Evidence of meeting #23 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was citizens.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ted Opitz Conservative Etobicoke Centre, ON
We've cleaned up a lot of the messes of past years. Of course our Liberal friends in 1947, when the act was introduced, over the decades had a lot of ineligible Canadian citizens. But I think we've fixed a great deal of that.
Will part of this legislation also ensure that the remainder of the lost Canadians are granted citizenship? Do you have a comment on that?
Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual
People who are stuck and truly believe in the democratic process we have in this country should bear in mind, by way of example, the lost Canadians. It took time. It took resources. Justice has been done. Congratulations to the lost Canadians!
Conservative
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all of the witnesses for being here with us today.
I would like to go back to what the minister said before the committee last Monday. He said, and I quote:We think this bill [C-24] is fully compliant with the requirements of our Constitution.
The minister seems convinced that this bill is constitutional. I wonder if you have any reservations or doubts concerning that statement by the minister.
Since there is no answer, I want to ask the representatives of the Canadian Bar Association if they have any comments to make on this.
Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I am sorry, I have to answer in English, if that's all right.
Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I would remind the committee that they've passed other legislation that, again and again, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down just recently. So the fact that the Department of Justice and the minister say it is constitutional doesn't mean it is. I think that you really have to question, when the Supreme Court in a case called Chieu, in one of its more recent decisions, questioned whether or not it was fair to have a single official taking away a significant right.
You have the minister, who is going to act on political grounds, take away citizenship from someone born in Canada, because of an offence. It will be selectively used, and it will be used in an unfair way. You can't expect a fair, impartial, and independent hearing in front of a minister who is the political advocate of this kind of stripping people of citizenship. He's not going to be a fair decision-maker. You must have a court.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Ms. Seligman, do you have something to add to that?
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
I fully agree with that. I think you will find that this, if passed in its present form, will obviously work its way to the Supreme Court.
Again, I'd like to remind this committee of the following, because I think one of the members just said that people read our guide and we tell them that if they come here and commit crimes, they shouldn't be allowed to stay here, please be aware that this affects people born in Canada. It affects your children, your grandchildren, and you.
By looking at some of our names, probably 75% of the people in this room have ancestry from abroad and may automatically have citizenship in those countries without doing anything. You're affected. So please, that can't be compliant with the charter, notwithstanding the advice that the minister is getting.
Thank you.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Kurland, do you have anything to say about the minister's statement concerning the constitutionality of this bill?
Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual
Yes.
Notwithstanding the claims made by the minister and the Department of Justice, I think there is indeed an issue. The absence of an appeal process is very egregious and you can be sure that judges are going to consider that seriously. I do not share the legal opinion of the Department of Justice. I think the minister is not a member of any Canadian bar association. His mandate is limited to political decisions.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you.
As for exile, I think you spoke about this, Ms. Seligman, as well as the Canadian Bar Association.
I would like to ask Ms. Jackman and perhaps also Mr. Kurland if it is true that under Bill C-24 a person born in Canada could be exiled to a country where he or she did not speak the language, nor know anything else about the country.
Is that true?
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Absolutely. Proposed section 10.4 shifts the onus to the Canadian-born person to prove that they would not be rendered stateless. That's the test. It doesn't talk about dual citizens. It says the onus is on you to prove that you will not be rendered stateless. And as I told you, there are many countries that if your parent is from that country and you're born to that parent even in Canada and even if your parent's a Canadian citizen, you automatically have citizenship, for example, the Egyptians, Chinese, Italians, etc. Many people of this country automatically have a right to get citizenship in another country. They would be exiled.
Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
I think we have to be careful in what's going to happen here. I've represented Chilean refugees through the years. The Chilean government had an exile list. They kept citizens out of the country, exiled them from Chile, and other dictatorships have done the same thing.
What we're doing here is more dishonest. We're redefining so that we're pretending they're not Canadians even though they were born here, grew up here, may have lived nowhere else and have no connection to any other country, and then we're going to kick them out. That's the same as what Chile did under the dictatorship. I'm sorry, it's just too extreme. We got rid of banishment and exile in the Middle Ages. This is not the time to add it.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Kurland, I apologize, but I am going to ask my last question before I give you the floor.
Ms. Jackman, is it correct to say that our current legal system has provisions to deal with such serious offences as high treason and terrorism?
Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
We do. We punish people through the criminal justice system. We didn't add additional sanctions by exiling them, until now.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
My question is for all of you. If I understand correctly, you suggest that the provisions involving the possibility of exile for persons targeted by Bill C-24 simply be withdrawn.
Is that what you are proposing?
Ms. Jackman, I yield the floor to you.
Member, National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
The Bar Association has recommended that the provision be deleted.
Barrister and Solicitor, As an Individual
Yes, I would agree with that, and as well, the particular focus on children or people born in Canada. It's never been contemplated before in Canadian legislation to deport Canadians born here.
NDP
Lawyer and Policy Analyst, As an Individual
I'm not in favour of introducing the medieval law of banishment into our Canadian legal system, so on general principle, I have serious concerns. Also the door is open in future to parliaments of other countries getting their hands on Canadian citizens. A citizenship bill is now before the Spanish Parliament that will extend Spanish citizenship to people claiming to be Sephardic Jews, and that means that in Canada, following Ms. Seligman's train of thought, if a person is Jewish and has a certificate of being a Sephardic Jew, they get Spanish citizenship. There are unforeseen, unintended consequences here that truly have to be studied at great length before going forward.
