Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 7th, 2014

[James Bissett]

Well, as I mentioned in my presentation, I'm in favour of this bill going one year beyond the current act. I think it makes sense to have a person wait for four years before applying for citizenship.

The provisions in the bill are fairly strict, I think, since a person has to live in Canada for half of each of those years before they can apply. I could see that creating some complications for people who conduct business outside of Canada, but I understand the spirit of the law. You have to reside in a country for a period of time before you can really claim that you know that you're ready to take up the responsibilities and the obligations and the benefits of citizenship.

I would have liked to see a five-year period, but I'd like to see perhaps a little more flexibility in the residential requirements, because I know myself that a lot of immigrants who come here conduct businesses globally around the world. They're out of the country often for long periods of time. I would have liked to see something that would enable them to explain why they're out and why they have to be out, because there are people, even under the current law, who are spending a lot of time in their own home country and a lot of time in Canada, but they miss out on the residential requirements. So I would like to see some flexibility in that, quite frankly.

And I must say I was impressed by the comments made at the end of the table about temporary entry, in a sense. I think that's a pretty strong argument. If someone has been here for five years at university in Ottawa or in Toronto or in Winnipeg, and they then apply, as they now can, for permanent residence from within Canada without going home, I think there are considerable arguments as to why that period of time should count for something.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Well, certainly there is flexibility here, because we're allowing people to do that four years out of the last six. So people working in and out of the country who need to leave the country for whatever reason can do so, and they can still accumulate their time.

[James Bissett]

Yes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Khan, welcome back, sir. It's nice to have you with us again.

You stated at the outset of your presentation to us today that, in principle, you and your organization support BillC-24. I wonder if I could ask, in your opinion, how Bill C-24 helps promote strong ties to Canada, core Canadian values, and attachment to Canada and Canadian citizenship.

[Asif Khan]

I believe the aim of the bill is, of course, to do that, and we agree with it wholeheartedly. But at the same time, I didn't get a chance to elaborate. There can be a contributing member who's a permanent resident who may not have strong language skills in English or French, but they could be a taxpayer and could have no plans to return back to the home country of origin. Denying that person citizenship may not be the best choice. He may be somebody who contributes a large tax base to us. So some subjectivity should be applied to this arena as well. But of course, we're not saying that making a proper commitment to Canadian values, social values, and multicultural values must be present when one wants to have citizenship in this country.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Bissett, I want to expand a little bit on the point of revocation. A lot has been heard in this committee from different witnesses about the revocation of provisions in this bill. Certainly those who have dual citizenship also have a dual benefit, I might add. They have benefits that people who have only Canadian citizenship do not have. They have citizenship and rights in another country as well. The provisions in this bill state that, as you know, Canadian citizenship can be revoked from those who have dual citizenship and who choose to perpetrate an act of terror or an act of treason against the Canadian Armed Forces or Canada, the country we all live in and cherish so much. Obviously we as a government feel very strongly about that specific provision in the bill, and we'd like to hear what your comments would be on that, sir.

[James Bissett]

I think I've made it clear that I support that wholeheartedly. You know, we hear about the convention against statelessness, but let's face it, that convention was in 1954. It was brought up again in 1961. That was a different world in a sense. I'm afraid, as someone once said, the events of September 11 changed the world. We're now faced with a situation where terrorism is quite a common occurrence, not only in the Mideast and other parts of the world, but in Europe and in Canada as well. I think that, as I said earlier, a dual citizen who makes the choice of committing acts of terror or treason, or fighting against his own country, should have their citizenship removed. There's no question in my mind about that. Remember, it's a question of someone who has been convicted, not someone who's suspected. Those who have been convicted.

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

Thank you.

Madam Sitsabaiesan, you now have the floor for seven minutes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses who are here.

I'm going to take a poll of everybody here. I know that Ms. Shcherbakova and Ms. Smirnoff made a very clear argument to favour the people who are here on a temporary basis, committing to this country, being taxpayers in this country, educating and working in this country, and that the time they've spent here should have some value to them if they choose to continue to stay in this country as a permanent resident, like you have, and intend to become a citizen. We've just heard from Mr. Bissett that he agrees with you that there should be some value to that. I want a very quick answer from everybody else, if you think that there's actually value.

Mr. Khan, you mentioned that the tax base is important and that taxpayers are important, so these people are taxpayers in this country for three, four, five, or ten years, it doesn't matter that they're not sure how long they're staying before they choose to proceed through a permanent or citizenship track. I want to know if you think that those people in Canada who are educating and working in Canada have value and that time should be valued for their citizenship track.

[Asif Khan]

Generally, these are talented individuals. They have choices that they could go to other countries. Let's give them a reward for being here.

[Bikram Lamba]

I fully endorse that they must be given the benefit of their education to stay here.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Yes, I agree.

[Prof. Elke Winter]

I agree.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Great, so all of the witnesses agree. This is great news to hear. We've got civil society as well as educators here who are agreeing that we should be looking at giving some value to people's time that they've spent here in this country.

I want to move on to the topic of revocation of citizenship, and the issue of creating two tiers of Canadian citizens basically, because that's exactly what is happening with the revocation provisions for dual citizens.

Professor Lenard, you started talking about this as well, and I wonder if you could...? I think it was you. You mentioned that the government members had claimed that this would actually put Canada in line with many other countries across the world, and especially our sister countries. I'm wondering if you know off the top of your head, or if you can send information into the committee, which countries around the world we are actually bringing ourselves in par with.

You mentioned that the U.S. and Australia considered this revocation and actually turned away from it. Could you actually talk a little bit more about that, please?

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

Yes, I could speak about this at great length and I'm happy to send the extra data to you.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Please send it to the clerk.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I'll be happy to do that.

The United States and Australia both considered this within the last four years and turned it down. The United States Supreme Court declared that once an individual in the United States has citizenship it cannot be revoked. It's for life in perpetuity and the United States has stayed committed to that. The sister country...I'm not 100% sure what the language “sister country“ means, or what counts there. There are approximately 14 European countries that allow revocation in cases of treason or terrorism. In most of those countries it has never been used. The most sister-like countries that have it are Belgium and Denmark. In both cases those are recently constructed, but mostly we're looking at states like the ones that I listed—that wasn't for rhetorical purposes—Lithuania, Estonia, Cyprus, etc.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Bikram Lamba]

I'd like the floor now, Madam Chair.

I want to say, regarding the Supreme Court judgment in the U.S.A., it has been appealed against, and it is with the constitution law.

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

Sorry, Mr. Lamba. I have to interrupt you. Madam Sitsabaiesan can ask you questions too, but it's her time, so she will decide who she's asking questions to.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

I know I don't have much time left. The question that I had was: how are people potentially not being given citizenship or having their citizenship taken away for a crime, or alleged crime, that they had committed in another country?

I've been asking almost all of our witnesses this question about us as a state trusting another country's judicial system, and trusting that its judicial system is actually independent and has legitimacy. Professors Winter or Lenard, if you want to talk about that, I don't know which of you might have more experience or expertise in it.

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I'm happy just to say that I think there are two problems. One is that I don't think we should trust other judicial systems. In general, the judicial systems that are making accusations of these crimes are untrustworthy from a Canadian perspective. Second, I think if it's a Canadian, looking at eradication of Canadian citizenship, then he or she is entitled to Canadian due process.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Professor Winter, did you want to add anything?

[Prof. Elke Winter]

Yes, I agree with Professor Lenard.

I think citizenship revocation is a punishment that really hearkens back to a time that we no longer live in. It really destroys the relation between the individual and the state. If we start by doing that, what other crimes should we start punishing by revoking citizenship? There are numerous heinous crimes that would deserve similar punishment. I think we're entering a very difficult and a very dubious territory. I think my legal colleagues from other universities have spoken to that issue at length.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.