Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 13th, 2013

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

By all means.

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

I've been listening very closely to Sadia's speech and her comments. She has indicated there are a number of areas where human rights have digressed in Canada. I was simply asking her—I wasn't shouting, I was asking her—to list examples, if she's going to make a broad and sweeping statement. She's not listing any of the examples.

That was my question, and I hope she's going to do that.

Otherwise, you shouldn't say it if you can't actually prove it.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Sure.

I think that going forward in the future, Ms. Freeman is correct....

Is this on the same point of order? Or do you want me to finish making the ruling first, and then if you feel that—

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

I want to comment on that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

We have a list, so we're going to go to Mr. Menegakis next.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a different point of order, so I'm waiting until you finish this one.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

It's a different point of order.

Who would like to speak to this particular point of order?

Pierre.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I simply want some clarification.

What powers can you exercise, Mr. Chair, when decorum is not maintained in the room? Can you expel a member who has made it practically impossible for another member to continue speaking?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

In an extreme situation—I haven't witnessed such an extreme situation in the last couple of years on the Hill—I suspect that I would likely be more inclined to suspend as opposed to expel a particular member. Everything depends on the context of what's being said, what kind of heckling is going on, and so forth. So as long as people are being relatively reasonable in their behaviour, I'm quite content just to continue going forward. I think expulsion from a committee should be taken very, very seriously, and I don't believe I could envision myself doing something of that nature.

I haven't asked the clerk, nor will I ask the clerk, because I suspect I would never expel someone from committee.

Is there anyone else on the same point of order? Otherwise, I'm going to rule that there is a point of order....

Sadia, you wanted to—

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to clarify something. At the outset, I suggested going back over certain testimonies. I will now say that these testimonies are at the heart of Bill C-425 and of what the amendments have in relation to its expansion.

I will continue to provide clarification that I feel is essential. It will make it possible to fully understand our position and the arguments that explain why today we are opposing a motion that was tabled by the government and that we do not agree with. I would therefore like to be able to continue to present those arguments in the manner I see fit.

When the government members take the floor and present arguments to justify their position, I never question that. I simply listen and provide counter-arguments when necessary. I do not question what any of them say on any issue. That is why I would like them to extend the same courtesy to me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Thank you, Ms. Groguhé.

Seeing no other hands indicating they want to participate in this particular point of order, I'm going to suggest to you that there is a need for all members to respect decorum, to allow the speaker to be able to say what he or she would like to be able to say, and accord them the respect of good behaviour, if I can put it that way. If someone has a question, the most appropriate way to express yourself, as opposed to heckling, is through a point of order, if in fact it's a legitimate point of order.

Ms. Groguhé, you can continue on.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a different point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

I'm sorry, Mr. Menegakis, on a new point of order.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I'll withdraw for now. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Okay.

Ms. Groguhé, you may continue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will continue, even though I have lost my momentum. I am very passionate about these issues because they fundamentally and strikingly change the Citizenship Act, as I have mentioned in my comments so far. We are completely distorting the precepts that have applied so far when it comes to citizenship.

The proposed amendments send a message that Canadians are not all equal and that the loyalty of some Canadians is called into question. Yes, it is an essential issue and argument. Some of our fellow Canadians have already expressed their concerns. In fact, they felt in some way that they were being maligned by the messages being conveyed. They were concerned. Sometimes, as I mentioned, Canadians do not know they have dual citizenship and might become stateless persons.

There is another important aspect. I truly believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to ensure that the Canadians who make up our country, the builders, the immigrants who came to build Canada, are truly regarded and considered as full-fledged Canadians. That is not what the bill's proposed amendments say, which raises the following question: are all Canadians equal? Is there discrimination when a person belongs to a certain category? These are vital questions, and they need to be asked. We need to find some real answers.

This negative message affects some Canadians in particular, including Muslims and Arabs, who have been persistently and unfairly associated with terrorism. Unfortunately, some Muslims or Arabs have suffered from the direct impact of this hatred toward these communities, something we have unfortunately seen since the 2001 terrorist attacks. It's appalling.

We have a responsibility as parliamentarians to pay attention and ensure there are no differences. When certain citizens are singled out, it further stirs up these disparities and this hatred that, unfortunately, we know exist. It's our responsibility to see to that.

I will now share with you the brief from B'nai Brith on Bill C-425, which was prepared for the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and tabled for the April 18, 2013 meeting:

Bill C-425 proposes that those who are citizens or legal residents of a country other than Canada and who engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces would be deemed to apply for renunciation of Canadian citizenship. The government has indicated that it would propose amendments to the bill. These amendments have not yet been tabled.

I need to clarify that at that point, these amendments had not yet been tabled.

The absence of the text of the amendments has both an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage is that their absence makes it difficult to be specific about matters of potential concern. The advantage is that the situation is now fluid. The government may well be more flexible before the amendments are introduced than afterwards. A. Acts of War The first question is: what is intended by the phrase “an act of war”? The member of Parliament who introduced the bill, Devinder Shory, said to this committee on March 19 that what he intended “was to address those individuals who are either members of some armed forces or armed group who attack our men and women in uniform.” So for him, an act of war was an attack on Canadian men or women in uniform. In terms of international law, an act of war is an act which justifies a military response. An act of war permits going to war in response without the response being considered an act of aggression. An act of war against Canada can be committed in a number of ways. One way, to be sure, is to attack the Canadian armed forces. However, it is not the only way. Other ways are to attack a Canadian merchant vessel, blow up public buildings, assassinate the political leaders or diplomatic representatives, bomb civilian centres and so on. Why would there be a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship for an act of war in one way but not another? Surely, if an act of war justifies a deemed application of renunciation of citizenship, that justification stands no matter how the act of war was committed. The bill suggests that there is a right way and a wrong way to commit an act of war against Canada, or perhaps more accurately, a bad way and a worse way and that the worst way of all is to attack the Canadian armed forces. We are reluctant to rank acts of war against Canada in terms of their gravity. We consider them all bad. How could one possibly say that an attack on a civilian centre of any of the major Canadian cities ranks less in gravity than an attack on the Canadian armed forces? We recommend that this bill, instead of mandating revocation of citizenship for those who committed acts of war against the Canadian armed forces, mandate revocation for those who have committed acts of war against Canada pure and simple. We note that Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney stated to this committee on March 21 that there is no clear definition of what constitutes an act of war and suggested that the committee amend the bill by replacing that term with other acts that are more clearly defined in law. The phrase the minister suggested at the committee to replace “war” was “armed conflict”. Our position is that, whatever…

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Chair, I don't know if this is a point of order or what, but I really do feel that this room is very cold right now. It's a beautiful day outside, Chair—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So let's adjourn.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You know what? I think Ms. James agrees with me. We tend to agree on the coldness of the room.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Take a vote. We'll go outside.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Maybe we could arrange it so that we could be a little warmer. It will be fine right now, but when we come back after question period—I'm hoping that we're going to question period—that would be good, just in order for us to be able to think more clearly and be more comfortable.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

Thank you.

[An hon. member]

That wasn't a point of order.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I wasn't sure what it was. If you could clarify what kind of point that was, Chair, that would be great too.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Kevin Lamoureux]

I think it's asking for special consideration regarding the temperature of the room. I suspect that, depending on who you canvass, you might get some people who say it's a little too hot and some people who say it's a little too cold. At the end of the day, I think in some cases people will have to put on a jacket and in other cases they'll have to take off a jacket.

We'll leave it up to the clerk to determine whether or not the temperature...or if you really feel uncomfortable, then raise the issue with the clerk.

I think we'll continue on with Ms. Groguhé, in the belief that it wasn't actually a point of order.

Ms. Groguhé.