Sheryl Saperia: The case for revoking citizenship
2014/03/25 2 Comments
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.
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
As i have expressed before, I am very concerned about the government giving itself (the Minister) the right to revoke citizenship. My reason is based on my experience as a Lost Canadian, having had my citizenship revoked in 2003 after being here my entire life since early 1946. My only crime was being born to a Canadian soldier (sergeant in the RCA) and his English War Bride, three months prior to their marriage in 1945 (too late due to his superiors’ refusal to grant permission as per Canadian government orders until Dad’s discharge at end of WWII.)
When citizenship was removed from my brother (a Canadian Navy veteran) and I, we got no notice, no charges, no way to appeal. I was treated rudely (called a “bastard”) and arrogantly by officials in CIC and the MP office, who would not help. I soon learned I had lots of company with similar histories: I understand there are over 37,000 of us now. Restoration of our citizenship is a possibility mentioned in the current bill being considered, but we heard that in 2009, too, and ended up being excluded.
Surely Canadian citizenship is much more important than this. I believe that revocation is not a tool to be allotted to the Minister, whatever his beliefs and values about who should have citizenship are. is the “innocent until proven guilty” a Canadian myth? An investigation resulting in charges, notice, a court hearing and a judicial decision, the same judicial process afforded to every other criminal in Canada should apply.
Marion, I thought you might comment on this piece. The previous revocation process was largely unworkable. What the Minister has proposed is Ministerial discretion in the case of fraud (e.g., lying about residency), with more serious cases (e.g., national security) going through the courts. I think you are right to have some concerns over due process as the devil will be in the details, and this govt at times tends to take short cuts.