Temporary foreign workers: Canada needs fewer guests – and more citizens

2014/05/20 Leave a comment

Globe editorial:

What should Mr. Kenney do?

Study the issue: Take the time needed to get this right. Commission a group of experts and give them at least six months. Bring the other parties in, and borrow their best ideas. Don’t just introduce legislation in the next few weeks, backed up by nothing more than a thin press release and no actual evidence, and try to hustle it through Parliament. Learn from the fiasco of the Fair Elections Act.

Be principled: A temporary worker program should be for jobs that are temporary. There’s a logic to bringing in seasonal agricultural workers. There may be a logic to some highly skilled workers being brought in under the program, in cases where no trained Canadians exist or where the job is temporary. But burger flippers?

Shrink the program: Make it smaller. Much smaller. Cap the number allowed in each year. Let Canada’s labour market work. If employers in low-wage fields find that they have to offer compensation in excess of minimum wage to attract short-order cooks, customer-service agents and retail sales people, that’s a good thing. It will lead to higher wages for people at the low end of the wage scale, and it will also spur innovation and productivity gains. We want the market to work and to self-correct as it is supposed to, with a tight labour supply in one area of the country forcing up wages, thereby drawing in the underemployed, be they part-time students from down the road or the unemployed from across the country.

Give temporary workers more rights: Shrink the program – but expand their rights. Why not give them the right to change jobs, and even complete labour mobility within Canada, just like Canadians? Give them the power to fight back against abuse and raise their own wages.

More citizens, fewer guests: Canada was built by immigrants who became citizens, not visitors who went home. That’s our future, too.

Citizenship Bill C-24 at Committee goes in other direction, by making citizenship harder to get and no longer providing credit for time spent in Canada as temporary foreign workers.

Temporary foreign workers: Canada needs fewer guests – and more citizens – The Globe and Mail.

Interestingly, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business includes in its recommendations on Temporary Foreign Workers a pathway to citizenship, while the government’s Bill C-24 makes this more difficult given removal of partial credit for pre-Permanent Residents time:

•  Ending the moratorium on restaurants

• Creating a pathway to permanent residence for all TFWs

• A Bill of Rights for TFWs

• Stricter enforcement of existing rules

• An accredited TFW stream for trusted employers

• Matching TFW/Canadian wages by employer

• Maximum 1:1 ratio of TFWs to Canadians

• Allowing permanent immigration for those in entry-level jobs

• Ensuring other government programs (eg. EI) address need for entry-level workers.

CFIB urges feds to end moratorium, enforce rules, protect TFWs’ rights – National Scene – Daily Business Buzz.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Immigrants more likely to fail citizenship test the longer they’re here

2014/05/17 1 Comment

Some internal data from CIC on citizenship pass rates and trends. Delivering on “harder to get,” C-24 revocation provisions aimed at “easier to lose.”

Based on two immigration databases, the report, marked “confidential,” said the pass rates of the citizenship exam dropped significantly from 83 per cent in 2011 to 72.6 per cent in 2012, after the government introduced new test questions and raised the pass mark from 60 per cent to 75 per cent.

More than 80 per cent of immigrants applied for citizenship within the first five years of permanent residency and the group had a pass rate above 83 per cent — compared to the low 70s among those who have been in Canada for at least 10 years.

“That’s the irony,” said Meurrens. “People who want it do it quickly and are more motivated.”

…

The report also found immigrants from South Korea and China led the rest of the pack in passing the citizenship test, averaging 90 per cent and 88 per cent respectively.

In contrast, those from Sri Lanka and Vietnam had the lowest pass rates, averaging just 70 per cent and 67 per cent.

,,,

The number of rejected applicants has also remained consistent, averaging 2,308 per quarter. Flunking the citizenship test accounted for 65 per cent of all refused cases, followed by failing the language requirement (24 per cent) and not meeting the residence obligation (6.6. per cent). The rest were rejected on criminality and security grounds.

