Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 26th, 2013

[Furio De Angelis]

Sir, with respect to the first part of your question, I am referring, as I said, to the part of clause 2 that refers to a Canadian citizen who is also a citizen “or a legal resident” of a country other than Canada. So our only recommendation concerns these words “or a legal resident”. That means that, if someone is a Canadian citizen and a legal resident of another country, it's not a case dual nationality.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The context of the bill means that if they are a permanent resident of this country, not of another country....

[Furio De Angelis]

No.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I think that's the context of the bill, and perhaps that can be clarified.

Let me go on with my questioning. Both the minister and the sponsor of this bill, MP Devinder Shory, acknowledge there is no internationally acceptable definition for the term “acts of war”. However, when officials from the Department of National Defence appeared before this committee, they stated that “armed conflict” may be a more appropriate term.

What is the UNHCR definition of armed conflict?

[Furio De Angelis]

In UNHCR there is no definition of armed conflict. UNHCR is the organization that deals with the humanitarian consequence of refugee situations. In this particular case, there's also a specific mandate for the prevention and reduction of statelessness.

There are other instruments, there are other conventions, there are other solutions in international law that deal with the issues of war, and there are definitions of war crimes in the statutes of the International Criminal Court, but these are areas that do not pertain to the mandate of UNHCR. In this particular respect, it's the mandate on the prevention and reduction of statelessness. In that regard, there is a specific element in the bill dealing with the possibility or the risk of creating statelessness, and this is what I'm trying to address here today with you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

So would you have any suggestion—though I'm not sure you would—on how our committee could draft an amendment that would more clearly define what that meant?

[Furio De Angelis]

As I put it in my recommendation, making this bill consistent with the provision of the 1961 convention by deleting the words “or a legal resident” would be enough because that is the part that impacts on the risks of creating statelessness.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We've heard from witnesses that the term “acts of war” is not clearly defined in domestic or international law. When Minister Jason Kenney appeared before our committee, he recommended that the committee amend the bill to include acts that are more commonly defined in law. He suggested that terrorism, high treason, and those who serve as members of a country's armed forces engaged in an armed conflict with Canada be added as grounds for deemed renunciation of one's citizenship.

Would you agree with that?

[Furio De Angelis]

I don't think UNHCR really has a say with respect to what to add or even the definition of crimes. Our concern is that, whatever the reasons for revoking a citizenship, it should be done in compliance with the obligations under the 1961 Convention, which requires that those acts would not render a person stateless.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

When the minister appeared before us, he was pretty clear that it is not our intention to in any way contravene Canada's commitment to the 1961 Convention. Nor is it our intention to render people stateless. That people who do not have another state to go to will simply be tried and spend their time in a Canadian prison is not the intention of this bill. The intention of this bill is to clearly add another dimension to those people who are dual citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you again for appearing before this committee.

There are others who are very concerned that this bill, in its current form, could apply to a person who is a legal resident but not a citizen of a country, thus creating a situation of possible statelessness. I don't believe we have a clear understanding of the definition of a legal resident. Can you share some of your thoughts on the ramifications of applying this bill to someone who is a legal resident of another country, but not a citizen?

[Furio De Angelis]

That's why we say citizenship is very important in having rights. It is a very important bond that links the individual with the state. Someone who is a citizen has the protection of the state. If you are a legal resident, you are not a citizen. That means that a Canadian citizen who is also a legal resident of another country cannot invoke the protection of the state from that other country. Had that person lost citizenship because of the acts included in this bill, he would remain a stateless person, a legal resident of another country. Legal residency cannot be equated with citizenship. Citizenship is the strongest bond of rights and duties that link individuals to the state.

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

Thank you for some of that clarification.

The amendment you suggested, if that amendment is not accepted and the bill is not changed, will the same ramifications exist?

[Furio De Angelis]

Yes, that's correct.

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

Okay, thank you.

There are concerns for individuals, child soldiers, for example, who may have dual citizenship in Canada. They could be caught under this bill, even if they had been compelled to participate in an act of war, as defined by the bill, or an armed conflict, as others have mentioned is a better term to use.

When the minister visited us last week, he said the minister would retain discretion not to pursue an application for deemed renunciation “for an individual where they have been compelled to do something against their own volition”. Is relying on ministerial discretion enough to protect children with dual citizenship who may be caught up in this bill?

[Furio De Angelis]

We see in many other institutions that children's rights are particularly important, and that they have to be protected in a special way. We know in the determination of refugee status how important the special procedures are that have to be applied when interviewing children. Even in the difficult context of exclusion with respect to refugee status procedures, in duress involving child soldiers, for example, children have to be seen in a particular light. There are specific and expert procedures that have to be applied. When we deal with children's rights, special procedures have to be applied, because different situations may be at stake. Duress and coercion are a reality whenever we deal with children's rights.

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

So if I may extrapolate a little bit from your comments, ministerial discretion alone is not enough, and we need to have experts involved. Is that what you're saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth; I'd rather it come out of your own mouth.

[Furio De Angelis]

Well, we'd like to see how that is worded in the bill, but definitely I would say it's important that when children's rights are at stake, there must be special procedures, and expertise must put into the context of that evaluation.

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

Do you have some actual recommendations that you could perhaps make to this committee to that effect?

[Furio De Angelis]

Probably not at this stage, but definitely we can offer services and resources, if need be, upon specific request.

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

Okay. Fabulous.

If you think of anything, please do send it in writing to the clerk and the chair of the committee.

[Furio De Angelis]

All right.

[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]

As I said before, we consider citizenship as a fundamental right of persons. It has been described as “the right to have rights”, because without citizenship, all sorts of other rights cannot be accessed.

We see the situation of statelessness in the world as being still very serious. It's estimated that there are 12 million stateless persons in the world. This is only an estimation by the UNHCR, but in recent years, UNHCR has done activities together with countries to try to identify and register people. Up to now, together with the support of countries, 3.5 million stateless persons have been registered, although of course the estimation of statelessness is larger.

Living a life of statelessness is living a life at the margins of society. This is particularly true when people try to access such rights as having identity documents, registering for schools, and registering for social rights when situations come up. Stateless persons cannot enjoy basic rights.

This is surely something that countries should look forward to solving at the global level. We believe this is not impossible. We are living in an era when actually nationalities are very important, and national principles are very strong. In a sense, then, the existence of statelessness is a bit at odds with a world that is defined by the existence of states.