Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 19th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, it is Tuesday, March 19, and this is meeting 72 of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

We are meeting today to review Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces). It's a private member's bill of Mr. Shory, who is here as our guest.

First of all, I would like to introduce you to another person at the table, who is sitting for today only, Ms. Caroline Bosc, who is a clerk observing us. So she may report you if you get out of hand.

We are welcoming Mr. Shory, who is a former member of this committee. Welcome back, Mr. Shory, and we're pleased to review your bill with us. We have your notes in front of us. The floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Good morning, Chair, members, colleagues, and of course special guests here.

I am honoured to be with you to discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces).

It was also a great honour to see that only three MPs voted against the bill at second reading. I note, perhaps ironically, that two of them are up front about the fact that they want Canada to fail as a nation, and the third one would surely see Canada brought to its knees if her policies were implemented. For the rest of us, we sided with the incredible majority, the many stakeholders, Canadians of all backgrounds, Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers, my hard-working constituents in Calgary Northeast, and the Canadian people from coast to coast to coast who want the bill to become law.

Three key beliefs of mine inspired this bill. Number one, new Canadians need more pathways to integration. Number two, our heroic men and women in uniform are worthy of the highest respect. Number three, Canada is the best country in the world. We should not force anyone to hang on to or hide behind Canadian citizenship, with its clear rights and responsibilities, if they want to destroy everything good this amazing country stands for.

These are beliefs held by Canadians from all walks of life who, like most of us in this room, want to reward those willing to put their lives on the line for Canada and our Canadian values. They also want to ensure that those who would attack the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom and our values feel the full weight of justice as a consequence.

I would like to tell you a little-known story of a war hero named Buckam Singh. Mr. Singh moved to Canada in 1907 at the age of 14, and in 1915, he enlisted in the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force. Buckam served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War I. He served with the 20th Canadian Infantry Battalion in Flanders, where he was wounded twice in battle. It is interesting to note that Buckam was initially treated in a hospital administered by Doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, known for his famous poem “In Flanders Fields”.

Mr. Singh died in 1919 in a military hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. He received the victory medal in recognition of his service to his adopted country, and his wife and mother were also given a memorial cross in recognition of his sacrifice. He gave his life to defend Canada and the cause of freedom abroad, and while he received recognition for his service, he never became a Canadian citizen. He was not even eligible.

It is heroes like Mr. Singh, Mr. Chair, that this bill in part seeks to honour. If this bill could help even one individual like Mr. Singh, it would surely be to Canada’s benefit.

While we examine history, let’s take a look at the precedent for the second part of this bill. Numerous western democracies including but not limited to Australia and the United Kingdom have long had similar laws allowing for the renunciation of citizenship in the interest of the public interest, a much lower and vaguer standard than what this bill seeks.

Furthermore, this bill is simply a necessary step in widening Canada’s existing legislation. Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act already provides for the deprivation of citizenship, and section 46 of the Criminal Code clearly identifies treason as a crime.

Until 1977 the people who committed acts of treason would be punished by the removal of their Canadian citizenship. Canadians want to see this returned to law. My bill would expand existing laws to see that those who commit acts of treason meet proper justice, with all due oversight and rights to appeal outlined in the Criminal Code and the Citizenship Act. Canadians simply want to see these measures brought back into law.

I believe this committee has an overwhelming mandate from Canadians who want to see this bill succeed.

For any of those on the fringes who might hint at prejudice, I note that I sent a householder survey to my riding, and the bill was supported by 87% of the respondents. More than 50% of my constituents are from visible minority groups; my riding has the highest percentage of new Canadians in Alberta. This demonstrates vast support by new Canadians for this bill.

On October 30, 2012, the National Post reported on the results of an NRG poll of 1,001 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The poll showed that eight in ten Canadians are in favour of Canadians losing their citizenship for committing acts that by their nature are an assault on the very values Canadian citizenship stands for.

Furthermore, the Calgary Herald editorial board, along with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada, the Somali Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, the Muslim Canadian Congress, and B’nai Brith Canada have endorsed my bill.

As an immigrant myself, Mr. Chair, and as member of Parliament for Calgary Northeast, I have spoken to new Canadians as well as old Canadians from my riding and elsewhere. It is clear to me that Canadians from all walks of life understand the value and privilege of Canadian citizenship. They chose this country for a reason. They certainly don't want to see the reward they worked so hard for, Canadian citizenship, corrupted by a handful who would choose to abuse it.

Despite all this, Mr. Chair, I understand that our job as MPs requires all of us to take a critical look at all proposed legislation. With the same spirit of cooperation and openness that I have demonstrated since introducing this bill, I continue to look forward to humbly working with each of you to address any questions or concerns you may have. More importantly, I look forward to hearing any suggestions you may have to strengthen this bill.

In that spirit, Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate that I am open to amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of this legislation.

Thank you again. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Shory, for your presentation. It's an excellent rationale of your proposed bill, and as you know, members of the committee will now have some questions for you and perhaps comments.

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shory, thank you for being here today, and thank you for presenting this bill before Parliament and of course for bringing it here for examination before committee today. I think it's an important bill.

I thank you, from my former life as a Canadian soldier, for your concern about Canadian soldiers abroad and some of the huge risks that they already face. They don't need to be facing additional risks from people who should be on their side as Canadian citizens, people who act against them and against the best interests of Canada.

Sir, what do you say to critics who claim that Canadian citizenship is an inalienable right and that, no matter whether they commit acts that are obvious expressions of disloyalty to Canada and Canadian values, people should be able to retain their Canadian citizenship? Critics may say, for example, that people who fight against the Canadian Forces or commit terrorist acts against Canadians on Canadian soil, or on the soil of our allies, I might add, should be able to keep their citizenship.

Can you comment on that?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Opitz.

I have to say that it is my strong belief that Canadian citizenship is a privilege. No one who basically attacks Canadian values, no one who attacks those who actually protect Canadian values, should have the right to be called a Canadian citizen, because anyone who goes out and attacks those men and women in uniform basically does not care about Canada or Canadian values or Canadian citizenship. Basically that individual takes himself to be an enemy of Canada. I don't believe that those individuals should have any right of Canadian citizenship.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You make a good distinction about those who defend our values as a vocation, and I would submit that these would include police officers and law enforcement of various types as well.

You mentioned in your opening statement some of the polling and outreach you have done not only in your riding but in other places.

Could you describe in a little more detail some of the polling and the results and overall reactions from many of those varied groups?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Absolutely I will, Mr. Opitz.

Before I even tabled this bill, I had a survey done in my riding of Calgary Northeast. We got from 87% of the respondents positive support. Once again, 50% of my constituents are new immigrants, and 87% of my constituents supported it.

After that, the National Post reported an NRG poll. It was a coast to coast to coast poll that showed that eight out of ten Canadians supported the idea of a renunciation of citizenship for those who attack our men and women of the armed forces.

After that, the Calgary Herald's editorial board ran an online survey. After the survey they endorsed my bill, along with other organizations, as I said: Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada, the Somali Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress, and B’nai Brith.

As I said, I have spoken to a lot of people, not only in Calgary Northeast but I would say wherever I get a chance, whether it is in an airport or at any other event. To date, I would say I have found very few people who have any criticism about this bill.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's great.

Does your bill only apply to crimes committed on Canadian soil? I think we've discussed crimes committed abroad as well. Can you describe how some of those actions can affect somebody in this position?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

As it stands, my bill basically does not say that it is on Canadian soil or out of Canada. The second part of my bill says that any individual who becomes involved in armed conflict with our Canadian men and women is deemed to have made an application to renounce their citizenship. In my opinion, as the bill is tabled, it does not matter whether this occurred in Canada or out of Canada.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'm going to turn over some of my time to Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Shory.

Mr. Shory, whenever our government introduces measures that strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship or improve the integrity of our immigration system, we hear some criticism from some opposition members and others. In an attempt to justify their position, they claim that the measures are somehow against the interests of immigrants and newcomers, but most immigrants I've spoken to, and I represent a pretty diverse riding, say that we don't go far enough, that we could go even further. One of the main reasons is that a few bad apples can certainly taint the whole bushel, and people are getting tired of criminals, terrorists and fraudsters tarnishing the reputation of law-abiding Canadian citizens and immigrants.

