:
Thank you and good morning.
[Translation]
Thank you for giving me the opportunity this morning to speak to you about Bill . It seems destined to become a major attack on the principle of citizenship in Canada.
Let me start with two comments that supersede all others on this matter.
First, citizenship implies a fundamental relationship between an individual and the state.
[English]
Destroying this relationship as a form of punishment hearkens back to the ancient punishments of banishment and exile. It has no place in contemporary Canada.
[Translation]
Second, such a profound change to our Citizenship Act such as the one the minister is proposing must not be done by a process like this, by a private member's bill. That process reduces the time allowed for debate and for this committee to do its work and it protects the changes that the minister is proposing. This is controlling democracy.
[English]
For this reason, this morning, I'm directing my remarks to what I anticipate the bill may look like at the time it returns to the House. I will make four points.
First, stripping dual citizens of Canadian citizenship would constitute arbitrary punishment. Second, denationalizing potential terrorists will provide an avenue to escape the full force of the law. Third, such denationalizations will foster global and Canadian insecurity. Fourth, there's no good or principled reason to follow the path of the United Kingdom.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me know when my time will elapse as I don't have a clock in front of me.
:
Turning to my first point, arbitrary punishment, it's a fundamental principle of our criminal law that punishment be proportional and that it be deserved. Depriving dual citizens of Canadian citizenship because of suspected terrorist activities or even because of proven conviction for terrorist actions cannot meet this standard.
Such punishment will necessarily be arbitrary because, first of all, many individuals do not make an informed or independent choice about whether to become dual nationals. These choices are determined by their parents, by their states of nationality, by accidents of their birth, or by all three of these factors acting in concert. It's often very difficult to renounce citizenship. Some individuals who make good-faith efforts to be solely citizens of Canada may not have these efforts recognized.
Many dual Canadian and American citizens are currently discovering just how difficult it can be to renounce American citizenship. For example, as the United States moves to extend the extraterritorial reach of its tax laws, we've heard quite a lot about this. Finally, whether an individual will or will not be a dual citizen will principally be determined by the laws of another state. We ought not to let an unpredictable variety of other nations determine how Canadians are to be punished.
My second point is that denationalizing terrorists will allow some to escape the full force of the law. Terrorism is a global phenomenon. In the global fight against terrorism Canada has one of the strongest and best-resourced justice systems. We have strongly committed ourselves to the difficult and intricate work of prosecuting those who threaten our security in this way. Citizenship provides one potential basis for criminal prosecution. In some cases, severing the links of citizenship will limit Canada's capacity to prosecute individuals.
One of Canada's concerns in the global fight against terrorism is that some countries are not as vigorous in condemning terrorism as we are. Some places are seen as potential places of refuge for those who would perpetrate such acts against us. We must not act in a way that reduces our capacity to act against potential terrorists. Maintaining the bond of citizenship helps Canada maintain its legal jurisdiction over all individuals.
My third point is closely related to this one. It is that denationalizing terrorists will increase global and Canadian insecurity. I imagine that the point of stripping a terrorist of citizenship is to ensure that he or she can be deported, or if they are outside the country, to ensure that they can not return. There is of course a certain intuitive appeal to this, but it does not withstand scrutiny.
Global terrorism today does not respect international borders. We need no reminders of this. Banishing those we suspect of terrorism does not make us safer. It merely removes them from our surveillance, from our monitoring, and from our control. It will not, alas, ensure that we are safe from them. Indeed, it may make us less safe if they are sent away to quiet, dark corners of the world where it is easier to plot against us unnoticed. Our commitment to the international community must mean that we cannot simply deport the people we fear. This is an invidious form of global Nimbyism. There is no advantage to us as Canadians in pooling dangerous people in unruly places.
Finally, I wish to briefly address the route that the United Kingdom has taken in stripping terrorists of British citizenship. Britain amended its nationality law in 2002 and then again in 2006. It's now possible in Britain to withdraw citizenship from individuals on the basis that it's not conducive to the public good for their citizenship to continue. Under this new provision, between mid-2006, when it came into force, and mid-2011—which is the time when I have the most recent statistics I could find—the U.K. has initiated denationalization provisions against 13 people, primarily because of suspected links to terrorist activities. One woman is not in that category; she was found to be a Russian spy.
A number of these cases have not been successful denationalizations and they are still working their way through the courts in various appeal processes. The primary reason the appeals are so protracted is that the British courts are having enormous difficulties with the intricacies of the citizenship laws of other countries.
None of these individuals has faced a judicial process in relation to their alleged terrorism activities, although this may end because one individual, Abu Hamza, has now been extradited to the United States. It's notable that the U.K. was unable to strip Hamza of his citizenship because it was found that his Egyptian citizenship was no longer valid, since he had taken out U.K. citizenship. He has recently been extradited to the U.S. completely apart from citizenship and having solely to do with a will to prosecute terrorists.
The United Kingdom is an outlier in this case. Few countries have taken these kinds of actions. The 20th century history of denationalization, if we look at it by the numbers, is dominated by the National Socialists, the Nazi regime, in Germany and by the U.S.S.R.
