Conservatives’ downfall could be Stephen Harper’s dismissive tone: Walkom

2014/06/19 Leave a comment

Interesting choice of Minister Alexander as example:

Tone is something different.

What may eventually defeat Harper is that his government appears mean-spirited. It doesn’t just disagree with its critics. It mercilessly derides them.

Take, for example, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s defence of the government’s new citizenship bill. This sweeping bill would allow the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual nationals deemed by the government to have acted against the national interest.

As such, it would include in its purview not only many new immigrants but those native-born Canadians who, through no action of their own, still hold the nationality of their parents. The Canadian-born child of an Egyptian-father, for instance, is automatically accorded Egyptian citizenship by the authorities in Cairo.

The Canadian Bar Association has called the proposed revocation provision “unfair and discriminatory.” Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati makes a convincing argument that it is also unconstitutional.Alexander’s substantive response has been that many other NATO countries reserve the right to revoke citizenship from the native-born.

But what has stood out is the minister’s take-no-prisoners tone. In the Commons, he called the Canadian Bar Association’s well-argued critique “hopelessly misguided.”

And when opposition MPs queried the bill, his response was to call into question former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, who, he said, had eliminated treason as grounds for citizenship revocation “at a time when the Liberal Party was playing footsie with Moscow.”

Conservatives’ downfall could be Stephen Harper’s dismissive tone: Walkom | Toronto Star.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with

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

2014/06/18 Leave a comment

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.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , ,

ICYMI: Bill C-24 set to change who gets to be Canadian | Q with Jian Ghomeshi

2014/06/16 1 Comment

Jian Ghomeshi on C-24 and what it means to be a Canadian (4 minutes):

We as citizens seem to have missed the opportunity to have a larger national debate …. appears to divide Canadians into two classes: those that hold Canadian citizenship and those that hold more than one passport, and somehow that doesn’t ring true … a citizen is a citizen …

Q Essay: Bill C-24 set to change who gets to be Canadian | Q with Jian Ghomeshi | CBC Radio.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

C-24 Citizenship Act – Senate Hearing 12 June with Minister Alexander

2014/06/13 1 Comment

Coverage of yesterday’s Senate hearings on C-24 with Minister Alexander and officials:

Alexander and his officials attempted to clarify what would happen to Canadian-born dual citizens convicted here or abroad of serious terrorism, treason or espionage offences that carry a penalty of five years or more. He stressed a convicted offender wouldn’t have to worry if he didn’t hold dual citizenship.

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati says countries like Iran recognize as its citizens people who are born “five generations out” whether they want to be its citizens or not.

Alexander said: “There is a way of renouncing every citizenship. No one in our country can be forced to be a citizen of any country. And under the laws of Canada, citizenship can be renounced, either ours or those of other countries.”

“That might not resolve a difference of opinion with Tehran or other capitals who consider someone to be a citizen. But in our eyes,” Alexander said, the individual would be — as a Conservative senator suggested — assumed to be a citizen of Canada not subject to revocation of their Canadian passport.

Tories insist changes to Citizenship Act will respect Charter, Constitution | Toronto Star.

From the Globe:

The bill will also require citizenship applicants to declare an “intent to reside” in Canada, another controversial move. Along with boosted penalties for fraud, it raised fears people would be stripped of citizenship for leaving the country. “The government should be encouraging citizenship, not discouraging it. Amend this bill and remove the ‘intention’ clause,” Barbara Caruso, another member of the CBA’s Immigration Law Section, told senators.

Mr. Alexander said flatly that would not happen. “There’s no requirement for a citizen of Canada to remain physically in Canada, once granted in citizenship,” he said.

Liberal Senator Art Eggleton said the bill does allow for a court hearing for people who object to losing their citizenship. The power is in the hands of the minister. Mr. Alexander earlier said there is a de facto appeal right. “Anyone can go to the federal court if they think the government has not fulfilled its statutory mandates. And they do go,” he told The Globe.

 Minister Chris Alexander under fire as citizenship bill poised to pass 

Some points of interest:

  • Efforts by the Minister to clarify the informal nature of Canadian citizenship prior to the first Citizenship Act of 1947 in response to Melynda Jarratt and Don Chapman’s arguments that Canadian citizenship had more formal status before 1947;
  • “Canadians would be sick to stomach if they knew the extent of fraud,” stated Alexander, which would be addressed through physical residency, filing tax returns etc. He cited immigration lawyer Raj Sharma on the “rampant fraud” and how people would “lie, cheat and steal” to get a Canadian passport;
  • Alexander started to go down the path of criticizing the Liberals, NDP and the “small fringe group” of the CBA. “No one else” was challenging C-24, other lawyers “were embarrassed” by the CBA position. The Liberals didn’t “enforce the rules.” Why did they “spend so much time protecting the rights of those committing the most serious violations of rule of law.”
  • Chair reminded him and others to avoid partisan attacks.
  • Alexander stuck to the bureaucratic distinction between time spent as a temporary and permanent resident, defending the elimination of partly counting pre-P.R. time towards citizenship. Hard to understand given that many comparative countries do allow this, and given the Government’s efforts to encourage international students to settle in Canada;
  • On intent to reside, Alexander reiterated again that it only applies to the application period. Once citizenship is granted, it is no longer in force. CIC DG Citizenship and Multiculturalism Nicole Girard stated that intent to reside has to be read within the larger context of requirements to become a citizen, not post-citizenship. Senator Cordy was “still uncomfortable” despite these assurances. Alexander was not pressed to clarity whether it could be used to revoke citizenship in case of misrepresentation during that period;
  • On revocation, Girard walked through the various tests that would apply:
    • was the person a dual citizen?
    • if convicted abroad, was the offence equivalent to a Canadian offence?
    • was the sentence 5 years or more?
    • were there concerns with the process or independence of the judiciary?
    • In witness testimony, even witnesses supporting the Government (CIJA, FDD) noted the need for an explicit reference in the Act to the last test (equivalency of process). Not clear why the Government not accepting that.
  • Alexander glossed over the distinction between seeking leave before the Federal Court and having judicial review and was not pressed on that point. He also was not challenged on the question of oral hearings “Minister has authority to hold a hearing,” confirming the default of a paper process.
  • Citizenship judges would have more time for citizenship promotion, given that officials would be the decision makers, except for difficult cases such as those involving residency.
  • Alexander, in response to criticism of a harder and more costly process, stated “the higher the bar, the more attractive citizenship becomes.” Past experience with the more rigorous language and knowledge requirements had not resulted in fewer citizenship applications and lower rates of naturalization.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act: Senate Hearings – 11 June

2014/06/12 Leave a comment

Second and last day of witnesses at Senate Committee examining C-24. Same technical frustrations with Parlvu, so again have captured as best I can.

Starting with supporting witnesses:

Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform noted these changes were long overdue. Longer residency and physical presence would reduce fraud, noting many “parked their families in Canada, benefitting from Canadian healthcare and education while they worked abroad.” Increased penalties and filing of tax returns made sense. However, the only secure way to eliminate residence fraud was through entry and exit controls. Higher language requirements were needed for more skilled labour and management and extension of language requirements to 14-64 was welcome. He supported revocation for treason or terror and noted UK has an even more strict approach (no statelessness provision). A 2012 survey showed 80 percent supported for revocation. He welcomed the Lost Canadians fix. He also stated the need for the government to end jus soli (birthright citizenship) but noted some of the challenges working with the provinces.
Sheryl Saperia of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies largely repeated her earlier testimony to CIMM. Revocation was about ‘updating the social contract of citizenship.”  It was “fitting to lose citizenship” for treason, terrorism or armed conflict. But the Bill should be tightened to terrorism in Canada, against Canadian targets or for Canadian listed entities. If nothing to do with Canada, there should be no citizenship consequences. Persons should not be able to use the Canadian passport to travel for terror; we needed to “remove this weapon of Canadian citizenship” given the freedom to travel that it entails. As before, she noted the need for a second test of due process and fairness in the case of foreign convictions. She also mentioned argued that Canadian passport applications should include an acknowledgement that engagement in terrorism or treason could entail revocation, again to reinforce the social contract.

Tim Edwards, President and Ron Cochrane, Executive Director Executive Director, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers expressed their support for ensuring that the children born to Crown servants born abroad would have an exemption to the first generation limit to allow them to pass on Canadian citizenship to their children. No debate or discussion, apart from a quip by Senator Eggleton that “we should pass it and kill the rest.”

Opposing the Bill were:

Barbara Jackman, Kerri Froc, Barbara J. Caruso, Canadian Bar Association started with their overall assessment that C-24 discouraged persons from applying through its “layers of regulations, harder, longer and more costly process.” Like others, CBA opposed elimination of pre-P.R. time. They questioned how an applicant would prove their intent to reside and reiterated their concern that despite the Minister’s assurance regarding possible grounds for misrepresentation should one’s intent to reside change post-citizenship. CBA, like most lawyers, opposed revocation for dual nationals. It is discriminatory and takes away the “certainty of citizenship.” Banishment or exile was a way to “get through the back door what the Government couldn’t get through the “front door.”

Yuen Pau Woo, President and CEO, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada provided a different perspective by focussing on the contribution made by Canadians living abroad. He focussed this criticism on the increased residency requirements. He believed that this would result in reduced citizenship accession rates. This would result in fewer economic benefits to Canada; if citizenship was relatively easy, more new Canadians would invest in their human capital and improve their earning power. The intent was not clear: if to punish immigrants, this would not increase attachment. If to curb abuse of social benefit programs, given that these programs are available to permanent residents, increasing citizenship requirements would not make a difference. The best mix was a high bar to entry but a relatively low bar for citizenship. The general implications of the Bill were that Canadians residing in Canada were “more Canadian than those abroad.” This was an outdated view, given the high mobility of labour in today’s world, particularly the most highly talented (“best and brightest”). Some 2.8 million Canadians lived abroad, or 9 percent of the population. Restoring voting rights beyond 5 years was an additional way to encourage attachment to Canada. Increased residency requirements would reduce both economic benefits and attachment to Canada.

Melynda Jarratt, Canadian War Brides, in a strongly worded statement, talked about the history of Canadian war brides who were initially welcomed to Canada along with their children as Canadians but the “bureaucrats changed their mind.” Canadian citizenship did not start in 1947 with the first Citizenship Act but there were many government statements and court decisions that mentioned Canadian citizenship before then. She argued for the need for a citizenship ombudsman and amnesty program to address the remaining estimated 50,000 Lost Canadians not addressed by C-24. It was also important to recognize the Canadian war dead from both World Wars as Canadian, not just British subjects. She ended by saying that it was “disgraceful” how Don Chapman was treated and not able to testify.

Particular points of interest:

  • As expected, focus was on revocation. Senator Eggleton noted the current trial in Egypt of Mohamed Fahmy, a dual citizen. If convicted, theoretically his citizenship could be revoked. Collacott noted that was a worst case and unlikely  scenario.  Revocation was needed to deal with serious acts against Canada.
  • Senator Eaton questioned Canadian Iranians who go to Iran, engage in political activity, and then “wave their Canadian passport when they get into trouble. “Why get involved if Canada is your home?” A bit odd, given the Government’s encouragement of Ukrainian Canadians and others to participate in their “homeland” issues.
  • Saperia said that not every distinction is necessarily discriminatory. People who choose dual citizenship should not view themselves as discriminated against. C-24 protected people against statelessness. Collacott, rather candidly, noted that “we can’t get rid of Canadians we don’t like” but we can for dual nationals. Caruso noted the equality and mobility rights of the Charter made this approach discriminatory.
  • A somewhat amusing exchange between Senator Eggleton and Saperia over whether revocation was really only about Omar Kadr. Saperia, reluctant to get into a debate over Kadr, cited the recent Globe article, Made-in-Canada terror is real – and it’s being ignored, said it is a broader issue.
  • Saperia stated that the decision-making process was less important than ensuring the right factors were concerned. Whether decided by the Courts, the Minister or an official was secondary.
  • Senator Tkachuk challenged the assertion that the increase in fees was unreasonable.Caruso said the increase was “overwhelming for many.”
  • Good discussion on increased residency requirements. Senator Seidman noted that 4 years out of 6 provided considerable flexibility to address work, study, or family related travel. Woo emphasized that in a world of global careers, the need to diversity Canada’s trade beyond the US and the importance of contacts, more flexibility is required. Otherwise, Canada would get a “poorer quality of applicants.” Both Collacott and Senator Eaton expressed scepticism over the benefits to Canada of such internationally mobile citizens.
  • Woo also noted that too much attention was paid to the evacuation and return of Lebanese Canadians in 2006. There was a need to protect against abuse. Evacuations could be paid by the evacuees.

Committee hearings today feature Minister Alexander, so expect a spirited exchange given the tone of some of his recent remarks on critics of the Bill.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

Treat all Canadian citizens equally under the law – Globe Editorial

2014/06/12 Leave a comment

Thanks to Rocco Galati, renewed attention being paid to C-24 Citizenship Act revocation provisions. Globe editorial has it about right:

Rocco Galati, a Toronto lawyer, is right to be calling upon the federal government to present a reference question to Supreme Court, on the proposed revocation-of-citizenship amendments to the Citizenship Act. If the Harper government won’t refer the matter to the court, Mr. Galati says there should be a Charter challenge – and he’s right.

It is one thing to revoke a Canadian citizenship that was obtained by fraud or false pretenses; that is a long-standing part of our law, and should be. The Harper government, however, is proposing to strip citizenship from people found guilty of some serious crimes, in cases where the offender is a naturalized citizen – an immigrant to Canada – or even someone born in Canada, but who for whatever reason also holds the citizenship of another country.

The classes of crime in question are serious: treason, terrorism and specific military crimes such as spying for the enemy in time of war. But however serious the offence, when someone is born here, or has been accepted into this country legally and fairly, he or she is Canadian, for good or ill.

The Charter of Rights is very clear: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” The principle is so fundamental that the Charter’s notwithstanding clause cannot be used to override this section.

It would be invidious to send into exile a foreign-born citizen who committed a crime as a Canadian, while imposing a prison sentence on a natural-born Canadian found guilty of the same crime. Canadian law should treat Canadians, including Canadians who break the law, as Canadians.

Stripping a citizen of citizenship is characteristic of a totalitarian regime such as the Soviet Union, which banished dissidents, including the writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 1974. It’s not a model for Canada to emulate.

Andrew Thompson, a political scientist at the University of Waterloo, has rightly pointed out how easily the proposed new citizenship-revocation law could have condemned Maher Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian national, suspected of terrorism by Canada, to a life of imprisonment and torture in a Syrian prison. The amendments now before Parliament would have afforded him little opportunity to defend himself.

Treat all Canadian citizens equally under the law – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with ,

C-24 Citizenship Act: Senate Hearings Start

2014/06/11 Leave a comment

While overshadowed by the Galati case and related media coverage, Senate hearings on Bill C-24 treaded much of the familiar ground and focussing on mainly the same issues. Given Parlvu was somewhat choppy yesterday, may not have captured all the main points.

Starting with the witnesses supporting the Bill. Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst, and regular media commentator, applauded the government for providing greater clarity and transparency on the requirements and pathway to citizenship from temporary and permanent residency. The greatest benefit will be in more applications processed in a more timely manner at lower cost. He expressed concern, however, over the insecurity created by the intent to reside provision. He emphasized the need for oral hearings, not allowing citizenship officers to rule on revocation for fraud without the person being able to present themselves. As to citizens of convenience, he argued in favour of the US approach of requiring US citizens living abroad to file tax returns.

 Julie Taub, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, former member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, was even stronger in her support for the Bill. She had “fought the system for decades” and welcomed the tougher penalties for fraud, the simplification of revocation and the crackdown on citizens of convenience, drawing examples from her legal practice and recalling the evacuation of Lebanese Canadians and their eventual return in 2006. She would have preferred residency of five years as Canada was too short compared to other countries. To further avoid residence fraud, she recommended that Permanent Residents be provided with a “swipe card” required for entry to or exit from Canada, given many Permanent Residents have more two passports.
Opposing the Bill were Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Lorne Waldman, President, and Peter Edelmann, lawyer. They focused on the revocation provisions, noting the differential treatment between various classes of citizens: single national born Canadian; dual national born Canadian and aware of their dual nationality; dual national born Canadian and not aware of their dual nationality; and naturalized Canadians.

Revocation could apply, save in cases of statelessness, to any of the three last categories. The Bill did not say who was a dual national and how dual nationality would be interpreted. Given how citizenship laws vary by countries, some communities would be affected more than others. The reverse onus of proof was not justified. The threshold of 5 years for terrorist offences was too low compared to sentences for murder and sexual assault. Revocation for fraud allowed for no hearing and was a completely paper process without any independent review. The intent to reside provision was not clear on how it would be interpreted and applied, and was another example of differential treatment.

Loly Rico, President and Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees, opposed the increase in residency requirements and removal of credit for pre-PR time, given that refugoees typically spent three to four years of temporary residency before becoming permanent residents. Total time for citizenship could approach eight to ten years with these changes. Extending language and knowledge test requirements made no sense for youth given they would be in Canadian schools; for 55-64 year olds who were refugees, their life circumstances, time in refugee camps etc, may make formal test requirements an unreasonable requirement. CCR opposed revocation as it was discriminatory between Canadian and dual nationals and that punishment was better handled through the criminal system.

Debbie Douglas, Executive Director, of Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, noted the anniversaries of the Komagata Maru and the M.S. St. Louis as a caution against promoting “any sort of racist policies.” OCASI opposed increased residency requirements, removal of credit for pre-Permanent Residents time, particularly for live-in caregivers where family separation has social and family costs. The intent to reside did not recognize that circumstances can change for work, study, or care of family members. Good faith of Minister that this would not apply post citizenship did not change ambiguity of law. Douglas echoed CCR on extending language and knowledge testing to 55-64 year olds, questioning the purpose of adding this additional barrier.
Debate as in the Commons Committee revolved around the familiar issues of intent to reside, revocation, language and knowledge testing, and decision-making process and lack of hearing or appeal. Government senators largely focussed on their defence of the Bill, and Opposition senators largely drew out their positions from witnesses opposed to C-24.
Some of the more interesting points:
  • Government Senators were sceptical that many new citizens would be affected by the intent to reside provision, examples cited by witnesses were “exceptions,”  with Sen. Enverga stating that if you “apply to come to Canada, your should live in Canada.”
  • On revocation for terror or treason, Edelmann trotted out the cliché, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” and how definitions change over time. But more originally, rather than the usual Mandela example, he cited the contemporary example of Greenpeace being charged in Russia (Dench referred to Maher Arar). He also noted other heinous crimes, mentioning Paul Bernardo and Robert Picton, questioning why terrorism or treason should be treated differently;
  • There was a fairly spirited exchange on whether restoring knowledge and language testing to 55-64 year olds was an unreasonable barrier. Taub and Senator Eaton noted that basic language capability was not unreasonable to require. Refugee advocates emphasized for some it was, given what they had gone through. Senator Eaton, as a 70-year old, found their concerns to be “patronizing” to seniors but acknowledged that it may be a “huge struggle” for some. After probing by the Chair whether this was regarding language capability itself or formal testing, Douglas confirmed that it was more the lack of the alternative of an interview with a citizenship judge
  • Israel’s “law of return” was cited by Kurland as an example of dual citizenship. Some citizens, particularly refugees,  will always have a “fear of the state.” We will see how the judiciary “handles it,” acknowledging that this created two classes of citizenship.
  • Senator Eaton and Taub noted recent media reports of young men fighting in foreign conflicts and the risks of returning fighters to Canada. Taub noted there “really is not a choice” between Charter provisions and keeping Canada safe, and 75 percent of Canadians support revocation in these cases.
  • Whether more or less time in Canada increases integration was subject of debate. Douglas was powerful in noting that inclusion and removal of barriers  “goes a longer way than time,” citing the example of Black Canadians who had been here for generations.
  • Indicating the philosophical divide was a short exchange on citizenship as a privilege (Senator Enverga) and as a right (particularly Rico), who emphasized that as a former refugee from El Salvador, the right to be a full citizen, with all the rights and responsibilities that entailed as anyone born in Canada. That was part of the “beauty of Canada,” its inclusiveness and multiculturalism.
Hearings continue today with Martin Collacott, CBA, Asia-Pacific Foundation, Canadian War Brides (shut out from Commons Committee hearings), and PAFSO (foreign service union). Will be interesting to see if Galati case comes up during questions of the CBA witnesses.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Chris Alexander says citizenship bill will withstand constitutional test

2014/06/11 Leave a comment

The Senate hearings on C-24 were more of a sideshow to this spirited exchange on Power and Politics.

In an interview on CBC News Networks Power & Politics on Tuesday, Alexander said the challenge “doesn’t have much of a hope.”

“There is no constitutional issue here,” he told host Evan Solomon.

Bill C-24 would give the government powers to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals “who were members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict in Canada.” Citizenship would also be revoked from dual nationals who have been “convicted of terrorism, high treason, or spying offences.”

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati warned MPs, senators and the Governor General, in separate letters sent on Monday, not to pass Bill C-24 until the government referred a key provision of the bill to the Supreme Court for a legal opinion.

At the heart of Galatis challenge are provisions contained in the citizenship bill that would strip dual nationals of their citizenship and bar them from reacquiring it.

Galati said he would apply for a judicial review with the Federal Court if he did not receive a response from the Governor General by Monday.

Galati, who also appeared on CBC News Networks Power & Politics Tuesday, said the federal government does not have the power to remove the citizenship of persons born in Canada.

“They are acting completely outside of the Constitution in a renegade, reckless and flagrant manner. And they know it,” Galati said.

Revoking the citizenship of dual nationals is “offensive,” “unconstitutional” and simply “beyond the governments authority,” he argued.

… Alexander noted that Galati represented a relative of former Guantanamo Bay detainee Omar Khadr, who is now serving a sentence of eight years behind bars in Canada after pleading guilty to five war crimes.”

He also defended, a senior member, the patriarch of the Khadr family, who was a senior member of al-Qaeda,” Alexander said.

Galati once represented Khadrs older brother, Abdurahman Khadr, who was held for a time as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo Bay.

“His objection here seems to be to the idea that committing an act of terrorism, treason, or espionage says anything about your qualifications to be a Canadian citizen. We think it does,” Alexander said.

… The Canadian Bar Association has also raised “serious concerns” with the citizenship bill.

In a 30-page submission to Parliament in April, the Bar Association said the citizenship bill raised “serious human rights concerns” and key provisions in the bill were “likely unconstitutional.”​

Alexander said the concerns came from “a small section” of the Bar Association and did not represent the views of Canadians.

Galati’s has a narrower challenge than the criticism of the substantial majority of lawyers testifying before the Commons and Senate committees that revocation for dual nationals is not Charter compliant.

Galati’s case pertains to dual nationals who were born in Canada, not those who immigrated to Canada, either as children or adults, and became naturalized.

Alexander is getting quite good at Poilievre-type slurs, rather than more positive messaging on the merits of the Bill.

Chris Alexander says citizenship bill will withstand constitutional test – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

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.

Download Bill-C-24-Letter

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

‘Lost Canadians’ advocate: Committees won’t hear us on citizenship bill

2014/06/07 Leave a comment

More on Lost Canadians, Don Chapman, and the decision by the Government at CIMM not to hear his and Melynda Jarrett’s testimony (C-24 Citizenship Act Hearing – 14 May):

Chapman applauds two provisions in the legislation: guaranteed citizenship for children of Canadian government or military workers living abroad, and the recognition of citizenship for people born out of wedlock before 1947 that were alive in 1947. However, he said there are still gaps in the bill that will affect many Lost Canadians.

“It doesn’t include the people who died before 1947,” said Chapman. “They’re refusing to answer the question, ‘Were our war dead Canadian citizens?’”

Second, Chapman said there will still be problems for some second-generation Canadians born abroad. And he said that there are some 40 to 50 Canadians who have not been granted citizenship through Section 5.4 of the Citizenship Act, a special provision that grants citizenship on a case-by-case basis.

Chapman said someone has to appear before parliamentarians to make the case for Lost Canadians in bill C-24. After the kerfuffle at the Commons committee last month, Chapman contacted the Senate committee to explain why he should testify.

At the Senate, only Melynda Jarrett will give testimony and Don Chapman will be submitting a brief.

‘Lost Canadians’ advocate: Committees won’t hear us on citizenship bill (pay wall)

 

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →