Great.
Citizenship revocation is a form of punishment, and in the U.S. Supreme Court's view, cannot be used in this weapon-like fashion. It goes on to say, “It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture”. Why? Because “the expatriate has lost the right to have rights”.
If it's clear then to us that citizen revocation is a form of punishment—that's what it is, you can dress it up as deemed renunciation, but in effect it's punishment—then the question becomes what policy problem is this additional form of punishment solving? When you enact a new law, then presumably there's a problem that you want to solve with it.
Let me take you back for a moment to think about the world many centuries ago, when exile and banishment were routinely used. They were routinely used in situations where the modern state, as we understand it, didn't yet exist, meaning that systems of penal justice had not yet developed. We didn't have systems for putting people on trial, judging them, and most importantly, incarcerating them as a form of punishment. So exile and banishment, at that time in history, were used to get rid of dangerous people who were considered criminals, and who the state could't otherwise deal with.
But of course now we have a criminal justice system. We put people on trial, they are judged, and they are sentenced. We have a variety of forms of punishment, but those punishments do not include banishment or exile. Why? Because within our state we can punish people.
So the question then becomes, in what sense is our existing criminal law, and its system of adjudication and punishment, inadequate to the task when talking about the acts that are prohibited under this citizenship revocation law? Why are they inadequate for these crimes and not for other crimes? Why are they inadequate if the person happens to be a dual national, but obviously adequate if the person is not a dual national?
If the person is only a citizen of Canada, or if the person commits heinous acts that don't happen to fall within the purview of this citizenship bill, then we presume our criminal justice system is perfectly able to manage it. So the question becomes why wouldn't it be able to manage it in these circumstances? I submit to you that there's no good answer to that, and that's part of the reason that accounts for the arbitrariness of this law.
What is, then, the goal that is sought to be achieved here? I suggest to you that it is primarily symbolic, to express our outrage and our view of the despicable nature of the acts that some people commit, and the idea that those acts are inconsistent with holding certain values of Canadian citizenship. I suggest to you that the Supreme Court of Canada has found that symbolic benefits of rights violations, simply put, don't cut it. If Parliament can infringe a crucial right simply by offering symbolic and abstract reasons, then judicial review reduces to a contest of “our symbols are better than your symbols”. These outcomes aren't compatible with the charter. There is nothing that this law seeks to achieve, in terms of the protection of Canada or the expression of our abhorrence of violent and despicable acts, that is not currently achieved by our criminal justice system.
If it is correct, and I think it's indisputable, that citizenship stripping is a form of punishment for bad acts—the kinds of acts including criminal offences listed in the citizenship bill—then we must also ask the question, who in our system of government is responsible for judging and meting out punishment to people?
When somebody commits a crime—let's say a sexual assault or a murder—do we send it to the Minister of Justice to determine the guilt or innocence of that person, and then, upon the determination of that Minister of Justice, put them in jail? No, we don't do that. We understand that it would be a gross breach of our separation of powers. It's not the job of elected officials to make those judgments of people; it's the job of judges.
What this law does is take a form of criminal punishment and give it to elected politicians to mete out to individuals. That, in turn, is inconsistent with our system of government, the separation of powers, and basic notions of justice.
Thank you.