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.
Senior Honorary Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada
You are welcome to have the version I already have. I could also e-mail you a better version.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. That would be fine. If you could send that to the clerk, she would have it translated for other members of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, sir.
Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe, you have time for one question.
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
One question? Okay.
Mr. Matas, I would like to ask you a question concerning the declaration of intent to reside in Canada.
There seems to be a divergence of opinion on that. Some say that because of this declaration of intent to reside, if the person does not reside in Canada, he or she could be accused, for instance, of having made a false declaration and see their citizenship revoked. However, the government continues to say that no one could have their citizenship revoked if they had declared their intent to reside in the country but did not do so after having obtained their citizenship.
As a lawyer, what is your opinion on that? According to the wording of the bill—and not the government's intention—would it be possible to revoke someone's citizenship on the basis of their declaration of intent to reside here?
Senior Honorary Counsel, B'nai Brith Canada
I'm going to answer that question in English.
How the law will work out in practice we'll have to see, but of course it's possible. As a lawyer in private practice, I can tell you of an experience that I see. Many people who are citizens now come here as refugees. They then get permanent residence, then they get citizenship, and then they go back for family or whatever. I have seen cases where the government has then proceeded to try to unravel all of that, first of all through revocation of their refugee status, saying that they have re-availed themselves of the protection of their home country. After re-availment, they try to unravel everything.
Now, the way I see it, this often happens in the context of Canadian criminality. They decide they want to deport someone for criminality in Canada, but it's too complicated because they need a public danger opinion, so they try something else. I mean, if somebody just says something, they'll maybe leave most of them alone, but there are a few cases where they'll want to get rid of them for some other reason, so then they'll pick on this. It's easier than following through on that other reason. That's part of the problem we see.
Once we set up the powers, one would hope that they won't be abused massively in every case. But there's always the potential, and the reality is that it does happen.
Conservative
NDP
Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe NDP Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Super.
Ms. Douglas, we talked about the fact that a second-generation Canadian could be exiled to another country even if they had never lived there and did not know the language.
Ms. Douglas and Mr. Matas, under Bill C-24, could someone be exiled to a country where they had never lived and did not know the language? In your opinion, would it be fair to penalize someone because of their parents' origins?
Executive Director, Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)
It's not fair at all. It is the same concern we have with the allowance under IRPA where, because you commit a crime and are given a sentence of more than six months, now with the changes, you could be deported to a country that you may not have any connection to because you happen to have been born there.
It is the same thing with the Citizenship Act. Because of dual citizenship you could be sent to a country that you have no connection with. It is unfair, and as we said, we really are creating two-tier citizenship.
I don't think that is what Canada is about as a country.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Douglas. We've given you the last word.
I thank you and Mr. Matas and Mr. Collacott, on behalf of the committee, for giving us your thoughts on this bill.
This meeting is adjourned.