Immigrants more likely to fail citizenship test the longer they’re here | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Language Tagged with ,

Ottawa welcomes more new Canadians – Canada News Centre

2014/05/17 1 Comment

Continuing with the selective release of citizenship statistics by city rather than the overall national numbers – which are the ones that matter to know if CIC is on track to eliminate the backlog and improve processing times:

Over 3,500 new citizens have been welcomed in Ottawa so far in 2014–more than three times the number of newly naturalized Canadians over the same period in 2013.

Ottawa welcomes more new Canadians – Canada News Centre.

Filed under Citizenship 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 , , , , , , ,

TFW’s are just one piece of immigration puzzle – New Canadian Media

2014/05/15 Leave a comment

 

TFWs

My piece on Temporary Foreign Workers and the linkages to permanent residency and citizenship:

Over the past 10 years, permanent immigration levels and citizenship applications have largely remained stable. The only major growth that has occurred is for Temporary Foreign Workers, many at lower skill levels, most of whom do not have a pathway to permanent residency. Moreover, the pathway from permanent resident to citizen has also become harder, and will become even more so, undermining the overall Canadian model of immigration and citizenship.

Over reliance on anecdote and weakness in the evidence base have contributed to a number of these policy changes. Policy change is complex and the effects are only known after a number of years. It took four years before the flaws in the redesign of Temporary Foreign Workers became apparent. It will likely take that long to know whether the new “Express Entry” immigration approach works as intended. The full effect of changes to the Citizenship Act will only be known in about 10 years, given the increased residency and related requirements.

TFW’s are just one piece of immigration puzzle – New Canadian Media – NCM.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration 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 , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearing – 12 May

2014/05/13 1 Comment

Committee only heard from the first three witnesses as it went in camera for the second hour (and have not seen any updates since then – will update if needed).

Starting with those supporting the Government approach.

Paul Attia of Immigrants For Canada started off by noting the broad base of his organization and the basic view that citizenship should be viewed as a privilege. If earned, it should be available to all. He supported the increased residency requirements but questioned whether 183 days in 4 years out of 6 was sufficient. All citizens should have language proficiency, as language was a key unifier. His association strongly supports revocation for terrorist activity but the process has to be consistent with Canadian values, constitutional democracy (i.e., formal judicial review required). Similarly with respect to criminal convictions outside Canada, provisions should ensure comparability to Canadian norms.

He finished with a hockey analogy (very Canadian!). If you want to where the team sweater, brandishing his Team Canada sweater, you need to meet the requirements (residency), communicate with team members (language) and not lie to or kill your team members (revocation).

Interestingly, despite the claims of his organization having a broad base of support and many members, their website appears to be largely inactive since 2011. He is also a board member of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation appointed by the government.

Those opposed to the bill.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go of the Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic largely reinforced some of the earlier concerns made by CARL and others. Given their clientele, largely refugees and the more vulnerable, her organization strongly opposed the increased residency requirements, removal of time for temporary residents (refugees, live-in caregivers, students, spouses who are conditional Permanent Residents), the intent to reside provision given concerns it could be grounds revocation for fraud, the expansion of language requirements to 55-64, and fee increases. They also oppose revocation for dual citizens, both on substantive reasons (creating differential treatment between mono and dual nationals) as well as process and comparability for foreign convictions to Canadian norms. The overall impact of the bill would be to restrict citizenship in practice, bringing Canada back to an era of discrimination.

Bernie M. Farber and Mitchell J. Goldberg spoke for the Jewish Refugee Action Network (J-RAN), starting off by noting that many refugees when treated with fairness and compassionate become productive citizens, building their lives in Canada. There should be a reasonable path for refugees to become citizens. J-RAN was deeply concerned about the impact on the fee increases (a “cash grab”), increasing language requirements affecting children (hard to see, they will have been in school) and grandparents, and removal of credit for pre-Permanent Residents time. They expressed concern over the intent to reside provision given Charter section 6 (mobility rights) as well as the practical reality that circumstances change for work, study or family reasons. While they have no sympathy for terrorists and criminals, they do not support revocation (“banishment”); such provisions are “unconstitutional and unjust” and such cases should be handled by the criminal justice system. Revocation in cases of fraud was supported.

