Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We can go another 15 minutes because it's right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay we'll go a little bit longer and if it gets dangerous, I'll have to wait until after we vote.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it is pretty clear that I will not be supporting clause 8 as well, as per what my colleague mentioned.

It's quite unfortunate that members of the government on the committee are not willing to actually listen to any of the recommendations we heard in the pre-study we did of this bill. We heard.... I'm not going to give you an exhaustive list of the witnesses and what they said, but I do want to talk about some of the issues that were outlined by some of our witnesses and about why I can't support clause 8 of the bill.

For example, you have heard me speak at length about UNICEF, because I think the best interests of the child are important. In the written submission they sent to us, UNICEF mentioned that the “best interest” determination process should be applied in cases in which there is the potential for families to be separated following the revocation of citizenship of a parent, when there are children involved.

If a parent is going to lose his citizenship, what is going to happen to the child? It's not clear now, if the parent is going to be deported because they lose their Canadian citizenship, what will happen to the child. If the family is being separated and a child is left to fend for themselves, is that acting in the best interest of the child? We are a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we are not acting in the best interests of the child.

I won't belabour that point any further; however, with respect to the new section 10 of the Citizenship Act that would be created through clause 8 of Bill C-24, we heard from the Canadian Council for Refugees, who suggested deletion of the new proposed powers to strip citizenship as a whole and amendment of the bill to include a provision explicitly stating that citizenship cannot be removed.

Citizenship shouldn't be treated like a driver's licence; it's not a privilege. I feel that it's a huge privilege to be a Canadian citizen, yes, but it's not something that can be taken away for punitive reasons. If you are a citizen, then you are a citizen—period, end of sentence. It's not something that a partisan minister should have the ability to take away from you for whatever reason.

What we've seen as a pattern in the bills that have affected this citizenship and immigration committee, whereby the minister has more and more discretionary powers to do x, y, or z—and this time it's about the revocation of citizenship—is that every bill that has come before this committee has seen an increase in discretionary powers for the minister, and that just isn't right.

We even had the minister appear before the committee and say many things about the clause 8 revocation section when crimes committed in another jurisdiction are involved. He said that's not really what they were trying to do, and that he's a nice guy, so he wouldn't revoke somebody's citizenship for something that wouldn't be treated as an equivalent crime here in this country. That's great that he's a nice guy and won't do that.

But that's not what the law says; that is not what is written down. What happens if tomorrow he's not the minister and somebody who is not a nice guy becomes minister? Does that mean that this new person will revoke someone's citizenship, and is that the plan?

I don't know. I can only go by what is in ink. The ink on the paper and the experts who have come before this committee have told us that it's very much not clear. Who was it, was it the Canadian Bar Association...? I remember Professor Macklin, who was representing the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

I'm going to quote very briefly from her. She said: “I would remove citizenship revocation. It's unconstitutional.” She then said, “I think our criminal justice system is perfectly adequate to handle crimes, criminal offences, and it does so just fine.”

She's right. If we're dealing with the criminal justice system, when a crime is committed in our jurisdiction or in another jurisdiction outside of this country, it shouldn't be the Minister of Immigration who acts as judge and jury. It really should be a judge—or maybe a jury—and not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who has the powers to just take away somebody's Canadian citizenship.

We heard from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, OCASI, and also the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, who both said that all of the new grounds for revocation of citizenship for dual citizens should be removed, because clause 8 in this bill is actually discriminatory.

The Conservatives on this committees are happy to write a law that is discriminatory towards people who have dual citizenship just because, through their birthright or because they were born in another country or because they choose to keep citizenship in another country.... They are going to be treated as another class of Canadian citizen. That's just not fair. It is discriminatory practice, a prejudiced practice. As lawmakers, we can't condone that type of behaviour.

That is another reason I will not be supporting and just can't support clause 8.

Once again, OCASI and the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic—I wish they had come up with a brilliant little name like OCASI for them as well—said to remove all of the new discretionary powers that are given to the minister. I agree with them. These are two groups that are representing a large number of people who live in the greater Toronto area. I, representing that community, agree with these organizations, who are speaking on behalf of so many of our constituents in the GTA.

