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 , ,

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 , ,

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 , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →