The proposed amendment to a private member’s bill, previously introduced by Calgary’s Conservative MP Devinder Shory, would apply only to those who hold dual citizenship.
As the House of Commons prepares to vote on Bill C-425 this week, the Star interviewed Kenney about what critics claim is an attempt to develop a “second class” of citizenship and the logistical and legal concerns about the proposal.
Kenney said the legislation is largely “symbolic” and would rarely be used. Most of the world’s governments, he said, already have such legislation, noting that “in the case of the United States, instead of going through legal niceties of citizenship revocation they seem to be using drones to bomb American citizens who are terrorists.”
Below is an edited version of a telephone interview Sunday:
Q: There is fear that this bill will introduce a two-tiered system of citizenship where the law only applies to some.
A: In principle it should apply to all citizens but we have a legal impediment, as Canada is a signatory to the Convention of Statelessness, consequently we cannot revoke citizenship from anyone if that would render them stateless.
Q: Why single out terrorism?
A: The idea being that Canada is an enemy of terrorism in general … and if a Canadian knowingly takes up arms to slaughter civilians on behalf of an illegal terrorist organization, that can reasonably be construed as a renunciation of their loyalty to Canada.
Q: What about someone like Jeffrey Delisle (the Canadian naval officer who pleaded guilty this month to selling military secrets to Russia)? Were he a dual citizen would this law apply to him?
A: I have not yet found out whether this would apply to particular cases. But in so far as he has received a conviction for treason I think, if he were a dual national, it would apply to him.
Q: How do you define terrorism? What would fall under this, aside from the obvious convictions in Canada? Where else would a conviction be considered valid? Saudi Arabia?
A: I very much doubt that. Terrorism offences are very much defined in Canadian law and what I’m suggesting is that only convictions for serious acts of terrorism … I think to deal with the problem with overseas convictions we would apply the same principle that has always existed in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act … An assessment is made on overseas convictions as to whether or not those were in fact real crimes.
Q: What about the problem of the politics of the time influencing terrorism listings? The MEK: they’re no longer considered a terrorist group. (Both the U.S. and Canada removed Iran’s Mujahideen-e-Khalq from their terrorist lists last year after a high-profile lobbying effort by the group.)
A: We have not yet come forward with detailed amendments and we have to consider issues such as retrospectively and my inclination would for this to be applied prospectively … an organization at a certain moment and time may have changed its nature and character.
Q: Have you sought consultation from CSIS or the RCMP? Talking strictly about money, I’d anticipate there would be costly constitutional legal challenges and I think some in the intelligence field would argue that while a Canadian passport is of high value to terrorist organizations, money defending those legal cases would be better spent on counterterrorism efforts.
A: The Minister of Public Safety … obviously participates in cabinet deliberations on proposed amendments and I know Mr. (Vic) Toews strongly supports the proposed amendments … I think the value of this proposal is largely symbolic, educational. It sends a message that Canadian citizenship actually has some objective meaning … that it’s not some kind of tool to be exploited (by disloyal radicals). I think the number of cases to which it would be applicable would be minuscule, so I think the costs that you’re talking about are greatly exaggerated.
Q: Some have suggested: why not debate whether dual citizenship is permissible in Canada rather than enact laws that are applied differently?
A: In the aftermath of the 2006 repatriation of some 14,000 Canadians residing in Lebanon, they were evacuated during the conflict there, and this triggered a wide public debate in Canada. And the government did at that time review the rights and obligations of citizens. No significant policy changes were made at the time … Our prospective amendments have not been triggered by any reflection on dual nationality but rather on the question of violent disloyalty to Canada.
Original Article
Source: thestar.com
Author: Michelle Shephard
No comments:
Post a Comment