Citizenship Act Revocation: Commentary
2014/02/12 2 Comments
Strong commentary on both sides of the political spectrum on the revocation and related provisions of the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act, starting with Chris Selley of the National Post:
Grown-up countries clean up their own messes. You don’t “strengthen Canadian citizenship,” as Bill C-24 purports to, by making it easier to revoke, by kicking your junk into another country’s closet. You strengthen Canadian citizenship by holding wayward or treasonous citizens to account, and by demanding fair and equal treatment for even the most unpopular, thereby reinforcing the obligations they violated. Mr. Khadr’s case showed us how far Canada has to go. The Conservatives propose to take us even further in the wrong direction.
Chris Selley: Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.
Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, in addition to their previous criticism of the revocation provisions, note additional problems with differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians:
The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship. Whether the government acts on the threat is not the issue; it is enough that people will be made insecure and apprehensive by the possibility that the government may arbitrarily decide to launch revocation proceedings against them if they leave Canada too soon, or remain away too long. That’s not a way to foster a citizenship of commitment. That’s how to foster a citizenship of fear.
I had viewed this provision as more symbolic than enforceable, but Macklin and Waldman have a point as this could be deemed fraud should a naturalized citizen leave Canada for professional or personal reasons. CIC may not today be able to enforce such a provision. However, as the government implements its plans for exit controls, this may change. As many Canadians, both naturally-born and naturalized, live abroad, often for reasons that most would consider valid (i.e., not just “citizens of convenience”), this provision bears greater scrutiny.
Citizenship reforms a serious threat to rights of all Canadians
Being Canadian is a privilege, not a right—that’s the message. Those are much better terms on which to welcome newcomers.
Finally, despite the Toronto Star’s alarmism, it is just and proper to strip citizenship from people who engage in terrorism. Thomas Walkom’s characterization of this view as “radical” shows the extent of his esteem for Canadian citizenship.
Walkom suggests that thousands of Canadians could have their citizenship revoked. Here’s a tip: don’t want to lose your citizenship? Don’t become a terrorist.
“Yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s hero,” Walkom shrugs. To which we reply: If Canada in the future celebrates Islamic terrorists as heroes, Walkom will have worse things to worry about than Bill C-24.
Canada’s new Citizenship Act is long overdue
Still haven’t seen much commentary in French language media. Will also be interesting to see how ethnic press covers this (how I miss the ethnic media press scan at CIC).
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
Having experienced the revocation of my citizenship 10 years ago, along with thousands of other Lost Canadians, I am very concerned about the proposed power for the Minister (which, of course, they have already been exercising for years) in stripping citizenship for “treason” or “terrorism”. Ten years ago they felt the need to strip citizenship for what seemed to be ridiculous reasons: mine was being born to a Canadian soldier (they claim there were none, they were all British) and his War Bride, also prior to marriage (when I was 3 months old) due to Canadian government orders that the military not marry without permission from superiors.
What is to prevent some future government thinking other such ridiculous reasons can be construed as “treason”? I believe citizenship is much too important to be entrusted to the whims of politicians or bureaucrats: those who may be at risk should at least have the usual court process of charges, judiciary and a means of appeal, as accorded any other criminal – something we never got at all.
Thanks,
Marion Vermeersch
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:15:23 +0000 To: vermeerschmarion@hotmail.com
My understanding is that stripping citizenship for terrorism or war crimes would go to the Federal Court, not be at Ministerial discretion (which is only in cases of fraud).