Conservatives defend suppression of debate over controversial citizenship bill

2014/06/06 Leave a comment

Never heard this explanation before regarding time allocation (limiting debate). Chutzpah, but not unique to this Minister and this Bill:

… Citizenship and Immigration Minister Christopher Alexander defended the motion, saying it should be seen as a benefit:”

It is not – as the Opposition suggests – used to limit debate, but to create certainty…it also helps the media, improving their ability to inform the public. Time allocation should be regarded as a scheduling device,” Alexander said, through his spokesperson, Codie Taylor.

Taylor criticized ongoing debate on the bill as “continued attempts by the Opposition to delay and obstruct important bills such as Bill C-24” and insisted that the NDP and Liberal Party “end their partisan attempts” to delay the passage of the bill, which was introduced in February and debated for a few hours since.

During the debate, Alexander insisted quick passage of the bill would end the suffering of “tens of thousands of permanent residents” who wish to become citizens.

Conservatives defend suppression of debate over controversial citizenship bill | Vancouver Observer.

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

Citizenship reform bill has 26,000 opponents, according to B.C. petition – The Globe and Mail

2014/06/05 1 Comment

More opposition to C-24, spearheaded by the legal community:

“The BCCLA [BC Civil Liberties Association] does take the government to court from time to time so when laws are passed like this that are unconstitutional, it’s always something that we think about – whether there’s some kind of legal avenue that we might take,” Mr. Paterson [executive director] said.

“We haven’t made any decisions about that right now.”

The petition was gathered online over the last few weeks. Signatories were from across Canada and elsewhere in the world, said Mr. Paterson, who noted had not done a “scientific evaluation” of the material that would allow him to be more precise on this point.

Petition was mentioned by opposition in C-24 hearings as example that not everyone agreed with the Government’s approach (the Conservatives at times appeared to imply the opposite).

And no surprise that consideration being given to taking the Government to court, given the extensive testimony by virtually all lawyers questioning the constitutionality of a number of provisions, particularly revocation.

Immigration reform bill has 26,000 opponents, according to B.C. petition – The Globe and Mail.

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

C-24 Citizenship Act: On to Third Reading – June 3

2014/06/04 Leave a comment

Committee debate on C-24 concluded June 3rd with the Bill approved in its entirety without amendment along party lines.

A large focus of the debate was on revocation (clause 8). Liberals proposed amendments, all rejected:

  • Requiring Minister to hold on independent hearing for revocation fraud, rather than Ministerial discretion;
  • Onus of proof for dual citizenship should be on government, not citizen; and,
  • Full judicial appeal for revocation fraud cases, rather than leave to the Federal Court.

NDP did not table amendments but rather focussed on the principles and approach behind revocation, focussing on how it created two classes of citizenship, and discriminatory treatment between single or dual nationals. Citizenship was not “like a drivers licence,” and was not just a privilege but also a right. Concern was also expressed about judicial processes in foreign jurisdiction and that even a right to another citizenship could mean revocation even if minimal or no connection to that country. Moreover, constitutionality of revocation for dual nationals was very questionable.

Government responded by restating that C-24 had been reviewed by the Minister of Justice and was Charter compliant. He spoke to the equivalence to Canadian crimes but was less specific as to equivalency of judicial processes aside from noting that Minister had power to waive revocation if concerns about foreign justice processes. He said “nobody wants a terrorist as a neighbour” and that we are talking about criminals, not law-abiding citizens. He didn’t know anyone “who wants them to keep citizenship” and that this send a strong message that Canada should not be a haven for terrorists.

Other amendments (all defeated) and opposition included:

  • Clause 9 (Canadian Forces credit): deletion of “intent to reside”;
  • Clause 11 (application suspension): concerns over increased Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause  12 (citizenship judge): changing onus of proof of “intent to reside” provision to Minister from applicants, as well as reducing Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 14 (timelines): concerns expressed regarding the short delay for applicants to prepare their case (30 days);
  • Clause 15 (suspicion of security risks): concerns that innocent people could be affected;
  • Clause 18 (consultants): addition of law students to those permitted to provide consultant services;
  • Clause 19 (offences outside Canada): concerns regarding foreign judicial processes and lack of clarity on how these would be judged to be equivalent or not to Canadian processes;
  • Clause 20 (judicial review with leave): opposition to no longer providing applicants full right of appeal and concerns about Ministerial discretion;
  • Clause 31 (transition measures) amendment to grandfather current permanent residents in the system.

The most lively exchange came at the end on the ostensible issue of the proposed title, Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

The NDP started off by noting their support for addressing Lost Canadian issues, new penalties for fraud, and greater clarification of the rules around residency. However, some elements were very problematic and weakened citizenship, in particularly, intent to reside, elimination of credit for pre-permanent residency time, and revocation. She challenged again the constitutionality of proposed revocation for dual nationals, noting the testimony of lawyers, as well as the Government’s record before the courts. The NDP’s own consultations indicated considerable opposition, and she cited the recent petition against C-24 with more than 25,000 signatures.

The NDP was extremely frustrated by the process and deplored that the Government had not listened to witnesses (“pourquoi les avoir invités?”). The Government had not accepted any, nor proposed any, amendments. The Government remained “entêtés dans son idéologie.” “C’était ridicule” as citizenship concerned fundamental rights.

The Government responded to what he called a “rant.”. Canadians “gave the government a mandate to govern as a majority.” Canada has changed since the 1977 Citizenship Act. C-24 is a blueprint for improvement, including faster citizenship processing. Every member has constituents complaining about current processing times of 2-3 years. The Bill provides an opportunity to “fix it” by 2015-16. He listed the other improvements: aligning fees to cost of processing, ensuring applicants maintain strong ties to Canada, addressing Lost Canadians, strong penalties for fraud, Crown servants, among others. Canadians did not view revocation as “harsh” and this was in line with other countries (UK).

He closed by stating that “this is a major and significant step forward for Canada. Canadians elected a government with a strong mandate to bring forward legislation that strengthens Canada.”

And with that, the Bill was voted on as a whole, “carried on division” and moves on the third reading.

***

The following clauses were carried without debate: 10 (evidence of citizenship), 13 (obligation to answer truthfully), 16 (GIC security rulings), 17 (not counting time in jail for residency), 21 (delegation of authority). 22 (additional information), 23 (proof of certificates), 24 (certificates of citizenship), 25 (regulations), 26 (regulations – Minister), 27 (sunsetting), 28 (definition document of citizenship), 29 (consultant fines), 30 (limitation period), and 32 through 46 (essentially technical transition provisions).

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

C-24 Citizenship Act: Clause-by-Clause Review – June 2

2014/06/03 1 Comment

Following Second Reading of Bill C-24 in the House last week, clause-by-clause review and voting started at Committee Monday. Not surprisingly, the Government was not open to any minor or major amendments, determined to have the Bill adopted as is. The opposition was united in its opposition to most of the provisions covered during the session.

No government amendments were proposed. Opposition amendments included:

  • Removal of the first generation limit to passing on citizenship and replacing it with a second generation limit;
  • Delete the “intent to reside” provision as it either is “meaningless” according to Ministerial testimony or unconstitutional according to a number of witnesses (and officials were less clear than the Minister in previous testimony on its constitutionality);
  • Revert to previous age requirements re language and knowledge testing (i.e., 18-54, rather than proposed 14-65);
  • Counting pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship as per current practice, particularly for international students given competition to attract them;
  • Provide credit for time working abroad for a Canadian company towards residency requirements;
  • Reduced discretion for Minister on health and compassion grounds;
  • No amendment tabled but opposition to the increased Ministerial discretion without independent or impartial hearing in cases of revocation for cases of fraud; and,
  • Remove provisions to strip dual citizens of their citizenship in case of convictions for terrorism and treason.

No amendments or debate on Clause 4 (Lost Canadians), 5 (Crown Servants), and 6 (Renunciation)

The most lively exchange took place near the end of the meeting. Stepping back from the individual provisions, both opposition parties expressed their substantive concerns regarding the cumulative effects of C-24 on access to Canadian citizenship. Moreover, the NDP sharply criticized the Government for ignoring any critical views of witnesses (“une très grande majorité opposée) and “shooting down all” amendments. The Liberals challenged the fundamental premise of the Bill that by making citizenship harder to get and easier to lose, this increased its value (“no evidence”). These “multiple barriers” would provide incentives to go elsewhere, particularly for international students.

The Government in turn reiterated its main points that C-24 dealt with the key points to citizenship. All Canadians would expect new citizens to indicate their intent to reside in Canada, and requiring elementary language competency for 14-64 is “not asking too much.” The Government wanted to ensure a “real connection” to Canada. An “extensive list” of witnesses supported these provisions.