I thank you for your attention this morning, and I welcome your questions.
:
Good morning. I thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to testify from the perspective of victims impacted directly by the most heinous violent crime in Canadian history, namely, the terrorist bombing of Air India Flight 182 on June 23, 1985.
The Air India 182 Victims Families Association strongly supports Bill , an act to amend the Citizenship Act. The bill proposes to reduce the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces and to trigger the renunciation of Canadian citizenship for those who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.
These provisions, if enacted into law, will on the one hand encourage, acknowledge, and support those who put themselves on the front lines for Canada to protect our freedom and democracy, and on the other hand, act as a deterrent against those Canadians who violently demonstrate their opposition to our freedom and democracy by engaging in acts of war against the Canadian Forces.
I speak to you not as an expert in legal or constitutional matters but as a victim of the worst violent terrorist crime in Canada. In the Air India 182 tragedy, I lost my wife, Ramwati Gupta, to whom I was married for over 20 years. In a tragic moment, I was left as a single parent with two young sons who were 12 and 18 years of age at the time.
This tragedy was the result of a terrorist conspiracy conceived and executed on Canadian soil by criminals who brought their problems from India into Canada. The terrorist bombing killed 329 innocent persons. Most victims were from Canada, starting in Newfoundland and going to British Columbia. Only P.E.I. was not touched by this tragedy.
They came from almost all religious faiths and included atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians. Eighty-six victims were children. Twenty-nine families were completely wiped out, including the husband, the wife, and all their children. Thirty-two persons were left alone; the spouse and children were gone. Seven parents in their fifties or late forties lost all their children. Two children lost both parents. The terrorist criminals took away our Canadian democratic rights to life and liberty, and peace and prosperity. Sadly, the real culprits are still roaming free in Canada and elsewhere.
As families of the victims of the bombing of Air India 182, we have suffered and continue to suffer incalculable grief and pain, which we do not wish to befall any other Canadian in any future terrorist activities. Part of our mission is to speak out on crime, violence, and terrorism to ensure that Canada is safer and more secure for its citizens.
Bill has two provisions. The first provision in the bill proposes to reduce the residence requirement for Canadian citizenship by one year for permanent residents who serve in the Canadian Forces.
Currently, the Canadian Forces are reportedly on duty in Afghanistan, Jerusalem, Egypt, and Mali, and in the Indian Ocean off the Somali coast. Canadian Forces are not an occupying force. They are either working as peacekeepers or fighting on the front lines against terrorism and other violent crimes, such as piracy on the seas, which fuel terrorism and lawlessness. These overseas criminals and terrorists have no hesitation in exporting terrorism into Canada or luring and embracing misguided Canadians in their causes.
Thus, our soldiers on the front lines are defending our freedom, our democracy, and our democratic values and rights. This first provision in Bill C-425 acknowledges, encourages, and supports the loyalty of permanent citizens who have joined the Canadian Armed Forces and have put themselves on the front lines for Canada.
The second provision in the bill strips Canadian citizenship from those Canadians with dual citizenship who engage in acts of war against the Canadian Forces. By waging war against the Canadian Forces, such persons clearly demonstrate that they have no loyalty whatsoever to Canada and attach no value to the Canadian democratic system. Thus, they do not deserve Canadian citizenship, which they are using as a matter of convenience to further their criminal and terrorist activities.
A Canadian engaging in acts of war against the Canadian Forces is not a far-fetched scenario. Today, terrorism is an international phenomenon and terrorists, in most cases, may have worldwide connections. Prosecuted and proven cases, such as Khawaja in Canada and the Millennium Bomber in the U.S.A, are well-known examples of Canadians connected to terrorist activities outside Canada. Also, in the last few years there have been many reports of highly indoctrinated persons from different parts of Canada leaving our soil—sometimes disappearing without trace—to join terrorist training camps or terrorist activities in other countries. Some of these individuals have reportedly disappeared and are presumed killed abroad, leaving their Canadian families to grieve in silence.
During the last four weeks I have seen several news reports, and I'll enumerate them. There were two Canadians involved in a terrorist attack on a gas plant in Algeria, and they were alleged to be the ringleaders in some reports. There was a Canadian sentenced to two years in prison for terrorist conspiracy in Mauritania, as well as a Canadian with dual citizenship involved in a deadly bus bombing in Bulgaria last summer. CSIS is aware of dozens of Canadians, many in their early twenties, who have traveled or attempted to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activities in recent years. A Canadian—these are the news items—lost a bid to lead Syria's rebels. One of Syria's rebel groups, namely al-Nusra Front, formally pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri. There were two, actually, last week; one I saw only last night.
Most probably there are many more unreported cases of Canadians involved in terrorist activities around the world. Given appropriate right—or wrong—circumstances, such individuals may engage in acts of war against Canadian Armed Forces on duty abroad and may pose a potentially mortal threat and danger to our soldiers.
