Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would agree, and I think other witnesses have commented very effectively on exactly this point, that if a Canadian citizen is undertaking these kinds of heinous actions, that should be given consideration, and it's not necessarily appropriate that they should continue to benefit from the very Canadian citizenship they may have used in the service of committing such heinous acts, whether in Canada or abroad.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The bill already provides a permanent bar in certain circumstances for a citizen who would be subject to the provisions of this bill. However, in our study we did note that there could be some loopholes in this area. Remember, we are talking about someone who has been convicted of terrorism, who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more, or potentially high treason.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I would just like to clarify your question. You want to know why we are insisting that these provisions apply only in cases where individuals have another citizenship?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If I understand your question correctly, you're asking more about what justifies the application of these provisions to dual citizens.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  That goes back to the objective of the second part of the private member's bill, looking at circumstances where an individual who has Canadian citizenship and another citizenship has made a choice to violently demonstrate their disloyalty and has made a conscious choice to violently engage in some very serious and heinous actions, which could include terrorism, high treason, or enlisting in the army of a foreign state and engaging in armed conflict with Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  We haven't done an analysis of the cost of implementing these provisions. However, the CIC minister, Minister Kenney, has already noted that we anticipate these provisions would apply in very exceptional circumstances, in very few cases. If I understand, the costs you're quoting from the other witness relate to the revocation process, which is a fairly complex and burdensome process that's multi-stepped and involves not only cabinet but also the Federal Court.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I guess the only suggestion I could make is the one Minister Kenney has made already. There's a bill before the committee that deals with a serious subject matter, and there are a number of amendments that are proposed to deal with some of the issues that have been raised with regard to the bill.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  If I may, there are a number of ways in which the bill and the amendments before the committee for consideration provide key elements of due process, and they are as follows. First of all, there are limited circumstances in which the provisions of the bill would apply under the amendments because there's a very specific and limited list of specific circumstances, and those are the listed categories in which someone could be subject to the deemed renunciation provisions, the conviction for terrorism or treason, etc.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm sorry, I'm not really aware of whether that's the case or not. I think that would be something a committee would be more aware of than perhaps a government official.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'll ask my colleagues from Justice to jump in, but the first point—and it was raised this morning—is that who is a citizen and how citizenship is accessed and how citizenship may be lost is a creature of statute, the Citizenship Act.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  You're quite right, the amendment that's proposed is to enable the minister to have some discretion to deal with an important issue that's been raised by this committee and by witnesses. That is where a citizen may be caught up by the provisions as described in the amendments, but perhaps they have been convicted overseas of an offence and perhaps the procedure was one where there were concerns around independence of the judiciary, or perhaps they were forced to enlist in a foreign army against their own volition.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  The short answer to that question is no. The amendments to the bill contemplate a threshold of a minimum of five years. Where a minimum of five years or more is imposed, someone could be subject to the provisions of the bill, but not in a situation of five years less a day.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  As members of the committee may be aware, terrorism offences under the Criminal Code cover a wide range of conduct. There is a maximum range for the offences, and it varies. For example, participation offences, which involve the offence of knowingly participating in any activity of a group for the purposes of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group to carry out a terrorist activity, have a maximum punishment of 10 years.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer on that. We're not aware that the past provisions were ever used. You heard me mention in the speech that some of the aspects were a little bit more limited in scope and had to do with particular circumstances of declared wars, which don't happen so frequently nowadays, and also enlistment in a foreign armed force fighting against Canada, which is not always the situation, as the committee has heard over the past few days.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. There are some key differences. This bill opens up section 9 of the act, which relates to the renunciation of citizenship. The key differences between renunciation and revocation of citizenship under section 10 of the act are as follows. Canadian citizens can renounce their Canadian citizenship, whether they were born in Canada, whether they were born abroad to a Canadian parent as a Canadian citizen, or whether they're naturalized citizens.