Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 5th, 2014

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Honourable members, welcome to the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Thank you all for being here.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us for this first hour of the committee.

Today we have the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group with us. Geraldine Sadoway is the staff lawyer and Nicole Veitch is a law student caseworker with Parkdale Community Legal Services. Thank you for being with us.

From the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, we have Mr. Shimon Fogel, the chief executive officer. Thank you, sir, for being with us.

I will start with the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group. You will have up to eight minutes.

[Geraldine Sadoway, Staff Lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group]

Thank you.

Good afternoon and thank you for this opportunity to speak with the committee about the proposed changes to the citizenship law in Canada. Our eight recommendations are set out in our written brief and summarized on the second page of the brief. We have extras if you need them.

In this oral presentation I will focus on the issue of the increased residency requirement and explain how this will not do anything to strengthen Canadian citizenship. Nicole Veitch will talk about the problem of barriers to citizenship for some refugees and family-class immigrants that will become more serious barriers and more serious obstacles if Bill C-24 becomes law.

I'd like to begin with an example of strong Canadian citizenship. When the representatives of our community legal clinics first met to talk about Bill C-24, one of our colleagues, Rosalinda, told us how important it was for her and her family to become Canadian citizens. She was 16 when she arrived in Canada in 1975 with her parents and six brothers and sisters. They had come to Canada from Chile via Argentina after the Pinochet military coup. Her father had been detained and tortured in Chile. When he was released the family fled to Argentina where they were recognized by the UNHCR as refugees and then accepted by Canada for resettlement.

Rosalinda's father had previously worked as a pipefitter in a big factory in Chile. He got a job at Holmes Foundry in Sarnia and later at the Bruce nuclear plant. Her mother, who had not worked outside the home before, took a job in a tomato-canning factory in Aylmer. Rosalinda and her brothers and sisters were encouraged by their parents to learn English and to learn everything about Canada. In 1978, three years after their arrival in Canada, the very day that they became eligible to apply for Canadian citizenship, they all filed their applications. Eight months later, they were granted citizenship.

For their citizenship ceremony, Rosalinda's mother made all the girls beautiful red velvet pantsuits that they wore with white blouses. Afterwards, Rosalinda's father always wore his Canadian flag lapel pin when dressed up for any special occasion, and that's the prop that you have in front of you. Rosalinda said that her father, who died last year, always spoke of how they were treated with respect and consideration at the Canadian embassy in Argentina. After their arrival in Canada they experienced nothing but kind and caring treatment by government officials and Canadian people.

She said her father felt his human dignity had been restored to him. He wanted to become a Canadian citizen so that he would feel that he truly belonged here and so that he could participate fully in Canadian life, including being able to vote. He was always very proud of being Canadian and made it clear to his family in his last illness that he wished to be buried in Canada.

In his later years, Rosalinda's father worked as a volunteer and a paralegal, translating and interpreting for new refugees and immigrants and helping them to become settled. He instilled in all of his children his strong sense of dedication and loyalty to Canada.

Now I doubt that there can be any greater degree of love, loyalty, and dedication to Canada than that felt by refugees who have been forced to flee their country at a time of war and political oppression and who've been granted protection in Canada.

The point of this story is that Canada will lose some of its most devoted and loyal citizens if refugees who've been accepted here find that they are unable to gain Canadian citizenship. Refugees need citizenship even more than other immigrants, because in most cases they are legally or practically stateless. They have no other place to go. Their only home is Canada, yet they cannot feel that they fully belong here if they are unable to become citizens.

As we've noted in our written submissions, under article 34 of the refugee convention, Canada also has a legal obligation to facilitate the integration and naturalization of refugees in Canada.

Under Bill C-24 the lengthening of the residency requirement to four out of six years, with no credit for the time already spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident, will not strengthen Canadian citizenship. This increase in the residency requirement will only delay the integration and naturalization of many refugees and immigrants, and discourage some from applying.

Our recommendations are therefore focused on reducing the barriers that could prevent or delay refugees and other new immigrants from becoming citizens. Nicole will describe some of the barriers we have seen, to illustrate why we are making these recommendations.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you.

