U of T prof still waiting for citizenship after three years | Toronto Star

2014/07/02 Leave a comment

An example of some of the problems in the citizenship program. C-24 streamlining will address some of these, but we will only know in 2016 when the backlog has been cleared and, more significantly, additional incremental funding ends:

Lemmens submitted his application to become a Canadian citizen in February 2011 after living and working in Canada since 1991. The native Belgian had come to Canada as a student. After completing his doctorate in 1997, he began teaching health law and bioethics at the University of Toronto — first through a joint appointment at the law faculty and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and in 1999 just at the law faculty. Married to a Canadian, he had permanent resident status and didn’t immediately apply for Canadian citizenship.

He looked into it a couple of times but didn’t meet the residency requirement because he had been out of the country twice — once for a research leave and once for a sabbatical year. He was told he could be out of the country for only a maximum of 400 days out of four years. So he waited and counted.

When he finally applied for citizenship, he thought it would be a simple matter. But the process was difficult.

After preparing his initial application and writing his citizenship exam, he was required to fill out a very detailed questionnaire for which he had to piece together not only the exact dates he was out of Canada, but also where he stayed and the reason for his absences. He also was required to produce documentation showing home and family ties as well as employment and contributions to Canadian society.

This request surprised him.He has yet to be told why he was required to fill out an additional questionnaire or why his application has taken so long.He believes it may have something to do with the fact he was missing some entry stamps when he returned to Canada from journeys abroad. ….

Lemmens believes the government has purposely made the application process complicated and bureaucratic to discourage people from applying for Canadian citizenship.

“It’s really irritating and makes me think, if my file appears difficult to evaluate, how tough must it be for people from ‘suspect’ countries, or people who don’t necessarily have the same stable employment.”

U of T prof still waiting for citizenship after three years | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Citizenship Act Tagged with ,

Citizenship law changes irk new Canadians | Toronto Sun

2014/07/02 Leave a comment

During C-24 Citizenship Act hearings, both opposition parties were arguing against the increased residency and related requirements. Seems that some new Canadians share these concerns.

Will be interesting to see if this becomes an issue in the 2015 election in the suburban new Canadian communities.

Manishkum Prajapati, his wife Ragini, and their daughter, Dharitri, 7, came to Canada from India in 2007. They were among those Monday who sat holding small Canadian flags as they were greeted by Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander during a ceremony at Pearson International Airport.

Prajapati said his family came to Canada to “move forward” with their lives. And while he and Ragini are excited about their futures here, they worry others having a tougher time becoming citizens.

“Right now, it’s OK, it shouldn’t be made harder,” said Prajapati, an aircraft technician. “We think about them and … right now, it is safe, easy and convenient.”

Aber Abdelmessih, her husband, and their three daughters also became citizens on Monday. They came to Canada from Egypt

.“I’m very worried, this is very bad,” said Abdelmessih of the immigration law changes.

She insisted the new rule of having to be present in Canada a certain amount of time during the run-up to citizenship is unfair, as some would-be citizens need to travel back and forth to their countries of birth to see family.

Citizenship law changes irk new Canadians | Home | Toronto Sun.

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

Case of Mohamed Fahmy shows failing of new citizenship rules | Macklin and Waldman

2014/06/30 Leave a comment

More from Macklin and Waldman on C-24 Citizenship Act revocation provisions and the possible implications for cases like Mohammed Fahmy’s, and the discretion it gives the Minister (Government has indicated they will not revoke Fahmy’s citizenship):

These cases are simply three examples that show why the new citizenship law has been condemned as fundamentally flawed and why several organizations have indicated they will challenge it under the Charter. The law will create two classes of citizens: dual citizens who are vulnerable to revocation and those who are not. But the bill is also problematic in other ways. Naturalized citizens unlike citizens by birth will not be able travel and live abroad for extended periods without fear of jeopardizing their citizenship. Other provisions will make citizenship more inaccessible to those who need it most — refugees.

Instead of listening to the legitimate concerns of those who criticized the legislation, the government attacked the messengers and impugned their motives. Undoubtedly the government thinks that this new law will be well received by its conservative base. We think that when most Canadians come to realize the implications of this new legislation they will reject it. Canada is a big country, but there is no room for second-class citizenship.

Case of Mohamed Fahmy shows failing of new citizenship rules | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , , ,

Five bills likely to stoke Harper’s conflict with Supreme Court

2014/06/28 Leave a comment

On the list:

C-24, the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” received royal assent and became law June 19.

The government billed C-24 as a once-in-a-generation overhaul of citizenship law, but some of its provisions proved deeply divisive. Foremost among those is a clause that allows the government to strip citizenship from Canadian-born citizens if they’ve been convicted of treason, espionage or terrorism and have citizenship in another country.

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati launched a legal challenge against the provision on June 25, saying the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to make the change. That was after several earlier warnings during committee consideration of the bill.

“It appears to be against the Charter, and I expect there will be significant litigation,” Barbara Jackman, a member of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Immigration Law Section, told a Senate committee considering the bill.

The CBA also took issue with a change in the bill that asks applicants to declare an intent to reside in Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has brushed aside concerns, saying Canadians aren’t required to stay in the country, but critics have pointed to provisions in the bill that allow citizenship-stripping in cases of fraud, and asked whether the “intent” clause could be considered in a fraud case. The CBA said the provision is “likely unconstitutional.

”Mr. Alexander assured a committee studying the bill that it was constitutional, a point put to Ms. Jackman by the committee.“I would remind the committee that [government has] passed other legislation that, again and again, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down just recently. So the fact that the Department of Justice and the minister say it is constitutional doesn’t mean it is,” she replied.

Audrey Macklin, a professor and Chair in Human Rights Law at the University of Toronto, echoed many of the warnings on Charter compliance but also said that under C-24, those about to be stripped of citizenship are given the onus to prove they do not hold citizenship elsewhere – which would stop the process, as Canada won’t leave someone stateless – rather than making the government prove that person does hold citizenship elsewhere. Prof. Macklin warned that such a “reverse-onus provision” also violates the Charter.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also has raised warnings about the constitutionality of C-24.

“CCLA is seriously concerned that Bill C-24 has created a second tier of citizenship that is incompatible with equality principles,” General Counsel and Executive Director Sukanya Pillay said in an e-mail. “…We must remember that citizenship includes rights, and to strip individuals of citizenship is to re-introduce archaic punishments such as exile and banishment – the possibility of statelessness is also a serious concern. Any arbitrary loss of citizenship is incompatible with democratic values and fundamental rights.”

Five bills likely to stoke Harper’s conflict with Supreme Court – The Globe and Mail.

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

Rocco Galati launches lawsuit over Citizenship Act changes

2014/06/26 1 Comment

No surprise:

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati is suing Gov. Gen. David Johnston, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander and Justice Minister Peter MacKay over changes to Canada’s Citizenship Act.

In documents filed Wednesday morning in Federal Court, Galati asks the court to invalidate key provisions included in a new law that gives the government the power to revoke the citizenship of Canadian-born citizens convicted of “terrorism, high treason, or spying offences” if they hold dual citizenship.

Rocco Galati launches lawsuit over Citizenship Act changes – Politics – CBC News.

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

Government welcomes Royal Assent of Bill C-24, Civil Liberties Groups Plan Legal Challenge

2014/06/20 Leave a comment

Key messages from the CIC’s Press Release:

Improving efficiency

Canada’s citizenship program is being improved by reducing the decision-making process from three steps to one. It is expected that, by 2015–2016, this change will bring the average processing time for citizenship applications down to under a year. It is also projected that by 2015-2016, the current backlog will be reduced by more than 80 percent.

Reinforcing the value of Canadian citizenship

The government is ensuring citizenship applicants maintain strong ties to Canada. These amendments to the Citizenship Act provide a clearer indication that the “residence” period to qualify for citizenship in fact requires physical presence in Canada.

More applicants will now be required to meet language requirements and pass a knowledge test to ensure that new citizens are better prepared to fully participate in Canadian society. New provisions will also help individuals with strong ties to Canada, such as by automatically extending citizenship to additional “Lost Canadians” who were born before 1947 as well as to their children born in the first generation outside Canada.

Cracking down on citizenship fraud

The updated Citizenship Act includes stronger penalties for fraud and misrepresentation a maximum fine of $100,000 and/or five years in prison and expands the grounds to bar an application for citizenship to include foreign criminality, which will help improve program integrity.

Protecting and promoting Canada’s interests and values

Finally, the amendments bring Canada in line with most of our peer countries, by providing that citizenship can be revoked from dual nationals who are convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism, high treason and spying offences depending on the sentence received or who take up arms against Canada. Permanent residents who commit these acts will be barred from citizenship.

As a way of recognizing the important contributions of those who serve Canada in uniform, permanent residents who are members of the Canadian Armed Forces will have quicker access to Canadian citizenship. The Act also stipulates that children born to Canadian parents serving abroad as servants of the Crown are able to pass on Canadian citizenship to children they have or adopt outside Canada.

Government welcomes Royal Assent of Bill C-24 – Canada News Centre.

And the press release from the Canadian Association Of Refugee Lawyers and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA):

Bill C-24, introducing sweeping changes to Canada’s citizenship laws that make citizenship harder to get and easier to lose, has passed through the House of Commons and is now being considered by the Senate.  CARL, BCCLA and Amnesty International take the position that this proposed law has dramatically negative effects on Canadian citizenship, eliminating equal citizenship rights for all, and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as international human rights. According to the organizations, the new law will take away rights from countless Canadians, creating a two-tier citizenship regime that discriminates against dual nationals and naturalized citizens.

“This proposed law would allow certain Canadians to be stripped of citizenship that was validly obtained by birth or by naturalization. We think that is unconstitutional, and we intend to challenge this law if it is passed,” said Lorne Waldman, President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. “We have presented our arguments to the House of Commons and to the Senate, in an attempt to get them to change or stop this Bill. But the government hasn’t listened, it refuses to amend the bill, and we feel we will have little choice but to challenge it in the courts.” …

“The ‘Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act’ does exactly the opposite of what the title proclaims. It makes citizenship less secure,” said Josh Paterson, Executive Director of the BC Civil Liberties Association. “In Canada, lawfully-obtained citizenship has always been permanent – once a Canadian, always a Canadian – and all Canadians have always had equal citizenship rights. This bill turns the whole idea of being Canadian upside-down, so that the Canadian citizenship of some people will be worth less than the Canadian citizenship of others. That is wrong, and it must be challenged.”

PRESS RELEASE: New citizenship law will be challenged on constitutional grounds, if passed, say rights groups

In case you missed it, my assessment, The new citizenship act is efficient. Is it fair?

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

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 , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →