Sheryl Saperia: A fast way to keep extremist influence out of our schools

I suspect any government, including a Conservative one, would find it challenging, if not impossible, to implement on a consistent basis. Just developing criteria itself would be hard once they were tested against real world examples, balanced against other foreign and trade policy objectives:

The Trudeau government says countering radicalization is a foundational component of Canada’s national security policy. Indeed, it has established the new Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence. The government should therefore be pleased with the recent introduction of Bill C-371, the Prevention of Radicalization through Foreign Funding Act, which is an excellent complement to its efforts in this area.

Sponsored by Conservative MP Tony Clement, C-371 is slated for a second reading vote in February. Members of Parliament should allow the bill to be referred to committee where it would receive careful study. While the legislation could benefit from several amendments, its intent and essence deserve parliamentary support.

C-371 would enable Canada to establish a list of foreign states that meet specific criteria, such as promoting egregious forms of religious intolerance or engaging in activities that support radicalization. Once that list is in place, all Canadian religious, cultural and educational institutions would be prohibited from accepting donations from those foreign governments.

This restriction would also extend to receiving money from individuals and entities linked to those states (such as the spouse of the foreign state’s leader or an organization controlled by the foreign state). An exception clause would render Canada’s liberal democratic allies, including the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Israel, immune from being listed.

Canadian educational, religious and cultural institutions should not be subject to the pernicious influence of foreign states and individuals that embrace and promote extremist ideologies. By denying these entities ongoing access to Canada’s open and multicultural society, Canadians will be better protected from interference and indoctrination by foreign extremists. Conversely, so long as the patrons of extremist ideologies have an unfettered ability to invest billions of dollars in institutions in Canada and the West in general, the threat of extremism and radicalization will only grow.

Which countries should be listed under the legislation? There are a number of worthy candidates, but Saudi Arabia and Iran would likely make the cut.

A front-page New York Times exposé from 2016 flatly stated, “Saudi Arabia’s export of the rigid, bigoted, patriarchal, fundamentalist strain of Islam known as Wahhabism has fuelled global extremism and contributed to terrorism.” It referenced both Hillary Clinton deploring Saudi Arabia’s support for “radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism,” and Donald Trump calling the Saudis “the world’s biggest funders of terrorism.”

The concerns they raised were more explicitly articulated by Farah Pandith, the first-ever special representative to Muslim communities at the U.S. Department of State. Over the course of 2009-2014, she toured 80 countries in her official capacity and concluded that the Saudi influence was destroying tolerant Islamic traditions. “In each place I visited,” she said, “the Wahhabi influence was an insidious presence, changing the local sense of identity; displacing historic, culturally vibrant forms of Islamic practice; and pulling along individuals who were either paid to follow their rules or who became on their own custodians of the Wahhabi world view. Funding all this was Saudi money, which paid for things like the textbooks, mosques, TV stations and the training of Imams.”

While Saudi Arabia promotes Sunni extremism, the Iranian regime works diligently to indoctrinate and radicalize existing Shia communities across the world. In Canada, Tehran has tried to build networks sympathetic to its Khomeinist creed by funding religious institutions, schools and cultural centres. Two of those Iranian cultural centres, located in Ottawa and Toronto, were actually seized in 2014 and the proceeds distributed to victims of various terrorist attacks in a lawsuit against Iran for its sponsorship of terrorism.

Iran had maintained it was not connected to the centres. However, the court found that when the Iranian Cultural Centre in Ottawa had undergone renovation, the applicant identified on the building permit was the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” And the Toronto-based Centre for Iranian Studies, ostensibly a non-government organization supporting those interested in Iranian culture, was found to have been purchased by a company whose sole director was a former cultural attaché at the Iranian embassy in Ottawa. This attaché was also a member of a powerful Iranian family closely connected to high-ranking regime officials.

Bill C-371 will not decisively solve the problem of radicalization. Nevertheless, it is an important tool that can help block outside influences that wish to persuade Canadians to adopt extremist ideologies leading to radicalization and violence.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote in his 2014 memoir Common Ground, “My idea of freedom is that we should protect the rights of people to believe what their conscience dictates, but fight equally hard to protect people from having the beliefs of others imposed upon them.” His caucus now has the ability to affirm this vision by voting in favour of C-371 at second reading.

Source: Sheryl Saperia: A fast way to keep extremist influence out of our schools

Citizenship Act C-6 Changes: Witnesses 19 April Meeting

The second set of witnesses at CIMM C-6 hearings had all testified at the C-24 hearings two years ago, with a good cross-section of perspectives, largely focussed on the same issues of revocation, language and knowledge testing.

The most interesting exchange was with respect to Martin Collacott who accused the government of pandering to new Canadian voters in the relaxed residency and language requirements.

Details:

Bernie Farber, now heading the Mosaic Institute, shared his personal family refugee and Holocaust history as a means to personalize what it means to be Canadian citizens and the challenges of being a refugee. He cited research carried out by the Institute on imported conflicts, showing an attitudinal shift towards being more empathetic and recognizing common ground, with very high levels of attachment to Canada (94 percent, with 80 percent feeling more Canadian than anything). Ensuring full participation helps reduce imported trauma, improving both individual lives as well as Canada. He was broadly supportive of the proposed changes. See his op-ed Its Time to End the Stigma of Immigration”.

Sheryl Saperia, of the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, reiterated her past support for the revocation provisions of C-24 for those convicted of terror or treason, believing it an appropriate consequence for these crimes. She did not accept Minister McCallum’s arguments that it created two-classes of citizenship, given that naturalized Canadians chose to become Canadian, and were not forced to become dual citizens. She noted that a Canadian is not always a Canadian, citing the examples of revocation for fraud or war crimes as exceptions. She proposed an alternative approach to revocation, with Ministerial discretion to review the depth of the connection to the other country, with the less active the connection the weaker the case for revocation. Should the government proceed with repealing the revocation provisions, this should be combined with greater deradicalization efforts in Canadian prisons.

Patti Tamara Lenard of University of Ottawa noted that citizenship in democracies is a fundamental right. She went through the previous government’s arguments in favour of revocation. There was no evidence that revocation made states any safer, using Belgium as an example, and that ‘targeting’ of dual citizens undermined security, not strengthening it. Canada was not catching up with other countries, apart from the UK [and Australia], noting that France had abandoned this approach. And public support did not justify measures to curb minority rights, even the ‘most hated’ of Canadians should still have their rights protected. She noted the broader context under which Canadian Muslims felt targeted, citing security certificates and no fly lists, all of which have contributed to their distrust of the Canadian state. Prior discourse had portrayed Canadian Muslims as disloyal and that discrimination was legitimate and inclusive language was needed.

Janet Dench and Jennifer Stone of the Canadian Council for Refugees noted the importance of citizenship for mental health, particularly so for refugees. CCR supports early access to citizenship without discrimination. They supported counting time before permanent residency towards citizenship but focussed on the lengthy processing times for permanent residency for refugees and live-in-caregivers. CCR supported the reduced residency requirements but advocated a waiver if compelling reasons provided. They also supported the reversion to the previous age requirements for knowledge and language (18-54), but noted that some older applicants still struggle to meet these requirements. CCR noted the need for some form of waiver from the high citizenship fees and language assessment, citing the USA example. While pleased that C-24 dual national revocation was being repealed, they noted the need for fraud revocation to be subject to court review. CCR also noted the need for children under 18 to apply for citizenship should they have neither parent nor guardian. Lastly, they argued for repeal of the first generation limit of passing on citizenship to reduce possible future statelessness. See their detailed brief Bill C-6 Citizenship Bill concerns.

R. Reis Pagtakhan, a Winnipeg-based immigration lawyers, is one of few witnesses to date who has changed his position in the past two years. While he remains broadly supportive of revocation for treason or terror, he now believes this should only apply to those convicted in Canadian courts to ensure Charter and related protections apply. He made a forceful statement in favour of the TRC recommendation 94, changing the citizenship oath to include a reference to treaties with Indigenous Peoples. He supported repeal of the intent to reside and credit for pre-permanent residency to count towards citizenship. See his op-ed Canadian citizenship should have 2 tiers, Reis Pagtakhan says.

Martin Collacott opposed shortening the residency requirements, noting that they were among the shortest in the world, allowing some to ‘park’ their families here and work abroad. He was against repealing the intent to reside provision. He thought the change in age requirements particularly ill-considered, particularly for 55-64 year olds who were often still working. He cited the Fraser Institute report on the cost of immigrants to the Canadian economy [Note: its methodology is questionable]. He supported the previous government’s revocation for terror or treason as a reasonable measure, and that most would not be convinced by a “Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian” in these cases. He noted that citizenship can be used for political gain, using the example of the Clinton presidential campaign in 1996 where 1 million became citizens [surprised he refrained from Canadian examples as there was a surge in new citizens in 2014 and 2015 under the Harper government]. He ended by stressing the need for a full immigration review in terms of who benefits as it was abundantly clear that the current high levels were only serving special interests, certain sectors and political parties, with congestion and higher prices being part of the costs.

Questions:

As in 2014, after the first few hearings, the questions and responses tend to reinforce earlier sessions.

Revocation for terror or treason: Not surprising, a fair amount of questions from both the Government and Conservative side, with the Government challenging Saperia and Collacott’s arguments in particular. Saperia stumbled occasionally in her responses, reverting to talking points and arguing that there was no discrimination between Canadian and dual nationals convicted of the same crime but punished differently. However, she acknowledged that the argument that revocation was exporting terrorists to other countries was the most convincing one.

Revocation for fraud: NDP raised again the question of the pre-C-24 procedural protections and that C-6 did not address these. No witness substantively address this (Audrey Macklin on April 14 did).

Language: There were considerable questions on language requirements, with the Conservatives focussing on the importance of language and the NDP concerned about the cost of language assessment and the requirement to take the knowledge test in an official language. Collacott in his replies stressed the importance of language, particularly for older 55-64 year olds, that ample research demonstrates the link between language and economic integration, noting that lack of language meant having to work in the particular immigrant community with likely poorer economic prospects.

Pagtakhan interestingly posed the question why both with language assessment anyway at the citizenship stage, this should be a requirement when immigrating to Canada, rather than fixing it post facto. CCR reemphasized its previous points on challenges for refugees, who may have additional barriers in terms of ability to learn language, find time given employment and cost. Many applications had been returned given that proof of language had not been provided. Farber noted that the language bar should not be set so high to ‘exclude’; Lenard favoured a relatively low bar as in the USA.

Knowledge: No major Q&As on knowledge requirements although CCR did mention the decline in pass rates following the changes in 2010.

Statelessness: NDP raised as before. Lenard noted that international documents cover statelessness and the right to nationality. It is generally understood that the right to nationality means either having been born or mainly lived in a country.

Pandering for votes: Collacott, in his introductory remark mention of political benefits, drew considerable fire from the government side. He initially ducked the question but then, following a second question challenging him for the evidence, replied that there was considerable evidence over the years regarding Liberal governments. The previous Conservative government had tried to gain support among new Canadians through its policies [Note: he was silent on ‘boutique’ initiatives such as the historical recognition, targeted towards Chinese, Ukrainian, Indo, Italian and Jewish Canadians  and legislation such as the Vietnam Journey to Freedom Act S-219]. He cited the Liberal government having 4 ministers from the Punjabi community and none from the Chinese community in Cabinet as more recent examples.

C-24 Citizenship Act: Senate Hearings – 11 June

Second and last day of witnesses at Senate Committee examining C-24. Same technical frustrations with Parlvu, so again have captured as best I can.

Starting with supporting witnesses:

Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform noted these changes were long overdue. Longer residency and physical presence would reduce fraud, noting many “parked their families in Canada, benefitting from Canadian healthcare and education while they worked abroad.” Increased penalties and filing of tax returns made sense. However, the only secure way to eliminate residence fraud was through entry and exit controls. Higher language requirements were needed for more skilled labour and management and extension of language requirements to 14-64 was welcome. He supported revocation for treason or terror and noted UK has an even more strict approach (no statelessness provision). A 2012 survey showed 80 percent supported for revocation. He welcomed the Lost Canadians fix. He also stated the need for the government to end jus soli (birthright citizenship) but noted some of the challenges working with the provinces.
Sheryl Saperia of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies largely repeated her earlier testimony to CIMM. Revocation was about ‘updating the social contract of citizenship.”  It was “fitting to lose citizenship” for treason, terrorism or armed conflict. But the Bill should be tightened to terrorism in Canada, against Canadian targets or for Canadian listed entities. If nothing to do with Canada, there should be no citizenship consequences. Persons should not be able to use the Canadian passport to travel for terror; we needed to “remove this weapon of Canadian citizenship” given the freedom to travel that it entails. As before, she noted the need for a second test of due process and fairness in the case of foreign convictions. She also mentioned argued that Canadian passport applications should include an acknowledgement that engagement in terrorism or treason could entail revocation, again to reinforce the social contract.

Tim Edwards, President and Ron Cochrane, Executive Director Executive Director, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers expressed their support for ensuring that the children born to Crown servants born abroad would have an exemption to the first generation limit to allow them to pass on Canadian citizenship to their children. No debate or discussion, apart from a quip by Senator Eggleton that “we should pass it and kill the rest.”

Opposing the Bill were:

Barbara Jackman, Kerri Froc, Barbara J. Caruso, Canadian Bar Association started with their overall assessment that C-24 discouraged persons from applying through its “layers of regulations, harder, longer and more costly process.” Like others, CBA opposed elimination of pre-P.R. time. They questioned how an applicant would prove their intent to reside and reiterated their concern that despite the Minister’s assurance regarding possible grounds for misrepresentation should one’s intent to reside change post-citizenship. CBA, like most lawyers, opposed revocation for dual nationals. It is discriminatory and takes away the “certainty of citizenship.” Banishment or exile was a way to “get through the back door what the Government couldn’t get through the “front door.”

Yuen Pau Woo, President and CEO, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada provided a different perspective by focussing on the contribution made by Canadians living abroad. He focussed this criticism on the increased residency requirements. He believed that this would result in reduced citizenship accession rates. This would result in fewer economic benefits to Canada; if citizenship was relatively easy, more new Canadians would invest in their human capital and improve their earning power. The intent was not clear: if to punish immigrants, this would not increase attachment. If to curb abuse of social benefit programs, given that these programs are available to permanent residents, increasing citizenship requirements would not make a difference. The best mix was a high bar to entry but a relatively low bar for citizenship. The general implications of the Bill were that Canadians residing in Canada were “more Canadian than those abroad.” This was an outdated view, given the high mobility of labour in today’s world, particularly the most highly talented (“best and brightest”). Some 2.8 million Canadians lived abroad, or 9 percent of the population. Restoring voting rights beyond 5 years was an additional way to encourage attachment to Canada. Increased residency requirements would reduce both economic benefits and attachment to Canada.

Melynda Jarratt, Canadian War Brides, in a strongly worded statement, talked about the history of Canadian war brides who were initially welcomed to Canada along with their children as Canadians but the “bureaucrats changed their mind.” Canadian citizenship did not start in 1947 with the first Citizenship Act but there were many government statements and court decisions that mentioned Canadian citizenship before then. She argued for the need for a citizenship ombudsman and amnesty program to address the remaining estimated 50,000 Lost Canadians not addressed by C-24. It was also important to recognize the Canadian war dead from both World Wars as Canadian, not just British subjects. She ended by saying that it was “disgraceful” how Don Chapman was treated and not able to testify.

Particular points of interest:

  • As expected, focus was on revocation. Senator Eggleton noted the current trial in Egypt of Mohamed Fahmy, a dual citizen. If convicted, theoretically his citizenship could be revoked. Collacott noted that was a worst case and unlikely  scenario.  Revocation was needed to deal with serious acts against Canada.
  • Senator Eaton questioned Canadian Iranians who go to Iran, engage in political activity, and then “wave their Canadian passport when they get into trouble. “Why get involved if Canada is your home?” A bit odd, given the Government’s encouragement of Ukrainian Canadians and others to participate in their “homeland” issues.
  • Saperia said that not every distinction is necessarily discriminatory. People who choose dual citizenship should not view themselves as discriminated against. C-24 protected people against statelessness. Collacott, rather candidly, noted that “we can’t get rid of Canadians we don’t like” but we can for dual nationals. Caruso noted the equality and mobility rights of the Charter made this approach discriminatory.
  • A somewhat amusing exchange between Senator Eggleton and Saperia over whether revocation was really only about Omar Kadr. Saperia, reluctant to get into a debate over Kadr, cited the recent Globe article, Made-in-Canada terror is real – and it’s being ignored, said it is a broader issue.
  • Saperia stated that the decision-making process was less important than ensuring the right factors were concerned. Whether decided by the Courts, the Minister or an official was secondary.
  • Senator Tkachuk challenged the assertion that the increase in fees was unreasonable.Caruso said the increase was “overwhelming for many.”
  • Good discussion on increased residency requirements. Senator Seidman noted that 4 years out of 6 provided considerable flexibility to address work, study, or family related travel. Woo emphasized that in a world of global careers, the need to diversity Canada’s trade beyond the US and the importance of contacts, more flexibility is required. Otherwise, Canada would get a “poorer quality of applicants.” Both Collacott and Senator Eaton expressed scepticism over the benefits to Canada of such internationally mobile citizens.
  • Woo also noted that too much attention was paid to the evacuation and return of Lebanese Canadians in 2006. There was a need to protect against abuse. Evacuations could be paid by the evacuees.

Committee hearings today feature Minister Alexander, so expect a spirited exchange given the tone of some of his recent remarks on critics of the Bill.

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship

The alternate view to that expressed by Chris Selley a number of weeks ago (Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post)  by Sheryl Saperia is Director of Policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)

Bill C-24 makes ordinary Canadians safer by adding a new layer of deterrence against engaging in terrorism, treason and armed conflict with Canada; facilitating the removal of people who pose a threat not only to Canada, but to the vulnerable individuals in our society susceptible to radicalization; and removing the coveted Canadian passport from those who would use it as a tool to support or carry out terrorist attacks.

Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship | National Post.