Jason Kenney s’invite dans la circonscription de Maria Mourani: Targeting citizenship ceremonies to “shop for votes”

2015/07/28 Leave a comment

This takes “shopping for votes” too far. Having citizenship ceremonies for one particular community, religious or not, takes away the power and symbolism of new Canadians of different origins and faiths, coming together to join the “Canadian family.”

Undermines all the messaging on integration and the building of bridges between communities, one of the key objectives introduced by Kenney in 2009-10:

Le ministre de la Défense et du Multiculturalisme, Jason Kenney, poursuit sa conquête des appuis des communautés religieuses. Il s’est aventuré à Montréal dimanche, dans la circonscription de la députée Maria Mourani, Ahunstic-Cartierville, en tant qu’invité d’honneur de la cérémonie de citoyenneté de l’évêque catholique Ibrahim M. Ibrahim.

Contrairement aux cérémonies qui réunissent habituellement des dizaines de nouveaux citoyens canadiens devant un juge de la citoyenneté, l’événement avait été organisé exclusivement pour l’évêque par sa communauté, à la cathédrale Saint-Sauveur Melkite. C’est lors d’une messe que Mgr Ibrahim a prêté le serment de citoyenneté canadienne, devant Jason Kenney, qui a joué le rôle de juge de la citoyenneté. La paroisse était pleine à craquer et M. Kenney a été mis à l’honneur, sur un fauteuil au centre de l’allée principale.

Même si les conservateurs n’ont pas la cote à Montréal, le ministre Kenney réussit habilement à tisser et à conserver des liens avec des communautés religieuses de la métropole. La communauté arabe catholique de Montréal ne fait pas exception.

Dès son entrée dans la cathédrale, M. Kenney a salué chaleureusement l’évêque Ibrahim en arabe, puis a poursuivi la discussion en anglais. Il n’en était pas à sa première visite.

Interrogé par Le Devoir, l’évêque n’a pas caché sa proximité avec le ministre, qu’il connaît depuis 2005. « C’est un ami de la communauté. Il est proche des arabes », a-t-il lancé.

Jason Kenney a dit avoir bon espoir que la communauté de cette église, constituée en bonne partie de Québécois d’origine libanaise, appuiera son parti aux élections de l’automne. « Une communauté entière ne vote jamais de façon unanime, mais nous croyons que beaucoup de Canadiens d’origine libanaise ont des valeurs conservatrices. »

L’évêque connaît aussi la députée Maria Mourani, qui est d’origine libanaise comme lui. Il ne souhaite pas choisir de camp pour les prochaines élections. « Maria Mourani fait partie de notre communauté, mais nous ne sommes pas des politiciens. Nous sommes en faveur de tout le monde », a-t-il indiqué au Devoir.

Would be interesting to know whether CIC provided any advice on the wisdom of community-specific citizenship ceremonies in general, and this one in particular.

Jason Kenney s’invite dans la circonscription de Maria Mourani | Le Devoir.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Are you Canadian enough to vote? – Mark Kersten

2015/07/28 2 Comments

Another one of the series of arguments allowing for unlimited voting rights for Canadian expatriates, including having MPs representing overseas constituencies:

Rather than pursuing inward, regressive policies, the government could think creatively. Instead of constructing barriers to democratic participation, what a progressive government could, and should, do is to create a handful of members of Parliament to directly represent Canadians who live abroad. France and Italy already have parliamentarians who represent their respective diasporas. Why not have MPs on Parliament Hill to represent the unique interests and diversity of Canadians living abroad? Surely that could only enrich our democracy.

The arguments of many proponents of extending voting rights to expats have relied on the view that it is unfair to strip voting rights from any tax-paying Canadians living abroad. The assumption is that if you’re contributing money to federal tax coffers, you should be allowed to vote. This may be intuitively persuasive, but there is a danger in taking this argument to its logical extreme. If it were, homeless citizens or some retirees could lose the vote. Paying more taxes surely doesn’t make you “citizen plus,” a better citizen than others. Canadian citizenship, as spelled out in the Charter, is not transactional. We don’t have to buy it.

Still, it is inescapable that the prohibition on long-term Canadian expats to vote in federal elections creates a bifurcated form of citizenship. All Canadian citizens are equal, but if only those living in Canada are allowed to vote, then some are more equal than others.

And while the advocates are all too quick to trot out anecdotes of Canadian expatriates who are connected to Canada in a meaningful way, one could equally draw up a list of those who are not, and likely also find some evidence to buttress the claim that most are not. The tiny number of Canadian expatriates who vote under the current 5-year limit (see Reframing the debate over expat voting: Russell and Sevi, Globe editorial) is illustrative.

Are you Canadian enough to vote? – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Government seeks to revoke Canadian citizenship of convicted terrorist Misbahuddin Ahmed

2015/07/27 Leave a comment

And then there were two. The focus (so far) is on those who have been convicted in Canadian courts (which avoids all sorts of due process issues with respect to those convicted overseas):

Pakistan-Canadian Ahmed, 32, is serving 12 years at Warkworth, a medium-security prison in Ontario.

A third accused was acquitted of the one conspiracy charge against him and charges against the fourth man were dropped.

“Misbah knows about this and instructed me to do whatever is possible to prevent the revocation of his citizenship,’ said lawyer Ertel. “We intend to challenge the legislation and oppose this in every way.

“Like many Canadians I’m no fan of the draconian legislation or the apparent lack of restraint in its application,’ he added.

Ahmed now has 60 days to respond to the government’s application.

When he sentenced Ahmed, Ontario Superior Court Justice Colin McKinnon said he was convinced that Ahmed had renounced his terrorist inclinations.

He refused to impose a maximum sentence, meaning Ahmed could apply to the parole board for early release after serving one-third of his sentence.

“But for the fact that Mr. Ahmed has been convicted for terrorism offences rather than some other serious offence,” said the judge, “he would likely be considered an appropriate candidate for a conditional (non-custodial) sentence.”

He rejected the prosecutions request for a 20-year sentence saying it would be an “injustice.”

Ahmed, a former Ottawa Hospital diagnostic-imaging technician and the father of three young daughters was convicted of conspiracy to facilitate terrorism and facilitating terrorism. He was acquitted of a more serious third charge of possessing an explosive device.”

Crown prosecutors say Ahmed’s sentence is too lenient and are appealing.

Ahmed, for his part, is appealing the sentence on the grounds it is too harsh.

Government seeks to revoke Canadian citizenship of convicted terrorist Misbahuddin Ahmed | Ottawa Citizen.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Reframing the debate over expat voting: Russell and Sevi, Globe editorial

2015/07/23 5 Comments

Reframing_the_debate_over_expat_voting_-_Macleans_caTwo contrasting views on expatriate voting.

The first, by Peter Russell (a former excellent and insightful professor of mine) and Semra Sevi (who has written before Canadian expatriates should never lose the right to vote), provides useful data on the number of expatriates who actually vote.

The number, as shown above, is minuscule compared to the estimated almost three million Canadian expatriates. The article also has the following international comparisons:

The five-year limitation, as opposed to some other limit, is overly drastic and Canada’s provision is not comparable with similar democracies around the world.

Americans living outside of the country have the right to vote no matter how long they have been abroad providing they pay taxes. The right to vote expires in the United Kingdom after 15 years abroad. To put this into perspective, this is three times longer than what Canada permits even though Canada is part of the Commonwealth.

Australian citizens abroad are allowed to vote so long as they intend to return to Australia within six years. After six years, citizens can renew their status by making an annual declaration of their intention to return “at some point” thereby voting for an indefinite period. In New Zealand, there is a three-year limit but the clock restarts every time citizens visit the country. Moreover, New Zealand extends the right to vote to non-citizen residents from other Commonwealth countries.

The United Kingdom extends similar voting rights to citizens of Commonwealth countries and citizens of the Republic of Ireland. The five-year limit in Canada is an arbitrary number and is unnecessarily onerous. On the surface, it is a year less generous than Australia, but Australians can renew their status by expressing a mere intent to return to the country “at some point” in the future. Canadians, on the other hand, need to resume residency to regain their right to vote abroad.

The right to vote is a fundamental right of citizenship that is protected by the Charter and does not depend on place of residence. The five-year limitation does not conform to the 21st-century demands of globalization. While there is currently an NDP-sponsored bill to repeal the provision that limits voting rights for Canadians abroad as unconstitutional, it is possible that the unconvincing judgment of two Ontario appellate judges could be overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada—but, alas, not in time to restore democratic rights to the close to a million and a half Canadians living abroad for the fall election.

Reframing the debate over expat voting – Macleans.ca.

Expatriate Voter TurnoutThe Globe editorial takes, correctly in my view, takes the opposite view:

We think the decision is the right one, for three reasons.

First, because our electoral system, based as it is on residence in a particular electoral district, assumes a connection between residence and voting, governors and the governed.

Second, because we live in a world of national borders and laws that do not apply extraterritorially, which means the lives of non-resident Canadians are largely not governed by Canadian law. As Ontario Chief Justice George Strathy put it, “permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis, but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives.”

And third, because reasonable people can disagree, reasonably, over how long a citizen should reside outside of Canada before having her vote suspended. Should the limit be five years? Ten? Two generations? Never? The practical question of setting reasonable limits is best left where the Ontario Court of Appeal left it, in the hands of Parliament.

The Canada Elections Act says that Canadian citizens are entitled to vote in the riding in which they typically reside. However, the Act also says that Canadian citizens living abroad for more than five years cannot vote. There are exceptions for people sent overseas in service to the country, such as members of the Armed Forces.

All of which is not unreasonable. Justice Strathy noted that “residence is a determinant of voter eligibility in all provinces and territories.” If you move from Nova Scotia to Alberta, you can’t continue voting in Nova Scotia in perpetuity.

He also pointed out that “residence is a requirement of the electoral laws of the other Westminster democracies. The U.K., Australia and New Zealand limit the voting rights of non-resident citizens to those temporarily resident abroad.” The maximum time overseas before one loses the vote is 15 years in Britain, six years in Australia and three years in New Zealand. Canada’s current law is fair.

 No, Canadians living abroad shouldn’t get to vote 

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

Long-term Canadian expats lose right to vote, court decides

2015/07/21 2 Comments

Good call and passes the common sense test.

In a split decision, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that had restored the right of more than one million long-term expats to vote.

Canada’s “social contract” entails citizens submitting to laws because they had a voice in making them through voting, the ruling states.

“Permitting all non-resident citizens to vote would allow them to participate in making laws that affect Canadian residents on a daily basis but have little to no practical consequence for their own daily lives,” Justice George Strathy wrote for the majority court.

“This would erode the social contract and undermine the legitimacy of the laws.”

Strathy said the relevant part of the Canada Elections Act aimed to strengthen the country’s system of government. While it infringed on the rights of the expats, he said, the infringement is reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society.

Two Canadians living in the United States — Montreal-born Jamie Duong and Toronto-born Gillian Frank — launched the constitutional challenge, arguing the five-year rule was arbitrary and unreasonable. Both argued they had only left for educational and employment opportunities and still had strong attachments to Canada and a stake in its future.

In May last year, Superior Court Justice Michael Penny threw out the voting ban, noting that mass murderers have the right to cast ballots but long-term expats who care deeply about the country do not. Penny also said expats could well be subject to Canadian tax and other laws.

The Appeal Court said Penny’s judgment was clouded by the government’s assertion that expats “do not have the same connection” to Canada as residents.

“This caused the debate to be cast as whether non-resident citizens were worthy of the vote,” said Strathy. “As a result, he overlooked Canada’s democratic tradition and the importance of the social contract between Canada’s electorate and Parliament.”

Long-term Canadian expats lose right to vote, court decides – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote – Detailed Table of Contents

2015/07/20 1 Comment

For those interested, the detailed table of contents provides a sense of the scope and depth of the book.

Multiculturalism in Canada Detailed Table of Contents (pdf)

Book is on track to be out in early August.

Filed under Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with

‘It’s classic wedge politics’: Tories continue to tout niqab ban as battle heats up in court of appeals

2015/07/18 Leave a comment

More on the electoral aspects:

Late last month, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a crowd in Quebec voters have told him, “We want new citizens to take the oath with their faces uncovered.”

“It’s classic wedge politics” that distinguishes the Conservatives from the other parties, said Emmett Macfarlane, a political science professor at the University of Waterloo. Even if it turns out to be a losing issue legally, it may be a winning issue politically.

“This plays well with the Conservative base. Despite the party’s success with new immigrants and ethnic communities … and spearheading connections to those communities, a lot of the base still has a view that minority cultures have inappropriate practices.”

Various polls have shown that a strong majority of Canadians agree people should show their faces during citizenship ceremonies.

“It is a common-sense view … and has resounding support in Canada,” said Salim Mansur, a political science professor at Western University in London, Ont.

The policy was introduced in December 2011 and is grounded in the belief citizenship applicants must be seen to be saying the oath. Those who refuse to remove facial coverings will not receive their citizenship.

‘It’s classic wedge politics’: Tories continue to tout niqab ban as battle heats up in court of appeals.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

’14,’ a documentary on citizenship by birth, premieres in Washington – The Washington Post

2015/07/14 Leave a comment

Interesting documentary and subject:

Who is, or deserves to be, an American citizen is a simple question that gets complicated depending on what else is going on in the culture. Now that immigration is such a preoccupation for some, bills are periodically introduced in Congress to challenge the right of children born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents to be considered citizens by birth. Check out the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

Documentary filmmaker Anne Galisky, who has chronicled the immigrant-rights movement for years, takes on the question in a new work called “14: Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark & Vanessa Lopez.” The film had its Washington premiere Thursday night at the E Street Cinema. Galisky is lining up more screenings in the area and hopes to pitch it to public television. “Talk to us about bringing it to your school, your nonprofit, your place of worship,” she said to the audience of 75 at the premiere.

… At the time of filming, Vanessa Lopez is the 8-year-old American-born daughter of undocumented immigrant activist Rosario Lopez, now living in Seattle. Vanessa says she wants to be “either an artist, a photographer, a lawyer or a marine biologist.” With her unaccented English and her 8-year-old’s view of the world, she tries to puzzle through the thinking of adults who would deport her mother and grandparents and deny citizenship to children like her.

Vanessa serves as the heart-tugging emotional center of the film, while Galisky draws a direct narrative line from Scott to Ark to the Lopez family. Along the way, she interviews descendants of both Scott and Ark.

Galisky, whose previous film was “Papers: Stories of Undocumented Youth” (2009), said bills to undermine birthright citizenship may seem unlikely to pass, but “I think there’s danger even in calling birthright citizenship into question.”

’14,’ a documentary on citizenship by birth, premieres in Washington – The Washington Post.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

CIC Analysis of Citizenship Test Pass Results

2015/07/13 1 Comment

While this has been reported before (Immigrants more likely to fail citizenship test the longer they’re here), obtained this and related documents to see what changes may have been made to the citizenship test that could explain the significant increase in the overall pass rate from 82.7 percent 2010-13 to 90.3 percent.

While unfortunately the relevant memos providing options to the Minister have been extensively redacted (here and here), it is clear that considerable effort was made to improve test scores while maintaining the integrity of the test.

This detailed analysis confirms the importance of education:

Main findings: Regression results show that, after controlling for the effect of other individual characteristics in the model, a few individual characteristics are strongly associated with the citizenship test outcome. Among these characteristics, educational attainment stands out as the most important predictor of the test pass rate. The adjusted pass rate for immigrants with a university degree or above at time of landing is considerably higher than those with lower educational attainment.

Differences across immigration categories and countries of birth are also large. While applicants in the economic immigration categories obtain the highest adjusted test pass rates, applicants in the refugee immigration categories obtain the lowest test pass rates.

Applicants born in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Algeria, Jamaica, India and Sri Lanka have the lowest adjusted pass rates.

Variables showing modest effect on the pass rate include: age at test, age at landing, official language ability at landing and mother tongue. The differences in test pass rates across categories of all variables are more pronounced for those with lower educational attainment.

Educational attainment at time of landing: • Overall, the test pass rate increases with an applicants’ educational attainment at time of landing. The pass-rate for applicants with Bachelor’s degrees or above is about 20 percentage points higher than those with secondary or less education and 8 percentage points higher than those with trades/diploma/apprenticeship schooling, but 3 percentage points lower than those with Master or Doctorate degrees.

Citizenship Knowledge Test Results – Multivariate Regression Analysis August 2013

Citizenship Knowledge Test Results – Multivariate Regression Analysis Summary Deck 2013

Filed under Citizenship

← Older posts

Newer posts →