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 , , , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 5 May

2014/05/06 2 Comments

As there was no real press coverage of Committee hearings 5 May, watched the video and the following summary may be of interest.

Like many committee hearings, an element of Kabuki theatre with the Government asking questions of witnesses in favour of their approach to revocation while the opposition asking questions of those opposed to revocation and a number of other provisions.

On the Government “side,” there was Canadian Israel Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD); “for” the opposition, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

CIJA supported most aspects of the proposed changes, including increased residency, language and knowledge requirements, the intent to reside, and the revocation provisions. Given that the possible impact of the Israel’s law of return, given all Jews the right to Israeli residency and citizenship, subject to an application process, Fogal spent considerable time stating that the dual national distinction did not apply to the right to having another citizenship but only to those who exercise that right. He did, however, note the need for some process improvements, particularly the need in any terror-related convictions in foreign countries to be subject to a test that they were equivalent to Canadian practice and fairness.

Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation (ACTVF) and the Foundation for Defence of Democracies also support the Government’s revocation proposals (see earlier opinion piece by Sheryl Saperia The case for revoking citizenship – National Post). Both argue that the fundamental social contract makes revocation appropriate in such extreme cases of terrorism, war crimes and the like.

Saperia of FDD noted the need for some process improvements (tighter drafting of connection to Canada for terrorist activities and, like CIJA, the need to have explicit criteria for determining the equivalence of foreign to Canadian convictions). On dual nationals, she said that in cases where other countries do not allow for renunciation, the Minister could have discretion to decided on the degree of connectedness to the foreign country. She also emphasized the need for more preventative anti-radicalization measures, noting the RCMP high-risk traveller program (RCMP set to tackle extremism at home with program to curb radicalization of Canadian youth), as well as requiring those applying for passports to make some sort of commitment to not engage in such activity.

For Alliance founder Maureen Basnicki, it is intensely personal, given she is a 9/11 widow, and believes that:

Therefore, if Canada allows a convicted terrorist to retain the Canadian citizenship, Canada is in effect saying “we accept the terrorist act as part of the fabric of life in Canada”.

But we also allow murderers and sex offenders to stay in Canada, as unfortunately they too are part of the fabric of society.

All three did not acknowledge that dual nationality does not only apply to naturalized Canadians. One can be born in Canada and yet have dual nationality. And if such a person is born and educated in Canada, is  “outsourcing” the problem, without accepting responsibility. And I suspect that the distinction made between the legal right to another citizenship, without taking it up, is a distinction that may not be applied equally to all communities, combined with the reverse onus of proof.

On the opposition “side”, the Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group focussed on the situations of some of the more vulnerable refugees, and recommended keeping existing residency requirements (3 of 4 years), some exemptions for the knowledge and language requirements, testing language at end of process, maintaining right of Court appeal, reversal of proposed fee increases, no power to strip dual nationals of Canadian citizenship, and ensure intent to reside provision is not grounds for misrepresentation given that situations change.

Audrey Macklin of CARL focussed on the intent to reside and revocation provisions. On the former, their reading is that the law is written so that this could be grounds for citizenship revocation on grounds of fraud or misrepresentation. On revocation, CARL focussed on the constitutionality, noting that Charter rights cannot be violated as punishment, and that the social contract argument is not supported by jurisprudence. The distinction between “mono” and dual Canadian citizens is also likely not Charter compliant. She also raised a number of procedural rights (e.g., retroactively, reverse onus of proof) as areas of concern.

Questioning by MPs was largely predictable. Government MPs asked questions of “their side” as did opposition MPs, both trying to buttress their own positions.

One of the more interesting questions, however, was by Chungsen Leung (CPC), who went on at some length about how attachment and contribution to Canada could happen when one was abroad, almost questioning the intent to reside provision. The eventual question, directed at CIJA, reverted back to the obvious examples of citizens of convenience (e.g., 2006 Lebanese evacuation), with CIJA maintaining that being the real aim of the provision. But then drafting should be tighter so as not to cast to broad a net on Canadians that may move abroad for valid work, study or family reasons.

Ted Opitz (CPC) was poorly briefed in arguing that many countries have the same approach to revocation as proposed by the Government and that a previous Liberal government had ended revocation for treason. CARL corrected him on the former point (only UK currently has this approach, Australia is considering) and it was under Diefenbaker, two generations ago, that Canada stopped revoking citizenship from dual citizens.

And a bit of an interesting debate between Saperia and Basnicki with Macklin of CARL on whether the world would think better of Canada if we revoked citizenship or not. For Saperia and Basnicki, this was viewed as a strong signal worldwide that Canada did not tolerate such activity; Macklin argued the contrary that “outsourcing” our problem would signal that Canada does not take responsibility for the activities of its citizens. A philosophical divide.

Links (where available) are below. One note of frustration, the Parliamentary website, apart from posting agenda and the video link, does not appear to be posting briefs or transcripts, making it harder for those who wish to follow the discussions. A related frustration is that a number of organizations to not post their briefs and statements on their websites automatically or respond to requests for copies. I will update this list as the briefs and statements become available.

Inter-Clinic Immigration Working Group

Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs – CIJA (link not yet posted)

Alliance of Canadian Terror Victims Foundation

Foundation for Defense of Democracies (link not yet posted)

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (brief)

CARL Press Release: New Citizenship Act Threatens Rights of All Canadians

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

Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term

2014/05/06 1 Comment

I expect the Government to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, as it would be consistent with their overall approach to citizenship, anchored more to residency and connection to Canada:

“The [government] essentially argues that allowing non-residents to vote is unfair to resident Canadians because resident Canadians live here and are, on a day-to-day basis, subject to Canada’s laws and live with the consequences of Parliament’s decisions,” Penny wrote.

“I do not find this argument persuasive.”

For one thing, Penny ruled, expats may well be subject to Canadian tax and other laws.

The government, the judge found, had decided some citizens are “not worthy” to vote despite their constitutional right to do so.

“This is not the lawmakers’ decision to make — the Charter makes this decision for us,” Penny wrote.

Expatriate Canadians may or may not follow Canadian issues closely, the vast majority pay no Canadian taxes, mainly follow country of residence laws, and other connections to Canada diminish over time. The five-year rule was a way to capture that reality in one that can be implemented and less subject to interpretation.

Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term – Politics – CBC News.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

ICYMI: Why a flag has New Zealand in a flap

2014/05/05 Leave a comment

Our flag debate was controversial and divisive at the time. While there is still some nostalgia in some quarters for the red ensign and flying the Union Jack, comment by New Zealand Prime Minister Kay on how it is accepted is correct:

Prime Minister John Key, an avowed monarchist (and a buddy of Prime Minister Stephen Harper), wants a new flag. Last month, he pledged a referendum on the matter if he’s re-elected this fall, which is highly likely.

“Back in 1965, Canada changed its flag from one that, like ours, also had the Union Jack in the corner, and replaced it with the striking symbol of modern Canada that all of us recognize and can identify today,” Mr. Key said last month.

“Fifty years on, I can’t imagine many Canadians would, if asked, choose to go back to the old flag. That flag represented Canada as it was once, rather than as it is now.”

Mr. Key is right about that. Many Canadians will recall the “flag debate” in which former prime minister John Diefenbaker led his Progressive Conservatives in a ferocious and protracted parliamentary battle to preserve the Red Ensign. Mr. Diefenbaker was on the wrong side of history (as he often was, despite today’s Conservative attempts to lionize him). Today, almost no one wants to return to the Red Ensign. Apart from hard-core Quebec secessionists, the red Maple Leaf is liked and admired both in Canada and abroad.

We sometimes had discussions with Minister Kenney’s staff on which flags should be on stage for various events. Their general preference was to have the historic flags as well as the current flag.

Why a flag has New Zealand in a flap – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

April Citizenship Processing Statistics – New Tack

2014/05/02 Leave a comment

Interesting that the Government has shifted its reporting of processing gains from overall national statistics to just highlighting a number of urban centres, comparing April 2014 to April 2013:

Growing number of new citizens in Scarborough (3,200 compared to about half that)

Calgary welcomes more new citizens (1,164 compared to 284)

Montréal welcomes 750 new Canadians (approx. 750, no comparative data for 2013)

Unclear whether change in reporting reflects total national stats not as impressive as previous months, or just a different communications approach. A reminder that consistent performance information aligned to service standards still lacking.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 30 April

2014/05/01 Leave a comment

Good overview by CBC and iPolitics on yesterday’s C-24 hearings. Apart from Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, all other testimony expressed serious concern over the proposed revocation provisions, both on process (how the decision is taken) and substance (should we treat single and dual nationals different, is banishment appropriate?).

Naturally enough, the likelihood or not of the proposed approach being in compliance with the Constitution and Charter was raised again. Minister Alexander on Monday stated that the Bill is in “complete conformity with the requirements of our constitution” (the Government does not release internal legal opinions which are exempt under ATIP). Given the Government’s track record on recent SCC high-profile cases, and any number of other cases, not sure whether Minister Alexander’s certainty is well-placed.

Collacott’s rationale on supporting revocation provisions:

“A survey in 2012 found that eight out of 10 people…agreed that Canadians found guilty of treason or terrorism should lose their citizenship, he said, then mentioned an Ipsos Reid poll from several years earlier that reached a similar conclusion.

“Of course if we started taking away citizenship from every Canadian who was charged with a terrorism act — say, in Russia for activities in Ukraine or a lot of other places — we would have a problem. But I don’t think that’s what the bill’s aimed at. And I don’t think the bill will be misused for that purpose.”

While Collacott is correct on public opinion, having faith in the bill not being misused does not excuse the risks of overly broad drafting, even if one accepts the principle. David Matas of B’nai Brith made the point in noting that “terrorism offence” the term used in the Bill, should be narrowed to “act of terrorism”.

Citizenship has its privileges: committee debates terms of revocation (iPolitics)

Citizenship changes ‘likely unconstitutional,’ lawyers warn (CBC)

David Berger, former Liberal MP and Ambassador to Israel, focuses more on the increased residency and related requirements, arguing:

These measures are counter-productive in the 21st century when people arguably are our most important asset and we should help all of our residents to develop to their fullest potential. Immigrants are particularly critical for Canada, because they account for 67 per cent of our annual population growth.

The removal of flexibility is also out of step with an increasingly globalized economy in which immigrants can contribute to our economy and society through their activities abroad. It also contradicts the goal of the government’s highly touted startup visa which according to Employment Minister Jason Kenney aims to attract the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Immigrants admitted under this program can fully be expected to spend considerable time outside Canada if they are building the next Apple Computer or Microsoft.

Citizen should encourage citizenship

Links to briefs:

Canadian Bar Association

Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers

B’nai Brith

Centre for Immigration Policy Reform (not yet posted)

Video of 28 April First Session

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

Middle Easterners Make Up Majority of Second-Citizenship Applicants, Report Says – Middle East Real Time – WSJ

2014/05/01 Leave a comment

Not surprising:

But statistics in a new report commissioned by Arton Capital, one of those firms, suggest people from the Middle East have come to dominate the citizenship-for-investment landscape.

Just shy of 60% of the world’s super-wealthy who apply for second citizenships come from the region, by the reckoning of Wealth-X, an information company that crunched numbers for the report. Despite containing just 5% of people classified as “ultra high net worth individuals” – multi-millionaires and billionaires – the Middle East now accounts for a majority of the world’s uber-wealthy citizenship-seekers.

Political instability probably has a lot to do with it. Since the Arab Spring erupted in 2011, scores of wealthy people from countries like Lebanon, Egypt and Syria have jumped on the second-citizenship bandwagon as a way to ensure they can still travel, do business and even relocate their families permanently if need be in the fact of instability. People from Lebanon, beset by spillover from Syria’s civil war, made up 15% of second-citizenship applicants, according to the report, while Syrians and Egyptians each made up 7%.

Middle Easterners Make Up Majority of Second-Citizenship Applicants, Report Says – Middle East Real Time – WSJ.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →