Evidence of meeting #31 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 amendment.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mary-Ann Hubers  Former Acting Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Karen Hamilton  Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 31. We are studying, clause by clause, Bill C-24, which is amending the Citizenship Act and other acts.

We have the same officials before us that we had yesterday from the department, in case members have technical questions.

(On clause 8)

I think we finished Green-4, which failed, and we now have Green-5.

Ms. May, I assume the legislative clerk has spoken to you and he has pointed out to you that he's recommending to me that the amendment proposed by you is inadmissible. I concur with him. Do you wish me to go further?

Basically the amendment intends to delete the entire clause. When you do that it's out of order because simply voting against the adoption of the clause would have the same effect, and that comes from O'Brien and Bosc at page 768. So the ruling essentially is that parliamentary practice does not permit a member to do something indirectly what cannot be directly. Therefore, Ms. May, I declare that the amendment is inadmissible.

So, we now proceed to....

Well, there doesn't seem to be anyone to move, so we will proceed with Liberal amendment 7. I don't see anyone making the amendment for that either.

You know, I'd like to be reasonable here.

I'm going to suspend for a minute.

3:34 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Okay, we're back in the saddle again.

We have three Liberal amendments to come forward.

Mr. Regan, Liberal amendment number 6. Do you have any comments to make about that?

3:34 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Yes, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would require that a Canadian facing citizenship revocation would be entitled to a hearing if they request one, and that the minister must notify them of that right. We are fundamentally opposed to the new powers of citizenship revocation. However, we recognize that the Conservatives have a majority and tend to ram these provisions down Parliament's throat regardless of what the experts say; therefore, we have also made a number of amendments to these provisions that we think can add, at the very least, a few checks on these new powers, and we hope that members of the committee will seriously consider these amendments.

We think it's crazy that a Canadian, born here to Canadian parents, a Canadian who goes back generations, could have their citizenship revoked through an exchange of letters. It's one of the most basic principles of due process that people are entitled to a hearing. This amendment would guarantee a hearing for any Canadian facing revocation.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Alright.

Yes, Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a major problem that witnesses pointed out during the study of Bill C-24. One witness even said that a person whose citizenship might be revoked had fewer legal rights than another who had received a parking ticket. I think that shows how ridiculous this provision of Bill C-24 is. For that reason, the NDP will support the proposed amendment.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Menegakis.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Chair, the impact of this amendment would require the minister, or the minister's delegate, to hold the hearing upon the request of an individual, an individual who is subject to a revocation process, which may lead to a less efficient process.

The government does not support this amendment because we feel it is unnecessary and is not consistent with the structure of the new revocation model. The factors that the minister must consider in deciding whether to hold a hearing will be prescribed in regulations. As a majority of revocation cases are likely to be straightforward, an oral hearing may not be necessary. The new model will improve the efficiency of the process, while ensuring fairness and a recourse mechanism for affected individuals. Under the new model, revocation decisions will be made by either the Federal Court or the minister.

Revocation cases decided by the minister would include those related to various revocation cases decided by the CIC minister or delegate. Under the new grounds, the minister would make decisions based on objective evidence where there is a conviction on a limited list of offences. The proposed system includes many safeguards, including the person's ability to make submissions and seek a judicial review. We feel those are appropriate.

As is the case for any other administrative decisions, the minister's revocation decision could be judicially reviewed with leave to the Federal Court. Decisions of the Federal Court would be subject to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court certifies a serious question of general importance.

Now it will also make it easier to revoke citizenship from those who hid crimes committed abroad, which would make it easier to get war criminals out of Canada.

For those reasons—and we could elaborate a lot further on them, but I won't in the interest of time—the government will not be supporting this amendment.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

All those in favour of Liberal amendment 6?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Regan, just so you're clear, because you're filling in for another one of our colleagues, I'm not asking that the amendment be actually read. I'm assuming that when you speak in support of the amendment that it's been done. You don't have to read it, you can just say why you're making the amendment. We all have copies of that amendment.

You can proceed, if you're going to proceed, with Liberal amendment 7.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Yes. I don't think I read it. I didn't read it last time, as far as I can tell.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Well, I—

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Okay.

Liberal amendment 7 would reverse the onus in Bill C-24 so that the minister would have to prove that the affected Canadian has a second citizenship. In our view, reverse onuses are rarely used in Canadian law. When they are, it's only in the most extreme of circumstances. If the minister has gone through all the work to prove that a Canadian should have their citizenship revoked, then they should also be able to prove that their target also has a second citizenship. It shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the Canadian to prove a negative.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Debate...?

Mr. Menegakis.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

It's hardly proving a negative. But anyhow, the impact of this amendment of proposed subsection 10.4(2), with regard to revocation, would put the onus on the minister to prove that the individual in question is a dual citizen. Obviously, the government does not support this amendment and we don't feel this amendment is necessary. Before requiring an individual to establish that they are not a citizen of another country, the minister would first have to identify, based on reasonable grounds, the other country of citizenship.

Also, as this provision only applies to dual citizens, the intent is not to render individuals stateless.

So we're not supporting this amendment.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Regan.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To quote Mr. Menegakis, to prove you are “not a citizen of another country”, that surely is proving a negative. He used the word “not”, for starters, but it's clearly proving a negative.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

We can argue on words, but that's not our purpose here today. We're ready to vote.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

All those in favour of Liberal amendment 7?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Regan, you're proceeding with Liberal amendment 8.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Yes, Mr. Chairman. This would provide that a Canadian will have a full appeal to the Federal Court in the case of citizenship revocation proceedings.

Canadian citizenship, of course, is our most fundamental right. The government shouldn't have the power to remove it without a full and complete right of appeal to the courts. It's absolutely mind-boggling, in fact, that the government would not support such an amendment. To not support such an appeal right would fly in the face of our charter and in the face of the rules of natural justice.

As we have heard from some of our witnesses before this committee, this committee must not think in terms of the here and now. The Conservatives may trust this particular minister with these wide-ranging powers, but do they trust the next minister? Would they willingly hand these powers to a Liberal minister, for example, or even a New Democrat minister? I won't go farther than that, but what about a minister belonging to some new party we haven't heard of yet?

We must always ensure that Canadians have the protection of the courts from the actions of an overly political government, because we cannot predict the electoral future, sadly.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Menegakis.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON

Well, Mr. Chair, the impact of this particular amendment provides for the appeal of a decision made by the minister under proposed section 10. It appears to duplicate proposed section 10.7, which introduces an appeal with a certified question for the revocation of citizenship under proposed section 10.1, or the finding of inadmissibility under proposed section 10.5. The government will not be supporting this amendment, because again we feel it is not necessary.

Under the new model, the minister's revocation decision could be judicially reviewed with leave of the Federal Court. The Federal Court's decision, in turn, could be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, if the Federal Court certifies a question of general importance. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, Mr. Chair, could also be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada with leave.

Furthermore, a revocation decision made by the Federal Court could be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court certifies a question of general importance, and with leave, the Federal Court of Appeal, as I said, could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So there is enough protection there to protect against a little bit of the fear that the member, I believe, was trying to put forth here about perhaps future ministers of other parties. I appreciate his confidence in the current minister. He certainly has our confidence.

So we're going to be opposing this amendment.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Shall Liberal amendment 8 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We move to debate on clause 8.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are at clause 8 of Bill C-24. No amendment could be made to this clause. I think it is important to discuss it.

As I said earlier, clause 8 concerns the revocation of citizenship under the minister's discretionary power. This is one of the main points that has been debated in Canadian civil society and among the experts who appeared before this committee. I will mention only some of the witnesses who opposed this provision of Bill C-24, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and, of course, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. The Canadian Arab Institute stated in a brief that it had sent to the committee that it was opposed to the possible revocation of citizenship.

Several experts appeared before the committee. Some expressed their disagreement with the revocation of citizenship, and others pointed out that the act of stripping a Canadian citizen of citizenship and not allowing that person to appeal the decision was probably unconstitutional.

Now I am going to recall the remarks made by Ms. Macklin, who is an executive member, professor and chair in human rights law on the faculty of law at the University of Toronto and a member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. When she appeared before the committee, she told us these citizenship revocation provisions were probably unconstitutional. She said the following on that subject:

Can you revoke somebody's citizenship in order to punish them for what we'll call crimes against citizenship?... Here's what the Supreme Court of Canada said about that kind of approach:

Then she cited the Supreme Court, which had rendered a judgment on the subject, and she made the following comments on its decision:

In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada stated quite clearly that punishing somebody by depriving them of their constitutional rights, indeed, by denying them all constitutional rights and casting them out in the name of the social contract, is not constitutional.

This lawyer, who is a member of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, raised some major concerns about the constitutionality of this clause. And she was not the only one who did so. The Canadian Bar Association, which also appeared before the committee, has published its opinion several times in newspapers, in briefs and on the Internet.

Here is an excerpt from what the association says about the revocation of citizenship:

Taking away citizenship from someone born in Canada because they may have dual citizenship and have committed an offence proscribed by the act is new. That's a fundamental change. For people who are born here and who have grown up here, it can result in banishment or exile. It's a step backwards, a huge step backwards—and it's a huge step being taken without any real national debate or discussion about whether Canadians want their citizenship amended in that way.

Once again, a group of legal experts raised major concerns about the constitutionality of this aspect. I think we have to take this seriously. We have often seen the Conservative Party make decisions that were subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. I think there is probably a lesson to be learned from that. Bill C-24, which preceded the one we are studying today, also encountered quite serious problems regarding its admissibility.

There is the constitutionality aspect, of course, but there are also all the issues surrounding the debate on justice and the creation of two classes of citizens. That is also a major and fundamental element. I am taking the time to discuss them because we are voting on a clause that has raised enormous concerns among the civil population and the experts in this country and that will make a fundamental change to Canadian citizenship.

We must ask ourselves the following question: why two classes of citizens?

For a single offence, if a person had or might have a second citizenship, he or she would not be entitled to the same judicial process as another person who had only one citizenship. I am not saying here that the sentence might be minor or undeserved, on the contrary. The experts agree that our judicial system provides for harsh penalties for crimes such as high treason and terrorism.

However, consider someone who was born in Canada of Canadian parents, who knows only one country—Canada—and perhaps only one language and who has no attachment to another country. Why should he be denied the same judicial treatment as a person who was born in Canada, and has only Canadian citizenship, simply because a parent has given him or her citizenship in another country? That is the problem. The question here is not whether committing terrorist acts is a serious matter. I believe everyone agrees on that. The NDP agrees that terrorism is an act that merits penalties consistent with the seriousness of the crime.

The bill goes a little too far because it could have the effect of revoking the citizenship of Canadians who were born in Canada to Canadian parents. I am not the only person who has said this. I am echoing the public and the experts who appeared before our committee. This is what disturbs me, just as it disturbs the official opposition and a lot of other people. I am startled to see that the government has accepted no amendments to clause 8 and that we are preparing to vote on a measure with such serious consequences.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

I have on the list Ms. Sitsabaiesan. The bells are ringing. Are they half-hour bells? Does anybody know?

3:50 p.m.

Voices

Yes.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Do you want to suspend or would you like to hear what Ms. Sitsabaiesan has to say?