Evidence of meeting #84 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
I appreciate the point of order.
I believe Ms. James would like to contribute to the point of order at this time too.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON
Actually, I heard everything and I'm okay. I can hear.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
It's on a different point?
Just on this particular point of order, it's always nice when there is a decorum such that not only other people can listen to what's being said, but individuals who are speaking can hear what it is they're saying themselves.
We just need to be cognizant, and I appreciate the heads-up on it.
Pierre, you have the floor, for a new point of order, I understand.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
It is not really a point of order, but rather a request for information. Since we are getting lunch, could you tell me who authorized the expenses of the committee to buy the food?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Well, technically it's at the discretion of the chair to ensure that members and individuals who have a desire to eat have something to eat. I think having some sandwiches is a reasonable lunch.
So just on the point of clarification, it would have come through the chair.
Ms. Groguhé, if you will, continue.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was referring to all the national and international benchmarks that enable us to legislate by giving consideration to the necessary and important precepts underlying the fundamental issue of citizenship.
Here is what the ICLMG thinks about this:
The definition introduced in the Criminal Code by Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001 provides a vague, imprecise and overly expansive definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist activity” that could be interpreted arbitrarily to encompass forms of dissent and/or violent behaviour that have little to do with terrorism, thus threatening civil liberties and the right to legitimate political dissent. For instance, several democratic countries have recently invoked anti-terrorist laws to prosecute opponents and protesters against resource development projects. Recent Public Safety and CSIS reports also blur the line between “dissent” and “terrorism”. Under the proposed amendments, Canadians with dual citizenship who are environmental defenders or who protest at international summits and are convicted of terrorist-related offences by a foreign country, or by Canada itself, could be stripped of their citizenship.
Yes, it is necessary and vital to work together and define measures in a draconian way, measures that are very broad in this case. Yes, that is a concern. Yes, it is a well founded and fundamental concern, because that can simply lead to abuses. God only knows how fast abuses can happen. Through history, we have seen men and women threatened with imprisonment or the loss of their freedom because we had not set enough benchmarks and restrictions to be able to limit some things.
The ICLMG adds:
This would be a grave Charter violation of the right to free expression of certain Canadians. Another problem with such a sweeping definition of “terrorism” is that it fails to distinguish between criminal terrorist entities and freedom fighters or liberation movements, whose legitimacy can shift depending on the time period and the dominating political interests at stake.
Those distinctions are clearly necessary. They would certainly make it possible for us not to mix everything up. They would prevent people, who could legitimately defend some things, from being faced with decisions that might be made within a legislative framework and because of which their citizenship would be revoked altogether. We must really pay attention to these concerns and we must not exaggerate by going outside the legislative framework which is not sufficiently limited and goes beyond honouring our Canadian army, as I said on various occasions.
I will continue to read from ICLMG's submission:
Under Canada’s current definition, Nobel prize recipient Nelson Mandela and Rigoberta Menchu would be considered terrorists.
You can imagine that, if we were to refer to Nelson Mandela as a terrorist today, that would make no sense at all; it would be completely absurd. Imagine what would happen if these amendments were not defined or really reconsidered. That is why I would like to come back to that. It is crucial. I think this is really at the heart of our debates.
I will go back to the motion. This private member's bill, Mr. Shory's bill, makes no reference at all to what I just talked about. As I said before and as the title tells us, the purpose of this bill is all about honouring the Canadian Forces. But we are seeing the complete opposite. The minister is coming in with his heavy boots. He is bringing in amendments. Based on the remarks I am reading, we can clearly see that these amendments are completely changing the Citizenship Act, gutting the initial bill to turn it into different bill.
That said, as some witnesses mentioned, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has all the latitude he needs to propose a government bill. We could then have a democratic parliamentary debate, which is obviously needed. That would give us an opportunity to set most of the legislative foundation...
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, I see that a member of the committee is on the phone. Could you please remind the members of the basic decorum rules, including that talking on the phone is not permitted while sitting at the committee table?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
I think that generally speaking there's always a certain level of interaction that will occur around the table. There are certain behaviours that are more acceptable than others. If you want to use your telephones to be able to send messages, texts, e-mails, and so forth, that's one thing. It's another thing to actually be carrying on a conversation on the telephone while you're sitting at the committee table. If you want to carry on a conversation with your telephone, the most appropriate thing to do would be to go off to the side of the table so that it's not disruptive. We wouldn't want to have eight, nine people on the telephone talking while we're supposed to be listening to what the speaker is actually saying.
So it is a point of order. Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. I believe the matter has been resolved.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Since I have the floor, I would like to go back to the point of order that was raised. The fact that a member of the government is on the phone while I am talking about a motion moved by the government denotes a total lack of respect, in my view. I greatly appreciate your answer. I hope the members of the committee will take that into account and, as a result, pay a little more attention to my comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Thank you, Ms. Groguhé.
You have the floor to continue on, and I'm sure people will refrain from using their telephones as a conversational piece.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was saying that, for some Canadians, this would be a serious breach of the right to free expression protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can extrapolate and see what is currently going on in some countries where the right to free expression and freedom are obstructed. I'm talking about certain countries. Take the Arab Spring, for example. The people decided. Young people, women and students decided to go to the public square to tell the government in power that they no longer supported what it was doing. Mr. Chair, would these people be considered terrorists? I don't think so. All they did was express freely and democratically what they were experiencing. It's important to consider and protect it.
The ICLMG states the following:
Another problem with such a sweeping definition of terrorism is that it fails to distinguish between criminal terrorist entities and freedom fighters or liberation movements, whose legitimacy can shift depending on the time period and the dominating political interests at stake.
I mentioned Nelson Mandela, who unfortunately has pneumonia. My prayers go out to him. I hope he gets better.
Take Nelson Mandela, for example. He spent over 30 years in prison on the grounds that he was a terrorist. He was convicted by the government in power at the time. We understand the scope of certain legislation and the decisions it may unfortunately lead people to make. Anyone, because they wanted to simply defend their rights or exercise their right to expression, right to equality, right to fairness, could pay the price for legislation that might run counter to this absolute and fundamental right of all citizens.
The ICLMG's third concern is the following:
3. Foreign convictions may be unfair It is especially troubling that people could be stripped of their citizenship based on a foreign conviction. Criminal proceedings in some countries are routinely unfair; cases relating to terrorism are particularly vulnerable to proceedings that violate the principles of natural justice. The proposed amendment does not offer a fair and independent process in Canada for the person to show that the foreign conviction was unjust. Maher Arar is a Canadian dual citizen who was unfairly suspected of terrorism and jailed in Syria. Fortunately, he was able to return to Canada, and as a Canadian citizen, he was able to advocate for his rights, leading to the O'Connor Commission which cleared his name.
Mr. Chair, we unfortunately know of situations in our history where unfair and unjustified accusations have been made in certain countries that are quite comfortable with being undemocratic and with convicting someone who might be against the government in power or against the laws proposed by that government. This example shows that we need to be extremely careful and vigilant so that we do not get stuck in situations that could lead to unjustified imprisonments.
If the proposed amendment is passed, a Canadian in a situation similar to Mr. Arar in the future could be unfairly accused and convicted of terrorism abroad, and stripped of his Canadian citizenship, while still in jail abroad.
Mr. Chair, the consequences are enormous. The Maher Arar case shows us just how far we may stray with the amendments proposed by the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. We need to be careful. As I said, to make sure no Canadians are harmed, it is our duty as parliamentarians to continue to hold democratic debates and exchanges, without time allocation motions muzzling us and reducing debate on key issues.
Having said that, I will move on to the ICLMG's fourth concern:
4. Amendments send a negative message No one anticipates that the power to strip citizenship would be used in large numbers of cases. Nevertheless, the symbolic importance is significant.
We were talking about the impact that symbols may have. We know quite well that they can have both a very positive impact and a very negative impact. When it comes to a case like the one we are facing and it involves expanding a private member's bill, it is clear that the symbolic aspect is important and that it needs to be taken into consideration.
In fact, the proposed amendments send a message that Canadians are not all equal. Imagine a message like that. Our country is recognized as an essential force, a true leader when it comes to human rights and freedoms. Canada has built a reputation in this respect and it is important to preserve that. Internationally, Canada has made its mark with these principles. It continues to do so but, unfortunately, in an increasingly harmful way because the government is making decisions that, I repeat, go against national and international provisions, and that is not normal.
The amendments we are looking at today ensure that we are creating a message, a symbolic one, but we know…
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
I somewhat anticipated that was going to come up.
Ms. Freeman, were you wanting to explain your point of order, or would it suffice for me to just say that Ms. Groguhé has the floor?
I understand there's a level of interest in what she's saying. Some members do not feel comfortable if they're being heckled. I will suggest that at this point maybe we could calm down a little bit so she can continue on with her comments.
If there is a need for us to have a point of order—I see Ms. Freeman does have her hand up. She would like to comment on a point of order, I trust.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Mylène Freeman NDP Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Yes, Mr. Chair. I do find it really offensive sometimes when we're shouting at each other while another person is speaking over this table. I think it's unfortunate that the division in this House has come so far as to be so poisoning our committee that the parliamentary secretary is shouting at my colleague while she is speaking, while she is making very interesting points, trying to explain to him why it is that she cannot support this private member's bill that was brought in and is evidently turning into a government bill.
It is obviously a very complex issue that we did not spend enough time on, and I'm glad we are now able to make sure those points are out. But if we've gotten to the point where we're heckling just because we disagree with each other, Mr. Chair, I would respectfully ask if we could make sure that stays to a minimum.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
Mr. Dykstra, were you wanting to comment on the same point of order?
