Bill C-425 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to require the Minister, on application, to reduce by one year the required years of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who has signed a minimum three-year contract and who has completed basic training.
It also amends section 9 of the Act to provide that an individual is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship, if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 75, Tuesday, April 16, 2013. We're studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, which is an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

We have three witnesses before us for the first hour. We have Professor Catherine Dauvergne from the University of British Columbia. We have Mr. Bal Gupta who is chair of the Air India 182 Victims Families Association. We have from Toronto, on video conference, Mr. Lorne Waldman, who is with the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

Professor Dauvergne and Mr. Waldman have appeared before us before. Welcome to all of you.

We will start with Professor Dauvergne, you have up to eight minutes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You know, Bill C-425 initially will in fact....

As you have correctly pointed out, Mr. De Angelis, at the end of the day, if it were to pass as is, it would cause potential statelessness. Now, the government, thankfully, because of the UN declaration of 1961, recognizes that this would not be a good thing.

So now the minister comes forward—I have suggested to hijack the bill by Mr. Shory—and says, well, what we'll do is we'll establish two classes of citizenship: those that have dual citizens will in fact be stripped of their Canadian citizenship, and those that don't have dual citizens will have to look at the internal justice system.

I realize that you more so want to talk about the issue of statelessness, and you've pointed out an amendment to Mr. Shory's bill that would deal with that. But do you have any comment on the issue of the establishment of two classes of citizenship?

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

Thank you, because that's what this stage of the committee is about, to actually look at the bill and see how we....

As parliamentarians, we have a fiduciary duty to Canadians and citizens—and non-citizens, I guess, alike—to make sure that we are making the best laws and making the best policy moving forward. Your expertise would be very much welcomed, so thank you.

The minister indicated that, in principle, he's in favour for Bill C-425 to apply to Canadians without dual citizenship, but is legally bound by the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory, of course, as you've mentioned time and time again.

I'm uncertain; while we all have a clear understanding of the issue of statelessness, can you share with us the importance of not being stateless and some of the consequences for people who are stateless?

[Furio De Angelis, Representative in Canada, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tilson.

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for inviting me to participate in the debate on Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

We are pleased to have the opportunity to talk to the committee about this bill in relation to the issue of statelessness. However, before I begin, I would like to briefly introduce UNHCR's role and mandate in terms of statelessness.

UNHCR's responsibilities to stateless persons first started with refugees without any nationality, under the UNHCR Statute and the 1951 refugee convention, both of which refer to stateless persons who meet the criteria of the definition of a refugee.

Following the adoption of the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, UNHCR's mandated responsibilities concerning statelessness were expanded.

The General Assembly's resolution in 1974 and 1976 designated UNHCR as the body mandated to examine the cases of persons who claim the benefit of the 1961 convention, and to assist such persons in presenting their claim to the appropriate national authorities.

Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly's resolution in 1995 and subsequent resolutions confer upon UNHCR a global mandate for the identification, prevention, and reduction of statelessness, and for the international protection of stateless persons.

UNHCR'S stateless mandate includes prevention of statelessness. As a result, it is not limited to addressing cases of statelessness which have already occurred. This means that UNHCR works to identify and address risks of statelessness, which may arise as a result of a gap in nationality laws and a conflict in laws between states; administrative obstacles, such as onerous requirements for proof of nationality; the situation of state succession; and discrimination on race, gender, disability, and other grounds.

It is in relation to this intersection, between prevention of statelessness and citizenship, and the office's responsibilities in respect to the 1961 convention, that UNHCR welcomes the opportunity to present to you one specific comment on Bill C-425.

Please allow me to clarify again from the outset that UNHCR can only comment on elements of the bill that relate to statelessness. I will therefore avoid referring to questions of withdrawal of Canadian citizenship for individuals who possess dual or multiple nationalities as in principle, statelessness is not an issue in such cases.

With respect to Bill C-425, clause 2 of the bill amending section 9 on the Citizenship Act provides for withdrawal of Canadian citizenship, as follows:

A Canadian citizen who is also a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces.

In this respect, UNHCR would like to submit that the possible withdrawal of citizenship of a Canadian national who is also a legal resident of a country other than Canada is at odds with the provision of articles 7 and 8 of the 1961 convention, requiring contracted states not to permit renunciation, or provide for loss of nationality—article 7—or deprivation of nationality—article 8—where the individual concerned would be rendered stateless.

