Thank you very much.
Mr. Gupta, before I start, I want to say that I've certainly met with some of the members of your organization and I've heard their pain and I certainly share it. It was a terrible tragedy and I'm sending my sympathy. I know that nothing can bring back your family. I deal in my office every day with people who are victims of torture and terrorism. I understand what you're going through.
Having said that, it's my respectful view that good public policy has to consider other factors beyond victims' rights, and when we look at this bill, I just don't think it's good public policy. Perhaps I can explain to you with all respect why I differ with your viewpoint.
First, as my previous colleague noted, it's difficult to comment about the bill without the specifics, but I'll do my best based upon the legislation and also based upon Minister Kenney's comments. I was able to read his public comments on the planned amendments with respect to the legislation. Based upon those comments, I'll express my concern.
The bill would deprive Canadian citizenship of persons who had a second nationality. The first problem, and I think it was alluded to by the first speaker, is that it's extremely difficult to determine when people have a second nationality. It's a task that we as refugee lawyers are confronted with all the time. People claim refugee status. They may be a citizen of some country, but they may possibly have a claim to a second country and if they do, they're not entitled to refugee status in Canada. They must seek the protection of their second country of nationality.
Anyone who deals with refugee law knows that it is often an extremely difficult task to determine, in any set circumstances, whether or not a person has dual nationality. You have to interpret foreign law and interpret how that law will be applied without having the benefit of approaching the foreign government, especially because some of these governments are hostile. So the first difficulty that this bill presents is that it is directed against people who have dual nationality and it will very often be extremely difficult to determine that.
The second related problem is that there are a lot of Canadians who may be dual nationals without even knowing it. They become victims of this legislation without even having the knowledge. The law in India recently changed. I'm not sure if there's a possibility of dual nationality anymore. It used to be that there was not, but I believe it's possible. In some countries, for example, if I'm not mistaken, Iran, if one of your parents is Iranian, you are Iranian and you have no option of renouncing your citizenship.
There are people who may be born in Canada who will have no idea that they're dual nationals and who could be subject to this legislation based upon interpretations of a citizenship act by foreign citizenship law in Canada by Canadian officials. It puts Canadians in a difficult position of not knowing whether they will or will not be subject to a piece of legislation because it will depend on the interpretation of the citizenship laws.
The other thing that happens is that obviously the law will be applied at the specific time when the person allegedly commits an offence. The person may now not be a citizen, but the citizenship law of the country can change. There's talk now about changing Canadian citizenship laws. So the laws may change so that persons who do not have a claim may have a claim. We create a situation where there's this huge uncertainty as to who will be affected by the law, first because we're applying foreign law to determine dual nationality, and second because the foreign law can change and we have no control over that. That's the first problem.
The second, even more serious problem is the question of how the law will be applied. If my understanding of the minister's comments is correct, it would apply to Canadian citizens who are convicted outside of Canada of certain offences that are equivalent to offences in Canada. I can just give you three examples of why this issue is problematic, because we're relying on foreign justice systems to determine whether or not Canadians should have their citizenship rescinded.
Take the case that I'm personally involved in, the case of Bashir Makhtal. He's a Canadian citizen. He fled Ethiopia at a very young age and wanted to give up his Ethiopian citizenship. He wanted nothing to do with it. He was accepted as a refugee. He came to Canada.
He was back in Kenya and was kidnapped by the Ethiopians and put in a show trial. Minister Baird has been advocating for his release with the Ethiopian authorities for three years. He was convicted of treason, which presumably would be one of the offences. Based upon the proposed law, Bashir Makhtal, whose release John Baird has actively tried to secure, would face deemed renunciation of his citizenship, because he was convicted of treason in a false show trial in Ethiopia. So relying on foreign governments to determine whether or not people will lose their citizenship is usually problematic.
I could cite other cases. There's the case of Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian citizen who was convicted in Iran of defaming Islam, which could conceivably be considered treason. Of course we know that Prime Minister Harper raised the case of Huseyincan Celil in China. He was convicted of the equivalent of treason and would have his Canadian citizenship deemed to be renounced based upon this legislation, based upon a trial that all international observers said was unfair.
So how are we going to apply this legislation if we rely on foreign jurisdictions to hold fair trials with regard to the types of convictions that often come from show trials inflicted on people in countries that don't have a rule of law?
The final concern with respect to this is about the process. I was recently consulted by someone who was interested in seeing what the process was for renouncing citizenship, so I've had the opportunity to look at the legislation. The long and the short of it is that there's no due process at all. A person makes an application for renunciation. It's sent to the citizenship office. It's reviewed by an official and then put to a judge who reviews it, and if there are no concerns, approves it.
In the case of a person who would have his citizenship deemed to be renounced, based upon what the process is now, that person would not be entitled to any due process. In other words, he or she would be deemed to have applied for renunciation once he or she was convicted of the offence. That decision would go to a Citizenship official, who would review it to determine whether the requirements had been met, and then to a judge who would not be required to conduct a hearing.