C-24 Citizenship Act – Passed by Senate Committee 17 June

Clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24 by Senate Committee had no surprises, with Government using majority to approve Bill without amendment.

Debate started with Senator Eggleton’s motion to defer clause-by-clause review given the need for more discussion on the evidence regarding difficulties with the Bill. He noted:

The Bill is  “headed for nowhere. Even if passed, it will be challenged and go to the Supreme Court. It is better to come to grips with the changes needed. I don’t know what it is, the government decides or officials lead them down the garden path. It is not good for the country that so many bills are rejected by the Supreme Court.”

Eggleton contrasted the consultations that took place during the 1977 revisions to the Citizenship Act with the lack of public consultations on C-24, supported by Senator Cordy.

Senator Eaton for the Government countered:

“The Bill was very well thought out.” Department officials had laid out the steps required for revocation. Revocation has the court system to fall back upon.

She strongly disagreed on the likelihood of court challenges. If there be challenges, “so be it.” Those who are opposed have a “conflict of interest given that it involves their business” as lawyers. “I think it will go much more smoothly.”

Motion to defer clause by clause review was defeated along party lines.

Eggleton proposed 4 amendments, all defeated along party lines:

• Elimination of intent-to-reside;
• Reversal of language test requirements for those between 55-64 years old;
• Restoration of pre-permanent residency time for temporary residents (international students, live-in caregivers, temporary foreign workers):
• Restoration of full right of appeal to the Federal Court for any revocation decisions, whether for fraud or national security (treason or terror).

Eggleton proposed an observation to the report regarding the impact of the increase in fees, noting the burden this placed on low-income families and refugees, and that the US could waive fees in such cases. He proposed that the Minister should consider introducing a similar provision. This observation was supported unanimously.

With that, C-24 proceeds to a full vote by the Senate and Royal Assent.

And likely, sooner than later, some court challenges.