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.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Perhaps you could just comment on why the amendment suggests five years and why that was determined as a threshold.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As members of the committee may be aware, terrorism offences under the Criminal Code cover a wide range of conduct. There is a maximum range for the offences, and it varies. For example, participation offences, which involve the offence of knowingly participating in any activity of a group for the purposes of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group to carry out a terrorist activity, have a maximum punishment of 10 years. The offence of knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity has a maximum punishment of 14 years' imprisonment.
Much of the conduct captured by these Criminal Code offences is very serious. Some may even lead to a life sentence in prison. But there are other cases that may be less serious, so depending on the charge laid and the circumstances of each case, it's possible that a person may be convicted of a terrorist offence and may receive a much lower sentence than five years in prison.
The main consideration is that given the seriousness of the consequence of taking away someone's citizenship, even recognizing that they have another citizenship to fall back on under the amendments proposed for the bill, this would only occur in relation, it is proposed, to a terrorism offence following a conviction for terrorism where the court imposes at least five years, as you've noted.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Further to the issue around the fact that Canada did have this type of legislation up and until approximately 1976—and we've heard this brought forward a number of times—I'm wondering if you could give a brief outline as to why the government of the day made a determination that this in fact would be rescinded. I only have a minute left, so I'll turn the microphone over to you.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer on that.
We're not aware that the past provisions were ever used. You heard me mention in the speech that some of the aspects were a little bit more limited in scope and had to do with particular circumstances of declared wars, which don't happen so frequently nowadays, and also enlistment in a foreign armed force fighting against Canada, which is not always the situation, as the committee has heard over the past few days.
In the government amendments that are proposed, these contemplate the practical reality of the kinds of situations we face out there and that our Canadian Armed Forces may face out there, in the range of potential situations where an attack on Canadian Armed Forces may emerge.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilmour, since Monday evening, committee members have had the opportunity to study the government's proposed amendments to this bill, and in committee on Tuesday, Mr. Dykstra informed us that they were, from that point, available for public consumption.
Just a yes or no: have you had an opportunity to look at the government's proposed amendments?
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you.
I want to ask about Canada's international obligation to prevent statelessness, with reference to those proposed amendments.
One of our most significant concerns with this bill has been its potential to render someone stateless. The government's amendments, if adopted, would ensure that anyone with citizenship would not be rendered stateless via its proposed changes to clause 2, but the proposed amendments to clause 1 would not ensure that permanent residents couldn't be rendered stateless.
The Library of Parliament estimates that there were 84 stateless refugees accepted into Canada between 2003 and 2010. That totals approximately 12 annually.
We know it is quite possible that no one would ever encounter this problem via the legislation, if passed, with the government's amendments. Nonetheless, our international obligations are important. Can you comment on the problem of statelessness?
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if Mr. Stevens could respond to that. He'd be much more familiar with that particular convention and the international obligations thereunder.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is Canada's obligation vis-à-vis citizens. If I understood your question, you're talking about permanent residents.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The proposed amendments being contemplated would prevent a permanent resident from going on to become a citizen but would not affect any citizenship status they might have. I don't think we're dealing with anything that might be a contravention of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Let me see if I understand that. If they're permanent residents, they haven't become Canadian citizens yet. Would they just carry on living in Canada as permanent residents, and they would get prosecuted and all of those things?
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As I understand it, the amendments being contemplated would just simply stop the citizenship process. What would then follow may depend upon the person's profile. For instance, if the permanent resident were in Canada and had been convicted of a terrorism offence, then the criminal law system would kick in and the person could face prosecution.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I understand the prosecution part, but could a permanent resident, through this legislation, become stateless? In other words, they're here, they've arrived in Canada as a stateless person.
Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
This legislation or the contemplated amendments would not make somebody stateless who is not already stateless. If you have permanent residents here and they've applied for citizenship, and then they're not entitled to citizenship, the immigration process would become applicable to them. The possibility of removal is not necessarily clear if they have no country to go to. They would be entitled, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to a risk assessment to assess whether there would be a breach of the charter in sending them to some other jurisdiction.
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much. That's very clear.
Going back to clauses 1 and 2, for both of these clauses the government has proposed amendments to include ministerial oversight that would allow the minister to exempt certain individuals from the legislation. Can you comment on ministerial oversight more generally? Is it a good thing in the case of this bill?
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
You're quite right, the amendment that's proposed is to enable the minister to have some discretion to deal with an important issue that's been raised by this committee and by witnesses. That is where a citizen may be caught up by the provisions as described in the amendments, but perhaps they have been convicted overseas of an offence and perhaps the procedure was one where there were concerns around independence of the judiciary, or perhaps they were forced to enlist in a foreign army against their own volition.
Recognizing that these cases are exceptional to begin with and that the numbers would be small, and that cases of that nature would be an even more exceptional subset, it's important to have that discretion. It's analogous to what exists under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and it is in order to ensure that such individuals are not unfairly penalized under those kinds of circumstances. So it is limited, if you will, to enabling the minister to decide not to proceed with the application of these provisions in very specific circumstances, the ones that I've outlined.
NDP
Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice
If you don't mind, I'll pass that on to Ms. Girard.
Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
If I may, there are a number of ways in which the bill and the amendments before the committee for consideration provide key elements of due process, and they are as follows.
First of all, there are limited circumstances in which the provisions of the bill would apply under the amendments because there's a very specific and limited list of specific circumstances, and those are the listed categories in which someone could be subject to the deemed renunciation provisions, the conviction for terrorism or treason, etc. That's the first element of due process.
The second very important element of due process is that the amendment requires the minister to provide notice to an individual who could be subject to these provisions, and as part of that notice the person would be invited to make a submission to provide any information they wish to with regard to their own case.
The third element of procedural fairness is that the amendments clarify that it would be a citizenship judge who is an independent administrative decision-maker who would be making the decision based on all the evidence before them. That would be the evidence put together by the department and the evidence provided by the person concerned.
The fourth element of due process relates to a provision that's already in the Citizenship Act, and it is that any decision of a citizenship judge is subject to review by the Federal Court.
So there are four very important elements of due process.