In questioning, some nuances in positions emerged. In response to CPC/Menegakis, Attia noted need for greater clarity on the intent to reside provision. Liberal McCallum probed further, stating that the Minister had been unclear. Attia confirmed this lack of clarity, stating that the “devil was in the details” on what exactly it meant and how it would be enforced.

There was more interaction between witnesses and MPs who had different perspectives. CPC/Shory pressed J-RAN on revocation, given that terrorism struck at the “bedrock of Canadian identity.” Goldberg picked up on the hockey analogy, “if a heinous act committed against a hockey player, they are penalized, not banished.”

CPC/Shory noted that only 15 percent use pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship. NDP/Sitsabaiesan continued to press on this issue with J-RAN and Avvy Go who reaffirmed their positions and noted the apparent contradiction between encouraging Canadian Experience Class immigration while not providing credit for pre-Permanent Residents time.

Witnesses scheduled but not heard included:

Canadian War Brides (Melynda Jarratt,Don Chapman (Lost Canadians)

Amandeep Singh, Singh Thind & Associates

Narindarpal Singh Kang, Law Firm of Kang & Company

I have created a top-level tab for C-24 briefings for those interested (note that not all organizations post their briefs or respond to requests for same) and add a link to transcripts when available (usually about 2 weeks after meetings).

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

Women From China, Taiwan Pay $30,000 To Give Birth In Bay Area, Get U.S. Citizenship For Child « CBS San Francisco

2014/05/12 Leave a comment

No hard numbers (“growing numbers,” “dozens of agencies”) but interesting. Certainly parents are thinking ahead; whether the children eventually move to the US when the grow up will depend on the relative opportunities between China, Taiwan and the US:

Women From China, Taiwan Pay $30,000 To Give Birth In Bay Area, Get U.S. Citizenship For Child « CBS San Francisco.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

UK: Theresa May to seek support for plan to deprive terror suspects of citizenship

2014/05/09 Leave a comment

In light of the Canadian government’s proposed revocation for dual nationals convicted of terrorism or comparable crimes, will be interesting to see whether UK Home Secretary will be able to overcome House of Lords opposition to revocation even in cases of statelessness.

To be followed as the UK has, among Western countries, the most draconian and discretionary approach to revocation (the Canadian government proposals have been questioned by some witnesses on both substantive and process grounds at committee hearings, but this less arbitrary with some due process in contrast to UK):

A former director of public prosecutions, a former supreme court judge and 23 Liberal Democrats were among the 242 peers who supported Lord Pannick’s successful Lords amendment that would delay its implementation. The move was added to the immigration bill in January without any of the pre-legislative scrutiny that the remainder was subject to.

At the time of the Lords defeat, Pannick said: “There are regrettably all too many dictators around the world willing to use the creation of statelessness as a weapon. We should do nothing to suggest that it is acceptable.”

Theresa May to seek support for plan to deprive terror suspects of citizenship | Politics | The Guardian.

Strong commentary against the UK approach by Donald Campbell of Reprieve, a NGO that “delivers justice and saves lives, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.”

In medieval England, those who had been forced to “abjure the realm” and go into exile would be required to walk barefoot, carrying a wooden cross, to the nearest port.  There, they were to take passage on the first available ship; until they were able to do so, they had to wade, daily, into the sea, as testimony to their willingness to leave the country.

This specific provision is absent from the Home Secretary’s proposed expansion of her powers to arbitrarily deprive Britons of their citizenship – expected to be considered again by MPs this week.  But the echo of the medieval punishment of banishment in the modern measure of ‘citizenship-stripping’ is impossible to ignore. It has perhaps been best summed up by the Supreme Court of the United States, which has described the practice of making someone stateless by removing their citizenship as “a form of punishment more primitive than torture.”

Theresa May’s citizenship-stripping proposal is worse than medieval banishment

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 7 May

2014/05/08 1 Comment

Shorter hearing given voting in the house which made the statements and Q&As shorter.

Supporting the Government’s approach were the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, National Forum for Civic Action, and James Bissett, a retired immigration official who comments on immigration and related issues.