Madam Veitch, you have up to two minutes.

[Nicole Veitch, Law Student Case Worker, Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group]

Okay.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. By highlighting the barriers to citizenship that I have seen as a caseworker, I hope to show you how the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act disregard the needs of permanent residents with disabilities, impairing psychological conditions, and social hardships.

Subsection 5(3) of the Citizenship Act empowers the minister to waive the knowledge and language requirements on compassionate grounds. While this discretionary exemption provision is maintained in the proposed changes, if the age groups for those who must meet the requirements are expanded, the volume of exemption requests will increase. The process can be made much more accessible. We recommend that efforts be made to facilitate exemption requests by making people aware of the possibility and by assisting people where necessary.

I would also like to note that in my experience, obtaining sufficient medical evidence in order to get an exemption from these requirements is daunting. To illustrate, last summer I called 15 different agencies in Toronto before I was able to find an organization willing to attempt an assessment of my Tibetan-speaking client who had no formal education and who had a learning disability. Similarly, at PCLS, we frequently encounter refugees whose trauma has manifested in conditions that prevent learning, including grief, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Realistically, permanent residents who face barriers to learning and who have wealthy, privileged support networks are more likely to obtain an exemption. Citizenship should not be for sale. We need clear guidelines directing citizenship judges to be reasonable in the evidence they require, and to give consideration to the barriers to obtaining medical documentation in order to confirm disabilities.

I would also like to note that having a right of appeal is essential to protecting permanent residents whose request for an exemption has been denied by a citizenship judge. When my Tibetan-speaking client was finally able to find a specialist to work with him, we obtained a strong report that said he will never be able to learn English to any level of proficiency due to his disability. However, when he went to a citizenship hearing with letters of support from his employer, his ESL teachers, and his family physician, he was still denied a recommendation for an exemption. This was devastating for him. He is deeply ashamed of his inability to learn English despite years of ESL classes over his 11 years in Canada. Currently my client has the right to pursue an appeal to the Federal Court, which he is doing on the basis that the medical evidence has been disregarded.

We urge you not to revoke the right of appeal for people whose citizenship application has been rejected. An application for leave to seek judicial review is discretionary, and it is also an expensive and inaccessible remedy for low-income applicants.

These examples are unique because our clients were able to access a legal aid clinic with the translation services and capacity to assist them. But the committee members should remember that in many parts of Canada, these legal services are not available. There are many permanent residents in Canada who are members of the refugee and family classes who face these barriers to citizenship—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you. I'm sorry, Madam Veitch. Your time has expired. Hopefully you will have time to tell more during the question period.

Mr. Fogel, you have the floor now for up to eight minutes.

Go ahead.

[Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss Bill C-24.

I'd like to begin by echoing the consensus surrounding the need to update the Citizenship Act and thank the government for taking on this important initiative.

We look forward to immigrants enjoying the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship quickly, efficiently and with greater integrity under a reformed legal framework.

Canadian citizenship is one of the most valuable and highly respected commodities in the world, but it is far from being just a prestigious status one acquires. Citizenship in this country is an unparalleled package of balanced rights and responsibilities, based on a set of core values, designed to ensure dignity, freedom, and equality for all.

The story of Canada is largely the story of immigrants, a reality that Jewish communities across this country know well.

Despite the dark era of Canada's “none is too many” immigration and refugee policy for Jews, we've been able to come here from all corners of the world over the last 200-plus years and contribute positively to the Canadian story, like so many other groups whom we join in appreciating the extraordinary opportunity and privilege inherent in being Canadian.

Immigrants to Canada are a source of cultural vitality and economic strength. Many of those who choose to come to Canada embrace our values because they know the reality of living in their absence.

Immigrants are among the proudest patriots and shapers of this country, and indeed the modernization of the Citizenship Act will benefit all Canadians as a result.

The vast majority of Canadian citizens appreciate the gift they have, but unfortunately, there are those who reject our core values and abuse the trust that underpins our social contract. We appreciate the steps taken by Bill C-24 to promote strong ties to Canada and buy-in to core Canadian values.