I wish to state from the outset UNHCR's acknowledgement and appreciation for the minister's comment before this committee, that since Canada is a party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the bill needs to be amended in order to ensure Canada follows its international obligation. The minister stated that, as written, the bill would apply to citizens who are legal residents of another country and should they not have dual citizenship, it would render them stateless. The minister urged the committee to consider amendments so that only those with dual citizenship would have their citizenship renounced to ensure that no one is made stateless.

UNHCR fully concurs with this position and highlights that this is the only section of the bill that, if not amended, would be inconsistent with Canada's obligation under the 1961 convention. Therefore, UNHCR respectfully recommends the words “or a legal resident” be deleted from the text.

I would like to add a few words on renunciation laws and the provision of nationality in accordance with the 1961 convention. The 1961 convention prohibits renunciation laws and deprivation of nationality when this results in statelessness. There are exceptions to this general rule, as foreseen in article 7 with regard to loss of nationality and article 8 with regard to deprivation of nationality. These exceptions are not applicable to Bill C-425. The exceptions are narrowly defined.

With respect to loss of nationality, the only exceptions to the general rule are in relation to prolonged residence abroad by naturalized citizens and failure to register for individuals born outside the territory. With respect to deprivation, the exceptions to the general rule relate essentially to nationality acquired by misrepresentation or fraud and conduct that is inconsistent with the duty of loyalty toward the state. However, this latter set of exceptions to the general rule prohibiting deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness may be applied only by those states that made a declaration at the time of signature, the ratification of accession that they retained the right to apply. Canada did not make such a declaration upon accession to the 1961 convention in 1978.

The convention also requires that these grounds needed to exist in national law at the time the declaration was made. Canada, together with the U.K., put forward the drafting for these elements of article 8 of the convention when the text of the 1961 convention was negotiated.

International human rights law foresees differences in treatment depending on the specific circumstances of different groups of people. This approach can be summed up with the axiom that people in the same situation must be treated the same, people in different situations may be treated differently, however there must be a legitimate reason for a difference in treatment. In support of this principle, the United Nations Human Rights Committee states, “The enjoyment of rights and freedoms on an equal footing, however, does not mean identical treatment in every instance”. This is paragraph 8 of “General Comment 18”, the Human Rights Committee, 1989.

It is necessary that the Citizenship Act differentiates between the impact of specific elements of the Citizenship Act on people who have another nationality and on those who do not. The former are left without the protection of another state, while the latter are stateless. The difference in treatment therefore serves a legitimate purpose, which is the prevention of statelessness.

Chairman Tilson, honourable committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

That’s fine.

My question is for all of you.

We have all seen the impact of the 2001 attacks on the Muslim community. The impact was really strong and is still being felt today. No matter what passport the people of the Muslim community use to cross the border, they are still being stigmatized and singled out.

In your view, will Bill C-425 have a similar impact on those types of situations and on the prevention of terrorist acts?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But I failed my medical way back when, in a different country—in England.

At any rate, in that paper you discuss recommendations that would help the Canadian Forces shift from its current reactive approach to diversifying its recruits to a more proactive approach.

In your analysis, is clause 1 of Bill C-425 a reactive or proactive measure towards enhancing diversity in the Canadian Forces? Can you elaborate on how you would see the proactive approaches playing out?

[Salma Siddiqui]

Good morning.

Mr. Chair, members of Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to speak to you not only as the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress but also, and more importantly, as a proud Canadian.

I would like to take this opportunity to introduce my colleague, Tahir Gora, who serves as the secretary general of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

Canadians are known around the world for being honest, polite, fair, and brokers of peace. We wear the maple leaf proudly on our backpacks while travelling, and we have heard stories of others sewing the flag on theirs in order to enjoy the same benefits, the benefits that come with being a Canadian.

Our global reputation is a great source of pride for all Canadians, but it also comes with great responsibility. I came to this country in 1967, many years ago, from Pakistan. My country of birth was experiencing much hardship. My parents, like any other parents, wanted the best for their children. They brought us to safety and security in this country.

What happened next is what makes Canada so great. My experience is the embodiment of immigrant experience. Nothing came easy to us. We worked, and worked very hard. With that hard work, doors opened, opportunities came. It is with great pride that I say we successfully built businesses here, and it is the same experience for my colleague, Tahir Gora.

I know countless others from all over the world who have shared the immigrant experience in Canada. We all know that in this increasingly globalized, competitive world, we will continue to need immigrants of all stripes to spur our economy, to foster innovation, and to contribute, as have many countless millions before them, to building a strong and more prosperous Canada. The stellar reputation of Canada is one through which we can recruit the world's best and brightest. It is for this reason that I am here today.

