Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Ms. Macklin, the Canadian Bar Association has been concerned about the lack of legal criteria surrounding the revocation of citizenship, as well as a lack of protection in cases of revocation.

Is your position the same?

In your view, what process would be necessary to frame revocation?

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

What process would be necessary for framing this lawfully, is that what you're asking? I want to make sure I understand the question correctly.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

I don't think this can be done in a way that is not arbitrary, so I will state my position clearly. I consider this an arbitrary cruel and inhuman punishment, as I consider, for example, the death penalty cruel and inhuman punishment.

You can name a crime, you can give me a scenario, however heinous and horrible it is, and say, well, wouldn't you want to deprive somebody citizenship in those circumstances? I will say, as with the death penalty, however horrible the crime that somebody has committed, the death penalty is a violation of fundamental rights and you can't do it. It is the same here.

There's no fair process, just as there's no fair process for sentencing somebody to death.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You mentioned the arbitrary nature of Bill C-425 and, in terms of its scope, you therefore put it in parallel with its symbolic objective. You are also clearly saying that this has nothing to do with a desire to protect Canada from any terrorist acts.

Can you give us more details about those two points: the arbitrary aspect and the symbolic objective of this bill?

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

There's no evidence that this would have any deterrent effect. This is a rhetorical, symbolic kind of gesture. I suppose it reaches out to a constituency who feels that there isn't enough being done, and here is something that can be done, that's highly symbolic, that satisfies that need.

I know that this government has, for example, great concern over the rights of victims, more generally, victims of crime. One might have thought that people who commit heinous crimes that aren't necessarily terrorist crimes against other Canadian citizens are also devaluing their citizenship, are also showing their rejection of Canadian values. Yet, this government, as I understand it, isn't proposing that those people's citizenships be revoked for conviction of, let's say, murder or rape or hijacking, other serious criminal offences.

Let me give you an example. There was a terrible serial rape-murder commissioned a few years ago by somebody who is a member of the Armed Forces, Colonel Russell Williams. I think it could be fairly said that he brought shame and disgrace to the Canadian Armed Forces, the uniform that he wore, and that his acts were utterly inconsistent with anything one might consider Canadian values. He terrorized and killed several women.

We might all agree on that and yet apparently that is not the subject of this law. So he, for example, is considered worthy of punishment, but not of stripping of citizenship. Does that mean that the government doesn't value the victims of his crimes the same way that it values the victims of the crimes being legislated about in this bill?

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

Thank you, Professor Macklin. I'd like to continue also with a question for you.

In the previous hour, one witness expressed concerns that, through this bill, by stripping someone of Canadian citizenship we could actually erode Canada's capacity to prosecute, or that those accused of terrorism could avoid prosecution. Can you speak to this and offer your views on the importance of Canada’s maintaining our jurisdictional role and ability to prosecute?

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

Sure. Let me add one thing to my previous answer. Colonel Russell Williams is a dual citizen of England and Canada, by the way.

To go back to Canadian prosecution for criminal offences, well, we have an anti-terrorism law. We have used it and we can use it. We have the ability to extradite both to and from Canada. We can use it. We have used it.

The idea that Canada is made safer or that the world is made safer by exporting people to other countries is both parochial and inconsistent with the claim that terrorism is a global problem. In addition to that, of course, there is the odd arbitrariness of the country of destination.

Let's say that I am a Canadian dual citizen of Britain and I commit a terrorist act in, I don't know, name your country, in Iran. I will be stripped of my Canadian citizenship because I have committed an act of terrorism and deported to Britain? In what sense is Britain more properly the home for somebody like me than is Canada? Are we looking, in a sense, at a race to the bottom because Britain is the other country that has this law?

If we imagine that if we think a law is good for us it must be good for others, what if all countries followed this practice? Then would it just be a race as to who could strip citizenship faster? If that's what the idea is, what is the principle of international cooperation and the global fight against terrorism that is being advanced here?

I suggest that there is no advantage to it.

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

Thank you.