The introduction of more robust residency requirements, including physical presence to qualify for citizenship, is particularly well-received.

That, coupled with basic language and knowledge requirements, will go a long way toward facilitating integration and decreasing the marginalization of new immigrants.

In addition, it will go a long way towards preventing the importation of anti-Semitic views that, though marginalized in Canada, are unfortunately still prevalent in some parts of the world.

We also support the introduction of measures to ensure that those who apply for Canadian citizenship actually intend to maintain a meaningful connection to Canada after taking the oath. The “intent to reside” provisions are an important element in this regard and could have a significant impact on reducing the problem of citizens of convenience. There's a problem with people taking advantage of Canadian citizenship, availing themselves of Canadian generosity but demonstrating absolutely no real connection or contribution to this country. Their citizenship is a matter of convenience, with no real intention to ever reside in Canada.

We acknowledge, however, that there may be a potential for abuse of this provision. There doesn't appear to be any safeguard that would preclude a minister from commencing a revocation proceeding for someone who declared intent to reside, but then went abroad to study, work, or tend to an ill relative. It's unlikely the minister would do so but it's not an impossibility.

In our view, the problem of potential abuse could be dealt with by requiring the minister to seek a court declaration in cases of misrepresentation of intent to reside, similar to the requirement included for other cases of fraud. In addition to intent to reside, the proposed legislation will streamline the process for revoking citizenship from those who obtained Canadian citizenship while misrepresenting their involvement in violating human or international rights.

Given the arduous experience of trying to remove Nazi war criminals from Canada, for which the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of our predecessor organizations, fought for so long, this is a measure that the Jewish community is particularly glad to see included. The proposed changes will eliminate cabinet's ability to overrule the court's determination to remove someone who misrepresented their involvement in such heinous acts, which actually happened with Nazi war criminals, and consolidates the process to ensure that the criminals in question can be removed from Canada within a reasonable timeframe.

In a previous session of this committee's study, an assertion was made that, rather than further protecting Jewish Canadians as I've suggested, the bill would actually make Jewish Canadians particularly vulnerable for having their citizenships revoked due to Israel's Law of Return. This is not the case.

According to the UN 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, a stateless person is defined as someone who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has clarified that the convention does not ask whether a person should or could be a national of a particular state based on its legislation, but rather whether the person is a national of another state. Israel does not consider Jews in Canada to be nationals of the state under the Law of Return; rather, they have a legal right to become naturalized as Israeli citizens through a voluntary immigration process subject to certain restrictions.

For a Canadian Jew to be considered an Israeli national, they would first have to immigrate to that country and be certified as a new immigrant.

The possibility to become an Israeli citizen does not equate to dual nationality for Canadian Jews, according to the UN convention on statelessness, or according to Bill C-24. Were the minister to seek the revocation of a Jewish Canadian citizenship, the individual facing revocation, you'd only prove they are not a citizen of another state—be it Israel, the United States, the U.K., or anywhere else—in order to prevent the revocation due to Canada's international obligations regarding statelessness. This is no different for Jews than for any other Canadian citizen. As long as Jewish Canadians are not dual citizens and do not commit one of the prescribed offences, there would be no ability for the minister to revoke their citizenship.

The bill provides recourse to revoke citizenship from Canadians with dual nationality who commit certain offences, such as treason, espionage, or taking up arms against Canadian Forces. These offences are inherently actions against the institution of citizenship and the state itself. Revocation of citizenship is a reasonable consequence of these actions, and it's surprising that Canada is one of the only western democracies that does not have the ability to revoke citizenship from dual nationals in these types of instances.

There are other political crimes that are so heinous in nature that they attack the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based. Acts of terrorism are one example of this, for which revocation of citizenship is a reasonable consequence. We're pleased to see it included in the bill within this context.

While we support the revocation of citizenship as a consequence of terrorism in principle, there are some details in the application of this provision that we believe could be improved.

We take the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his officials at their word that foreign convictions of Canadian dual nationals for terrorism offences would be subject to a two-stage evaluation to determine that the foreign terrorism offence is equivalent to a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code here in Canada, and that the judicial process for convicting the offender is fair, transparent, and independent. This two-stage evaluation is crucial, yet the second step does not appear to be explicitly codified as a requirement for revocation in the bill.

Accordingly, there appears to be a potential for a future minister to forgo the second step of this critical process. This could lead to the unintended consequence of Canadian dual nationals having their citizenship revoked based on false allegations, politically motivated charges, and kangaroo court proceedings. Accordingly, we suggest that the bill be amended to codify an explicit requirement that equivalent evidentiary standards and due process are employed in a foreign conviction in order for that conviction to be grounds for the minister to revoke Canadian citizenship.

In addition, we suggest that war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide should also be included as grounds for revoking citizenship. As in the case of terrorism, these are political crimes that are so heinous in nature, that they attack the core values on which Canadian citizenship is based.

The principle that applies to terrorism also applies to those cases.

Furthermore, just as a terrorist could benefit from Canadian citizenship to enjoy greater mobility to perpetrate attacks and evade justice, so too the utility of Canadian citizenship should be removed from those who perpetrate these crimes. That Canadian citizens who are dual nationals could have their citizenship revoked for lying about their involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide before becoming citizens but not for committing them even while brandishing a Canadian passport is puzzling. The Jewish community has tragically been victimized by terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide all too often.

We appreciate consideration being given to our perspective on this important issue.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Fogel.

We will now start the round of questions.

Mr. Menegakis, please go ahead.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a big thank you for our witnesses for appearing before us today.

Mr. Fogel, I will say a special thank you to you for actually appearing here on the Independence Day of the great State of Israel. I'm sure you have a very busy day planned with your colleagues. We're keenly aware of the good work of CIJA.

I'm going to start my questions as follows. I want to touch a bit on the issue of revocation. The bill provides for revocation for those who have dual citizenship and who perpetrate an act of treason or terrorism against the Canadian Armed Forces or against our country, Canada. These are people who have dual citizenship. They will lose their citizenship should they do one of those two things.

We've heard from critics of the bill. Actually, we've heard a lack of compassion here for the victims of terrorism acts from people who have spoken about revocation with respect to this bill.

We have seen heinous acts of terror in other countries that have resulted in the deaths of innocent mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, friends, and loved ones. We think the bill sends a pretty strong message, but I'd like to hear from you. What message do you think it sends to the victims of these criminals if their actions are not taken for what they are and if they continue to have the same rights and access as the vast majority of Canadian citizens who proudly uphold Canadian values, rights, and responsibilities?

[Shimon Fogel]

First, thank you for your kind words.

I agree with the premise of your observation, but I would come at it from a slightly different perspective. At CIJA we are thinking very hard about how Canadians can reflect appreciation and gratitude for the wonderful gift this country is, come two years from now when we mark our 150th anniversary, and one of the things that has been percolating is the notion of not just the rights we enjoy but the responsibilities that attach to being a Canadian.

I don't look at this so much as an issue of punishing people by revoking their citizenship as a result of particular undertakings or acts they've committed, but rather that they are so fundamentally at odds with core Canadian values that there's no rationale or way to reconcile Canadian citizenship with that kind of activity.

For those who are born in Canada, we don't have those instruments to show just how far from core Canadian values those kind of acts are, but for dual nationals, we do. I think it's entirely reasonable for us to declare that those kinds of acts are so foreign to Canadian values and Canadian sensitivities that it merits us saying, “You no longer belong in Canada.”

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

I grew up in Montreal. I grew up in the heart of the Jewish community, the Van Horne and Mountain Sights area. That will tell you exactly. I was right on the corner, actually. My bedroom overlooked the Jewish People's School. I have friends, and I still have friends, who went to school with me there, at Van Horne school and Northmount High School, and who have parents.... The mom of my best friend at the time—God bless her—is still living. She still has the numbers written on her skin, Mr. Fogel.

Growing up as a young man of immigrant parents, particularly in that part of Montreal, I learned at a very early age about the impact of fanaticism and extremism, and of those who want to perpetrate harm—acts of terror—on other human beings because of who they are. I learned about the impact on generations and generations, and not only of those families directly affected but also of mankind.