We also know—I think it was from the lawyer Robin Seligman, when she appeared before the committee.... She is the one who mentioned that people who have a parking ticket have more rights than people who are having their citizenship revoked.

I'm pretty sure it was her who also outlined to us the way in which Canada can revoke the citizenship of people who may have a second citizenship—for example, Jewish Canadians who have a right to citizenship to Israel, who have never been there before, but just because they are practising, they have that right to that citizenship—for a crime that may have happened.

That is “may have happened”. It's not something we have clear, distinctive proof for, because we can't necessarily trust the judicial system in another country. Do we know that it's of the same quality or calibre as the Canadian judicial system? We don't. In many of these countries in which there are civil wars happening, do I necessarily trust the independence of the judiciary? No. I come from Sri Lanka, and many of the members of the committee have heard me speak about that country and the crimes that take place in that country. Do I trust the judiciary in that country? No. I know that the judiciary is not independent in that country, because the chief justice was impeached by the government because she issued a decision that wasn't supportive of the government.

So I know that in the case of that one country, for example, I can speak with confidence. We can't trust what comes out of the judiciary in that country, because they might say that somebody was convicted of a crime and had a fair trial, but does that mean we're now going to accept it?

It's not clear in the law. That's why I'm belabouring this point; it's not clear. I want to look at witness testimony from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It was by Ms. Saperia. She said:

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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Menegakis?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes. This is now cutting into my voting time, and I think we need to go to vote. This is going on. I'm sure the member can continue after the vote. We're ready to leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right. We're going to suspend.

You'll have the floor when we return.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we're going to resume. We are debating clause 8 of Bill C-24.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was reading a quotation when I was interrupted. I was wondering whether I could read that quotation. It was by Ms. Sheryl Saperia from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Here is the quote again:

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.

That's the same point I was making earlier. That second piece, whereby the examination of whether a person had a fair trial before the conviction that they may have reached in another jurisdiction in another country, is not clearly articulated in this bill, and there has been no change made to that effect. That is another reason I cannot support clause 8.

Time after time, the Canadian Bar Association, CARL or the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, CASID, the local Toronto legal clinic.... There are many other organizations that presented as witnesses or that just sent in a written submission to our committee speaking to the unconstitutionality of this clause in Bill C-24. Considering that it has not been amended at all....

I can go on for many more hours, but I choose not to, Mr. Chair. All these reasons and more are reasons that I cannot support clause 8.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

Mr. Sandhu has the floor.

I apologize. Mr. Menegakis has the floor.

I'm sorry, sir.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Where to begin? There are so many things that we've heard from the members opposite that I would characterize as inaccurate at best, and as probably fearmongering at the other end. Making reference to the members of the committee from the governing party in the way that they have done does not, I think, lend itself to a spirit of openness in debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, I don't recall either of the people who have spoken as having done that.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I do, so that's why I mentioned it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I just don't want to get into attacking—

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, it's not going to happen—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Menegakis, I just don't want to get into the issue in which members of one side are personally attacking people of the other side. I recall Ms. Sitsabaiesan's saying that the bill is discriminatory, but I don't recall her ever making critical, derogatory remarks about members of this committee or individual members of the government.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, the members opposite referred to members of the governing party on the committee. I would ask you to review what they said. I think you'll find that this is true; I did not make this up.

But I will speak to the issues at hand here, because I think it is important for Canadians to know and for all members in this committee to know the accurate facts in the legislation.

First of all is the issue of constitutionality and whether the bill is charter-compliant. I think the minister was abundantly clear, when he was asked that question when he appeared before the committee, that the bill went through a judicial review within the ministry of justice. The Minister of Justice was very clear that it is compliant with the charter. Had it not been, we certainly would not have tabled it, as a government, in the House. So we're convinced about the constitutionality of the elements of the bill.

Let me just say that experts—we heard the members opposite speak to experts and expert witnesses and what experts have to say here and what experts had to say there.... We have many experts here. Experts begin with our officials, who are dealing with these matters on a daily basis, who were here and appeared before us, Mr. Chair.