Ladies and gentlemen, our reputation is under attack. Some Canadians use that very citizenship, and the passports that come with it, to engage in activities that are nothing short of being absolutely contradictory to our Canadian values. We have heard stories of Canadians being involved in terrorist activities in different hot spots throughout the world. Some have killed. Others have trained or are training known terrorist groups, and they continue to plot attacks against our interests and those of our allies. Indeed, it is an affront to our men and women in uniform, who protect Canadian values around the world, that they should have to confront violence perpetrated by opportunistic and disloyal Canadians.

Those of us who lived through the 1980s remember well the damage done to Canada's reputation by acts of Sikh terrorism. Recent news about Canadian citizens involved in terrorist acts in Algeria, Bulgaria, and with Al-Shabaab in Somalia should disturb us all. The flow of young Canadians to terrorist training camps around the world is indeed a matter of concern. We cannot allow this to continue.

Canadians who are opposed to the values of our society should not be allowed to abuse the privileges that come with holding Canadian citizenship. We must act to strip Canadian citizenship from those who seek to exploit it for violent and illegal activities.

Bill C-425 seeks to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals engaged in violent disloyalty to Canada. The Muslim Canadian Congress supports this bill. We remember all too well how frustrating it was for us to be painted by some in the U.S. media as a safe haven for terrorists, as a place where terrorists could come to exploit the very judicial system that they seek to destroy for their own means. It is for this reason that we must support this legislation and demonstrate that no one shall be permitted to spill blood under our name.

I have heard concerns that Bill C-425 represents a major reaction or that it serves a “political process”. I disagree. Bill C-425 represents an assertion of the pride we hold in our values of an open, liberal democracy where our freedoms are applied to all.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be reasonable. We cannot allow those with violent aspirations to proceed to attack us, our interests and those of our allies, and to do so while using a flag under the banner that provides them the freedom and mobility to participate in these violent, hateful, and cowardly acts.

In closing, I would like to thank you for this opportunity and would ask that you support the passage of Bill C-425. It is an essential step in all of us taking a stand, that “we stand on guard for thee”.

Thank you very much.

[Prof. Grazia Scoppio]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me. I am an associate professor at the Canadian Defence Academy and the Royal Military College. I have been asked to appear as an individual based on my expertise, and I will be speaking on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

I have conducted research in Canada and elsewhere on immigrant integration and organizational diversity including that in military organizations and the Canadian Forces. I will focus my comments on the first part of Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, specifically on the subsection that refers to reducing by one year the required years of residence in Canada of any permanent resident who is a member of the Canadian armed forces, who has signed a minimum three-year contract, and who has completed basic training.

The intended outcome of the above-mentioned amendment is somewhat unclear. If the intent is simply to expedite the citizenship process of a few select immigrants who happen to have unique skills to fulfill a special need of the Canadian Forces, then the bill, if passed, will be accomplishing this outcome and will result in a small-scale impact.

If however, the intent is to open the door of the Canadian Forces to greater numbers of qualified landed immigrants with permanent residence in order to provide, “new Canadians with more pathways to integration”, as stated by Mr. Shory who presented the bill when he appeared before this committee, then the bill on its own will not accomplish this broader outcome.

This proposed amendment to the Citizenship Act will likely impact a very small number of individuals since the number one advertised requirement to join the Canadian Forces is Canadian citizenship. Only occasionally the Canadian Forces recruit non-citizens. As the committee learned in a previous hearing, only about 60 personnel in the Canadian Forces are non-Canadian Citizens with permanent residency status, or about 15 on average yearly.

Roughly, this will represent less than 0.5% of the Canadian Forces' yearly planned intake. The policy that established Canadian Forces enrolment requirements is found in the Queen's Regulations and Orders, QR and O, chapter six, which states:

In order to be eligible for enrolment in the Canadian Forces as an officer or non-commissioned member, a person must:

(a) be a Canadian citizen, except that the Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may authorize the enrolment of a citizen of another country if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest will not be prejudiced thereby.

As illustrated, there are exceptions to the citizenship requirement to join the Canadian Forces; however, these exceptions are few and not widely advertised. As well, it should be noted that there are additional challenges and significant delays to obtaining a security clearance for any applicant whether he or she is a Canadian Citizen or foreign national who has resided abroad. I was one of them, so I know.

For the great majority of Canadian Forces occupations, the required security clearance is Level II, Secret. Therefore, should the actual intent be to open the Canadian Forces recruiting door to qualified immigrant men and women who are permanent residents, the bill on its own will not accomplish this outcome. Rather, relevant policies would have to be amended to allow more newcomers to apply and join the Canadian Forces. These potential policy changes will likely result in increasing the diversity of the Canadian Forces membership, since currently the Canadian Forces do not reflect the cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity of Canadian society.