Residents of Scarborough—I'm a member from Scarborough—are eager to become citizens of our country. Citizenship applicants face longer wait times than ever before. The residency questionnaire takes an additional two years or more for review. Permanent residents in Scarborough are already paying taxes, volunteering in their neighbourhoods, and raising their families.

Bill C-425 that is before us will be accelerating citizenship for about 15 people per year. Those are the statistics that were given to us.

Is this effort enough?

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

Again, that seems to be an entirely symbolic gesture. In fact, if you go to the website of the Canadian Armed Forces, the number one requirement for joining the Canadian Armed Forces is that you must be a Canadian citizen.

If you ask where it makes more sense to deploy resources, it seems to make more sense to deploy them in the processing of citizenship applications. What I have heard is happening now is that resources are being deployed to deal with the very lengthy residence questionnaires that are now being administered and no additional resources are being put into actually processing more quickly.

Now I understand that will change if the government increases the cost of citizenship applications to make applicants pay for the extended process, but I don't know much about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Professor.

Ms. James has a point of order

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't know whether it's a point of order or a clarification. I want to remind everyone here, including the witnesses, that this is a private member's bill. It was the decision by that member to put forward this legislation. It's not regarding processing permanent residencies or citizenship applications.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It's interesting, Mr. Chairperson. I'll pick up on the particular point that Ms. James brought to the table. When we look at Mr. Shory's original bill, what we're really talking about, from what I can recollect, is that we want to recognize the importance that the Canadian Forces play here in Canada. It's the idea of reducing from three years to two years for landed immigrants who do serve in the forces. That was really what seemed to be the driving force behind this bill.

Then, it was hijacked by the Minister of Immigration. We understand and believe at the end of the day—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Opitz, has a point of order.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, you've indulged the honourable member in the past. The characterization that he's throwing at the minister, and using the word “hijacked”, I think is totally inappropriate in his statement. I think he should be censured for it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It's true.

[An hon. member]

Actually, it's not.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, he's right, in a way, although Ms. James started this little chat back and forth.

Mr. Lamoureux, it is your five minutes, but I would prefer that you stick to questions or comments on the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the end of the day, what we're spending most of our time talking about is the possibility of amendments that could potentially be brought forward through a member of the committee on behalf of the Minister of Immigration. It does raise some very serious issues, specifically dealing with a two-tiered citizenship. That's really what we're developing.

You used the example of the colonel. Here's a colonel who could be on next year's wish list, in terms of getting that individual, or individuals like him, or mass murderers and so forth, so that we can take away citizenships. Some would argue it could be a very slippery slope.

How easy should it be to take away one's citizenship? That's one question. The other, of course, is something to which many would take great offence. That is that we are setting up a two-tiered citizenship: those who have dual citizenships and those who do not. The consequence is profoundly different, if in fact you happen to have a dual citizenship. It happens a lot in Canada. The leader of the New Democratic Party is a citizen of France and a citizen of Canada. It applies differently depending in terms of your citizenship.

I'm interested, Ms. Macklin, if you could provide some comment on the dangers of establishing a two-tiered citizenship.

[Prof. Audrey Macklin]

It is clearly the case that Canada as a country of immigration has long welcomed people, and enabled and encouraged them to maintain their other citizenship should they choose to do so. Canada has self-interested reasons for doing that, in terms of promotion of trade and global relationships.

What this bill does is create a disincentive to dual citizenship, but also it makes dual citizenship a liability and exposes people to a punishment that people who are mononationals, if I can call it that, aren't exposed to. That's arbitrary. Why is it arbitrary? Because there's no evidence, and nor would any be possible, that somebody is by virtue of being a dual national more dangerous, more risky, more likely to commit certain offences, or more worthy of a certain punishment than somebody who is a mononational.

What I have heard from the government is, “We only wish we could do this to mononationals. Too bad we can't.” That's actually not an answer in law. An answer in law is that if you're going to violate—

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to stop the clock.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

—I don't mind, obviously, witnesses putting their opinions and perspectives forward, but the witness doesn't speak on behalf of the government and if quoting the government is something they want to put forward or something they have said that is actually not the case, then she shouldn't say it.