Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 26th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[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?

[Furio De Angelis]

No, I don't have a comment directly in relation to it. My comment was related to the prevention of statelessness, which you addressed correctly.

As I said, in international human rights there are situations wherein the law foresees differences in treatment depending on specific circumstances of different groups of people. As I said, people in the same situation must be treated the same; people in differing situations may be treated differently.

With respect to statelessness, it is important that any citizen should understand that the impact is different when you withdraw citizenship from someone who has dual nationality from when you withdraw citizenship from someone who has only one nationality. The impact is very different. We want to prevent an impact that results in statelessness.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But you would see them as two totally different issues: Mr. Shory's bill, and then the creation of the renunciation of citizenship for those individuals who have dual citizenship.

I guess I'm asking you to speculate a bit here, but when you deal with the issue of taking away one's citizenship, do you see this as a major issue on which there needs to be good public debate?

[Furio De Angelis]

Taking away citizenship from someone who has only one, yes, is a big issue, because it results in statelessness. Those situations do not fall under the exceptions that are foreseen in the convention—as I said, articles 7 and 8. They result in statelessness, and that's the issue we want to prevent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right.

[Furio De Angelis]

There are exceptions, as I said; however, those exceptions are not applicable to this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right.

With a private member's bill, the entire process passes within four hours of debate, there is a limited number of speakers, and individuals such as you will be invited to a committee. I'm wondering to what degree there's an obligation, given that the minister has brought in something potentially totally new that establishes a second class of citizenship—which a lot of the discussion has been about—to find a better way to address the broader issue by allowing for more thorough debate on the issue before a decision is made.

Would that be advice that you would provide?

[Furio De Angelis]

No, I would not comment on this, because it doesn't impact upon my concern here, which is contributing to your work of creating a bill that does not result in statelessness.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I can appreciate the sensitivity and why you wouldn't comment on it, but you can't blame me for asking the question.

At the end of the day, individuals, back in 1961 when the convention was made....

I'm not sure whether you gave a precise definition of exactly what the statement was. Do you have it at hand?

[Furio De Angelis]

The statement of...?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I mean the statement of the United Nations back in 1961, the reference to statelessness.

[Furio De Angelis]

Well, I have the convention here in front of me, and as I said, the articles that pertain to this discussion are articles 7 and 8. Probably more important is article 8, which deals with revocation of citizenship by the state, because in article 8 there are certain exceptions specifically motivated by fraud, misrepresentation, and also acts against loyalty to the state.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thanks, Chair. How much time...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have seven minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for coming, Mr. De Angelis, and for your work to help people who are in dire straits throughout the world.

First I'd like to address what my colleague Mr. Lamoureux has brought up on several occasions, the creating of two classes. He does that to derogate the quality of the bill, but I would point out that in most cases laws will affect people differently. The main aspect or inherent intention of Mr. Shory's bill is not to create different classes of people but to make clear that citizenship is conditional, and the condition in this case is that you not commit acts of war against the people who share the citizenship you've been given.

That leads to my first point. Our minister has recommended that the committee include an amendment ensuring that no one will be left stateless. We've heard this now several times in this hearing. I want to get on the record and make categorically clear that you support such an amendment, given that it will ensure that we don't end up causing the problem you're most concerned about.

[Furio De Angelis]

Yes, absolutely.

As I said from the outset, we support, acknowledge, and appreciate the minister's comment with respect to making amendments to this bill that would avoid the risk of statelessness. I've also indicated in my recommendation that removing the words “or a legal resident” would do that. Removing the words “or a legal resident” from the text of the bill would avoid the risk of creating statelessness.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. De Angelis, in a moment I'm going to refer to the laws of Britain, Switzerland, Australia, and the United States, all of whom have provisions in their laws by which they can strip citizenship.

Before I refer to those provisions, isn't it true that Canada is virtually alone among our peer countries in not having the means to strip citizenship for reasons such as terrorism or treason?

[Furio De Angelis]

As I said, in article 8 of the convention there is the possibility for a state to revoke citizenship on the basis of acts that impact on loyalty to the state. That exception is not applicable to the bill, because Canada did not make the declaration at the time of accession to the 1961 convention that it would use those exceptions. Some countries did, Austria and France, and you mentioned the U.K. and New Zealand. They made that declaration and can use the exception in article 8 of the 1961 convention.

But the fact that Canada did not make that declaration in 1978 means it cannot use the exception provided for in article 8 of the 1961 convention.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I don't know if we have a disagreement here or not, but let me refer to the provisions. Firstly, Britain allows the country to strip citizenship if it's deemed to be “conducive to the public good”. In Switzerland, you can strip citizenship if the person has acted in a way that causes serious prejudice to the national interest of the country. In Australia, the government may strip citizenship if it would be contrary to the public interest if an individual remained a citizen; and in the United States, citizenship can be stripped or revocation can be imposed for high treason or for someone being a member of an armed forces at war with the United States.

I'm not sure whether I or the Minister of Justice would agree with the interpretation you're making of the consequence of that declaration.

Putting that aside for just a minute, do you think that these are the types of inspiration or precedents we should be examining as we look at the wisdom of enacting the bill proposed by Mr. Shory?

[Furio De Angelis]

Well, with respect to the technicalities of different countries, of course, it would be very difficult for me to answer on each of them. I can certainly support the work of this committee by sending some materials later on with respect to certain countries, and especially the countries that you have mentioned, the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia. The U.S.A. is not party to the 1961 convention with respect to these issues. We can forward this documentation to you as information.

In general, what I wanted to say was that there should be safeguards and provisions in citizenship acts and in nationality laws that allow revocation of citizenship in accordance with the existing provisions of the conventions to which countries are a party. So every nationality law and every citizenship act should be seen in that respect.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

All right. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Mr. Opitz.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than 30 seconds.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sir, are you aware that Canada, among the G-20, resettles one out of 10 refugees in the world?