Do you hear the same thing from various immigrant communities?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Absolutely. I myself am an immigrant, by the way. But I'll tell you how I came to this idea.

One reason is my belief a new Canadian or any individual chooses Canada for a reason, and we must keep that reason alive.

However, I have to share this. When I came to Canada in the late 1980s, I still remember there were a lot of times when we did not lock our doors before we went out. Nowadays, we actually put the alarm on while sleeping in the house. That is the difference; there's a fear of all these activities around us.

As I mentioned, in my riding 87% of the respondents—a majority of immigrants—support this. I agree with you that among new Canadians or old Canadians, I haven't found too many critics. The good news on this bill is that I'm thankful to the opposition as well who have supported it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Shory.

Ms. Groguhé, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank our witness for being here this morning.

I would still like to recall that, clearly, the official opposition recognizes the extent of the sacrifices made by our soldiers and our military, as well as the importance of being able to recognize that commitment and that bravery. We support our Canadian armed forces, as well as the objectives of this bill. However, as we have mentioned previously, some aspects of the bill seem to contain some gaps and some ambiguities. Hence the questions we have for you this morning.

To begin, I would like to remind you that, during the debate that took place at second reading, you were not able to tell us the number of people that this bill might affect. Are you able today to tell us the number of permanent residents who enlist in the Canadian armed forces each year and who would benefit from this bill?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

First of all, let me thank you for your support of the armed men and women of our great nation. Thank you for your support of this bill as well, in principle, as you said. I highly appreciate it. It's not only me, but Canadians appreciate the support. Canadians are watching this bill closely, I can tell you that I have heard from the communities, I have heard from the individuals who come home. I have never heard.... This bill has actually got some appreciation from the opposition parties as well to work together on a non-partisan basis for a bill like this.

To answer your question, I have to say I do not have the specific numbers, but definitely there are provisions. Maybe later in this committee when the DND officials come, it would be appropriate to ask them to add some more information.

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

So you think it is possible to get that number. That is good.

My second question deals with the notions of an “act of war” and of a “legal resident”. They are not defined in Canadian law. So could you tell me what the legal basis of that part of the act will be?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

“Act of war” has different definitions, I guess, nationally or internationally, but my main intention when I tabled this bill, with “act of war”, was to address those individuals who are either members of some armed forces or armed group who attack our men and women in uniform. Again, I am here at this committee to answer questions, but at the same time I'm looking forward to any amendments or any suggestions that would strengthen the spirit of this bill. Again, to answer, on the definition of “act of war”, my intention was to address those people who attack armed forces.

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

In your presentation, you also mentioned of the great need new Canadians have for pathways towards their future integration. That being the case, why did you not consider other professions that might also deserve significant gratitude from us, such as doctors or nurses? Why did you not open up your bill?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

I have to say this. I have had a little personal experience. In 2009 I joined the armed forces for a week or so, and I worked alongside them in Vegreville, Alberta, during the training. After that, in 2010, I had a chance to join the naval forces for a few days. I have to say this is a very, very unique service. This is not 9-to-5 work. This is not shift work. This is 24/7. I have seen the passion and love in those individuals for this country, and the sacrifices they make. That is absolutely unique. If I had to pick one profession that deserves that real respect, I would pick the armed forces of our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Toone, welcome to the committee. You have a couple of minutes.

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

In fact, my presence here might be short-lived to a couple of meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I hope you enjoy your stay.

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

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Shory, thank you for your presentation.

I see weaknesses and some ambiguities in the bill. I am just trying to understand. I would like clarification on some matters. I am still hesitating about supporting the bill because of those ambiguities.

I would like to quote your words. At second reading, you said this:

My bill would expand existing laws to see that those who commit acts of treason meet proper justice, with all due oversight and rights of appeal outlined in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Citizenship Act.

Are you proposing that acts of treason be synonymous with acts of war? At that point and in that regard, your bill lacks precision. I just want to understand. Do you feel that your bill would be better with a definition of an “act of war”? What is an act of war, in your view?

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

As I responded earlier, when I tabled this bill, I intended it to address those individuals who go out and attack other armed forces. That was the intention. Again, if a change in wording is suggested and it will be in the same line as intended in my legislation, I'll look into it. There is no issue about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Shory.

Mr. Lamoureux.