We heard support for the bill from many witnesses. We heard opposition to the bill from many witnesses. But we were trying to determine, in all of that, the pertinent points, so that we could take them into consideration when reviewing the amendments proposed to this bill.

I think it's worthy to note, and I'm going to say this, that on February 27, before we even met a single witness here—we hadn't even heard from a witness—the opposition stood up in the House and moved that the bill not be heard at second reading, before we even heard any witnesses.

I can go on forever as to how much credibility the opposition actually gives the witnesses, when they want to move not to hear the bill before even having had the opportunity to listen to witnesses who they are now claiming are so important to them, moving forward.

Nevertheless, this clause 8 does deal with the issue of revocation. Revocation is an important issue. If I got the gist of what the members opposite were saying, basically they were asking how it is fair to revoke citizenship for a foreign offence. They are asking such things, perhaps, as what the assessment of equivalence between a foreign and domestic offence would include. Will it include equivalence of a judicial process, and so forth?

I'd like to answer that question, because perhaps that will give them some additional information so that they can reflect on clause 8 of this bill.

The bill does introduce a new power to revoke citizenship on the basis of a person's having been convicted of terrorism and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment. In the case of a foreign terrorism conviction, it would have to be shown that if the offence were committed in Canada, it would constitute a terrorism offence in Canada. Revocations based on other convictions listed, such as treason or spying, would require a Canadian conviction.

Essentially, officers would assess whether the foreign offence could be equalled with an offence under a Canadian federal statute, in this case the Criminal Code offence of terrorism. They would follow the test established by the Federal Court of Appeal in the context of criminal inadmissibility assessments under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The CIC minister has the authority not to proceed with the revocation or to bar someone from acquiring citizenship in exceptional circumstances. This authority would be available for use in cases in which there are concerns about the judicial system in a particular country that could lead to an unfair trial or to politically motivated convictions for terrorism.

Individuals would also be provided with a safeguard in the form of judicial review recourse, which is available to individuals in all revocation cases.

Now, here is the point at which we have a fundamental difference with members of the opposition. We believe that if you commit a crime against the country—of treason, terrorism, against the Canadian Armed Forces—you have committed a crime. This is not an attack on those who have a dual citizenship. I might add that I know many people who have dual citizenship and are not criminals.

I can tell you that dual citizens themselves don't want terrorists that happen to have dual citizenship around them; Canadians have told us. They've told us in our ridings. They've told us in our deliberations. We've heard it from witnesses. We ask that question: who would want a terrorist to be their neighbour?

Also, why would you not want to take away citizenship from someone who obtained it fraudulently? There are benefits when it comes to citizenship, Mr. Chair. Those who have dual citizenship have an additional benefit in another country, which a Canadian citizen doesn't.

Now, we are subject to the international protocol that prevents us from rendering somebody stateless, but let me be clear about one thing. Someone who perpetrates a crime against Canada, such as treason or terrorism, is not absolved of the judicial system here. If they're concerned about their children.... I believe it was Ms. Sitsabaiesan who asked, “What about the babies, the children?” Well, those children aren't going to see their parents for a very long time. Because whether you're a dual citizen or not, if you perpetrate one of those crimes, you're going to be charged, convicted, and put in prison. It's not like you do the crime and it's goodbye; you will still be held accountable. That's the law in Canada. You can't come to Canada, walk around, perpetrate that kind of crime, and then say, “Oh, you lose your citizenship, goodbye.” That's not what we're saying here. I want to make that very clear. That's not what Canadians want. That's not what anybody wants.

There will be due process for those who are accused. Once convicted—convicted by a court of law or a jury—these people are going to lose the Canadian citizenship if they have dual citizenship. We think it is fair to protect the value of Canadian citizenship. Those who obtain it should respect all the pluses, all the benefits, and the rules of the land.

It's abundantly clear in comments we heard from several witnesses, including the minister and the officials, and it's something we hear from Canadians. We're not talking about...you know, this is like an attack on dual citizens.... It's not. I've heard members opposite refer to it as two tiers of citizenship. Well, there are two types of people. You either have dual citizens and citizenship or you don't have dual citizenship.

If somebody chooses to retain their citizenship or ask for the citizenship of another country, or to retain it if they got it at birth, they can always renounce it. You can always renounce your citizenship from another country if you're concerned about this particular piece of legislation.

But here's the thing. Law-abiding citizens will never do that, because they don't think.... Why would they renounce their citizenship? Because 99.99% of the people are law-abiding citizens, and they're not going to think, “I'm going to renounce my citizenship.” We're talking about those who would perpetrate a crime. We're talking about criminals. That's who we're talking about here.

I want to make that very clear to anybody who's listening to us here and to all members in particular. We are talking about criminals or those who obtain citizenship fraudulently. We're not talking about law-abiding citizens. I can't for the life of me understand why members of the opposition would want to provide protection for those people who would perpetrate those crimes by removing clause 8, by not supporting clause 8 in this legislation. That's the issue of revocation. It's not an attack on law-abiding citizens. It is the will of the government to ensure that our population is protected, and protected at all times.

The issue of equivalency of a crime performed in another country will have to be proven. It will have to be a crime that is recognized in Canada as equivalent, and obviously it would have to be recognized by a country whose judicial system is of the calibre—of the quality they use, I think—that it is in Canada. Certainly, there are provisions in the bill to prevent this kind of thing happening in despotically governed countries. The revocation factor in the bill is I think a critical component of this bill, because it sends a very strong message to those who perhaps would want to use Canada as a haven by retaining their Canadian citizenship, but who perform a crime either within Canada or outside of Canada.

I would submit to the honourable members here that nobody wants to have a person like that as a neighbour in this country—nobody. I haven't met a single person who says, “You know what? I know this crime was committed but it didn't happen in Canada, so I really don't care.” I don't know of a single person who would say, “You know what? Don't take away their citizenship even though they have dual citizenship because they're Canadian citizens, and what about their children?” Outside of things I've heard in this committee, I certainly have not heard that.

It is something that we will vigorously defend, because it is incumbent upon our Parliament, and we believe, incumbent upon us as a government, to ensure that there is protection in our immigration system for all Canadian citizens. We're a very welcoming country, Mr. Chair. We want people to come here. We want the best and the brightest and those who are in need. We want people to come to our country, but we want them to be law-abiding citizens. We want them to respect the laws of the land.

We're talking about revocation. There is no provision in this bill to revoke the citizenship of a law-abiding Canadian citizen, whether they have dual citizenship or not. There is no provision in this bill that provides that.

Having said that, I will note that we just went through clause 8 and there was not a single amendment proposed by members of the New Democratic Party for clause 8. They're opposing the entire clause with no amendment to it whatsoever. We will be supporting clause 8.

I'll reserve the right to come back to the point before we vote on it, of course. I would ask, Madam Clerk—through you, Mr. Chair—that my name be added to the list again.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sandhu.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to be brief and to the point. My colleagues have already made points in regard to this particular clause on the revocation of citizenship.

Mr. Chair, I've seen this movie before where reasonable amendments are offered by the opposition. When the member opposite talks about how nobody in Canada wants these kinds of people living next door to them, I'm hoping he's including members of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the other parties in this House.... I don't think anybody wants that; however, Mr. Chair, surely you'd think that the members of the opposition would have some input into this bill to offer amendments, which have been offered by many witnesses. If you talk about the Canadian Bar Association.... I'm not going to list everyone here. We've had lawyer after lawyer and expert after expert talk about the unconstitutionality of this particular clause.

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives may be right and the opposition members may be right in thinking that by the time this works through the court system, it'll be six or seven years, and they may not be in government. I can assure them of that. Canadians are paying attention to this and they will not be in government at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis, you have the floor again.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'm okay for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll call the vote on clause 8.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

(Clause 8 agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

(On clause 9)

We're now going to proceed to clause 9. There is one proposed amendment by the Liberals. It is Liberal amendment 9.

Mr. Regan, you have the floor if you wish to make that amendment.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would delete the “intent to reside” provision related to the resumption of citizenship. Again, the Liberals are opposed to the intent to reside provisions of this bill, and this amendment would delete them from the resumption of citizenship provisions of Bill C-24.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe.