Evidence of meeting #76 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 revocation.
A video is available from Parliament.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.
First I would ask you, Mr. Chair, given that we're asking questions about the amendments the minister is going to be proposing or recommending we take advantage of, and we were provided a document, is it safe to assume that this is now public information?
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The amendments have not been moved, but it appears what you've said is correct.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I do find it interesting.
Ms. Girard, can you indicate whether or not you are aware of any other occasion where the Minister of Immigration, either this current one or a previous one, has made such a presentation in terms of detailed amendments in a private member's bill in the last 10 years?
10:10 a.m.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm sorry, I'm not really aware of whether that's the case or not. I think that would be something a committee would be more aware of than perhaps a government official.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
But from the government officials who are present here today, none of you is aware of a minister bringing forward amendments to a private member's bill to this extent?
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think they've answered the question, Mr. Lamoureux. Let's move on.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
There is concern, and I'll read from the charter:
6.(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Are we to understand from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that it has sought legal opinion on that particular clause, and there is no concern in regard to this not standing up to the charter in terms of what the minister is proposing in amendments?
10:10 a.m.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll ask my colleagues from Justice to jump in, but the first point—and it was raised this morning—is that who is a citizen and how citizenship is accessed and how citizenship may be lost is a creature of statute, the Citizenship Act.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Sure. If I'm born in Canada and raised in Canada, does the government have the right to take away my citizenship in any situation? If I read the charter, it would imply to me that it doesn't. Has this issue been brought to the Department of Justice, and if so, is the Department of Justice of the opinion that it's a non-issue for someone who is born in Canada and happens to have a dual citizenship?
10:10 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not sure I would frame it as a non-issue. As I indicated earlier, though, the proposed amendments have gone through the legislative drafting process, and it's the government's position that they are constitutional.
I could say just a couple of other things. There's nothing in the charter that suggests that citizenship is inalienable. Our current law does actually allow for revocation of citizenship. International conventions like the European Convention on Nationality talk about instances where states can take away citizenship based upon conduct—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I'm going to stop you because of the time.
If I'm a minister and I say, “Here's legislation, and I don't care if it's compliant with the charter, I want this legislation”, is there an obligation on the department to say that in its opinion it would be contested in the Supreme Court of Canada? Is there an obligation for the department to do so?
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
There's an obligation on the Department of Justice to scrutinize legislation to deal with the constitutionality—
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Do they provide an opinion on it? If so, did they do it in this case?
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not going to get into revealing solicitor-client privilege, but as I explained, the legislation that's drafted has to be assessed for charter compliance under the Department of Justice Act. So that has been done.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
If that's been done, and it was negative, is the minister obligated to follow that negative?
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If there's a concern about whether the minister is obligated to follow the advice...? Maybe just explain that question a bit more.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
If the department comes back and says its opinion is that it would be contested in the Supreme Court because it could be against the charter, is the minister obligated, then, to respect that opinion, or can he still present the amendment?
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If the Department of Justice determined that legislation to be introduced was unconstitutional, there's an obligation on the Minister of Justice to report that to the House.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I'd like to react to the questions asked recently by Mr. Lamoureux. I think it is the prerogative of the minister to show interest in a bill introduced by a member of the House, isn't it?
It's obvious, but I would like you to answer the question, Mr. Stevens.
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, it is evident.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Okay. Thank you.
It is truly impossible to anticipate all the challenges that Canadians might make under the charter. Obviously, some people will probably want to start these kinds of challenges, but that is not a reason not to consider a bill or even not to pass it.
10:15 a.m.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I agree with your comments. The matters we're talking about here are very serious.
Could there be litigation? Of course. Immigration is a highly litigious area. Citizenship could be as well.
10:15 a.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you.
I think everyone supports many of the principles put forward by my colleague Mr. Shory. We all want to discourage terrorists and strengthen Canadian citizenship around the world and in the minds of all Canadians.
Perhaps the biggest challenge is the one mentioned by my colleague Mr. Dykstra when he spoke about charter compliance. He asked you what you thought about it. I do not want to make a habit out of asking the simplest questions to support my colleague; rather, I prefer asking the most difficult questions.
You have already said that, according to the department, this bill complies with the charter. However, we have heard some people say that this bill would have a different impact on certain people, such as those with dual citizenship.
Despite that, you still find that it complies with the charter. Is that right?