Officials were not asked any questions during the session.

The Committee reconvenes Tuesday afternoon to continue clause-by-clause review.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship

Alexander blasts critics of immigration bill as C-24 goes to second reading

2014/05/29 2 Comments

On the eve of Second Reading of C-24 Citizenship Act revisions, a broadside by Minister Alexander against the critics of the Bill.

Not quite in the Pierre Polievre school of how to promote your Bill, but quite remarkable given Alexander’s previous career as a diplomat where language was more nuanced, to say the least (see Konrad Yakabuski’s earlier profile Chris Alexander balances his portfolio and power).

Always unfortunate when a Minister feels more comfortable attacking those opposed to legislation as hypocrites, rather than arguing the merits of the Bill.

But the opposition also has some responsibility. While active in Committee, there is by no means the same focussed attention on C-24 as there was for Bill C-23 (elections), C-13 (cyberbullying and surveillance) and the ongoing Temporary Foreign Workers controversy. Opposition parties also make choices on how hard to push issues on both policy and political grounds. Their calculation appears to favour more pro-forma opposition, albeit based upon legitimate concerns over some aspects of the Bill, rather than a more high profile effort. Unless I have missed it, have not heard either opposition leader say much on C-24:

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander is accusing the opposition of “folly and hypocrisy” as the government prepares to shepherd its controversial citizenship bill over its next legislative hurdle.

“Both the Liberals and the NDP remain offside with Canadians who recognize the immense value of Canadian citizenship and the importance of protecting its integrity,” Alexander said in a statement.

“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.”

As to the “drumming up business” line, all of those supporting or opposing the Bill do so from their perspective, values and interests. This does not necessarily diminish the value of their comments, for or against.

And while some elements of C-24 may “reduce the business” for immigration and refugee lawyers (i.e., revocation for fraud at Ministerial discretion, rather than the courts), other may “drum up business”  (i.e., revocation for terror and treason). Somewhat ironic to say the least.

Last night’s somewhat perfunctory Parliamentary debate at Second Reading allows C-24 to proceed to a vote today.

We will see how the next stages proceed and whether the Government will consider any changes to the Bill (some C-24 supporters recommended some process changes). In any case, the Bill will make it through by the summer recess.

Alexander blasts critics of immigration bill as C-24 goes to second reading.

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

Citizenship bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com

2014/05/27 Leave a comment

My take in the Hill Times on the Committee hearings on Bill C-24, changes to the Citizenship Act:

One month ago, Parliamentary hearings started on Bill C-24, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act. Witnesses ranged from those who support the bill unreservedly, to those who oppose without qualification.

It was more Kabuki theatre than debate, given the government mainly probed supporting witnesses and the opposition opposing witnesses. However, many had significant nuances, particularly on due process questions, which may prove significant when the bill proceeds to more formal review.

Apart from the Canadian Jewish community, represented by CIJA, B’nai Brith and J-RAN, there is relatively little testimony from the larger ethnic community organizations. There has also been relatively little press coverage that I have seen in the ethnic media. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact that this bill will have on their communities.

Secondly, lawyers testified strongly against the bill, noting major concerns regarding Charter compliance, particularly with respect to revocation, notwithstanding Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s assertion that the bill “is fully compliant with the requirements of our Constitution.” Additional concerns were expressed regarding the increased discretion for officials and the minister. Given the track record of the government before the courts, the minister’s confidence will likely be tested as cases emerge.

Thirdly, opinion is highly polarized between those who support the government’s approach of making citizenship “harder to get and easier to lose,” and those who believe the current approach is largely successful and believe in a more facilitative and flexible approach. Overall, more witnesses were opposed to the overall direction of the government.

This article aims to provide the general state-of-play on testimony to date.

Residency: There is no clear consensus and positions are split down the middle. However, some of those supporting the increased residency time and physical presence expressed the need for more flexibility, primarily for those with business reasons for travel. There was general opposition to removal of half-time credit for temporary residence (e.g., foreign students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and live-in caregivers) towards meeting residency requirements. The “intent to reside” provision was opposed by most witnesses, with some fearing that determination by citizenship officers of an applicant’s “intent” could be arbitrary, in addition to the broader question treating naturalized Canadians differently from born Canadians.