At the same time, it would be important to consider interrelated issues such as security clearance—which I spoke about—official language ability, and foreign credentials, to name a few. As well, it would be informative to review the policies and processes in place in other militaries that recruit non-citizens, such as the United States of America and, more recently, Australia.

In conclusion, I am in favour of the proposed subsection of the bill regarding expediting citizenship requirements of permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This would be a positive step. However, as it stands, the impact of this amendment to the Citizenship Act on new immigrants would not be significant, as they are, by and large, not eligible to join the Canadian Forces.

If a wider impact is envisioned, other relevant policies would have to be amended accordingly to allow greater numbers of qualified future Canadian citizens to join the Canadian Forces, thus providing them with “more pathways to integration”.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide my perspective.

[Asif Khan]

Good morning.

Honourable Chair, members of Parliament, colleagues, and special guests, I am honoured to be with you today to discuss this private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). My name is Asif Khan, as mentioned, and I'm the national secretary of public relations for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at. Today I will speak to the importance and validity of Bill C-425 from the perspective of an Ahmadiyya Muslim.

I am an Ahmadiyya Muslim who has lived his entire life as a proud Canadian and a devoted Muslim. First and foremost, I can tell you that Islam is categorical and explicit in teaching Muslims that loyalty to one's country of residence, the land that provides for a person's livelihood and fosters their hopes and dreams, is an important tenet of faith.

The prophet of Islam, Muhammad, peace be upon him, once stated that love for one's homeland is part of one's faith, so it is on the precept of this guidance from the founder of Islam himself that Ahmadiyya Muslims have such deep regard for the country we live in.

Further to this, His Holiness Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the current worldwide spiritual head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, has further elaborated on this noble precept by guiding Ahmadiyya Muslims all over the world with the following words. I will quote what he says:

As citizens of any country, we Ahmadi Muslims, will always show absolute love and loyalty to the State. Every Ahmadi Muslim has a desire for his chosen country to excel and should always endeavour towards this objective.

About Canada in particular, His Holiness echoed the sentiments of all Canadian Ahmadiyya Muslims during his recent tour of Canada this past summer when he stated, “I say without hesitation that the ‘water and earth’ of Canada certainly contains high moral values and loyalty.” He also repeated a prayer from our fourth Khalifa that I will quote: “that the whole world becomes Canada and Canada becomes the whole world”.

Despite the 200 countries that Ahmadis are now living in, serving and building communities wherever they go, the Canadian government is at the forefront in helping Ahmadis become a key part of the fabric that weaves this country together. Whether it's Prime Minister Harper attending the opening of our mosque in Calgary, the largest in Canada, or the government's decision to announce the Office of Religious Freedom at our headquarters in Vaughan, we have felt the embrace of our nation in our home, which is Canada.

This serves as a heartbreaking reminder and joy for us, because many Ahmadi Muslims have migrated to Canada in fleeing bitter persecution in Pakistan. Ahmadis there are legislatively sanctioned with actual amendments to the Pakistan constitution declaring us non-Muslims and setting harsh penalties of imprisonment and even death merely for practising our faith.

Canada has been a haven for Ahmadi Muslims, making our love for this country all the stronger. This is why we are at the forefront in giving back to our country and serving our communities. We are one of the largest partners for the Canadian Blood Services. We raise over 100,000 pounds of food for the less fortunate here each year. We hold community cleanups across Canada. We hold hospital fundraisers. We have earned the respect and appreciation of the leaders and public figures of every community we reside in, but our love for this country goes far beyond this, and it is this love that demands we Ahmadi Muslims uphold the sanctity of Canadian citizenship to the utmost.

Canadian citizenship is a great blessing and a gift whose importance and purity must be protected and preserved. That is why it is crucial that the Canadian government possess the power to strip Canadian citizenship from all such dual citizens who are convicted and confirmed in committing acts of war against the Canadian Armed Forces. If our government does not possess this right, then how can we deter such would-be transgressors against the state from committing acts that threaten the security of this country? It is only just that those who undermine the value of their Canadian citizenship enough to wage war against the state should also thereby forfeit their right to that very citizenship, a citizenship that so many countless millions are in search of yet is so disregarded by such troublemakers.

But this bill is about more than those who commit war against the state. Ultimately, this bill leads to granting the government the right to strip citizenship from any dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism. To this point, His Holiness Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the worldwide leader of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at, spoke this past summer, even before the motion for this bill. He said:

For the entire world to become Canada we must keep a vigilant eye on all forms of extremism and extremists.

In so doing, His Holiness recognized, even led the way, in informing Canadians about the need to protect from the threat of extremism. But why should we only worry about such problems after the fact?

Extremism must be rooted out before it even festers in the first place. It should never happen to begin with.

Regarding this, His Holiness advised the government in the same address with the following words:

I would like to draw your attention towards one matter in particular. The Government should be aware that it is quite possible for certain extremist elements to enter the country on the pretext of benefiting from the various investment opportunities or schemes of the Government. This risk should be kept in view by the policy makers when determining future immigration and investment policies.

He went on to say:

Therefore, no doubt the eyes and glances of those who hold extremist ideologies are cast upon this country. It is not necessary that they will conduct a large-scale terrorist attack, but instead they may take a more subtle approach, whereby they will seek to gradually spread their hate-filled ideologies upon entering the country. Certainly, one common and relatively easy way of entering the country is on the pretext of business, trade and investment.

Now it could be argued that the various changes to the immigration processes have made immigration to Canada more difficult, and it would appear odd that an ethnic and religious community would support such changes and possibly more in the future. However, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community is utterly against all forms of terrorism and extremism, and supports wholeheartedly any policy that protects the principle of loyalty to Canada.

We realize that it would perhaps make immigration applications more stringent for acceptance to Canada for members of our community and others. However, Canada must protect the reputation and the generosity this great country affords to those who get to call it their home. Our utmost priority is the safety and progress of Canada, even if it means that members of our own community find it difficult to immigrate here.

In closing, I return to the proposed bill C-425 and end this endorsement to protect the sanctity of Canadian citizenship with some humble words of caution. I can tell you that more than anything, along with our values of tolerance and plurality, Canada is defined by its qualities of justice, fairness, and due process.

So in empowering the state to strip citizenship from dual citizens who commit acts of war and potentially acts of terror against Canada, the Government of Canada must ensure that individuals are not even accused, let alone convicted, of such acts lightly. The bill and its accompanying rules should be carefully drafted. It would be tragic and not the intent of the bill if an innocent citizen were to suffer due to a hurried decision or an improper investigation.

How these measures are set up I leave to the able-minded policy-makers of our government. Our final advice would be that due process, full investigation, and the highest standards of fairness, care, and consideration be exhibited in exercising a power that allows for the removal of this most precious and sacred gift we call citizenship.

Long live Canada and thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. We'll call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 74. It's Tuesday, March 26, 2013.

We are studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

We have quite a few guests here this morning. From the Muslim Canadian Congress, we have two representatives.

Salma Siddiqui, good morning to you. You're the president.

[Michael Peirce, Assistant Director Intelligence, Canadian Security Intelligence Service]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning. I am pleased to be here to discuss issues relating to private member's Bill C-425.

As I understand it, in its present form Bill C-425 would seek to provide an advanced path to citizenship for permanent residents who are also members of the Canadian Forces. It would also provide a means to remove Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.

I am also aware of the comments by Minister Kenney and Mr. Shory, the bill's sponsor, that they intend to introduce amendments to the bill to provide authorities to remove Canadian citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorist offences in Canada or abroad.

I would like to be very clear on this point. CSIS is not a law enforcement agency. People convicted of terrorist offences are convicted by a court of law based on evidence gathered for prosecution purposes by law enforcement agencies. While CSIS intelligence may sometimes provide investigative leads to police, it is not typically used in such proceedings.

Mr. Chair, that being said, in order to provide some context to the committee's study of Bill C-425 and the possible amendments thereto, I'd like to speak to the general terrorism threat environment, especially as it relates to alleged Canadian involvement in terrorist-related activities.

CSIS is currently investigating a number of individuals in Canada on terrorist-related grounds. Their activities range from fundraising and logistical support to terrorist training and operations. As we recently indicated in our public report, these individuals fall into no distinct class, educational, or psychological category. Mr. Chair, there's simply no single terrorist type or mould.

In addition to individuals being investigated for terrorist-related activity in Canada, the spectre of radicalized individuals from Canada being involved in terrorism overseas is a significant concern for the service. Canada has an international obligation to prevent the exporting of terrorism, when and where possible, especially if it involves some of its citizens.

The committee will also be aware of recent reports of alleged Canadian involvement in attacks in Bulgaria and the recent confirmation that the remains of Canadians suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack in Algeria have been located.

As well, the director of CSIS recently stated to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence that the service is aware of dozens of Canadians who have travelled abroad to engage in terrorism-related activities.

Mr. Chair, such cases represent a serious threat to security, both in Canada and abroad, and may adversely affect Canada's international reputation. Canadians involved in terrorist activities abroad could transfer their skills and knowledge to terrorist organizations. They could also bring skills and knowledge acquired abroad back to Canada. They could possibly use that knowledge to conduct terrorist attacks on Canadian soil. This terrorist feedback loop is obviously a concern for us.