The second provision of Bill provides a deterrent against such a possibility. Also, note this, such Canadians will have no hesitation in importing their terrorist activities into Canada to further their perceived just cause, similar to what led to the terrorist bombing of Air India 182. It is also worth noting that some other countries, such as Australia and the United States, and I heard the U.K., already have similar policies in place. This bill will bring us in line with them.
In summary, we, with the first-hand experience of the aftermath of the most heinous act of terrorism in Canadian history, the terrorist bombing of Air India182, ask all members of Parliament to support Bill . We sincerely believe that Bill C-425 will be a step, however small, in keeping Canada free from terrorism, so that no Canadian will suffer what we have suffered, and it deserves support from all members of Parliament.
Thank you.
Mr. Gupta, before I start, I want to say that I've certainly met with some of the members of your organization and I've heard their pain and I certainly share it. It was a terrible tragedy and I'm sending my sympathy. I know that nothing can bring back your family. I deal in my office every day with people who are victims of torture and terrorism. I understand what you're going through.
Having said that, it's my respectful view that good public policy has to consider other factors beyond victims' rights, and when we look at this bill, I just don't think it's good public policy. Perhaps I can explain to you with all respect why I differ with your viewpoint.
First, as my previous colleague noted, it's difficult to comment about the bill without the specifics, but I'll do my best based upon the legislation and also based upon Minister Kenney's comments. I was able to read his public comments on the planned amendments with respect to the legislation. Based upon those comments, I'll express my concern.
The bill would deprive Canadian citizenship of persons who had a second nationality. The first problem, and I think it was alluded to by the first speaker, is that it's extremely difficult to determine when people have a second nationality. It's a task that we as refugee lawyers are confronted with all the time. People claim refugee status. They may be a citizen of some country, but they may possibly have a claim to a second country and if they do, they're not entitled to refugee status in Canada. They must seek the protection of their second country of nationality.
Anyone who deals with refugee law knows that it is often an extremely difficult task to determine, in any set circumstances, whether or not a person has dual nationality. You have to interpret foreign law and interpret how that law will be applied without having the benefit of approaching the foreign government, especially because some of these governments are hostile. So the first difficulty that this bill presents is that it is directed against people who have dual nationality and it will very often be extremely difficult to determine that.
The second related problem is that there are a lot of Canadians who may be dual nationals without even knowing it. They become victims of this legislation without even having the knowledge. The law in India recently changed. I'm not sure if there's a possibility of dual nationality anymore. It used to be that there was not, but I believe it's possible. In some countries, for example, if I'm not mistaken, Iran, if one of your parents is Iranian, you are Iranian and you have no option of renouncing your citizenship.
There are people who may be born in Canada who will have no idea that they're dual nationals and who could be subject to this legislation based upon interpretations of a citizenship act by foreign citizenship law in Canada by Canadian officials. It puts Canadians in a difficult position of not knowing whether they will or will not be subject to a piece of legislation because it will depend on the interpretation of the citizenship laws.
The other thing that happens is that obviously the law will be applied at the specific time when the person allegedly commits an offence. The person may now not be a citizen, but the citizenship law of the country can change. There's talk now about changing Canadian citizenship laws. So the laws may change so that persons who do not have a claim may have a claim. We create a situation where there's this huge uncertainty as to who will be affected by the law, first because we're applying foreign law to determine dual nationality, and second because the foreign law can change and we have no control over that. That's the first problem.
The second, even more serious problem is the question of how the law will be applied. If my understanding of the minister's comments is correct, it would apply to Canadian citizens who are convicted outside of Canada of certain offences that are equivalent to offences in Canada. I can just give you three examples of why this issue is problematic, because we're relying on foreign justice systems to determine whether or not Canadians should have their citizenship rescinded.
Take the case that I'm personally involved in, the case of Bashir Makhtal. He's a Canadian citizen. He fled Ethiopia at a very young age and wanted to give up his Ethiopian citizenship. He wanted nothing to do with it. He was accepted as a refugee. He came to Canada.
He was back in Kenya and was kidnapped by the Ethiopians and put in a show trial. has been advocating for his release with the Ethiopian authorities for three years. He was convicted of treason, which presumably would be one of the offences. Based upon the proposed law, Bashir Makhtal, whose release John Baird has actively tried to secure, would face deemed renunciation of his citizenship, because he was convicted of treason in a false show trial in Ethiopia. So relying on foreign governments to determine whether or not people will lose their citizenship is usually problematic.
I could cite other cases. There's the case of Saeed Malekpour, a Canadian citizen who was convicted in Iran of defaming Islam, which could conceivably be considered treason. Of course we know that raised the case of Huseyincan Celil in China. He was convicted of the equivalent of treason and would have his Canadian citizenship deemed to be renounced based upon this legislation, based upon a trial that all international observers said was unfair.
So how are we going to apply this legislation if we rely on foreign jurisdictions to hold fair trials with regard to the types of convictions that often come from show trials inflicted on people in countries that don't have a rule of law?
The final concern with respect to this is about the process. I was recently consulted by someone who was interested in seeing what the process was for renouncing citizenship, so I've had the opportunity to look at the legislation. The long and the short of it is that there's no due process at all. A person makes an application for renunciation. It's sent to the citizenship office. It's reviewed by an official and then put to a judge who reviews it, and if there are no concerns, approves it.
In the case of a person who would have his citizenship deemed to be renounced, based upon what the process is now, that person would not be entitled to any due process. In other words, he or she would be deemed to have applied for renunciation once he or she was convicted of the offence. That decision would go to a Citizenship official, who would review it to determine whether the requirements had been met, and then to a judge who would not be required to conduct a hearing.
:
As I said in my opening comments, there's a huge problem with the whole procedural aspect of this bill. There's no provision for any procedure, so you have to go back to the Citizenship Act, which describes renunciation. The Citizenship Act doesn't really give you an indication. You make an application for renunciation and then it's presented to a citizenship judge. First, an officer reviews it and determines whether the person qualifies for renunciation. It then is passed over to a citizenship judge. There's no requirement for a hearing and the citizenship judge makes a final determination with respect to renunciation.
This bill provides for no due process and would have huge charter problems if it were implemented in this form. If you're trying to rescind someone's citizenship, section 6 and section 7 would certainly be engaged. Without making clear what the process is in the legislation, there would be serious suspicions.
The legislation doesn't provide for a court hearing at all. It provides for a review by a citizenship judge. The judge has the right to hold the hearing, but one would wonder, depending on where the person is, whether a hearing would be practical. It doesn't provide any indication of what the evidentiary burden would be.
As I said, there are huge evidentiary problems here. Number one, how do you determine whether a person has a second citizenship? Number two, how do you decide whether the conviction, especially if it's a foreign conviction, is valid and should be respected by Canadian law? These are very complex factual or legal issues and this bill provides for no due process with respect to any of these concerns.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to all of our guests.
I'm going to direct a couple questions first to Mr. Gupta, then to the other witnesses as well.
First I would like to make a small point for clarification. Mr. Pacetti said Professor Dauvergne had indicated there had been no one stripped of their citizenship, but actually you said a number have not been successful. I wanted to clarify that for the record.
First of all, thank you for being here, Mr. Gupta. We really appreciate your testimony today.
You talked a little bit about Canadian citizens with dual citizenship who have been involved in bombings in Bulgaria, and of course, Algeria. Your situation goes back to the Air India bombing, but only this past weekend it has come to light there may be a fourth Canadian involved in the acts that happened over in Algeria. I think back a number of years, and I don't recall radicalization in Canada being a problem. Now, in the last 10 years with training camps that were discovered in Ontario, we have had previous witnesses saying there are a number of investigations going on right across this country into various cells. I want to get your opinion on whether you think radicalization of Canadian citizens is a growing problem here in Canada.
:
Merci. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
I thought I'd begin with a reminder about Canadian history. Although it is the case that in the 20th century stripping of citizenship and deportation or exile of citizens is uniquely associated with the Nazis and the Soviet Union, Canada has its own experience doing that. In 1946, after the Second World War, the Canadian government stripped the citizenship of 10,000 Canadian citizens and “repatriated” them to Japan, a country that many of them had never been to. At that time, John Diefenbaker, who was in opposition, referred to this initiative as the very antithesis of the principles of democracy.
The proposal to strip citizenship of Canadian citizens is presented through the language of deemed renunciation. But, of course, as predecessors have pointed out, that is a legal fiction. In effect what is being done is removing or denying people certain rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those include the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, under section 7; the right to be free of cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment; and section 15 equality rights.
To use the language of deemed renunciation, then, is to create the illusion that people have somehow voluntarily, through their own actions, waived their constitutional rights. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has enunciated a fairly strict test for proving that somebody has waived their constitutional rights. It must be voluntary, and it must be done with full knowledge of the consequences of that waiver. I think it is very unlikely that one could look at the provisions of this bill and construe deemed renunciation as a voluntary waiver of constitutional rights.
Reference has been made as well to the practices of the United States. I'm not sure why the view has been expressed that the United States actually strips people of citizenship for so-called unpatriotic acts. That's simply incorrect. In a series of Supreme Court of the United States judgments in the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively found unconstitutional the U.S. equivalent of this deemed renunciation. It's called in the United States “expatriation”. In a famous case called Trop v. Dulles, involving someone who was stripped of citizenship for desertion under one of the so-called expatriating acts, the Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice Warren said:
...the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.
In other words, he was saying—
Citizenship revocation is a form of punishment, and in the U.S. Supreme Court's view, cannot be used in this weapon-like fashion. It goes on to say, “It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture”. Why? Because “the expatriate has lost the right to have rights”.
If it's clear then to us that citizen revocation is a form of punishment—that's what it is, you can dress it up as deemed renunciation, but in effect it's punishment—then the question becomes what policy problem is this additional form of punishment solving? When you enact a new law, then presumably there's a problem that you want to solve with it.
Let me take you back for a moment to think about the world many centuries ago, when exile and banishment were routinely used. They were routinely used in situations where the modern state, as we understand it, didn't yet exist, meaning that systems of penal justice had not yet developed. We didn't have systems for putting people on trial, judging them, and most importantly, incarcerating them as a form of punishment. So exile and banishment, at that time in history, were used to get rid of dangerous people who were considered criminals, and who the state could't otherwise deal with.
But of course now we have a criminal justice system. We put people on trial, they are judged, and they are sentenced. We have a variety of forms of punishment, but those punishments do not include banishment or exile. Why? Because within our state we can punish people.
So the question then becomes, in what sense is our existing criminal law, and its system of adjudication and punishment, inadequate to the task when talking about the acts that are prohibited under this citizenship revocation law? Why are they inadequate for these crimes and not for other crimes? Why are they inadequate if the person happens to be a dual national, but obviously adequate if the person is not a dual national?
If the person is only a citizen of Canada, or if the person commits heinous acts that don't happen to fall within the purview of this citizenship bill, then we presume our criminal justice system is perfectly able to manage it. So the question becomes why wouldn't it be able to manage it in these circumstances? I submit to you that there's no good answer to that, and that's part of the reason that accounts for the arbitrariness of this law.
What is, then, the goal that is sought to be achieved here? I suggest to you that it is primarily symbolic, to express our outrage and our view of the despicable nature of the acts that some people commit, and the idea that those acts are inconsistent with holding certain values of Canadian citizenship. I suggest to you that the Supreme Court of Canada has found that symbolic benefits of rights violations, simply put, don't cut it. If Parliament can infringe a crucial right simply by offering symbolic and abstract reasons, then judicial review reduces to a contest of “our symbols are better than your symbols”. These outcomes aren't compatible with the charter. There is nothing that this law seeks to achieve, in terms of the protection of Canada or the expression of our abhorrence of violent and despicable acts, that is not currently achieved by our criminal justice system.
If it is correct, and I think it's indisputable, that citizenship stripping is a form of punishment for bad acts—the kinds of acts including criminal offences listed in the citizenship bill—then we must also ask the question, who in our system of government is responsible for judging and meting out punishment to people?
When somebody commits a crime—let's say a sexual assault or a murder—do we send it to the Minister of Justice to determine the guilt or innocence of that person, and then, upon the determination of that Minister of Justice, put them in jail? No, we don't do that. We understand that it would be a gross breach of our separation of powers. It's not the job of elected officials to make those judgments of people; it's the job of judges.
What this law does is take a form of criminal punishment and give it to elected politicians to mete out to individuals. That, in turn, is inconsistent with our system of government, the separation of powers, and basic notions of justice.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
May I begin by congratulating Mr. Devinder Shory for his thoughtful and indeed inspiring bill honouring the Canadian Armed Forces.
I'd like to comment on both aspects of the bill—shortening the wait time for citizenship and also revoking citizenship. I'll begin with the second.
The government, I gather, is considering recommending that the provisions of the bill be extended to include engaging in acts of terrorism and treason. I strongly support such a broadening of the provisions. In fact I recommended something along these lines in a paper published in 2006, when I proposed that applicants for citizenship be required to take an oath swearing that not only were they fully committed to Canadian values and would give their complete allegiance and loyalty to Canada, but their actions in the future would reflect these commitments. I went on to say that anyone who subsequently acts in a manner that is in serious conflict with these commitments, such as involvement in terrorist activities, should have their citizenship revoked.
My particular proposal wasn't acted upon but it caused lots of discussion, and I was happy with that.
As I think the minister pointed out, most democratic countries are much tougher on revocation of citizenship than we are. It doesn't always work. As some of our legal experts have pointed out, in Britain this has been challenged. I think this is still under discussion. I think they have good reason for being tougher.
As well, there is strong public support for revocation of citizenship under certain circumstances. Mr. Shory mentioned to the committee a survey he commissioned last year where he found that eight out of ten people agreed that Canadians found guilty of treason or terrorism should lose their citizenship. A poll taken some years earlier by Ipsos Reid found that three out of four Canadians supported revocation of citizenship of people who obtained it and then went on to commit serious crimes, and that 35% of respondents even supported measures for revoking it in the case of people born in Canada.
I won't comment on the dual citizenship issue right now, but I would like to mention one other possibility that the committee might want to consider, that the government might want to consider, and that I don't believe has been raised so far—the question of revoking the citizenship of Canadians convicted of terrorist offences in other democratic countries. Those are countries that have a good human rights record and a judicial system based on the rule of law.
As Mr. Waldman pointed out in the last session, are we going to revoke citizenship on the basis of what China has done, or some other non-democratic country? I think it's important that we don't use convictions in countries like China to revoke citizenship. I think we do have to make that distinction.
A proposal along these lines was in fact floated several years ago by when he was leader of the Conservative Party in opposition. He recommended Ottawa revoke the citizenship of Fateh Kamel when the latter returned to resume residence in Canada, after spending several years in a French prison following his conviction on terrorist charges in France. In my view, the terrorist act, if it's a serious act, doesn't have to have been committed against Canada. It could have been committed against another democratic country.
I do agree that there has to be more elaboration of what due process is. This issue has been raised. I think we do have to have a fairly clear-cut due process. I would hope that this is elaborated on, if the bill is going to be agreed upon.
I'd like to comment on the other element of Mr. Shory's bill, that permanent residents who have served at least three years in the Canadian Armed Forces become eligible to apply for citizenship one year earlier than the usual three years of residence. As I think has already been pointed out, this would in fact apply to a fairly small number of people. I think someone from our military said there are only about 60 people in the military who don't have Canadian citizenship. I think it's a good symbolic gesture, but it's a fairly minor one.
I do have some problems I'd like to raise with the current rules for gaining citizenship. In 1977 we had the current Citizenship Act passed, which reduced the waiting period from five to three years. I think that was a mistake. We have one of the shortest wait periods in the world. I think only New Zealand, among western countries, has such a short wait period.
I think the reasons for that.... While it was put in terms of making new Canadians feel part of the social fabric earlier, in fact there's fairly good evidence that it was for political purposes, that the party in office when someone gets citizenship expects the new Canadians to vote for them. There was a similar case in the United States in 1996, in which the Democratic administration rushed through the citizenship of tens of thousands of people prematurely, on the assumption that they would vote for the Democrats. So I think we have to revisit our Citizenship Act in general, particularly concerning the length of time required to get citizenship. There are a number of good reasons for this, unrelated to this particular bill.
One is that many people acquire citizenship and then move abroad again. We experienced this in the case of the Lebanon evacuation in 2005, during the Israeli-Lebanon conflict. Tens of thousands came back to Canada, and I think it cost us about $70 million. It would have been better if people had to wait a full five years, which is much closer to the international norm. Some countries, such as Germany, Norway, and Switzerland, require eight years, and the U.S. and Britain, I think, five years. I'm not sure why we shortened it to three.
There are also security reasons. CSIS has pointed out that hard-core terrorist groups sometimes try to get one of their members to acquire Canadian citizenship because it's much easier to travel if you have a Canadian passport than if you have a Yemeni passport, for example. We have increasing evidence of Canadians who use their citizenship to travel abroad and become involved in terrorist activities. I think there are security reasons as well for revisiting the Citizenship Act.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are my major comments.
I believe questions have been raised about the arbitrariness of some of the proposals, in that they would apply only to people with dual nationality. I'm like . I would prefer to be able to withdraw citizenship from anyone who has committed a serious act of terrorism, particularly against Canada. But I recognize that we have ascribed to the international Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and so we have an issue that we have to deal with.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
:
Thank you for inviting us here today. I am pleased to testify on this important bill in my capacity as director of policy for Canada with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and adviser to the Canadian Coalition Against Terror.
Like other democracies, Canadian society has been built on the concept of the social contract. In broad terms, this means that individuals have consented, either explicitly or implicitly, to relinquish some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the state in exchange for other compelling benefits. A social contract involves expectations and understandings with regard to the relationship between governments and citizens, and to my mind, Bill is about establishing a 21st century baseline for this relationship.
The bill, and what I understand to be amendments, rightly propose a two-sided proposition that the citizenship process ought to be accelerated for individuals who contribute to the safety of Canada by joining the Canadian Armed Forces, while the concept of deemed renunciation of citizenship is introduced for individuals engaged in armed conflict against the Canadian Forces or who commit acts of treason or terrorism.
In principle I'm in favour of this legislation. Nevertheless, I would like to propose several modifications, focused primarily on the issue of terrorism, that I believe will help the bill achieve its intended results and avoid certain political and legal complications.
Engaging in armed conflict against Canadian soldiers and committing treason are appropriately identified as fundamental violations of the social contract. In both these cases, the individual has essentially declared his or her allegiance to forces acting to damage or destroy Canada. Such an individual has disavowed the most basic tenets of the social contract and has done so in a manner so egregious that it cannot be framed as mere dissent. The loss of Canadian citizenship seems a fitting consequence for the crime, provided, of course, as we discussed earlier, that the offender is a citizen of at least one other country.
Committing terrorism in Canada or against a Canadian target can similarly be perceived as a fundamental severance of the ties between the individual and Canadian society, so the offender's subsequent exclusion from that community seems fitting. But what about a terrorist attack that is committed neither in nor against Canada? Why should this offence be treated differently from another violent criminal offence committed abroad? What is the connection between committing this crime and losing Canadian citizenship? I believe that the answer lies in the unique threat that terrorism poses to Canada and the democratic world in our time.
Terrorists pledge their allegiance not to the country issuing the passport but to ideologies and will not hesitate to use terrible violence to pursue their goals. In demonstrating such allegiance, which goes to the very heart of the social contract, they should not be provided with the privileges of Canadian citizenship that could be used to cause death and destruction in Canada or any other country. This argument is particularly strengthened when Canadians have committed terrorist offences on behalf of, for the benefit of, or in association with any listed entities that have been publicly identified as enemies of, and threats to, Canada.
