Canadian Bar Association letter to CIC Minister Alexander
2014/06/09 1 Comment
Minister Alexander sharply criticized those opposing Bill C-24 Citizenship Act revisions (Alexander blasts critics of immigration bill as C-24 goes to second reading):
“It is shameful that activist immigration lawyers, who never miss an opportunity to criticize our governments citizenship and immigration reforms, are attempting to drum up business by promoting the interests of convicted terrorists and serious criminals over the safety and security of Canadians.”
In response, the CBA wrote a reasoned response:
Government is entitled to disagree, even forcefully, to criticism. However, we should all engage in public debate in a respectful manner with a view to providing Canadians with the best legal system we can. Attacking stakeholders simply because they bring dissenting perspectives and adverse evidence on government initiatives is corrosive of Canada’s democracy. Contrary ideas are the lifeblood of democratic societies. It is through dialogue that concepts are tested in the “marketplace of ideas,” common understandings or assumptions are challenged, and governments and citizens are encouraged to think differently.
Governments should welcome the exchange of ideas and perspectives, not seek to undermine it, even if its contents are not always embraced. Your recent comments could have the effect of undermining that exchange and the integrity of stakeholders. They move beyond the substance of the CBA Section submission and seek to undermine the credibility of individuals who put their ideas forward in a good faith effort to improve the Bill. That devalues the process and erroneously implies nefarious motives to the CBA’s submissions.
Bill C-24 was introduced without a robust consultation of key stakeholders, including the CBA Section. We would welcome more opportunities to provide early feedback on your government’s initiatives before they are published, to ensure they contribute to the continuous improvement to Canada’s system of citizenship and immigration. Early and meaningful consultations would have the added benefit of potentially averting costly and unnecessary legal challenges.
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
Thank you, Andrew, for sharing this. Surely someone in government might have second thoughts evoked by that excellent letter which might give some pause in the headlong rush to implement Bill C-24 as it stands.
Just the revocation clause alone should be given much more time and consideration. Have they learned nothing from their experience already with all the thousands of Lost Canadians? They stripped citizenship from so many people to protect Canada from whatever was thought to be some sort of danger or disgrace (see Lost Canadians – Twelve Ways to Lose Your Citizenship). After years of aggravation and hardship caused, and a great deal of lobbying, committee study and legal processes, they ended up giving citizenship back to most of them anyways in 2009. If they had been more thoughtful in the first place, and if there had been a legal process available for those being stripped, none of that would have been necessary.
I would have hoped that, this time, in rewriting the Citizenship Act, they would try harder to get it right so there would be a legal process to ensure that would not happen again to anyone.