The Liberals are blowing up the citizenship system again. Why? Kheriddin

While I agree with Kheiriddin on the importance of language, she ignores that language and knowledge were assessed by previous Liberal governments, albeit with significant integrity and consistency problems which Conservative reforms largely addressed.

While political considerations play a role (as they did with the previous government), Liberal MPs are also likely responding to constituent and supporter representation from those ridings with significant numbers of immigrants and visible minorities – which the Liberals won overwhelmingly.

But the Conservative reforms created another problem: a declining rate of citizenship take-up and a dramatic fall of some 30 percent in the number of immigrants applying for citizenship over the past three years.

We do not yet know what will be in those ‘radical changes’ (my ‘transition advice,’ drafted before the election, Citizenship: Getting the Balance Right (October 2015) highlights possible changes).

So the question for the current Government, is to find the right balance between facilitating citizenship (making it accessible) and making it more meaningful in terms of language, knowledge and residency, and in so doing, consult, engage and listen to the range of views of what that balance should be:

Lack of language proficiency also hurts elderly immigrants. It makes them dependent on family and isolates them from the wider community. Immigrant women in abusive relationships often have nowhere to turn because they lack the language skills to get help from police, a shelter or social workers. Language barriers are a frequent problem cited by immigrant women’s rights advocates — and it doesn’t stop being a problem at age 54.

The solution is not to have every government worker learn every minority language, as some might suggest. It’s to empower immigrants with the basic language skills they need to live, thrive and participate in Canadian society.

The Liberal proposal ignores another very basic truth, one which Quebecers know all too well. Language amounts to more than words. Language is culture. Learning a language brings with it knowledge of the culture that produced it, and engenders an appreciation for that culture. It allows the speaker to connect to that culture, to feel part of it. It’ll be interesting to see how Quebec reacts to any such changes, as the province has maintained its own immigration requirements for years — including French proficiency.

So why are the Liberals doing this, and why now? The likeliest explanation is the crass one: They’re doing it for the votes. Just as the Conservatives avidly courted immigrants’ support over the last decade, the Liberals are determined to take it back. Chen represents Scarborough North, the riding with the highest percentage of visible minorities in the country, at 90.1 per cent. McCallum represents Markham-Thornhill, which has the third-highest number (82 per cent) of visible minorities in the country, and where 50.1 per cent of residents were born in Asia as of the 2011 census. The second-highest visible minority population (87.6 per cent) is in the riding of Brampton East, Ont., which is also represented by a Liberal, MP Raj Grewal.

McCallum is right in saying that these would be “radical” changes; they surely are, for all the wrong reasons. They do nothing to strengthen immigrants’ sense of belonging to Canada, or the linguistic duality of our country.

In fact, in their zeal to erase every single vestige of Conservative policy, the Liberals are actually betraying the legacy of their own party. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau championed bilingualism and enshrined English and French minority rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While he also supported multiculturalism, he made sure his children became fluently bilingual. One would hope all Canadian kids — and their parents — would have that same chance under the Liberal party in 2016.

The Liberals are blowing up the immigration system again. Why?

Trudeau plans repeal of Tory union, citizenship laws as Parliament returns

These sources suggest a simple full repeal of C-24 rather than a more surgical approach on C-24. Broader than platform and mandate letter commitments:

So the economy will be the priority. But government sources suggest it won’t be the sole preoccupation in the first two weeks as the new government looks to put a positive stamp on these early days in power.

Among the measures expected to be dealt with through new legislation:

  • Repealing the Conservative’s Bill C-24, which allows the government to strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism-related offences.

  • Repealing two other Conservative laws that the Liberals argue weaken the rights of trade unions. They are Bill C-377, which requires unions to disclose how they spend members’ dues, as well as Bill C-525, which makes it harder for unions to organize in federally-regulated workplaces.

  • Introducing parliamentary oversight for Canada’s national security agencies, though the commitment to repeal parts of the previous government’s anti-terrorism law, Bill C-51, is expected to come later.

Source: Trudeau plans repeal of Tory union, citizenship laws as Parliament returns – Politics – CBC News

New Canadian renounces oath to the Queen, pledges ‘true’ loyalty only to Canada – Toronto – CBC News

Further to my earlier post (Man set to recant oath to the Queen right after #citizenship ceremony). He did make his allegiance to Canada clear, limiting the issue to the Monarchy.

Highly unlikely that changing the oath will be a priority for the government given so much else on their agenda, including changes to the Citizenship Act:

At a citizenship ceremony in east Toronto, Bar-Natan first swore the oath along with some 80 others and then, while being handed his citizenship certificate, informed the citizenship judge of his intent to disavow the portion of the oath pledging allegiance to the Queen.

He formally recanted that part of the oath following the ceremony and handed the judge a letter explaining his decision.

