:
Good morning, Chair, members, colleagues, and of course special guests here.
I am honoured to be with you to discuss my private member's bill, Bill .
It was also a great honour to see that only three MPs voted against the bill at second reading. I note, perhaps ironically, that two of them are up front about the fact that they want Canada to fail as a nation, and the third one would surely see Canada brought to its knees if her policies were implemented. For the rest of us, we sided with the incredible majority, the many stakeholders, Canadians of all backgrounds, Conservatives, Liberals, NDPers, my hard-working constituents in Calgary Northeast, and the Canadian people from coast to coast to coast who want the bill to become law.
Three key beliefs of mine inspired this bill. Number one, new Canadians need more pathways to integration. Number two, our heroic men and women in uniform are worthy of the highest respect. Number three, Canada is the best country in the world. We should not force anyone to hang on to or hide behind Canadian citizenship, with its clear rights and responsibilities, if they want to destroy everything good this amazing country stands for.
These are beliefs held by Canadians from all walks of life who, like most of us in this room, want to reward those willing to put their lives on the line for Canada and our Canadian values. They also want to ensure that those who would attack the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom and our values feel the full weight of justice as a consequence.
I would like to tell you a little-known story of a war hero named Buckam Singh. Mr. Singh moved to Canada in 1907 at the age of 14, and in 1915, he enlisted in the Canadian Overseas Expeditionary Force. Buckam served in the Canadian Armed Forces during World War I. He served with the 20th Canadian Infantry Battalion in Flanders, where he was wounded twice in battle. It is interesting to note that Buckam was initially treated in a hospital administered by Doctor Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae, known for his famous poem “In Flanders Fields”.
Mr. Singh died in 1919 in a military hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. He received the victory medal in recognition of his service to his adopted country, and his wife and mother were also given a memorial cross in recognition of his sacrifice. He gave his life to defend Canada and the cause of freedom abroad, and while he received recognition for his service, he never became a Canadian citizen. He was not even eligible.
It is heroes like Mr. Singh, Mr. Chair, that this bill in part seeks to honour. If this bill could help even one individual like Mr. Singh, it would surely be to Canada’s benefit.
While we examine history, let’s take a look at the precedent for the second part of this bill. Numerous western democracies including but not limited to Australia and the United Kingdom have long had similar laws allowing for the renunciation of citizenship in the interest of the public interest, a much lower and vaguer standard than what this bill seeks.
Furthermore, this bill is simply a necessary step in widening Canada’s existing legislation. Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act already provides for the deprivation of citizenship, and section 46 of the Criminal Code clearly identifies treason as a crime.
Until 1977 the people who committed acts of treason would be punished by the removal of their Canadian citizenship. Canadians want to see this returned to law. My bill would expand existing laws to see that those who commit acts of treason meet proper justice, with all due oversight and rights to appeal outlined in the Criminal Code and the Citizenship Act. Canadians simply want to see these measures brought back into law.
I believe this committee has an overwhelming mandate from Canadians who want to see this bill succeed.
For any of those on the fringes who might hint at prejudice, I note that I sent a householder survey to my riding, and the bill was supported by 87% of the respondents. More than 50% of my constituents are from visible minority groups; my riding has the highest percentage of new Canadians in Alberta. This demonstrates vast support by new Canadians for this bill.
On October 30, 2012, the National Post reported on the results of an NRG poll of 1,001 Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The poll showed that eight in ten Canadians are in favour of Canadians losing their citizenship for committing acts that by their nature are an assault on the very values Canadian citizenship stands for.
Furthermore, the Calgary Herald editorial board, along with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada, the Somali Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, the Muslim Canadian Congress, and B’nai Brith Canada have endorsed my bill.
As an immigrant myself, Mr. Chair, and as member of Parliament for , I have spoken to new Canadians as well as old Canadians from my riding and elsewhere. It is clear to me that Canadians from all walks of life understand the value and privilege of Canadian citizenship. They chose this country for a reason. They certainly don't want to see the reward they worked so hard for, Canadian citizenship, corrupted by a handful who would choose to abuse it.
Despite all this, Mr. Chair, I understand that our job as MPs requires all of us to take a critical look at all proposed legislation. With the same spirit of cooperation and openness that I have demonstrated since introducing this bill, I continue to look forward to humbly working with each of you to address any questions or concerns you may have. More importantly, I look forward to hearing any suggestions you may have to strengthen this bill.
In that spirit, Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate that I am open to amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of this legislation.
Thank you again. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Shory, thank you for being here today, and thank you for presenting this bill before Parliament and of course for bringing it here for examination before committee today. I think it's an important bill.
I thank you, from my former life as a Canadian soldier, for your concern about Canadian soldiers abroad and some of the huge risks that they already face. They don't need to be facing additional risks from people who should be on their side as Canadian citizens, people who act against them and against the best interests of Canada.
Sir, what do you say to critics who claim that Canadian citizenship is an inalienable right and that, no matter whether they commit acts that are obvious expressions of disloyalty to Canada and Canadian values, people should be able to retain their Canadian citizenship? Critics may say, for example, that people who fight against the Canadian Forces or commit terrorist acts against Canadians on Canadian soil, or on the soil of our allies, I might add, should be able to keep their citizenship.
Can you comment on that?
:
Absolutely I will, Mr. Opitz.
Before I even tabled this bill, I had a survey done in my riding of Calgary Northeast. We got from 87% of the respondents positive support. Once again, 50% of my constituents are new immigrants, and 87% of my constituents supported it.
After that, the National Post reported an NRG poll. It was a coast to coast to coast poll that showed that eight out of ten Canadians supported the idea of a renunciation of citizenship for those who attack our men and women of the armed forces.
After that, the Calgary Herald's editorial board ran an online survey. After the survey they endorsed my bill, along with other organizations, as I said: Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada, the Somali Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress, and B’nai Brith.
As I said, I have spoken to a lot of people, not only in Calgary Northeast but I would say wherever I get a chance, whether it is in an airport or at any other event. To date, I would say I have found very few people who have any criticism about this bill.
First of all, I would like to thank our witness for being here this morning.
I would still like to recall that, clearly, the official opposition recognizes the extent of the sacrifices made by our soldiers and our military, as well as the importance of being able to recognize that commitment and that bravery. We support our Canadian armed forces, as well as the objectives of this bill. However, as we have mentioned previously, some aspects of the bill seem to contain some gaps and some ambiguities. Hence the questions we have for you this morning.
To begin, I would like to remind you that, during the debate that took place at second reading, you were not able to tell us the number of people that this bill might affect. Are you able today to tell us the number of permanent residents who enlist in the Canadian armed forces each year and who would benefit from this bill?
:
I have been in Canada now for almost 24 years. I came to Canada as an immigrant. As I said in my presentation, there was a reason for me to choose Canada. I could have gone somewhere else, to some other country. There was a reason I chose Canada, and I want to make sure that the reason stays alive.
For my experiences, as I said, in 2009 I spent several days with the armed forces. In 2010 I spent some days with the naval forces. This gave me a chance to look into and have a first-hand experience of these forces. Also in my family back home, my sister was married to an army officer. He retired as lieutenant-general in the army. So I have had a taste of the armed forces.
At the same time, I also realize we should create more and more pathways of integration as well. That was one of the reasons. Also, as I mentioned, I have the highest respect for the armed forces. Definitely I have no sympathy with those who would go out and attack the armed forces.
Those are the beliefs that brought me to introduce this bill. I strongly believe we should not play any politics with this bill. I appreciate that to date we have been working together. I reiterate that I'm open to looking at any suggestion by either side to strengthen this bill.
:
I also wish to share with you a personal experience.
In 1968 I came to Canada because when I applied for a U.S. student visa, which was at the height of the Vietnam war, as a condition of issuing that visa to me they wanted me to sign the draft. I could be drafted to serve in Vietnam. At that time, in the United States military, if you served three years in active combat duty, you were granted citizenship automatically, as well as all the benefits of the G.I. bill for education.
At the time I chose not to do that because I didn't think I wanted to be drafted into a war that I opposed, coming from Asia. That was the reason I came to Canada. I appreciate the fact that that changed the entire course of my life. After having been in Canada for 40-plus years, we're now in a position where we're here to give back to Canada our shared experience from the transition of an immigrant to our current position as members of Parliament.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to serve with the Canadian military, but I have served in a number of United Nations peacekeeping duties as a civilian adviser. I certainly have seen the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.
Having opened this pathway, and having shortened this period for immigration, how does that enhance people's, say, sacrifices or devotion, or the value of Canadian citizenship?
Welcome, Mr. Shory, and also congratulations on having your private member's bill come this far. From personal experience, I know that it is an honour to be able to present to committee.
Some of my colleagues across the way have talked about the definition of “acts of war” and also adding other things to the bill, such as the inclusion of terrorism and so on. I know that you've answered those questions, but I want to give you a bit of background on what I found in my own riding of Scarborough Centre. You've indicated you did some polling as well.
I actually sent out a letter to my constituents regarding the revocation of citizenship for residency or citizenship fraud. There was an announcement last year about CIC investigating 11,000 individuals. I asked for responses from my constituency. I bring this up now because there was a common thread in those responses that I received. Overwhelmingly in the responses that I received, my constituents were asking us to also renounce the citizenship of those who commit acts of terrorism, or those who commit treason against Canada. I just want to bring that to light, because it's not just in your area. I'm in Toronto, so it's a very diverse ethnic area, the community that I live in, and there is overwhelming support for those two things.
