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.
