Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Sheryl Saperia]

I believe that, when people commit a crime against the country itself, then they are potentially forfeiting their right to that citizenship. A crime of treason, espionage, armed conflict against Canada, terrorism—those are the crimes that the bill would seek to revoke citizenship for. I don't believe that is unreasonable.

I don't believe that Canadian citizenship should just be so easy to receive. I believe it is truly a privilege and a gift. Canada is the most wonderful country in the world to live in. I don't believe it is unreasonable to create minimal standards for what it takes to retain that citizenship. I stand by my defence of the ability to revoke citizenship for those crimes against Canada as a political community.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

But don't you believe that if a crime is committed, criminals should be sent to prison?

I don't think we should be exporting terrorism. For example, we could be taking a criminal or an extremist to another western democratic country. If they have the same rules and regulations, wouldn't they be doing the same thing, revoking citizenship and bringing them back to Canada if they have dual citizenship?

[Sheryl Saperia]

The argument about not wanting to ship our problems abroad is the most compelling argument that I have heard against revoking citizenship. That one, I can better appreciate.

First of all, I believe the person is supposed to still carry out their prison sentence in Canada. It would only be after the sentence that they would potentially have their citizenship revoked. I commented on this in my testimony, as well.

If we are going to keep Canadians in Canada no matter what their crime, then I do think we have to do a better job of protecting the Canadian public. Part of that is addressing this issue of radicalization in prisons, where—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Saperia.

Mr. Chen, you have three minutes and 30 seconds.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is also for Ms. Saperia.

You mentioned a number of criteria, including treason and armed conflict, as grounds on which citizenship can be revoked. You view the issue very much through a lens of national security. On the other hand, we've heard arguments from others who have talked about citizenship revocation having no place in a free and democratic society.

In your response to an earlier question, you said that this has nothing to do with discrimination, that it's fitting given the crime.

What would you say to the notion that laws like this could be used to discriminate against certain groups if applied unfairly? What would you say to narratives that I have heard from people in my own community, in Scarborough North, who have said, for example, that they were unfairly put on a no-fly list, and that simply by virtue of their last name have difficulty leaving on a flight, each and every time?

When there are laws that could be used unjustifiably against certain groups, do you not agree that it has everything to do with discrimination?

[Sheryl Saperia]

I don't agree that it has everything to do with discrimination. I am extremely sensitive to issues of discrimination. I am appalled by stories of people who are unfairly put on no-fly lists.

However, remember that revocation under this law would only happen following a conviction in a court. Unless we're saying now that Canadian courts are discriminating against certain groups of Canadian citizens....

I mean, this is not just an arbitrary “I pick you, you and you, and I'm revoking your citizenship”. This is that a court has found a person guilty of a certain crime. I'm assuming that you feel as I do that Canadian courts do a pretty good job of assessing the guilt or innocence of a particular person. This is rooted in a legal conviction.

In terms of the general, slippery-slope argument, again, I think every law has to be assessed based on the merits of its actual words. If it's created tightly enough, then I don't believe it can be used to then go after people in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion.

If I don't agree with the language.... I feel that my job at FDD is to support whoever is in power—we are totally non-partisan—and to try to put together the best possible policies on whatever the issue happens to be. My goal is to make sure that any particular bill is written as well as it possibly can be to meet the objectives of the legislation without unintended consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Saperia.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Great. So—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Your time is up. Thank you.

Mr. Saroya, you have five minutes, please.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the panel. We have listened to the different points of view.

Mr. Farber, you said that for the people who lied on applications, we should be able to deport them. They should be able to lose their citizenship, but not the convicted terrorists.

What is the difference between those two groups? Why should we treat the ones who have dual citizenship and can be sent somewhere else worse than the people who lied on their applications years back?

[Bernie M. Farber]

Actually, I don't think that dual citizens should be sent someplace else. I do believe that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I firmly believe that, but I do also believe—and I think this government has also maintained this—that if you lie to get your citizenship, in other words if you misrepresent yourself to get your citizenship, then you're not worthy of the citizenship.

Committing a crime.... I guess the only way to answer this well is to give you a rhetorical question. Why would allegiance to Canada only have impact on natural Canadians and not on anybody else? Why is it that only natural Canadians don't have to worry about committing a crime of terrorism?

I understand that they don't make an allegiance to the crown, etc., but the fact is that it does create this dual kind of understanding of what a citizen is, and I think the only way that we can equalize this, the only way that we can prove we are in fact a country of Canadians is to ensure that even the bad seeds, even those who do commit crimes.... And by the way, I think it's a real slippery slope and you should try to define treason. What levels of treason do you revoke citizenship on? Maybe you're translating something. Are you giving information to somebody? Are you having a chat on some kind of an Internet line?

It becomes very dicey, so my druthers are these. We have a set of Canadian laws, a set of Canadian criminal laws. If people break a law, whether they rob a bank, whether they commit murder, which is the most heinous of all crimes, or whether they commit treason, those crimes are on the books. They should be tried in a court of law, and if found guilty, there should be a punishment exacted as per law. Anything else, I think, is a step away from democracy and a step away from proper jurisprudence.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What are your thoughts, Ms. Saperia?

[Sheryl Saperia]

First of all, I do have to correct the record that this bill targets both natural and naturalized citizens who commit these crimes. It is only the case that, whether you are a natural or naturalized citizen, if you have another citizenship as well, then you are susceptible to losing your citizenship. But I feel that there is potential misunderstanding about this issue, so I do want to clarify that there is not discrimination, whether you are a natural or naturalized citizen under this law.

As for the slippery slope, again if you look at the bill you'll see it specifically sets out which crimes under the Criminal Code, for instance which crimes of treason. It's very specific about which crimes will potentially render you no longer a Canadian citizen. I think if you create a bill properly, you can eliminate the concern about a slippery slope. If you use very broad and overly vague language, then that bill should not be passed and you do have good reason to be concerned.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Do you want to add something?

[Dr. Patti Tamara Lenard]

I only wanted to say that the reason we were talking about the distinction between naturalized and naturally born Canadians as dual citizens is that two members of this discussion brought up the issue of oath, and only one category of dual citizenship are oath-takers.

The only other thing I would say is that the history of social contract tradition, which you raised and to which the Supreme Court of Canada is referring, is about a 200-year-long tradition, and with the late exception of Hobbes and possibly Rousseau, all of them agree that the sovereign, the state, does not have the right to expel citizens. The history of social contract tradition is what the Supreme Court is relying on to say that contract is one way: citizens can take themselves out of the state, but states cannot expel their citizens. If you want pages on which Hobbes might have an exception, in which Rousseau does have the exception, I'm happy to provide them to anybody.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Part of Bill C-6 is also about language requirement. How important is it for the new Canadians, who take the oath to become Canadian citizens, to learn English or French so they cannot be discriminated against or taken advantage of by the people who speak the language?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Give a 10-second answer.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Anybody can take that.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Language is important, but it shouldn't be so high a barrier as to wilfully exclude.

[Sheryl Saperia]

I would just add, though, that language is the key to success in a new country, so I would never want to impose unduly high standards, but you do want to encourage new citizens to learn so they can succeed and make the best possible life here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee today.

Just before the witnesses depart, I'd like a pretty simple and succinct answer from each of the witnesses. It could probably be a yes or no. One of the fundamental principles of our justice system is that every citizen is treated equally before the law. It's not very complicated. Do you agree with this fundamental principle?

Mr. Farber.

[Bernie M. Farber]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Saperia.

[Sheryl Saperia]

Of course.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Lenard.