Moreover, individuals returning to Canada from conflict zones abroad have been known to radicalize others. Indeed, because of their adventures overseas, such individuals often gain a large amount of credibility—in the vernacular, they get “street cred”—among some like-minded individuals in groups, particularly impressionable youth.

That being said, Mr. Chair, tracking Canadians who travel abroad to conduct terrorist activities is not an easy task. They often escape into ungoverned spaces such as tribal regions along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, or into conflict zones such as Syria where the situations are fluid and very difficult to navigate.

Mr. Chair, there are significant challenges with constructing a clear picture of foreign fighters and terrorists overseas.

First, it's often difficult for us to ascertain motive. In Syria, for instance, there has been an influx of foreign fighters, some for the Free Syrian Army, some for al-Qaeda-related groups, like the al-Nusra Front, and still others for the al-Assad regime, so differentiating the motives and alliances of individuals can be extremely difficult. I should also point out that we see movement at times. An individual may go over and begin activities with the Free Syrian Army and move over and end up fighting for or with the al-Nusra Front, for example. It's very difficult to track.

Second, investigations of individuals who have travelled overseas are particularly challenging because corroborating and finding reputable sources overseas and reporting takes time. During that time, individuals may move, and they may move into other locations where it's very difficult to track them, so time is a significant factor.

Third, confirming the identities of Canadians overseas is notoriously difficult and is sometimes impossible. Often, we must rely upon foreign intelligence agencies that may have other priorities, different resources, and different mandates.

Mr. Chair, despite these challenges, I'd like to underline that the service works extremely hard to provide as accurate a picture to the government as we can on this and many other threats related to national security.

Let me bring some international context to this discussion. Canada is not the only country dealing with radicalized citizens travelling abroad to engage in terrorism. Countries such as Australia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States have all experienced this problem to some degree, in many instances to some significant degree.

In fact, just last week, the Dutch government raised the terrorist threat level in the Netherlands from “limited” to “substantial” because radicalized Dutch youth travelled to Syria to engage in violent armed jihad.

I thought I'd bring this fact to the committee's attention, lest there be any perception that Canada is somehow an outlier among our allies. We are not. Many western nations are facing a similar threat, which will likely continue for some time.

This is an international problem.

On that note, I'd like to thank you for your attention. I welcome questions from members.

[Chief Superintendent Joe Oliver, Director General, Operational Prioritization and Protective Policing, Federal Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for inviting me here to speak to Bill C-425, the Honouring the Canadian Armed Forces Act. I appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions about the implications for law enforcement arising from this bill.

As written, Bill C-425 would not directly impact the RCMP's enforcement activities. Our role with respect to Bill C-425 would be to support Citizenship and Immigration Canada where appropriate.

Section 6 of the Security Offences Act gives the RCMP primary responsibility for criminal acts that constitute threats to the security of Canada as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The RCMP's role is to prevent, detect, deny, and respond to criminal threats to Canada's national security, including acts of terrorism, either in Canada or abroad, if they involve Canadians. The RCMP has responsibility for investigating acts of terrorism, either offences that have already occurred or those that are being planned.

Canada's national security remains a key strategic priority for the RCMP. Radicalization of Canadians to the point where they prepared to engage in extremist violence is a continuing challenge to our society. The RCMP works proactively to counter extremist messaging through our outreach efforts with communities vulnerable to recruitment to extremism across the country.

My intention today is to provide a law enforcement perspective on the threat of individuals engaging in terrorist acts, both within Canada and abroad.

Canada is not immune from terrorism, as our recent investigations have shown. Since the Anti-terrorism Act was introduced in 2001, 15 individuals have been convicted of terrorist-related offences in Canada. That's 14 offences under section 2 for terrorism and one for a hoax.

The convictions obtained to date mostly reflect individuals engaging in terrorist acts within Canada, but we are also concerned about individuals who radicalize within Canada and then leave to engage in violent criminal activity.

There is no shortage of instability and conflict in places like Somalia, Syria, and Afghanistan, which provide numerous opportunities for individuals to engage in violent extremist acts. The RCMP has investigated individuals who have become radicalized to the point where they've decided to leave Canada to engage in terrorist activities abroad. We've also seen instances where Canadians have travelled abroad to receive terrorist training that they then used upon their return to Canada. For example, Momin Khawaja was convicted in 2008 for manufacturing an explosive device for a group in the United Kingdom after he had travelled to Pakistan.