My next point pertains to terrorist convictions by a foreign court. has indicated he would put forward an amendment requiring the terrorist act to be an equivalent crime under Canadian law. This is an important safeguard as non-democratic countries in particular have been known to label their domestic political opponents as terrorists. Thus, something like participating in a political protest, while referred to as terrorism by the foreign state, would not be considered terrorism in Canada and would not constitute deemed renunciation.
So let's suppose that a foreign state finds a Canadian citizen guilty of an act of terrorism that would be viewed as an equivalent crime in Canada. What if, though, this foreign state did not possess a legal system that we trusted to ensure due process and a fair trial? It is not clear to me that something as severe as loss of citizenship should be prompted by a criminal conviction from a court whose standards do not meet our own.
Let me suggest a possible solution. Perhaps we should consider only accepting foreign convictions from countries with which we have extradition relationships, because this signifies a certain trust in those states' legal systems. The recently compiled list of designated countries of origin might be another instrument to discern which foreign convictions to recognize for the purpose of deemed renunciation.
On the other hand, being restricted only to these lists might handcuff Canada from acting against terrorists who pose a serious threat to Canada and its allies. Perhaps in the case of countries that do not appear on either of the above-mentioned lists, the government should be required to make its case before a Canadian judge, outlining why the government feels that in a particular instance the foreign court's determination should be accepted as reliable.
Whether the terrorist conviction is foreign or domestic, it is important that the legislation allow for ministerial and/or judicial discretion and that deemed renunciation of citizenship not be automatic.
We want to make sure the loss of citizenship is appropriate in each case and that every relevant factor is taken into account when making such a decision. In that respect, perhaps a finding of civil liability for a terrorist offence under the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act could be used as one factor in the minister's discretionary decision-making. A successful civil suit against a terrorist offender under the JVTA would provide greater evidence of, and insight into, his or her terrorist involvement and would help the minister ascertain the level of threat the person poses to Canada.
The specific offences for which a person is held civilly liable under the JVTA could be the same ones used to determine whether a person is deemed to have renounced his citizenship under Bill , and I can go through the sections in the Criminal Code with you right now.
Ultimately, I believe the proposed deemed renunciation mechanism with proper protections has value. From a national security perspective, it can offer a new layer of deterrence for people who would otherwise consider engaging in the proscribed behaviour. It can facilitate the removal of people who are dangerous, not only to Canada as a whole, but who pose a particular danger to the vulnerable individuals in our society who are susceptible to radicalization. The coveted Canadian passport would be taken away from those who would use it to facilitate terrorist movement and activity.
I would be happy to discuss my remaining thoughts with you in the Q and A, including those on the issue of involuntary dual citizenship, which were raised earlier.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing some of my time with Ms. James.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today, in particular Ms. Basnicki. Thank you for your courage in appearing today. We truly appreciate it.
I know something of history and I know something of victims. My father was in a gulag and my mother was forced labour in Nazi Germany, so when we talk about World War II, we do understand, certainly on this side, the impacts of victimization on a grand scale like that. In Canada some of those things that happened over 70 years ago were acknowledged, apologized for, and we've moved on. The point of a lot of this is about terrorism and the intention of those who would do harm to this country to inflict cruel and inhuman acts against Canadian citizens, which is not part of the charter.
This is something we have to work hard to prevent. In this country we do have a right to make laws that suit ourselves. We look at other countries in parallel, but we have a right to go our own way as well. As a former Canadian soldier, I feel we can talk about law in terms of an act of war or a definition of an act of violence.
I'm pretty qualified to know a friendly or an unfriendly act against me. If somebody's shooting at me, or some of my buddies are running over IEDs—and I did lose many friends in Afghanistan. I think we don't ask a lot of people in this country when they come here. We just ask them not to break our laws and commit acts of terror against our citizens, then everybody can live in peace and harmony and enjoy the fruits this country has to offer everyone.
I'm going to start with Mr. Collacott. Sir, I think a lot of the critics of this bill ignore the very real victims of the violent and disloyal crimes that are committed. It not only harms Canada's reputation, but devalues our citizenship. As a former soldier I take offence at somebody holding the same citizenship I've fought so hard to defend. It results in the deaths of innocent mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, friends, and loved ones, as Mr. Gupta so eloquently pointed out earlier.
Sir, what message do you think it sends to the victims of these criminals that their actions are not taken for what they are, and that they continue to have the same rights and access of the vast majority of Canadian citizens who proudly uphold our Canadian values, our rights, and our responsibilities, which are inherent in citizenship?
Finally, do you think the ability to strip dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship, if convicted of terrorism or high treason, will have any sort of deterrent effect. Why, or why not?
:
There's no evidence that this would have any deterrent effect. This is a rhetorical, symbolic kind of gesture. I suppose it reaches out to a constituency who feels that there isn't enough being done, and here is something that can be done, that's highly symbolic, that satisfies that need.
I know that this government has, for example, great concern over the rights of victims, more generally, victims of crime. One might have thought that people who commit heinous crimes that aren't necessarily terrorist crimes against other Canadian citizens are also devaluing their citizenship, are also showing their rejection of Canadian values. Yet, this government, as I understand it, isn't proposing that those people's citizenships be revoked for conviction of, let's say, murder or rape or hijacking, other serious criminal offences.
Let me give you an example. There was a terrible serial rape-murder commissioned a few years ago by somebody who is a member of the Armed Forces, Colonel Russell Williams. I think it could be fairly said that he brought shame and disgrace to the Canadian Armed Forces, the uniform that he wore, and that his acts were utterly inconsistent with anything one might consider Canadian values. He terrorized and killed several women.
We might all agree on that and yet apparently that is not the subject of this law. So he, for example, is considered worthy of punishment, but not of stripping of citizenship. Does that mean that the government doesn't value the victims of his crimes the same way that it values the victims of the crimes being legislated about in this bill?
:
Sure. Let me add one thing to my previous answer. Colonel Russell Williams is a dual citizen of England and Canada, by the way.
To go back to Canadian prosecution for criminal offences, well, we have an anti-terrorism law. We have used it and we can use it. We have the ability to extradite both to and from Canada. We can use it. We have used it.
The idea that Canada is made safer or that the world is made safer by exporting people to other countries is both parochial and inconsistent with the claim that terrorism is a global problem. In addition to that, of course, there is the odd arbitrariness of the country of destination.
Let's say that I am a Canadian dual citizen of Britain and I commit a terrorist act in, I don't know, name your country, in Iran. I will be stripped of my Canadian citizenship because I have committed an act of terrorism and deported to Britain? In what sense is Britain more properly the home for somebody like me than is Canada? Are we looking, in a sense, at a race to the bottom because Britain is the other country that has this law?
If we imagine that if we think a law is good for us it must be good for others, what if all countries followed this practice? Then would it just be a race as to who could strip citizenship faster? If that's what the idea is, what is the principle of international cooperation and the global fight against terrorism that is being advanced here?
I suggest that there is no advantage to it.
:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At the end of the day, what we're spending most of our time talking about is the possibility of amendments that could potentially be brought forward through a member of the committee on behalf of the . It does raise some very serious issues, specifically dealing with a two-tiered citizenship. That's really what we're developing.
You used the example of the colonel. Here's a colonel who could be on next year's wish list, in terms of getting that individual, or individuals like him, or mass murderers and so forth, so that we can take away citizenships. Some would argue it could be a very slippery slope.
How easy should it be to take away one's citizenship? That's one question. The other, of course, is something to which many would take great offence. That is that we are setting up a two-tiered citizenship: those who have dual citizenships and those who do not. The consequence is profoundly different, if in fact you happen to have a dual citizenship. It happens a lot in Canada. The leader of the New Democratic Party is a citizen of France and a citizen of Canada. It applies differently depending in terms of your citizenship.
I'm interested, Ms. Macklin, if you could provide some comment on the dangers of establishing a two-tiered citizenship.
:
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm just timing myself because seven minutes goes so quickly.
Ms. Basnicki, when I heard you were coming before the panel, I asked how we could deal with you with the sensitivity that we need to. The hurt will always be there, and yet you've transformed that tragedy into something good by campaigning for peace and order and security for all of us who have not suffered the kind of tragedy that you have.
In light of what happened yesterday in Boston, and as a two-time Boston marathon runner, I just thought I would ask our group to do something a little bit extraordinary—to stop for 30 seconds and think about what you suffered, what Mr. Gupta suffered, and what happened yesterday in Boston, for the victims.
So I'm going to use 30 of my seconds for us to think in silence about that, if you don't mind.
[A moment of silence observed]
Mr. John Weston: Thank you.
I'd like to try to condense what we've been hearing as a committee and to focus first on the clearly good things that our colleague is trying to achieve. He has mentioned public support. The public support is to discourage terrorism in any of its forms. He's trying to increase the value of citizenship.
That's something you have written about extensively, Mr. Collacott, and that our minister has worked really hard on. He is trying to reward those people who are truly serving our country and putting themselves in harm's way. I think everyone in the room would agree with those motives.
We heard from the lawyers this morning. Professor Macklin, you've been very articulate that under section 15 of the charter and other kinds of equality provisions in our laws, there could be a problem in achieving his objectives.
So my first question is to the non-lawyers on the panel. You've made your case, I think, very well, Professor Macklin. What do you think can be done to this bill..., because the basis of the law—I speak as a lawyer—is in common sense and generally from the innate sense of justice that comes from people.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Collacott. You've given this a lot of thought. You're aware of the peril that the bill suffers in terms of its potential impingement upon equality provisions. We've heard this very often. It's not a secret. How would you deal with that and how do you think this bill can be saved or changed in order to accomplish those noble objectives that MP Shory wants to achieve?