I'm in favour of any bill that deters that kind of activity and eliminates it. We should have zero tolerance as Canadians. I appreciate your comments. Do you think the ability to revoke dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship, if they're convicted of terrorism or high treason, will have a deterrent effect, potentially?

[Shimon Fogel]

A deterrent effect on those who might be contemplating undertaking those kinds of acts...?

I think if an individual appreciates the gift that is Canadian citizenship and the potential for forfeiting that gift as a result of particular actions, it very well might have that kind of deterrent effect.

I do know we have to move away from thinking exclusively of entitlement, and that citizenship in this country requires commitment to certain values, a certain code of conduct. If someone were to declare they hated Canada, they hated everything this country stands for, we would scratch our heads if they were to then express a desire to be part of this country. These kinds of acts are tantamount to saying that, because they're antithetical to everything that we stand for.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

In the 30 seconds I have left, let me say this. Last year we passed Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, and I think it speaks a little to this bill as well, because there are deterrents in here for those who obtain...we can clearly revoke the citizenship of those who obtained it in a fraudulent manner. They need to disclose who they are before they come here, because we believe that Canadians have a right to know that their neighbours, people whom we allow into this country, are not going to perpetrate crime or be a danger to their families, their children, around their schools, and in the communities we live in. So I appreciated your comments on that as well.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis.

Mr. Sandhu, you have the floor.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon.

Madam Sadoway, I have a question for you. We've been raising concerns in the House and also in the committee with regard to the need for Canadians to be consulted on the proposed changes to Bill C-24. The last time significant changes to this act were made was in 1977. The government at that time published a white paper and there were wide consultations throughout the country, forums were held, and opinions were sought from Canadians across this country.

Increasing the residency requirement isn't necessarily a bad thing on paper, but that depends on what additional changes are made. I have a number of questions for you.

First, why should the increase in residency requirements as it currently stands in Bill C-24 be a concern to this committee and Canadians?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

I wanted to explain that through the example of one of my colleagues and her family, because for refugees in particular, that time when they have no human dignity, when they have been reduced, is a very crucial period. It is harmful to Canada, and it is also contrary to our obligations under the convention for refugees, if we don't facilitate their integration and their naturalization in Canada. In the case of that family, time was very short.

But unfortunately what we're seeing now is that the time just for the process of citizenship is taking two or three years. If you add to that more time, not counting the time the person has legally been in Canada prior to being a permanent resident here, going through their refugee claim, for example, or in some other kind of immigration programs, of which we have many more now.... Increasingly that seems to be the way we are acquiring immigrants, through immigration programs that are almost two-step or probationary programs. We're not recognizing the contribution of these people to Canada. They want to be here. They are here working, paying taxes but can't vote. Refugees can't even get a passport.

So it's extremely important for refugees in particular. In some ways some of the most talented people come to Canada through the international student programs and then through the Canadian experience class. One of my other colleagues is in that boat. She's been in Canada seven years. She just qualified and got her permanent resident status, and now it would be another four years before she would be able to apply for citizenship. Under the current law, in two years she would be able to do it. It's a democratic deficit.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Your organization works with many cultural ethnic groups from various economic backgrounds. Do you think Bill C-24's proposed increase in time for residency requirements will affect citizenship applications equally?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

No, because we're not just worried about the time. We're worried about the failure to reasonably deal with the potential exemptions especially by expanding the groups of people who are caught by the language and knowledge of Canada criteria.

It's not going to be any problem for some of the people. They will be able to do it. But people who have experienced deprivations, such as refugees, are going to be suffering from that and are not going to be able to be granted the exemptions. We're concerned, and the increase in time and also the upfront requirement of the testing, which has already happened.... You have to pass the test.

Our client who Nicole spoke about would not even be able to get his application in under the current system. Under the previous system he could get it in. Now we're at the Federal Court asking for an exemption.

The time amount is going to be excessive, and that is a democratic deficit for Canada.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

In your written submission you talked about the amendments creating a two-tier citizenship. Can you maybe elaborate on what that means?

