Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 18th, 2013

[Eric Stevens]

The difference in treatment between the dual citizen and those who have only one citizenship is evident. It is a distinction that raises a question about section 15 of the charter, “equality rights”. The government's position is that this distinction would not amount to discrimination as it's not based upon stereotypical assumptions or advancing prejudices.

In fact, the minister explained that whether you're born in Canada or you have arrived here and attained citizenship, if you have another citizenship you will be subject to this initiative. The initiative is about enhancing the value of citizenship. However, the minister wants to do so consistent with international obligations and therefore is limited as to who can be affected by the legislation.

When you're thinking about section 15, again, is that a justifiable distinction? The government's position would be yes.

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

So even if there is a distinction and even if there were a problem, a second defence to the potential charter challenge is that it could be reasonably justified in a free and democratic society, which saves it under our constitutional law.

Is that correct?

[Eric Stevens]

That's correct. You're referring to section 1, and that's the second line of defence when faced with a charter challenge.

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

I think that's very helpful.

As I say, what most of us aim for in this committee is consensus, ideally unanimity. It seems to me that my friends on the other side have raised some serious questions about the bill. But even with the most serious questions, ultimately I've found an answer to them in your responses this morning. That gives me the ability to see the good things that are being promoted here, especially having heard the problems. The minister, working with the private member to make sure the bill succeeds to the best of our ability, can promote these important principles that all Canadians care about.

Could you comment on what we could do better as a committee, or what we could do better as Parliament, in order to put forward what we're doing here and to make sure it works?

Ms. Girard, would you like to respond to that?

[Nicole Girard]

I guess the only suggestion I could make is the one Minister Kenney has made already. There's a bill before the committee that deals with a serious subject matter, and there are a number of amendments that are proposed to deal with some of the issues that have been raised with regard to the bill. We would hope those amendments would be seriously considered.

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

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 30 seconds for question and answer.

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

All right.

We've also heard of other countries that can strip citizenship, and they're countries whose democratic systems we respect, like Britain, Australia, and even the United States.

I'll go back to you, Mr. Stevens. Have you taken any solace in your charter assessment from the record of these other countries?

[Eric Stevens]

Yes. In assessing charter compliance, international standards may be highly relevant.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madame Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for their answers.

One of our witnesses told us, and rightly so, that exile was used as a possible punishment before modern times, and that the current penal justice system also sets out to punish people.

In your opinion, why would the provisions in this bill be more appropriate when the person has dual citizenship, with respect to revocation?

[Nicole Girard]

I would just like to clarify your question. You want to know why we are insisting that these provisions apply only in cases where individuals have another citizenship?

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

With respect to the acts of terrorism that may be mentioned or other acts by other names, would the provisions relating to revoking citizenship or denying citizenship apply when the individual has dual citizenship? Do you think this application is justified even when the person has dual citizenship? What do you think justifies this?

[Nicole Girard]

If I understand your question correctly, you're asking more about what justifies the application of these provisions to dual citizens.

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

Yes, exactly.

[Nicole Girard]

That goes back to the objective of the second part of the private member's bill, looking at circumstances where an individual who has Canadian citizenship and another citizenship has made a choice to violently demonstrate their disloyalty and has made a conscious choice to violently engage in some very serious and heinous actions, which could include terrorism, high treason, or enlisting in the army of a foreign state and engaging in armed conflict with Canada.

The objective of the second part of the bill relates to taking action against those who would attack our Canadian Armed Forces in some way, shape, or form and to the notion that the Canadian Armed Forces make a commitment to defending Canada and often give their lives to defend Canada and to defend Canadian citizenship. The idea is, why would people who would attack other citizens or our Canadian Armed Forces continue to benefit from Canadian citizenship?

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

Okay.

I understand your explanation, but that said, a Canadian citizen without dual citizenship could, eventually, commit this kind of act. So, it is really important to think about the comparison between someone with dual citizenship and someone with single citizenship, in this case Canadian citizenship. In this case, we are faced with a somewhat arbitrary decision, as one of our witnesses said. That was really the context for my question.

I have a second question. One of our witnesses, Catherine Dauvergne, talked about a cost of $40 million to process 13 cases of citizenship revocation since 2002. Do you think we will have to take on similar amounts to apply Bill C-425?

[Nicole Girard]

We haven't done an analysis of the cost of implementing these provisions. However, the CIC minister, Minister Kenney, has already noted that we anticipate these provisions would apply in very exceptional circumstances, in very few cases.

If I understand, the costs you're quoting from the other witness relate to the revocation process, which is a fairly complex and burdensome process that's multi-stepped and involves not only cabinet but also the Federal Court. Here we're talking about the renunciation process, where a decision is made by a citizenship judge. The cases are few, and the evidence would be prepared by the department.

It's a simpler, more straightforward process, but with the important procedural safeguards built in. It would be a less expensive process than the revocation process, and the cases would be few. So I don't imagine the costs would be anywhere near approaching those sums, although we haven't done a study of the costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today.

Prior to 1976—I think Mr. Dykstra alluded to part of this question earlier—Canadian citizenship could be stripped for high treason. The Liberal government at the time chose that it should no longer be grounds for stripping a person of citizenship, even though almost every other peer country would disagree, and many have since added grounds for revocation or deemed renunciation.

In addition, it is legal to strip citizenship from someone who is found to have obtained it fraudulently. I think that's pretty obvious. Clearly there used to be, and there still are, legal and constitutional grounds to strip citizenship from someone.

Would you agree that this would still be the case with this bill and with the suggested amendments?

[Nicole Girard]

The current legal grounds for taking away citizenship, as you've pointed out, are limited to revocation, and those apply only in cases of fraud by naturalized citizens. As you've rightly pointed out, under the 1947 act, there used to be provisions to take citizenship away from citizens who acted in certain heinous ways.

As we have noted, really it's a function of the rules set out in the Citizenship Act, in terms of what is legally possible. The provisions of the bill propose to amend the Citizenship Act in that way, to make it legally possible once again to take Canadian citizenship away in certain specific circumstances.

I'm not sure if that answers your question. Perhaps if you require clarification, I can add.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

No, that's good. Thank you.

As we said, we know that citizenship can be taken away if it was obtained fraudulently. Almost all of our peer countries have the ability to strip a person of citizenship for reasons such as treason or terrorism, amongst other things, which I'm sure you know. Yet critics of this bill claim that Canadian citizenship is an inalienable right.

How do you respond to that?

[Nicole Girard]

That's not correct, and I would note that other witnesses have made comments on this point. Citizenship is alienable. It's possible under the current Citizenship Act to take citizenship away. The revocation provisions exist for that reason, and the 1947 act had additional provisions to take citizenship away.

It's just a false notion that citizenship is inalienable.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

We are talking about people who are committing acts of terrorism here. We're not talking about attacking somebody vulnerable or targeting somebody, as we heard this morning. We're talking about people who decide to commit acts of terrorism or treason.

Would you agree that people who do those things effectively reject Canadian values that are part and parcel of citizenship, which they swore to uphold?

[Nicole Girard]

I would agree, and I think other witnesses have commented very effectively on exactly this point, that if a Canadian citizen is undertaking these kinds of heinous actions, that should be given consideration, and it's not necessarily appropriate that they should continue to benefit from the very Canadian citizenship they may have used in the service of committing such heinous acts, whether in Canada or abroad.