“I wish to affirm my allegiance, my true allegiance to Canada and the people of Canada, but also to disavow the royalty part and only the royalty part of the citizenship oath,” Bar-Natan told the judge as others looked on.

“I hear you sir. And I thank you for your honesty,” said citizenship judge Albert Wong, who shook Bar-Natan’s hand. “I welcome you to Canada and I look forward to the contributions you will make.”

Bar-Natan later said he had felt “somewhat humiliated” at having to say the oath at all, despite being able to disavow the part of it he disagreed with later.

“I do feel that it is comparable to hazing, the fact that you are required to stand up and express views that are opposite to yours,” he said. “I don’t think it is a part of Canada to impose political speech on others. To impose opinions on others.”

Bar-Natan added that a website he has set up — disavowal.ca — will allow other Canadians to publicly disavow their pledge to the Queen, regardless of when they took their oath.

Bar-Natan’s controversial decision sparked some strong reactions on social media.

“Strip him of citizenship the moment he disavows the oath. If he doesn’t want to keep the oath, he shouldn’t be made a Canadian,” tweeted one person.

“Why do people come here if they have no intention of following the basic requirements,” said another.

Bar-Natan’s lawyer said he hoped his client’s actions would draw the new Liberal government’s attention to re-evaluating the wording of the citizenship oath that deals with the monarchy.

“He underlined how silly it is to require somebody to say it,” said Peter Rosenthal. “I hope that will contribute to the public debate about this and the present Liberal government will do what the Chretien government almost did in 1994.”

In the 1990s, former Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien was set to scrap the oath to the Queen but got cold feet at the last minute, then-citizenship minister Sergio Marchi has told The Canadian Press.

Source: New Canadian renounces oath to the Queen, pledges ‘true’ loyalty only to Canada – Toronto – CBC News

Court told to freeze citizenship revocations in terror cases

No surprise and consistent with campaign pledge and mandate letters:

The federal government is walking away from a legal battle over attempts to strip Canadian citizenship from dual-nationals convicted of terrorism offences.

Lawyers for the government recently asked the Federal Court to suspend proceedings in two cases brought by Canadians convicted of terrorism-related offences who had been told by the previous Conservative government they would lose their citizenship.

As a respondent in the cases, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship cannot abandon the litigation but, instead, asked for and was granted adjournments while it re-examines a policy that featured prominently in last month’s federal election.

“The Department will work with Minister (John) McCallum on the urgent review of the policy and legislation related to the new citizenship revocation provisions,” media relations adviser Nancy Caron said in an email.

She repeated the line used by then-Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau during a campaign leadership debate, when he argued that Stephen Harper, prime minister at the time, had breached a fundamental principle of citizenship with Bill C-24, which allows the government to rescind the Canadian citizenship of dual nationals convicted of certain serious offences.

“The prime minister has been clear that ‘a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,’ and he doesn’t support the revocation provisions that have a different impact on dual citizens than other Canadians,” said Caron.

In September, former Ottawa radiology technician Misbahuddin Ahmed took the government to court over a July 2015 decision to strip him citizenship.

Ahmed, 31, is currently serving a 12-year sentence in a medium-security federal prison for his role in the planned terrorist attacks foiled by the Project Samosa investigation. If he lost his citizenship, he would have been deported to Pakistan upon his release.

In a Charter challenge, he claimed the attempt to rescind his Canadian citizenship violated his right to safety of the person because he would be deported to a place where he would likely be at risk of mistreatment. He also argued the law offended the principles of justice because the sanction was introduced only after he was convicted.

Now, these issues will not likely be tested in court, as the government is expected to rescind the provisions in C-24 — even as France moves to expand its powers to revoke citizenship from dual nationals.

The Canadian government has also asked for a suspension in a similar case brought by Saad Gaya, a 27-year-old convicted in the “Toronto 18” bomb plot. He is serving an 18-year prison sentence.

Gaya was born in Montreal and had never visited Pakistan, but could be deported there after serving his sentence because, the government had argued, his parents had passed their dual nationality on to him.

Before C-24, Canadian citizenship could be revoked only in cases of fraudulent applications — when a subject had obtained citizenship based on false pretences. The Tories expanded the conditions to include those convicted of terrorism, treason or participation in military action against Canada.

Source: Court told to freeze citizenship revocations in terror cases | Ottawa Citizen

Paul Calandra says it was a ‘mistake’ to focus on niqab, barbaric practices

Interesting coming from Calandra, who was one of the more obnoxious practitioners of repeating inane and irrelevant talking points.

Yet he shows more awareness than defeated CIC Minister Alexander (see this short video Catching up with outgoing cabinet minister Chris Alexander).

Perhaps if he and his colleagues engaged in more discussion with Canadians before the election, allowing for a better balance of witnesses during committee hearings, rather than ramming through changes, a more solid basis would have been laid:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s handpicked parliamentary secretary says the Conservative Party’s focus on identity issues — the niqab, stripping citizenship from dual nationals and launching a barbaric cultural practices hot line — was a mistake that cost the party votes among new Canadians.

“There was a lot of confusion and a lot of first-generation Canadians said ‘OK, we’re not ready to endorse that,'” Paul Calandra said in an interview with Rosemary Barton on CBC News Network’s Power & Politics.

“Obviously, yeah, in retrospect [it was a mistake],” he said, and one that likely led to his defeat at the hands of his Liberal opponent, Jane Philpott, in the riding of Markham–Stouffville.

“We had our challenges, obviously, in the early goings — we had the Duffy trial, then the Syrian refugee crisis — but through it all we were still in a very good spot,” Calandra said.

Voters were responding to Conservative messaging around low taxes, the economy and public safety, he said, but then the party started to stray into identity politics, and doubled down on rhetoric about Islamic face coverings and homegrown terrorism.

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act was a particular sticking point. The Conservative-drafted law, known during the legislative process as Bill C-24, strips dual nationals of their citizenship if they are convicted of terrorism or high treason, among other serious offences.

It was not that voters disagreed with what the Conservatives had enacted, but that they were “confused” about how widely the law could be applied, Calandra said, and the Liberals pounced, shrewdly denouncing the policy as a slippery slope that created two classes of citizenship.

“‘What does it mean for me? How will that impact my family,'” Calandra said, reciting some of the questions he heard from voters at the door. “I had a call … ‘If I’m caught shoplifting does that mean my family has to go?'”

Source: Paul Calandra says it was a ‘mistake’ to focus on niqab, barbaric practices – Politics – CBC News

Aaron Wherry of Macleans provides comments by Conservative MPs:

C-24, the bill that allows the federal government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens if an individual is convicted of treason or terrorism or takes up arms against Canada, was a similarly problematic issue, unexpectedly raising concerns for immigrants and their families. “Somehow we missed stuff, because I would have been one hundred percent behind it,” says [Brad] Trost [re-elected in Saskatchewan], “but for some reason people who should’ve understood that it wasn’t meant at them were a little bit insecure.” …
In Toronto, the Prime Minister made two appearances in the company of the Ford brothers, Rob and Doug, but, according to a national Innovative Research poll conducted shortly after the election, that did far more harm than good. Almost 10 times as many potential Conservative voters were less likely (49 per cent) than more likely (6.4 per cent) to vote Conservative because of Harper’s appearance with the Fords, who have practically become a worldwide monument to bad behaviour. “It’s hard to see a more self-destructive move by a campaign,” says Innovative Research owner Greg Lyle. This was a bigger turnoff for these voters than the trial of disgraced former Conservative Senator Mike Duffy (30 per cent), the party’s negative ads (26 per cent) or its anti-niqab stance (23 per cent.)

Source: How the Conservative campaign got it so spectacularly wrong – Macleans.ca

Justin Trudeau vows to repeal ‘2-tiered’ citizenship law

Unclear whether he would repeal the complete Citizenship Act (the reporting suggested that) or just the revocation and a few other provisions:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says if elected his government will repeal the Conservative government’s “two-tiered” citizenship law and that he would do more to help free imprisoned Egyptian-Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy.

“Liberals believe in a Canada that is united — strong not in spite of its differences, but precisely because of them,” Trudeau told an audience at the Jalsa Salana Islamic conference in Mississauga, Ont., on Saturday afternoon.

He added that under Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Canadians are being encouraged to be fearful of one another and there has been a decline in refugees coming to Canada, and in citizenship applicants.

In an accompanying news release, Trudeau said his government would repeal the Conservative government’s controversial Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, saying it “devalues Canadian citizenship by creating two classes of citizenship.”

“Liberals will guarantee that all Canadians’ fundamental rights are respected as guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” the statement said.

The act became law in June 2014. While several elements of the law remain controversial, a provision that came into effect in May of this year expands the grounds on which the federal government can strip dual nationals of their Canadian citizenship, even if they were born in Canada.

The provision gives the power to revoke citizenship, in some cases, to elected officials and not a federal court.

“There is a suggestion that some of us might be less Canadian than others, a suggestion of who ought to decide who stays or goes from Canada be an elected politician instead of our justice system. I think that’s wrong,” Trudeau said during his speech.

The changes are currently being challenged in court by a coalition of civil liberties groups.

In a statement, the Conservative candidate for Ajax [and current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration] described Trudeau’s remarks as “more evidence that he’s just not ready,” to be prime minister.

“Canadians know that only Conservatives can be trusted to take action against those who would do Canada harm and stand up for Canadian values,” Chris Alexander said.

Liberal position is consistent with their opposition to the revocation provisions during the C-24 Citizenship Act hearings (NDP also opposed).

In a sign that either the Conservatives continue to think they have a winner on this issue (earlier polling would suggest that) or whether they are worried that they don’t, the heavy hitters, Jason Kenney and Jenni Byrne were denouncing Trudeau’s position vigorously on Twitter.

Source: Justin Trudeau vows to repeal ‘2-tiered’ citizenship law – Politics – CBC News

Not a Canadian citizen? Why you should think about applying now

After the rules change Before the rules change
If you are 14 to 64 years old, you will have to:
  • show language ability in English or French, and
  • prove your knowledge of Canada in English or French
Only if you are 18 to 54 years old do you have to show language ability and knowledge of Canada.
And you may be able to have an interpreter in your own language to help you prove your knowledge of Canada.
You can apply only after you have lived in Canada as a permanent resident for:
  • at least 4 out of the last 6 years, and
  • at least 183 days each year for at least 4 out of the last 6 years
You can apply after you have lived in Canada for 3 out of the last 4 years.
And you may be able to include time that you lived here before becoming a permanent resident.
Only time when you are in Canada will count as living in Canada. Time when you are outside Canadamay still count if your permanent home is here.
You need to file your income tax returns for 4 out of the last 6 years. You do not have to show that you have filed income tax returns.
You must plan to continue living in Canada. If you leave Canada and live somewhere else, the government may be able to take away your Canadian citizenship. You do not have to plan to live in Canada. If you become a Canadian citizen before the rules change, you cannot lose your citizenship only because you live somewhere else in the future.

 Another example of organizations providing advice re the impact of the changes to the Citizenship Act, and why it is important to get applications in before the coming into force next summer.

 Their table above is particularly clear, although their interpretation of the ‘intent to reside’ provision, while supported by most lawyers, differs from Minister Alexander’s clear statements that the provision only applies during the application process, not once one is a citizen:

Not a Canadian citizen? Why you should think about applying now | CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario).

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act: Revocation – Coming into Force

No surprise. We shall see what the current court challenge rules (Rocco Galati launches lawsuit over Citizenship Act changes):

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act which received Royal Assent on June 19, 2014, included new grounds to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason or spying offences, depending on the sentence received. The changes also enable the government to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens for membership in an armed force or organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada.

The technical amendments to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act under the Protection of Canada from Terrorists Act will allow the revocation and related provisions to come into force earlier than anticipated. These changes will help protect the safety and security of Canadians, and honour the contributions and sacrifices of those who serve Canada by ensuring those who are convicted of such crimes against Canada do not benefit from Canadian citizenship. Revocation is an important tool to safeguard the value of Canadian citizenship and to protect the integrity of the citizenship program.

Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act: Revocation Provisions – Canada News Centre.

Citizenship act got it right | Editorial | Opinion | Toronto Sun

As usual, the Sun misrepresents the issue: it is mainly about where you are born. Those born Canadian extremists (e.g., Damian Clairmont, André Poulin, the Gordon brothers, John Maguire) would not be subject to revocation, given where they were born and lack of dual nationality.

Those who came to Canada as children, like Shirdon, would be subject to revocation, based upon dual citizenship, actual or potential. Some, again like Shirdon,  were part of the same Calgary cell.

Different punishment for the same crime.

Won’t stand up in court, which the Government’s track record on a number of crime and other issues highlights:

On Thursday morning a reporter asked the Liberal leader in a scrum if Canadians who go abroad to fight with terrorists should be stripped of their citizenship.

Here’s his response: “Canada has strong rules and penalties surrounding enforcing acts of terrorism. A two-tier citizenship system concerns me. The idea that some people because of behaviour, no matter how reprehensible, makes it conditional for anyone who gains Canadian citizenship without being born here. That is one of the principles that has made Canada great, that a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

First, let’s clarify a matter. It has nothing to do with where you’re born. It just matters that you’re a dual national.

But everyone should be upset with his closing line. Is Trudeau serious lumping everyone in together? Does he really think we can’t draw distinctions between people? What about Farah Mohamed Shirdon?

Citizenship act got it right | Editorial | Opinion | Toronto Sun.

Citizenship Act Coming Into Force Provisions

From CIC’s newsletter, details of which provisions have come into force:

Provisions from Bill C-24 that came into force immediately upon Royal Assent included:

  • fast-tracking citizenship applications for members of the Canadian Armed Forces;
  • improving clarity on the first generation limit on citizenship for those born abroad;
  • enabling children born abroad to serving Crown servants to pass citizenship on to their children born or adopted abroad;
  • and streamlined decision-making for issuing discretionary grants  under section 54.

Provisions in the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act that came into force on August 1, 2014, included:

  • the new decision-making model for citizenship applications;
  • various measures to improve efficiency of the application process;
  • and a new judicial review and appeals process.

Other provisions will come into force on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council

E-newsletter.