Evidence of meeting #75 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terrorism.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Don't count on getting them all answered.
I'd do it one at a time if I were you, but it's up to you.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Okay.
Second, which court would hear the case, and does the legislation make clear the evidentiary burden to establish that a person has engaged in an act of war against the Canadian Armed Forces?
9:20 a.m.
President, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers
As I said in my opening comments, there's a huge problem with the whole procedural aspect of this bill. There's no provision for any procedure, so you have to go back to the Citizenship Act, which describes renunciation. The Citizenship Act doesn't really give you an indication. You make an application for renunciation and then it's presented to a citizenship judge. First, an officer reviews it and determines whether the person qualifies for renunciation. It then is passed over to a citizenship judge. There's no requirement for a hearing and the citizenship judge makes a final determination with respect to renunciation.
This bill provides for no due process and would have huge charter problems if it were implemented in this form. If you're trying to rescind someone's citizenship, section 6 and section 7 would certainly be engaged. Without making clear what the process is in the legislation, there would be serious suspicions.
The legislation doesn't provide for a court hearing at all. It provides for a review by a citizenship judge. The judge has the right to hold the hearing, but one would wonder, depending on where the person is, whether a hearing would be practical. It doesn't provide any indication of what the evidentiary burden would be.
As I said, there are huge evidentiary problems here. Number one, how do you determine whether a person has a second citizenship? Number two, how do you decide whether the conviction, especially if it's a foreign conviction, is valid and should be respected by Canadian law? These are very complex factual or legal issues and this bill provides for no due process with respect to any of these concerns.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
My next question is for Professor Dauvergne. Is it your understanding that the bill in its current form would require a person to be convicted in a civil or military court prior to the renunciation of his or her citizenship? Is there a danger in using the term “engaged in” and, if so, what is the danger? Finally, what would you suggest might be a more suitable term?
9:20 a.m.
Professor, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
It's very difficult to answer your question because we don't have a text of the proposed bill that would allow us to understand what the specifics will be. These are questions of enormous importance that need to find a place to be debated and democratically aired. There is a potential that you will slip to a standard of reasonable grounds for suspicion such as we find in our immigration legislation, or a standard of considering reasonable grounds such as we find in the exclusions from the refugee process. The currently worded bill doesn't give us much indication of the types of amendments that the minister has come forward to ask. The current bill would also risk stripping people who have only one citizenship of that citizenship, and that is a blatant breach of a number of provisions of international law. I urge the committee to look at those changes. As I'm opposed to stripping dual nationals of citizenship on any of these bases, I'm reluctant to suggest better options to assist in doing that.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Okay, thank you very much.
As you said, a lot of it goes back to the minister to consider these things. Even there, what do you know about appeal and due process issues once the minister makes his decision? Do you believe there could be such a provision or is there such a provision currently?
9:25 a.m.
Professor, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
The protections that exist in the current Citizenship Act with respect to renunciation proceedings are very slim. The protections with regard to revocation proceedings are somewhat more robust.
I think the experience of the United Kingdom is instructive in that there has been almost no or the thinnest of due process protections under the 2006 revision to the legislation, and the courts have held...and this is in a jurisdiction that is quite similar to Canada's.
There have been enormous problems for the U.K. government in trying to effect these citizenship stripping proceedings, for lack of a better word, because it's not really renunciation or revocation. A recent estimate is that it has cost about $3.5 million for each level of appeal. So in making those attempts to remove a number of people from the processes of justice of a western country, the U.K. has spent in excess of $40 million, and the costs continue to rise.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
Mr. Pacetti, welcome, and you have up to five minutes, sir.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure if I'll be able to use all that time, but I'll try.
I want to thank the committee for allowing me to be on this committee. I used to be on this committee a long time ago. I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward.
I get the feeling that everybody's saying the same thing, but we can't seem to.... I might need help on this. The witnesses have already established their positions and are not likely to change them. One of the things that struck me was, I think, Ms. Dauvergne, you said that no citizen has ever been stripped of this in other countries, specifically the U.K.
Dr. Gupta, you brought the example of the Air India tragedy, and how nobody's been prosecuted. So we have people who have never been criminally charged or proven to be criminally attached to the tragedy, yet we're going to be able to strip these people of their citizenship?
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
I don't think those guys come under this category. This is for acts of war against the Canadian Forces, but personally I wouldn't mind if they were stripped of Canadian citizenship, if they are proven guilty.
9:25 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
That's what I'm saying, if they are proven guilty. Again, here we are talking.... This is the typical argument I'm hearing. We are not hearing about the life lost by a soldier at the front. We are trying to protect the individual who caused it.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
He is fighting against the Canadian Forces. He has no value to Canadian democracy. Does he deserve Canadian citizenship if he's proven to have been fighting.... I'm not talking about Celil in China. That is treason against China, not treason against Canada.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
No, I don't. As I said, I'm not a legal—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Because I don't think anybody in this room would be for somebody like that, somebody who would be against a Canadian soldier—
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
No, I'm not saying they are, but most of the time we hear about protecting the individuals who may be fighting against the Canadian Forces.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I think we're all on the same side here. I think everybody is in agreement with what you're saying. I think if somebody were to do something against a Canadian soldier, I don't see how he would have too many people on his side and the first thing we would challenge would be his or her citizenship.
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
Because he does not believe in Canadian values.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
No, I'm simply saying I don't think that would be his first problem. I think he or she would have other problems.
9:30 a.m.
Chair, Air India 182 Victims Families Association
Don't count on that. I'm sorry to say that. We have seen a particular case. We have spent more money in defending that particular individual, Mr. Khadr. If the process is faulty, then make the process better. I have no problem with that; have due process. But these arguments of torture, somebody should look at the....I hear it. Somebody cannot be deported. That's related to it, because he will be tortured. But somebody should look at it. People have claimed it and they have been deported. Have they really been tortured in their country to which they were deported?
We are spending more time protecting those who do not value the Canadian system, but they use the Canadian system to perpetrate their values against democracy, freely in Canada.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
How many cases like this do we have where we're talking about Canadian citizens? You are exactly right. How much money do we have to spend to go after these people?
The example, as Madam Dauvergne has said.... How much money did the U.K. just spend? Was it $40 million?
9:30 a.m.
Professor, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Law, As an Individual
That is a very rough estimate, aggregating from newspaper reports, but it's going to be something in that order of magnitude.