I've heard you say today that you are open to adding terrorism as grounds for deemed renunciation, but I have to ask, on behalf of my constituents of Scarborough Centre, are you also open to adding in the term “treason”?
Recently we discovered a Canadian citizen, a dual national who hadn't actually lived in Canada since being a child.... They had immigrated to Canada, had dual national citizenship here in Canada and in another country, had left Canada as a young child, and were suspected of a terrorist attack, a bombing in Bulgaria that left several people dead. That's one incident.
Actually, not too long ago in the news, we heard about a possibility of another Canadian being involved in a terrorist attack, a horrific bombing. We heard more about it yesterday. An Algerian, I think, has been confirmed through fingerprints as a Canadian citizen. I hear of these two recent cases, and not too long ago, we heard of the Toronto 18 terror group.
Being from Toronto, I have to tell you there's something happening. I'm very concerned about it. My constituents talk to me on a regular basis about these types of issues. They're concerned about it. I'm just wondering, from your viewpoint, do you think that radicalization here in Canada is a growing problem?
:
That is correct. In taking the actions mentioned in my bill, basically taking armed action against our armed forces, these individuals basically don't care about Canada, don't care about Canadian values, and don't care about Canadian citizenship as well. These have no value to them.
Rather than go through all the paper trail to send them notice, etc., they basically must be deemed to have made an application.
Of course, once someone makes an application or the process has commenced, there would be due process, as mentioned earlier. At the end, there would be a certificate of renunciation issued.
Before that, there would be an appeal process available. Even before the decision, I guess an individual would be able to make his or her case in front of a citizenship judge. Once the renunciation was finalized, there would be an appeal to the Federal Court. I'm not suggesting that due process should be taken away in any manner whatsoever.
:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I am Colonel François Bariteau, the Director of Personnel Generation Requirements for the Chief of Military Personnel. In my role I am responsible for determining what our annual intake of personnel should be, both in terms of overall numbers, and in terms of specific sub-categories.
[English]
I'm accompanied by my colleague, Colonel Michael Gibson, who is the deputy judge advocate general for military justice. He is responsible for advising the Judge Advocate General on matters related to military justice. This includes reviewing proposed amendments to the National Defence Act or amendments to other laws that could impact the military justice system, as well as developing legal policy related to military justice.
As we are appearing as technical experts in the fields of military law and military personnel policy, our comments are limited to our respective fields of expertise in regard to this private member's bill. We have carefully reviewed the bill from our respective points of view.
I would like to point out that at present, the Canadian armed forces already have the ability to recruit permanent residents when there is a shortage of Canadian armed forces members in specific occupations and the applicant has a recorded skill set that satisfies a special need. This bill would reduce the citizenship requirement by one year for these members of the Canadian armed forces.
[Translation]
Moving to the clause related to the deemed renunciation of citizenship, Colonel Gibson would point out that the use of the term “war” has a very limited meaning in international law. Therefore, an “act of war” is generally interpreted to mean only those actions that take place when a formal state of war exists between two countries.
Mr. Chair, we thank you for this opportunity to discuss this private member's bill with the committee.
We now welcome your questions.
:
Thank you for the question. Thank you for raising it.
I'd like to take a few moments to address this issue because utilization of the term “act of war” in clause 2 of the bill could be potentially problematic. I'd like to offer a few technical comments on that.
The term “war”, or “declaration of war”, really has gone out of fashion in international law since the Second World War. There hasn't actually been a declaration of war per se since the Second World War. International law has really shied away from using that concept, and instead inclines towards the use of the term “armed conflict”. That's preferable in this case because the existence of an armed conflict is essentially determined as a matter of fact and doesn't depend on a formal declaration of war.
Similarly, the expression “act of war” is not found, really, in any of the key treaties currently forming part of international law. The expression “act of war” actually is used to a limited extent in Canadian legislation, but really only in a very limited number of provisions, and strictly dealing with anything with liability, for example, in the Marine Liability Act and the Fisheries Act, but not really in contexts similar to this proposed legislation. So in general, the concept “act of war” is not defined under Canadian legislation in the context that it would appear in this bill.
:
As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about specific needs. In addition, it must not be detrimental to the national interest.
For enlistment in the Canadian Forces, we consider Canadian citizens first and foremost. The Canadian military is a complex organization, with more than 95 different occupations. When we have a shortage of staff in some of those occupations, one of the ways the Canadian Forces react is to look for those skills among permanent residents, especially England, Australia and New Zealand. If people like that have permanent resident status, they can be considered, depending on their qualifications.
I can give you an example. There was an English individual who had been tasked with repatriating equipment from Afghanistan to England. That is a qualification that was very important for us because we were also about to go through the same process of repatriating equipment. An organization in the Canadian Forces was looking for the expertise of a person like that, but we have not obtained it yet, unfortunately. That is one example.
Social workers are another example. Currently that occupation is at 75% of its authorized strength.
So there are people whom we can consider if ever we are unable to recruit them from Canadians, by which I mean Canadian citizens.
:
Now, social workers I can see as well.
Col François Bariteau: Yes.
Mr. Ted Opitz: That's a high-demand area for a lot of reasons in society, but of course also to help our Canadian soldiers who are suffering from some post-traumatic stress issues and some other social issues themselves. That's a very important position to fill—that I understand—as is the position of pharmacist and the others that you mentioned.
I know that back in the day, permanent residents were at one point allowed to join the Canadian Forces, but clearly we don't have a big issue in recruiting right now, based on some of the numbers you've said already.
Can you talk about CF-18 pilots, for example? I know we do recruit them from Commonwealth countries. At CFC, when I worked there, there were a couple of examples of CF-18 pilots who were recruited by Canada. Now you're saying that we have a manning shortage for pilots for that kind of aircraft.
How would we go about recruiting that kind of an individual from Australia, let's say?
:
It's a very good question, but we're not short of people who want to join and become a pilot. It seems that in the Canadian population everybody wants to fly. There's no shortage in the number of applicants to join the pilot trade.
That said, there are some very severe selection criteria that prevent many from joining the forces in this specific occupation. Because the training is so long and so demanding, it's another factor that we have to take into consideration. We have many right now on the basic training list who are undergoing the training to become a pilot, but because the training takes over two years, obviously there is a gap that we need to fill at a specific rank with individuals who have highly developed skills.
This is where we will consider, for instance, the U.K. pilots who have permanent residency here in Canada. We would consider them because the training we have is very similar to what they do. There are some qualifications in fact that are the same. I'm thinking about the instructor qualification. It's basically the same as for our Canadian pilots who are giving the training.
It's an added value for us to employ them. We can fill specific vacancies at a specific rank. We can continue to train the new enrollees in the Canadian armed forces, and they can become pilots. They're not put on the side to wait until such time as we have sufficient instructors to conduct a course.
:
Mr. Chair, I think it's important to differentiate for the members of the committee between two different contexts.
The bill is dealing essentially with an administrative law concept of impacting on the person's citizenship if, as a member of an armed group or a member of armed forces of another state and they're a Canadian citizen, they engaged in acts of hostility against Canada.
In a criminal law context, or a military justice context, it's a different issue. If they committed specific acts such as treason, spying, assault, or murder, then yes, we would have jurisdiction to try them.
I think it's important conceptually to differentiate between criminal law and essentially an administrative law concept that this bill is discussing.
I hope that's of assistance.
:
Mr. Chair, there are two prongs to the response.
First of all, with respect to terrorism, there are really four places that are relevant for our consideration in which terrorism is defined. It's defined in section 2 and section 83.01 of the Criminal Code. There are largely parallel definitions of terrorism and terrorist activity in the National Defence Act. Section 2 of the National Defence Act essentially adopts the language by reference to the Criminal Code. To make a long story short, the Criminal Code definitions of terrorism are adopted in the National Defence Act, although there are specific provisions.
With respect to treason, that's an offence under the Criminal Code. It would be triable within the military justice system under section 130 of the National Defence Act, which provides service tribunals with jurisdiction to try any offence created by an act of Parliament. A service tribunal, for example, a court martial, can try the most serious offences. It can try the specific offences that are created by Parliament in the National Defence Act itself, which tend to be particularly military-type offences like mutiny, insubordination, disobedience of lawful command, as well as any Criminal Code offence. In the hypothetical context where a Canadian citizen was charged with the offence of treason, that could be triable by court martial. It would be charged under section 130 of the National Defence Act as the offence of treason under section 46 or 47 of the Criminal Code.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your kind welcome. I'm going to be seized with thinking about what I'm going to do in the event that I do come back to this committee on the scope of this.
I have questions for the witnesses who are appearing here today. I know that you're here to answer very technical questions, but I'm going to ask you questions in the broader scope of your role as members of the Canadian armed forces, and simply try to make my point that way. I'm not going to lead you down some path where you're going to get into trouble, so don't worry about that.
I'll put this in the context of where I'm coming from and where my constituents, the good folks of the riding of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, are when it comes to this particular piece of legislation. I've had Mr. Shory come to my riding and meet with my constituents on this particular matter. The intent and spirit of this bill were met with very positive feedback from my constituents.
Just in the broader sense, when you first joined the Canadian armed forces, did you have to take an oath of any kind?