[Geraldine Sadoway]

I think it's exactly the situation of dual citizens and naturalized citizens who are going to be facing two-tiered citizenship.

It's fine to say of course we want citizens—those who are applying to be citizens—to reside in Canada, but it's not fair to treat them differently than Canadian citizens who are born here. The fact is that for a Canadian citizen who decides to get married overseas, raise a family overseas, and maybe come back to retire, it's not a problem. We don't take that citizenship away. But in the case of a naturalized citizen, we're now saying that, if you decide you're not going to reside here all the time, and we will.... I mean it's just a paper application that the minister's representative can make saying that you didn't intend to reside; you misrepresented your intention when you obtained Canadian citizenship.

In people's lives situations change. Job offers appear overseas. Why should we treat a naturalized citizen differently with regard to their ability to take up a job offer overseas than we do Canadians who are born here?

The same is a problem with revocation of citizenship. This is punishment. Very clearly it is punishment. We have ways of punishing people. We don't do banishment anymore, although one of our founding fathers was banished for treason by Queen Victoria.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Madam Sadoway. Sorry, I have to interrupt you.

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

I certainly agreed with much, not all, but much of what Mr. Fogel said, particularly with regard to poor Canadian values. I would also say through you, Madam Chair, to the Conservatives that I have no more time or tolerance for terrorists or others who commit heinous crimes than you do.

But at the same time, as a Canadian, I'm also concerned with rights of due process, fairness, and adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and whether or not we agree that real terrorists should be deported—that's one question—I'll put that to one side.

My question is more the process for deciding whether somebody is a real terrorist or real criminal of some sort, and whether that person has right to due process in a way that is fair. So I would read to you what a lawyer last Wednesday called Robin Seligman said. She said:

…if a person gets a parking ticket in the City of Toronto, or probably anywhere in Canada, you would have more judicial rights and appeal rights and the right to a fair hearing than you would under [this] Citizenship Act…. As a parking-ticket holder you have a right to a fair hearing. Under the Citizenship Act, as proposed, there is no hearing. It is up to the minister to decide whether there's a hearing or not. This can be very political, and these decisions should definitely be taken out of the hands of a minister.

While we might all agree that terrorists are awful, I don't want someone to be treated as a terrorist when he or she is not.

Does the lack of enough due process for fairness concern you?

[Shimon Fogel]

I think you raise a critically important point. The short answer would be that, yes, I share the concern that you're expressing.

I can think of a number of circumstances, especially where someone who is alleged to have committed or participated in a terrorist act abroad faces conviction somewhere else, but that conviction doesn't meet our standards in one of two ways: either in terms of the evidence that's brought forward or the alleged act doesn't have an equivalent charge within our Criminal Code.

Which is why we're suggesting that it would be important for this bill to explicitly codify that which I believe the minister and some of his officials indicated was the case but wasn't explicit; namely, that both elements have to be present in order for Canada or a government to consider revocation, that it meets those tests that would be applied here in Canada.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Let me now turn to the question of reverse onus in terms of the determination of who is a dual citizen. Again, I'll put to one side the issue of whether it should or should not be possible to deport dual citizens. We may disagree on that.

My concern here is the process. The bill says that the onus is upon the individual to prove that he is not a dual citizen. That may be really difficult, depending on where the person comes from and what sort of evidence he or she has at their disposal. It may not be able for him to prove that, even if it is true.

Is it not normal in law for the onus to be put on the prosecutor, so that the government, which would have greater resources than the individual, should have the onus to prove that the person is a dual national rather than the onus of proof being the other way around?

[Shimon Fogel]

Your observation, again, is reasonable and does reflect the process that has been in place here in Canada for many years. I can tell you from experience with respect to efforts undertaken by a number of different governments here in Canada to establish the status of alleged Nazi war criminals that the governments had to produce substantial information—and sometimes were unable to and were therefore frustrated in undertaking proceedings—to establish that they weren't stateless, that they were nationals of another country as well.

It's hard for me to contemplate circumstances in which a government or a minister would undertake action absent of clear documentation, which the minister would have, that would indicate that the individual in question did have status of citizenship in another country.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.