bill, if I read it right, says clearly that it would amount to so many years of a sentence in the Canadian system or equalling that. So I don't have any problems in revoking the citizenship of dual citizens who are involved and whom the Canadian justice system considers to be equivalent. That safeguard is built into the bill, so I don't see any problem there. Otherwise, we shall have a problem. Again, we have to stand up and give up this policy of political correctness.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Actually, all the lawyers who I have heard disagree with you, but I won't pursue the matter. Let's just drop this.
Let me ask another question.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Well, maybe all these lawyers are politically correct, but that is what they have said.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
May I add that, for any opinion a lawyer gives, I can find another lawyer who will give you the opposite opinion?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm just citing those I have heard.
Do you think, if someone is going to have his citizenship removed as a convicted terrorist, that person should have the right to appeal the decision to the Federal Court?
Maybe I'll start with Ms. Siddiqui. Should the person have the right to appeal to a court before the citizenship is removed? Or should the minister be able to do it without the person having the right to appeal?
4:05 p.m.
President, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations
This is something that I would not like to comment on. I believe that our systems are so strong and that—as we cited, the charter— everything right will be done, and I go along with that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
I think they should have the.... In the bill, if I read it right—and you can correct me, because I'm no expert in the legal mumbo-jumbo—it says that the matters of national security will come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm asking you if they should have the right to appeal.
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
Well, if they are under the Federal Court, they would automatically have the right.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Okay. I don't think the bill does say that, but you've said that you think they ought to have that right. Fine.
Thank you.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
Thank you, Mr. McCallum.
Your time is over. I'm sorry.
Mr. Shory.