Knowledge and language testing: More organizations opposed increased coverage (from 18-year-olds to 54-year-old and 14-year-olds to 64-year-olds), particularly, refugee and settlement organizations. A number of witnesses also opposed the imposition of up-front language testing (introduced to streamline processing), as this effectively increased the language barrier. While some of the concerns regarding older applicants are valid, the 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds automatically will meet language requirements, as they will have been educated in a Canadian school.

Fee increases: Refugee advocates strongly opposed these increases, given that for many the cost could be prohibitive. Citizenship is particularly important for refugees given that many have had to sever connections with their country of origin.

Criminal convictions abroad: While not subject to much testimony, both those supporting and opposing expressed concern regarding the equivalence between Canadian and foreign courts, which needed greater clarity in the bill.

Revocation for fraud: All supported the principle for revocation of fraud or misrepresentation, but the vast majority opposed this being at ministerial discretion with no appeal to the Federal Court. There was support, however, for the streamlined process that removes the Cabinet role and consolidates revocation and removal proceedings.

Revocation for terrorism, high treason, or who take up arms against Canada: Not surprisingly, this formed the bulk of testimony on both sides of the issue, evenly divided. For many, such crimes break the “fundamental social contract of Canada” given that they are acts against Canadian values. For others, the fundamental issue is treating dual nationals, whether by birth or naturalization, differently from Canadian-only nationals, changing Canada’s long-standing policy since Diefenbaker.

Most of those who supported revocation noted the need to add to the existing test, “was the offence equivalent to Canadian law,” a second test, “was the judicial process also equivalent.”

Others opposed the reverse burden of proof on citizens to demonstrate that they did not have dual citizenship. It is unclear whether this includes only the right to another citizenship (e.g., Israel’s Law of Return which has parallels in a number of countries), or actually formally having exercised that right. Retroactive revocation was also criticized (the Omar Khadr provision?).

Less discussed issues included the reduced role for citizenship judges, the requirement to provide tax returns, providing preference to applicants having served in the Canadian Forces (very small numbers), Crown servant first generation exception, and the regulation of citizenship consultants.

A number of witnesses supported the expansion of “lost Canadians” to those born before 1947 (date of the first Canadian Citizenship Act) as well as their first generation born abroad. However, the government suppressed the testimony of long-standing activists Melynda Jarratt and Don Chapman who remain concerned that the bill only fixed war brides and their children, not posthumously recognizing Canadian citizenship of those who died before 1947, including Canadian war dead.

One of my favourite comments, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that the bill should be completely redrafted, with less cross-referencing, in plain language.

After the initial flurry of interest and commentary, the hearings are largely happening under the radar. Mainstream media are not covering it and ethnic communities and media are largely absent. Neither opposition party appears, at this stage, to be making this a major issue, in sharp contrast with C-23, the Fair Elections Act, and controversy over Temporary Foreign Workers. Alexander is lucky indeed.

There are some obvious areas where the government could respond to some of the testimony without changing the fundamentals. There seems no sound policy or political rationale not to count pre-permanent residency time towards citizenship. The intent to reside provision needs further clarification on how citizenship officers will decide whether it is genuine or not. It seems pointless to extend language assessment to 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds given that they have been in Canadian schools for six years before applying. There should be some flexibility for fees for low-income refugees. Greater clarity on Canadian equivalency on foreign criminality convictions will improve fairness. Revocation for terrorism and treason should similarly also test for equivalence to Canadian judicial processes, and have greater clearer criteria and language (e.g., “act” rather than “offence”).

None of this will address the philosophical differences between the government and its supporters, and those of its critics. The overall tightening of citizenship will likely reduce the number of permanent residents taking up citizenship. Increased residency and related requirements may make Canada less attractive to the “best and brightest,” and most mobile immigrants Canada wishes to attract. Revocation for terror and treason changes long-standing policy of treating all Canadians equally, whether born in Canada or naturalized.

As Bill C-24 moves to more formal parliamentary debate, we shall see if the political dynamics change and Canadians start pay more attention to this tougher approach to Canadian citizenship, and the likely effects over time, on Canada.

Immigration bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t | hilltimes.com.

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

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers – Jan Wong

2014/05/24 Leave a comment

Jan Wong in Toronto Life does some serious research beyond the purely anecdotal. Much better than the government-led consultations in 2012, which was largely anecdotal with no hard numbers (sigh … see ‘Birth tourists’ believed to be using Canada’s citizenship laws as back door into the West | National Post).

Her numbers for the main Toronto birthing hospitals for non-medicare births (which also includes immigrants within the 3-month waiting period before coverage).

Number over 5 Years

Yearly Average

Sunnybrook

121

24

North York General

569

114

St. Michael’s

311

62

Mount Sinai

318

64

Total

1319

264

Compare this with the total number of live births in Ontario: 142,462 in 2012/13 and in Toronto itself, 30,800 in 2009 (latest data I could find from the City of Toronto website).

In other words, the 4 main birthing centres in Toronto together had less than 300 births per year, or just under 1 percent of all live births. What percentage of these are from birth tourism compared to pre-medicare eligibility cases is unclear. But a fix for a less than 1 percent problem is likely to be costly (how many other government programs can boast such a low fraud or error rate?).

So much of her arguments are more blather and outrage than dispassionate, with no consideration of the additional administrative cost and burden of addressing a relatively small problem. It is no accident that C-24 revisions to the Citizenship Act did not contain any provisions regarding jus soli (birthright citizenship). Too complex and costly.

Do we really have to make a more complicated and lengthy process of giving birth and registering a child for the other 99 percent? And does she really believe that any children of birth tourists who return to Canada will not contribute to the Canadian economy?

What is Canadian citizenship worth in cold hard cash? Like a birth tourist trying to decide whether to hand over $36,200, I crunched the numbers. Canadian citizenship, I calculated, is worth about $840,000 in tangible benefits, excluding welfare payments should you end up on the dole. Assuming a current average life expectancy of 81 years, free health care alone is worth at least $485,000 ($5,988 annually, but much more if you require major surgery or a long hospital stay), according to 2013 health data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Free public education is worth $174,750, according to international tuition rates charged by the Toronto District School Board. As for university tuition, a Canadian at the University of Toronto would save $58,512 over four years, because international students pay substantially more. Finally, an average old-age pension (from age 65 to 81) totals $121,624.

And those are just the measurable assets. What about clean air and water, an untainted food supply, an absence of famine and civil war, and a charter of rights and freedoms? Another incalculable advantage comes in adulthood during the job hunt. By law, many institutions can’t even consider hiring a foreigner unless there’s not a single qualified ­Canadian or landed immigrant applying for the job.

It’s difficult not to feel like a nation of suckers. Birth tourism is a form of immigration fraud that gives pregnant women and their families a way to jump the queue, while wasting our tax dollars and raising serious security concerns—who knows what happens to some of those passports down the line? Immigration Canada concedes it has no idea of the magnitude of the problem, because Ottawa doesn’t record whether a woman is pregnant when entering Canada. When this kind of immigration fraud is detected (a rarity), the potential consequence is, of course, deportation of the parent, but the child would still remain a Canadian citizen.

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers torontolife.com.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Citizenship Act will create two classes of Canadians – Macklin, Adams and Omidvar

2014/05/23 1 Comment

Audrey Macklin, Michael Adams and Ratna Omidvar on the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act:

Some Canadians commit serious crimes. The foreign-born are no more likely than the Canadian-born to do so (some evidence suggests they are less likely to) but small numbers in each group do break the law. Nor are dual citizens more likely than mono-citizens to commit crimes. Today, citizens (including foreign-born and dual citizens) are equal before the law and are treated the same way as other Canadians if they are accused of a crime. They undergo due process and, if convicted, are punished according to the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. If their crimes are committed abroad, the procedures are different but their treatment by the Canadian government is identical.

Adding citizenship revocation as an extra prospective punishment for dual citizens (many of whom, but not all, are foreign-born) is tantamount to creating a second class of citizenship. This is a change that cuts to the core of what it means to be Canadian – and in order to solve what problem?

Canadian citizenship is a solution, not a problem. Canada has traditionally had exceptionally high naturalization rates; nearly nine in 10 immigrants (89 per cent) have become Canadian citizens. This pattern has been praised as a strength of our immigration program: a sign that immigrants are invested in Canada and Canada is invested in the successful integration of its immigrants.

When immigrants become citizens they can vote, stand for office (and win: in 2011, 44 of our sitting MPs were born outside the country), and generally become fully contributing, fully participating members of Canadian society. To turn citizenship from a tool of integration into a reward for good behaviour – to be revoked at the discretion of one minister on grounds of bad behavior and without due process – is to undermine the meaning and value of citizenship for all Canadians.

Citizenship Act will create two classes of Canadians – The Globe and Mail.

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

C-24 Citizenship Act Hearing – 14 May

2014/05/15 3 Comments

The abrupt end to Monday’s hearing was apparently caused by the Government’s not wanting to give the floor to Don Chapman on Lost Canadian issues. Not clear whether the other two speakers will be invited back. See Government muzzles expert witnesses on major citizenship bill.

Testimony at Wednesday’s meeting also ended early given in camera discussion of a NDP motion to extend hearings by three hours to hear more witnesses.

This hearing was largely dominated by witnesses supporting the Government to greater or lesser degrees.

Bal Gupta, Air India 182 Victims Families Association (no website) talked poignantly about his personal loss and those of the other families in the Air India terrorist attack. He supports the provision that provides one year’s credit towards citizenship for those serving in the Canadian Forces (but the Canadian Forces website states that one already has to be a Canadian citizen in order to apply – see here). He also supports the revocation provisions, particularly those on national security or treason grounds, as such crimes demonstrate “no loyalty to the Canadian democratic system” and there is a need to deter those who wish to take up citizenship “of convenience” to further their terror or criminal objectives. He noted CSIS evidence of dozens of Canadians travelling abroad for terrorism and that he hoped these provisions would “help free Canadians from terrorism.”

Salma Siddiqui, Coalition of Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations (no website, press release Launch of Coalition for Progressive Canadian Muslim Organizations), noted her immigrant background and how her families struggles and success were a shared experience of many immigrants to Canada. Canada needed immigrants not only to contribute to the economy but the broader development of the country. The coalition supports the increased residency and physical presence requirements as there have “unfortunately been far too many examples in the past of abuse.” Supporting the requirement to submit tax returns as part of the application process, she also advocated that Canadians living abroad file income tax returns, citing the example of the 2006 evacuation of Lebanese Canadians, many of whom had little or no connection to Canada. She picked up on Mr. Gupta’s point about Canadians travelling abroad to various terrorism hotspots and supported the government’s proposed revocation measures. She did not agree with the “knee jerk reaction” against stripping dual nationals of Canadian citizenship for terror or treason given that this is contrary to Canadian values and abusing the privilege of citizenship. Moreover, she argued for suspension of immigration from failed states, given widespread false identities that allowed criminals, hate mongers and others to enter Canada.

R. Reis Pagtakhan, Immigration Lawyer (bio here) started off by supporting the increase in residency to 4 years out of 6, given that increased time should increase connection to and understanding of Canada. Requiring income tax returns was logical. He was concerned regarding no longer counting pre-Permanent Residents time, as Canada has largely an employer-driven system, with most working as Temporary Foreign Workers, and half-time credit should be restored. He also noted that the flexibility within IRPA for counting certain days outside Canada as Canadian time should be applied (e.g., working full-time abroad for a Canadian business, along with dependents). He opposed the intent to reside provision, stating that many Canadians contribute to the “world stage.” Moreover, there was a contradiction between Canada negotiating free-trade agreements that provide preferential treatment for Canadians working abroad and this the intent to reside (“can’t do both”). On revocation, while he supported the general approach, this was only in the context that the person was tried and convicted in a Canadian court. If the Government persists, perhaps it could draw on a list of countries with which Canada has extradition treaties (e.g., he contrasted Syria and Iran with the US). For criminal convictions, it should not be for minor offences, and suggested that the five-year sentence of the Bill may be too short.

Jonathan Chodjai, Immigrant Québec, supported the increased residency requirements but opposed the removal of credit for time spent pre-Permanent Residents. No issues with tax returns. He also, like Pagtakhan, noted the need for more flexibility for absences from Canada for professional reasons. The planned reduction in processing time was welcome. On revocation, he had concern over the increased discretion of the Minister in the case of fraud, given that there may be room for political interference and that the criteria could be clearer. He did not address clearly the question of revocation for terror or treason, but stressed that he believed there should be equal treatment of  born and naturalized Canadians. In terms of criminal convictions abroad, these had to be equivalent to Canadian courts, and suggested that it should be on a reciprocal basis (e.g., if Canada accepts US judgments, US should accept Canadian judgements). He also supported the proposed fines for fraudulent consultants.

Questions of interest:

CPC/Menegakis and Shory probed Gupta and Siddiqui on what she was hearing from people on the Government’s approach. She noted the ongoing effects of 9/11 on increased suspicion of the Muslim community, how many went into depression, and how her religion had been “hijacked”. All political parties had to stop associating with those who “glorify terrorists.” She expressed here satisfaction on the Supreme Court ruling upholding the use of security certificates for terrorism cases. She also flagged abuse of the now suspended investor immigrant program, citing examples of citizens of convenience that had used the program.

NDP/Sandhu probed both Gupta and Siddiqui on charter compliance of the revocation provisions, and whether “laws should conform to the Charter.” Gupta noted that he was not a lawyer but while laws have to conform to the Charter, there was “too much political correctness,” some people only want rights, not duties, and his reading of the Bill is that nothing contradicted Charter rights. Siddiqui confirmed but was quickly cut-off before likely nuancing her reply. Sandhu also probed question of pre-Permanent Residents time; Siddiqui supported Government on no longer crediting this time.

Liberal/McCallam probed on situations of wrongful accusal and safeguards, citing Mandela as example where Canada would not agree with overseas courts. Gupta stated that Canadians would not condemn comparable situations and that wording of the Bill makes that clear. McCallam stated that all other lawyers disagreed with his interpretation. Siddiqui expressed confidence that “everything right will be done” and Gupta reminded McCallum that revocation in cases of terror or treason would be under the Federal Court, not the Minister.

There was some interesting back and forth on the legality of revocation with NDP/Sitsabaiesan, after she cited A Tale of Two Citizenships: Citizenship Revocation for ‘Traitors and Terrorists’. Siddiqui replied that academics don’t know everything, they are not experts living every day with these issues. Sitsabaiesan probed, “what to you mean living everyday?” Siddiqui stated that “taking the war on the street that we are” is as important as the experts, and that terrorists or sympathizers were not “penalized enough.”

In the second shorter session, Pagtakhan and Chodjai were probed on crediting pre-Permanent Residents time. Both supported, including full-time credit for spouses with conditional Permanent Residents status. On revocation, Pagtakhan reiterated his concern that only decisions by Canadian courts be considered, comparing a conviction for a restaurant bombing in North Korea to one in the US as being different situations.

Then some theatre. CPC/Menegakis asked for a ruling by the Chair on interrupting of witness testimony by NDP/Sitsabaiesan. In the end, the Committee ruled that Sitsabaiesan could use her time as she deemed fit.

Followed by the motion for additional testimony time and the in camera session.

Next week is a parliamentary break week. Will do a summary of what I have heard so far next week.

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

UK backs stripping citizenship over terrorism

2014/05/15 Leave a comment

Interesting amendment in light of the Canadian hearings on Bill C-24 Citizenship Act on the revocation provisions.

Shimon Fogel of CIJA took great pains in his testimony to state that Israel’s law of return only granted the right to citizenship; people still have to apply formally for citizenship. Under the UK approach, the law of return would mean that revocation in the case of Jews would not require them to formally take up Israeli citizenship – just having the right would be enough.

The proposed Canadian approach is that one has to have dual citizenship, not potentially have dual citizenship, plus a court process rather than Ministerial discretion. But the onus of proof is on the person the government proposes to revoke his or her citizenship:

In April, the upper house of the British parliament had rejected the measure proposed by Theresa May, the UK’s interior minister, but passed the law on Monday after a government amendment.

Members of the house voted 286 to 193 in favour of the amended legislation, peers from the opposition Labour party voted against.

The lords reversed course after May accepted the addition of a clause that would only allow citizenship to be taken away if there were “reasonable grounds” to believe suspects could acquire another nationality.

UK backs stripping citizenship over terrorism – Europe – Al Jazeera English.

The NY Times also covers this:

Britain has been one of the few Western countries that can revoke citizenship and its associated rights from dual citizens, even native-born Britons, if they are suspected or convicted of acts of terrorism or disloyalty. The government has stepped up its use of this tactic in recent years. In two cases, suspects have subsequently been killed in American drone strikes.

The new rules will broaden these so-called deprivation powers to include Britons who have no second nationality, provided that they were naturalized as adults. If the home secretary deems that their citizenship is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom,” it can be taken away, effective immediately, without a public hearing. A suspect whose citizenship rights have been stripped has 28 days to appeal to a special immigration court.

 Britain Expands Power to Strip Citizenship From Terrorism Suspects

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →