Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 18th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 76. It is Thursday, April 18. This meeting is televised. We are studying Mr. Shory's private member's bill, Bill C-425.

We have one witness. We will be going for one half-hour. Our witness is B'nai Brith Canada. Mr. David Matas is the senior honorary counsel. He has appeared before this committee at least twice that I can think of. We also have Marc Chétrit Rieger, who is the legal counsel. Good morning to you, gentlemen.

Mr. Chétrit Rieger, I gather you're going to introduce the program. You have up to eight minutes to make a presentation.

[Mark Cherit, Legal Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada]

Good morning. My name is Marc Chetrit Rieger. I work in Montreal as a criminal and human rights lawyer. I also have a master's degree in international law from the Sorbonne.

B'nai Brith Canada has been active in Canada since 1875 as the Jewish community's foremost human rights agency.

I will turn things over to my colleague, who will expand on the brief we submitted on behalf of B'nai Brith Canada.

David Matas is an immigration and refugee lawyer from Winnipeg. He is the senior counsel for B'nai Brith, and he was awarded the Order of Canada in 2010.

David.

[David Matas, Senior Honorary Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada]

Thank you very much.

I've prepared a 15-page brief, which I gather has been circulated to the committee. To start, I'll go through the recommendations at the end. I have seen the proposed amendments and they have been helpful.

The brief makes 10 recommendations. The first is that the bill encompass all acts of war or acts of armed conflict rather than just attacks on Canadian Armed Forces. I can see that the amendment picks up that suggestion.

The second proposal is to apply the bill only to citizens of a country other than Canada and not to legal residents of a country other than Canada, when it comes to laws of citizenship. Again, the proposed amendment to the bill picks that up.

The third proposal is to not apply the bill to persons born in Canada whose primary connection is Canada. That's not something in the amendments.

I'll point out that the bill right now could potentially apply to somebody who was born in Canada, has never left Canada, and has no connection with the other country of citizenship other than the fact that, potentially, one of the parents is a citizen and had that citizenship passed on. That parent may never have been to that other country in his or her life and may not speak the language of that country.

We have to think about what would happen if other countries were to pass the same legislation we did. I think we would be dismayed if we found another country shipping to our borders someone who doesn't know English or French, has never been here, and has committed an act of terrorism abroad.

The fourth proposed change is to change the consequences of the acts encompassed by the bill from deemed application for renunciation of citizenship to revocation of citizenship. One of the anomalies of the bill was that it was in a deemed application. The amendment, to a certain extent, corrects that by saying you can't withdraw the application. We still have terminology that doesn't reflect reality. This is not an application for renunciation. It is revocation, and it should be called revocation, simply to use language that conforms to the reality. Another reason, which I will get to later, is that we should have the same procedure for the same consequences.

The result of the different labelling—and this has to do with the fifth recommendation—is that we have different procedures for this type of revocation than we do for other types of revocation. For this type of revocation, which is a deemed renunciation, there would be a decision by the minister and then access to the Federal Court by way of judicial review. For other types of revocation already in the act, the issue goes to the Federal Court on the merits of misrepresentation. It's our position that in both cases the procedure should be the same and should use the same terminology.

We also say—and this is recommendation 6—there should be a removal order issued within the same procedure as the revocation or deemed renunciation. There should be consolidation of proceedings. This government proposed this in Bill C-37 in a previous Parliament. It was also a proposal to a previous government, in Bill C-16, that revocation and removal be consolidated. The way it stands now, if this bill is enacted, you'll have a revocation, but the person will still be in Canada. So there would have to be some consideration of removal procedures.

B'nai Brith has had extensive experience with revocation. Our experience is that revocation alone is not sufficient to deal with the problem the legislation is directed towards. One has to consider removal, and removals have not been working well in conjunction with revocation.

The seventh recommendation is to limit the ground of revocation or deemed renunciation relating to acts of war or armed conflict to personal participation in such an act or membership at the time of war or armed conflict. This component of the law, for membership at least, must be prospective only. Right now we have it, even with the amendment going before the bill, as well as after the bill, and not limited to membership at the time of the armed conflict.

This is an issue that arises very often in immigration, where membership before the act or after the act is sufficient to allow for loss of status, and presumably that jurisprudence would be carried forward here. If somebody is a member before the act or after the act, but not at the time of the act—and particularly if that's the case before this legislation is passed—it would be improper to revoke citizenship or deem renunciation.

The eighth proposal is to provide as an exception to the ground of revocation/deemed renunciation for conviction for having committed an equivalent foreign terrorism offence that the conviction was imposed in disregard of accepted international standards. Again, that's an exception in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for the refugee protection definition. Right now the bill proposes that you could lose status for having committed a foreign terrorism offence, even if there was a conviction for that offence abroad, even where that conviction was imposed in disregard of accepted international standards. The reality is that many repressive governments accuse their opponents of being terrorists, and convict them of being terrorists, when the real crime is being opposed to the repressive government in place, and one has to make some allowance for that.

The ninth proposal would expand the grounds of revocation/deemed renunciation to include complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, and genocide. Right now we are limited to armed conflict and a few other specifics. We believe the concept applies, and should be applied, to these other grave international human rights offences.

Finally, we propose authorizing revocation/deemed renunciation only where prosecution is not reasonably practical, because revocation/deemed renunciation is a remedy, but for some people who are already living abroad, it doesn't have much of an impact, and prosecution, if it's available, is preferable in terms of its deterrent effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Matas.

Mr. Shory.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming this morning.

Mr. Chair, as everyone knows, this bill is based on my three beliefs: I believe in more pathways to integration; our troops deserve the highest respect; and in my view, Canadian citizenship is a privilege that deserves the highest esteem.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the committee members' taking this bill very seriously and putting in all their time. I also appreciate the witnesses for their input, and specifically those witnesses who lost their loved ones in this kind of activity. They had to listen to all the other witnesses, to an extent, with my colleagues from the opposition basically shrugging away the victims' concerns and trying to defend offenders, I would say.

In my view, Mr. Chair, the individuals who attack those who give their lives or put their lives on the line to defend Canadian values, to defend the rights we enjoy here, should not have any right to Canadian citizenship or the privileges that come with that citizenship.

Mr. Matas, as you know, eighty percent-plus Canadians from coast to coast to coast have supported this bill, and of course your organization has supported my bill—I thank you for that. On top of that, during break weeks, etc., I had an opportunity to meet numerous Canadians from numerous provinces, and I have not found one single Canadian who would not support the intention of my bill, which basically says that those who protect our privileges and the rights that come with citizenship should have the right to citizenship as well.

I have attended all the meetings during this bill's study in this committee, and it saddened me, to an extent, when I saw some witnesses—and, as a matter of fact, some of my colleagues—suggesting that there is no due process in my bill. For the benefit of those members and, if they are watching, those witnesses, assume that section 18 of the Citizenship Act simply puts up the process under which the minister is obligated to, first, notify the person or individual affected. Then there is a judge who will make a decision, and that decision is appealable in the Federal Court. On top of that, the minister will also have the right or authority to change that decision.

My question, Mr. Matas, is very simple today, because we are talking about the bill and the assumed amendments, which I have to go through minutely.

In your view, once someone is convicted of any of these offences—terrorism, act of war, or, as you call it, armed conflict, or whatever we eventually call it—what minimum sentence should be required to apply to that convicted individual?

[David Matas]

What should be the minimum sentence, meaning the—

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

What will happen, Mr. Matas—and this is my understanding and this is my intention—is that once someone gets involved in the actions to attract my bill, which is terrorism or, as you talked about, an act of war, that individual has to go through the criminal procedure here in Canada. Obviously, that person will be convicted. Once that individual is convicted, what minimum sentence should apply? Do you think the minimum should be ten years, five years, two years, or one day? Do you have any opinion on that?

[David Matas]

The amendment says sentenced to at least five years, in proposed paragraph 5(g), and for an equivalent offence it would also be five years—that's paragraph (c).

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Matas, let me ask you this directly. In your view, should it be five years, or less, or more?

[David Matas]

The issue of what the minimum sentence should be is not an issue that B'nai Brith has taken a stand on.

I noticed you referred in your preamble to the due process, and that's something we did address in the bill. I appreciate that there is a process. As you point out, there is the section 18 process.

The concern we have is that that's a different process from the process for revocation for fraud and misrepresentation that exists now. We should have a uniform process for revocation. It shouldn't be a different process depending on the grounds of loss of citizenship. It just gets too confusing.

As well, the process we have for revocation now, in my view, is a better process than the one that's set out in section 18. It goes straight to the Federal Court, rather than to the minister, the citizenship judge, and then to the Federal Court by way of judicial review, which is a lot more limited review.

I would encourage an amendment to the bill to have the same process for loss of citizenship under this bill as already exists for loss of citizenship under the Citizenship Act.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Matas—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're out of time. I'm sorry.

Ms. Sitsabaiesan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by saying thank you. I think all of us, as parliamentarians, have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure we are doing our best to write legislation that is sound and is not in contravention of Canadian values or principles. With that in mind, I'd like to once again thank you. Your submission is very thorough.

Mr. Matas, in your opinion, will those with dual citizenship be targeted for further scrutiny if this bill is actually passed?

[David Matas]

Certainly people with dual citizenship would be in a different situation from people with single citizenship. They would become vulnerable to this type of revocation or deemed renunciation, which persons with single citizenship would not become subject to.

I suppose it's true now that people who are not born in Canada and come into Canada can potentially lose citizenship through misrepresentation, which obviously somebody who is born in Canada could not. But this expands the potential vulnerability of people with more than one citizenship.

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

Thank you.

You spoke quite a bit about the revocation of citizenship for people who were born in Canada, and only know Canada as home, but may have dual citizenship.

Canadian citizens who are convicted outside of Canada of certain offences that are equivalent to offences in Canada are the people I'm going to talk about right now. The concern that many other witnesses in previous meetings have brought up is particularly of countries that do not share the same type of respect for judicial due process as Canada does, or rule of law or human rights.

Are there any safeguards in this bill to protect these individuals?

[David Matas]

The answer, in a word, is no, not in the bill itself.

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

Do you have any recommendations that you'd like to—

[David Matas]

Yes. We propose the phrase for an exception where the conviction was imposed in disregard of international standards. That's recommendation 8.

That phrase is drawn from the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That phrase is found in section 97 of the act. The way the present law works is that you cannot get refugee protection if you've been convicted of a serious criminal offence abroad, except for an offence that was imposed in disregard of international standards. It would mean using that phrase in this context. That's what we're proposing.

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

Okay.

If I heard you correctly, you mentioned that recommendation 8 is actually language that you borrowed from IRPA itself?

[David Matas]

Exactly.

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

Okay.

We heard from witnesses previously that this is really creating two classes of citizenship, those who are born Canadian and those who are naturalized Canadians.

Would you like to comment a little bit further on that?

[David Matas]

Of course one would hope that most dual citizens would not be involved in these types of acts, so I wouldn't say that every dual citizen is somehow tarred by this brush. But we are dealing with serious offences and they need to be treated seriously.

Our first position, and what's preferable, is that people should be prosecuted. That's why we put in, as the last recommendation, that it should be preferred where “reasonably practicable”. It should be the first option.

But when you're dealing with a serious offence, I think it's important to bring the perpetrators to justice. It may well be that prosecution is not a viable option in those situations. I wouldn't say, well, we can't prosecute and we're not going to do anything. I think we have to use every legal means available to bring to justice the people who have committed these grave acts.

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

Along those same lines, I 100% agree with you that the majority of our dual citizens in Canada, and the majority of the people in Canada, are law-abiding citizens.

With this bill, with the revocation of citizenship, Canada as a country actually loses the jurisdiction to be able to prosecute. This is what we learned from a human rights lawyer, a professor, at the last meeting.

Is it important for Canada to maintain that ability to prosecute?

[David Matas]

In the Canadian criminal jurisdiction for prosecution, the basic principle is territoriality, not personality. We would maintain an ability to prosecute.... I mean, we can prosecute foreigners who commit crimes in Canada. They don't have to be citizens of Canada. We can extradite people from abroad, whether they're citizens of Canada or not, for prosecution here if we have other jurisdictional ties.

Our position is that you do prosecution if you can, but if you can't, then.... I'm not even sure that worrying about maintaining the ability to prosecute is that valuable.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to pass the rest of my time to Sadia.