In order to prevent one of these individuals from leaving Canada, the police would have to obtain admissible evidence of the individual's intent to engage in terrorist activities. In practice, law enforcement will not always be able to obtain this information before the individual leaves the country. For example, in March 2011 the RCMP laid charges against two individuals suspected of leaving Canada to participate in the activities of a terrorist group. Neither individual has been apprehended.

The RCMP seeks to prevent terrorist activities from occurring whenever possible. From the RCMP's perspective, we would prefer to deal with these individuals before they leave Canada to commit violent acts abroad. However, in cases where law enforcement only learns of an individual's intent to engage in terrorist activities after he has left the country, we would liaise with our international partners to prevent the planned terrorist activities if possible.

Even in cases where law enforcement is unable to prevent the individuals from engaging in terrorist activities abroad, we can still collect evidence and liaise with our international partners in order to support prosecution should the individual return to Canada.

Another bill, S-7, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the Security of Information Act, is currently before the House of Commons. It includes new offences for leaving Canada to commit terrorist activities. The proposed new offences of leaving or attempting to leave Canada to participate in activities of a terrorist group will assist law enforcement in stopping the activities of prospective terrorists at an earlier stage of their preparations, before they leave to join a terrorist training camp or to do harm elsewhere.

Again, thank you for inviting me to participate in this important meeting.

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

Bill C-425 is a bill that speaks to accelerating access to citizenship, so I think wait times are quite pertinent. The question I was going to ask was simply—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you to our officials for being here.

Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of the private member's bill moved by our colleague, Devinder Shory from Calgary Northeast, Bill C-425.

This legislation aims to honour those who serve in the Canadian Forces by granting citizenship sooner to its members who are not already Canadian. While there is only a small number of permanent residents in the Canadian armed forces, it seems appropriate that these individuals, who are willing to put their lives on the line in the defence of Canada, should have access to an expedited process for citizenship.

I appreciate that Member of Parliament Shory is aiming to recognize the unique role played by our Canadian armed forces members and the sacrifices they make on behalf of Canada.

Secondly, as you know, this bill aims to protect the value of Canadian citizenship, as it would enhance our ability to take it away from those who undermine our national security and who threaten the fundamental values on which Canadian citizenship is grounded.

We believe that Canadian citizenship is about far more than the right to carry a passport. It's not just about privileges and rights; it's also about obligations and responsibilities. Citizenship defines who we are as Canadians, including our mutual responsibilities to one another and a shared commitment to values that are rooted in our history, values such as the importance of democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental human rights.

Canada has one of the highest naturalization rates in the world. Since 2006, for example, on average, over 170,000 permanent residents have become citizens per year. It is not surprising to me that so many people are eager to become citizens of the greatest country in the world.

Even if it was decades ago, most new Canadians tell me they still remember the day and the moment at which they became citizens. The day is special for many reasons, but taking the oath is the moment when a person makes a commitment to Canada and to the Canadian family. They promise to obey the laws of our country, to respect our traditions, and to be loyal to our head of state and our country.

Our newest citizens often tell me they wish to protect our citizenship, to strengthen it, and to deepen the sense of shared belonging. That is why the government launched the citizenship action plan three years ago: to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship and to deepen attachment to it.

Colleagues, the government has undertaken measures to emphasize and encourage integration into Canadian society and ensure that citizenship has real, durable meaning.

As the bill is currently written, the deemed renunciation provision would apply to Canadian citizens who are also legal residents of another country. Should they not have dual citizenship, however, this could render some individuals stateless.

As you know, Chairman, Canada is party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which we ratified in 1978. To ensure that we respect these international commitments, I would ask the committee to consider an amendment so that only those with dual citizenship would be deemed to have renounced their Canadian citizenship under the provisions proposed in this bill.

Furthermore, in its current form, the bill would deem a Canadian citizen to have renounced their citizenship if they engage in an act of war against Canada or the Canadian armed forces. But as I believe the committee has already heard from other witnesses, there is no clear definition of what constitutes an act of war. I would suggest, therefore, that the committee amend the bill by replacing that term with other acts that are more clearly defined in law.

It's important to note that under the 1947 Citizenship Act, a Canadian could have their citizenship taken away if they were convicted of having committed acts of treason, or if they served in the armed forces of a country that was at war with Canada, or if they unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy during a time of war.

Indeed, prior to 1947, one's status as a subject could also of course be alienated on similar grounds, but more typically that occurred through capital punishment. There's the famous case of Kanao Inouye, the Kamloops Kid, Canadian born, who went to Japan during the Second World War, was a Japanese subject, committed war crimes against Canadian prisoners, and subsequently was executed following a court martial conviction following the war.

The remedy, if you will, for acts of treason was capital punishment, indeed up until some 20 years ago when it was removed from legislation.

I also think it is important to point out that the vast majority of the democratic world allows for the deprivation of citizenship for traitors and terrorists. The United Kingdom, France, the United States, Germany, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland are just some examples. In fact, we have done a survey of analogous legal provisions in other western liberal democracies, and so far we've identified only one that I'm aware of that does not have analogous provisions, and that is Portugal.

What Mr. Shory is proposing—and what I'm proposing as well in terms of amendments—would actually bring Canadian law into line with the overwhelming legal norm in the democratic world, and indeed with Canadian law prior to amendments to the Citizenship Act in 1977.

Individuals who are convicted of a terrorist crime in Canada or abroad should be deemed, in my view, through their own choices and actions—I repeat, through their choices and their actions—to have renounced their Canadian citizenship. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of examples for why these amendments are necessary.

I share the anger felt by Canadians at the recent discovery that a Canadian citizen is alleged to have been involved in the Hezbollah mass murder in Bulgaria. We believe this individual also has Lebanese citizenship. This is a man who came to Canada as a permanent resident, but about three years later he became a Canadian citizen and returned to Lebanon as a young man and has lived outside of Canada since that time.

Just a few days ago, as you know, media reports confirmed that one of the suspects in the horrendous terrorist attacks in Algeria recently was also a Canadian citizen.

Canadians are understandably outraged that someone would commit violent acts using our passport. If the allegations are true, these terrorists clearly have no sense of loyalty or commitment to our country. They have taken up arms and targeted innocent civilians on behalf of organizations that are proscribed illegal terrorist entities under Canadian law. Canada is an enemy of terrorism in general and certain terrorist organizations in particular, like Hezbollah, and to take up arms on their behalf, it seems to me, clearly constitutes a renunciation of the loyalty upon which our shared citizenship is predicated.

I'd also like to point out to colleagues that the vast majority of Canadians appear to agree with this premise. In fact, a live-caller poll conducted by Canadians last November indicated that 83% of Canadians strongly support the idea of revocation of citizenship from those convicted of terrorism or treason, as opposed to a small fraction who disagreed. This shows overwhelming public support for this notion.

I would also urge the committee to consider amending the bill to restore its application to dual citizens who are convicted of high treason. As was the case prior to 1977, I would urge the committee to consider amendments to ensure the bill would apply to someone who serves as a member of the armed forces of a country that is engaged in armed conflict with Canada. Given the recent examples I mentioned, I would also urge that it cover anyone who serves as a member of an organized armed group in armed conflict with Canada.

In Britain, for example, the government may revoke citizenship on very broad grounds if doing so is deemed to be “conducive to the public good”. In Switzerland citizens may lose their citizenship if they act in a way that causes serious prejudice to the national interest of the country. These examples are much broader than what I am proposing. The circumstances for deemed renunciation would be much more limited and much more clearly defined.

To be clear, if Bill C-425 is passed, there would be no change to processes currently applied in renunciation of Canadian citizenship cases. Appropriate legal safeguards would, of course, be in place. Notice would be given to the affected individual and due process would also be available, and any decision to take away one's citizenship would be reviewable by the courts.

The oath of citizenship and indeed this legislation reflect the idea that citizenship is founded upon the premise of reciprocal loyalty. If one violently renounces that reciprocal loyalty, we should consider that a renunciation of their citizenship. If citizens are convicted of serious terrorist offences, if they take up arms against Canada, or if they are convicted of high treason, those individuals have severed the bonds of loyalty that are the basis of their citizenship.

I should also note that these proposals do not distinguish between whether people with multiple nationalities were born in Canada or if they are naturalized citizens.

I do not anticipate that these provisions would impact many individuals. But their passage would deliver a strong message that Canadian citizenship is not a flag of convenience to be waved whenever it serves people's interest, particularly when they're committing some of the most terrible crimes conceivable.

Thank you very much, Chairman, for your attention. I'm happy to take any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. I think we'll start the committee. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 73, on March 21, 2013.

We are reviewing Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

This morning we have the minister and some of his colleagues, who are going to make some comments on this bill.

Mr. Dykstra and I have often claimed to be the longest-serving members of this committee, currently, at least, but Ms. Chow has served much longer than we have, and it's a pleasure and a challenge to see her here today.

Minister Kenney, welcome to the committee, and thank you for coming. You have three of your colleagues with you, and I'll let you introduce them to the committee. As usual, sir, you have up to 10 minutes to make a presentation to the committee.