Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Do you believe that if citizenship is stripped from someone who has been convicted of terrorism or high treason, that person should be barred from ever applying to get it back?

[Nicole Girard]

The bill already provides a permanent bar in certain circumstances for a citizen who would be subject to the provisions of this bill. However, in our study we did note that there could be some loopholes in this area. Remember, we are talking about someone who has been convicted of terrorism, who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more, or potentially high treason. The amendments before you propose to strengthen that bar to ensure that whether it's a permanent resident or a citizen, they are not able in any capacity to come forward once again and apply for citizenship.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Following up on Mr. Menegakis's questions leads me to one of my own. You referred to some witnesses who have appeared and made comments. Ms. Sheryl Saperia was a witness at our last official meeting, and she said the following:

With regard to discrimination in the case of people who have dual citizenship versus people who don't, first of all, not all distinctions constitute discrimination.

She said when there's a distinction that's grounded in law, meaning that Canada has obligations under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, we are bound by those rules.

And then she says:

I should note that in that convention it says that there is no problem with a country having the right to remove a person's nationality if the person does things that are disloyal to the state and can cause harm to the state. This is fully within the bounds of that convention.

Could you comment on that?

[Nicole Girard]

That's correct.

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

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to refer to an example that happened this week—the Boston marathon, with 26,000 participants. Hundreds of thousands of individuals were on the streets watching that event take place. We're all aware of the tragic consequences of what has now been deemed a terrorist act. In fact, at this committee we had a moment of silence on behalf of the individuals who not only perished but were injured in that event. There were over 2,000 Canadians who participated in that event, not to mention those who went along to witness those Canadians participate.

I know this is only a hypothetical position, but because we're studying this bill, it stood out for me in terms of understanding the consequences of what these individuals have done. If one of those individuals, hypothetically, were to have dual Canadian citizenship, how would this bill impact those individuals?

[Nicole Girard]

We were also deeply saddened by the tragic events.

Speaking hypothetically, whether it's in the United States or any country abroad, if there's a situation where a Canadian who has another citizenship, as contemplated under the amendments of the bill, makes a conscious choice to engage in heinous acts and participate and commit terrorism, and that person is ultimately convicted of terrorism, as the amendment to the bill contemplates, there is the potential that an individual, under those circumstances, could become subject to the provisions of the bill.

The two key considerations there would always be, under the proposed amendment of the bill, first, whether the person is an individual who has dual or more citizenships to fall back on; and secondly, whether they are described in one of the categories in the amendments that are put forward for consideration of the committee.

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

I don't mean to put you on the spot—and I should point out that we actually had one of our colleagues participate in that race as well, a federal member of Parliament—but if an American were to be convicted, how would it impact their citizenship, potentially?

[Nicole Girard]

I can't really comment on that. That would be something that would be as a result of U.S. law, and for U.S. officials, our counterparts, to look at.

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

The reason I ask is that we have used the United States as an example of a democracy like ours that actually has in fact renunciation or loss of citizenship laws in place. If you can't, I understand. Again, I repeat, I'm putting you on the spot on this, asking you to interpret American law. But there are provisions, potentially, for an American citizen to lose their citizenship based on this?

[Nicole Girard]

There are specific provisions in American legislation that contemplate loss of American citizenship for specific actions, but we're not experts on American law, so I'm not able to get to the detail of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mrs. Groguhé, you have the floor.

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

We are talking about the minister's discretionary power and the fact that each case could be assessed separately.

As one of our witnesses pointed out last Tuesday, is there not a risk of this process becoming politicized, of confusing the political and the judicial, when such significant acts are involved?

[Nicole Girard]

I would answer that question by pointing to the fact that there is a limited and specific list of circumstances and categories under which a dual citizen, under the proposed amendments to the bill, could be subject to these provisions. I would seek to refute that comment and point out that the minister's discretion is for the benefit of the applicant. In a situation where someone may have been convicted of an equivalent terrorism offence abroad, but where there may be concerns about the independence of the judiciary in a foreign country, because perhaps it's known that there was a political prosecution, the proposal to have ministerial discretion is for the benefit of the applicant, to prevent them from being penalized.

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

Given that the bill does not set out a specific age limit, do you not think that there is a risk that child soldiers would fall under its application? If so, what do we need to do?

[Nicole Girard]

I will answer the member's question, and I will invite my colleagues to add, should they wish. The member is quite correct that the renunciation provisions that are the subject of this bill apply to adults only. So even under the proposed amendments, for someone to be subject to the provisions of this bill, they need to be an adult.

That being said, the bill also contemplates, as I think one of the witnesses raised this morning, that an adult could be subject to the provisions of this bill for actions that were committed either after the bill comes into force or before the bill comes into force, so that's an issue for consideration. But, again, these cases would be rare and unusual.

Mary-Ann or Eric, is there anything you want to add?

[Eric Stevens]

No.

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

Okay.

The United Kingdom has a six-month waiting period for citizenship revocation. In other words, the authorities wait six months before revoking citizenship to avoid cases of statelessness.

Do you think that might be a way of preventing cases of statelessness in the current bill?

[Nicole Girard]

I would address your question in the following way with regard to avoiding situations of statelessness, which is a very important consideration for us, given our obligations under the 1961 convention to which Canada is a party, under which we have an obligation to ensure that we're not rendering Canadian citizens stateless.

How we propose to address the issue under the bill would be in the following two ways.

First, there's the amendment before the committee on ensuring that the bill is limited to circumstances where someone has at least one other citizenship to fall back on.

Second, as a matter of procedural safeguard to ensure that problem doesn't present itself, another amendment for consideration before the committee is the one where the minister is required to provide the person notice, and as part of that notice the person would be invited to make submissions in their own case. The person would be enabled to know the case against them, including the department's evidence that the person is a dual citizen and the other part of the evidence with regard to the actions they've committed.

At that time, the person would be in a position to make submissions to the decision-maker, to identify whether they may be at risk or whether the evidence may not be correct that the person is a dual citizen in fact, so that would be a safeguard.

If, for example, the government has evidence suggesting that the person is a dual citizen but for some reason that evidence may not be up to date or correct, the person would have the opportunity to put forward their own evidence on that count. If it turns out that the person doesn't have access to another citizenship, the case wouldn't be able to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Girard.

A point of order, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Just briefly, given the discussion raised by Mr. Dykstra of what happened in Boston, I want fellow members and everyone in the room to know that on Monday at 1 o'clock there will be a march from the steps of Parliament to the U.S. embassy to express solidarity and condolences for the people of Boston. That will end at the U.S. embassy in time for us to get back for question period.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Weston.

To our representatives from the departments, thank you for your contribution to the committee. It's been most helpful.

This meeting is adjourned.