Predictably, supporting the opposition were the two academics, Elke Winter and Patti Tamara Lenard of University of Ottawa, with the most neutral advocacy coming from Pre-PR (Permanent Residents) Time counts, focussing on the Government’s proposed elimination of counting time in Canada for students, live-in caregivers, and refugees towards the residency period to become citizens.

Starting with Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Canada, one of the preferred Muslim groups of the governments (along with the Ismailis). After noting the pride members of his community have in Canada, Asif Khan emphasized that Islamic teachings require “absolute love and loyalty” to one’s country of residence. It was essential for the Government to have powers to deter aggression and protect against extremism. He supported the proposed approach to revocation, and argued that more attention and measures should be applied to those who used investment or trade opportunities to enter Canada and spread their “hateful ideologies.” He did express concern over increasing the number of applicants that would be required to take language and knowledge tests.

National Forum for Civic Action argued for even tougher citizenship requirements. Bikram prefaced his comments by saying that he was going to be “politically incorrect.” Canada’s approach placed original Canadians at a disadvantage, and the Government’s approach was half-hearted. Proficiency in English or French, not just adequate knowledge, should be required. Stop family reunification, seniors are “forced to come here” and are unhappy. Permanent Residents on welfare should lose status. Revocation should be broadened to include domestic abuse and should also apply to second generation immigrants and those elected to public office in other countries. Ministerial discretion on humanitarian and compassionate grounds should be ended.

James Bissett, in a somewhat rambling presentation, stressed his support for a longer residency period. He would have preferred five years but proposal goes in right direction. He supports the revocation provisions and (erroneously) stated that this is in line with most EU countries, and citing UK granting the Home Secretary considerable power in this regard. He dismissed that the provisions would create second class citizens as there was an inherent different between those born in Canada, whose citizenship is granted automatically, and those who choose to become naturalized and take the oath.

Opposing the bill, Elke Winter noted that immigration was fundamental to Canadian nation building, that Canadian Immigration was largely economically driven, and that multiculturalism and citizenship were huge factors in increasing belonging. Some elements of C-24 undermine success in integration by making citizenship as the end-point of integration, rather than part of the journey. The bill makes it harder for the less educated, socially and economically disadvantaged, including many women. Higher fees are an additional barrier. For the highly skilled and mobile, the longer and tougher residency requirements may result in this group becoming as “utilitarian as the selection process”, and adopt a more instrumental approach to citizenship. More flexibility over physical residency is required. She opposes the proposed revocation measures and fears that it will increase the suspicion of dual nationals.

Patti Lenard started off by correcting Bissett on revocation, noting that only UK had taken this approach. US and Australia had rejected it, most EU countries either didn’t apply revocation or were changing their approach. While 75 percent of dual nationals were naturalized Canadians, there was also a significant number of dual nationals by birth (i.e., they didn’t make a choice as Bissett asserted). The fundamental problem with revocation is that it made a group of Canadians more vulnerable to the coercive powers of the state, with Ministerial discretion in too many cases, creating the perception, absent a role for the Courts, of possible Ministerial abuse. UK illustrated the risks of what she called a “fundamentally corrupting power.”

Pre-PR Time Counts strongly opposed the elimination of credit for time as a temporary resident counting towards citizenship. Taisia Shcherbakova and Maria Smirnoff argued that Temporary Foreign Workers and equivalent were not newcomers to Canada but had already largely integrated into Canada. The change perversely would give preference to those without any Canadian experience. They noted that this change would place Canada at a disadvantage compared to Australia and the UK, and argued for similar credit of one year for every year of temporary residence (current legislation only provides for 50 percent credit).

Questioning by MPs  largely buttressed party positions, but there were some interesting moments.

In response to CPC/Menangakis, Bissett clarified that while he supported longer residency periods, there was a need for flexibility, as it may create problems for people who have to travel a lot on business.

NDP/Sitsabaiesan rather cleverly did a quick poll of  all witnesses on credit for time as temporary residents. All supported providing credit, notwithstanding their very different perspectives on citizenship. Liberal/McCallum picked up on that point, noting that Minister Alexander had refused to change approach when asked at the beginning of the hearings.

Will add links to briefs as they become available.


  

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →