Voting rights restored to Canadians living abroad long-term

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.

ICYMI: Why a flag has New Zealand in a flap

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.

April Citizenship Processing Statistics – New Tack

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.

C-24 Citizenship Act Committee Hearings – 30 April

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

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

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.

C-24 – Citizenship Act Revisions – Committee Hearings Started

Will be interesting to see how these play out. First day was essentially introduction plus some initial positions from the opposition parties:

… NDP opposition critic Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe started off by asking Alexander to address the bill’s constitutionality. Given the Harper government’s record on tests of constitutionality before the Supreme Court recently, the question’s a touchy one.

In particular, she asked whether the new requirement for those applying for Canadian citizenship to declare their intention to reside in Canada post-citizenship — violated sections six and 15 of the Charter — those that protect the right to free mobility and equal protection under the law.

“With regard to our bill and the constitution — of course we reviewed this bill in that context. I carried this out with my colleague the minister of justice and we believe this bill is in complete conformity with the requirements of our constitution,” Alexander answered in French.

“It is reasonable, in our view, to require that a permanent resident wishing to become a Canadian citizen express his or her intention to reside in Canada.”

Liberal critic John McCullum focussed on the impact of no longer providing credit to foreign students for time spent in Canada prior to becoming permanent residents as part of residency qualifications. Minister Alexander restated the government’s position.

This change also affects refugees, arguably not a priority for the Government, and live-in caregivers. The latter, largely Filipinos, may, should the Filipino Canadian community become active on this issue, may be more problematic given that this community is one of the Government’s political target communities.

To be continued, and thanks to iPolitics for covering the hearings.

Citizenship reform bill is constitutional, Alexander assures committee

Le gouvernement Couillard peut sauver la réforme de 2006

Good commentary by Christian Laville on Quebec’s “history wars” in relation to public education and the historical narrative used. The PQ government had plans to revise the curriculum, in line with their objective of creating long-term disengagement from Canadian history, a more balanced approach may come from the new Liberal government:

Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, le rapport Beauchemin–Famhy-Eid est bien conforme aux voeux du Parti québécois et de la Coalition. Ce qui est central dans ce rapport, c’est la proposition de revenir à un programme ordonné selon la trame nationale. En veut-on une illustration ? Dans la partie argumentative de ce petit rapport, quarante pages bien aérées, on compte 25 fois les mots « trame nationale », dont 13 fois « la trame nationale ». Comme il est expliqué, la trame nationale doit servir de fil conducteur vers la question nationale « qui organise et singularise l’histoire du Québec, depuis les premiers balbutiements d’une communauté découvrant sa singularité jusqu’aux méandres de la “ question nationale ” telle qu’elle circonscrit aujourd’hui nos conflits et nos rassemblements » (p. 41).

Il est donc facile de reconnaître ce que cela implique. D’autant plus facilement que dans les milieux nationalistes-conservateurs, ladite trame nationale apparaît souvent comme synonyme de cheminement vers la souveraineté. Ainsi, chez un des principaux animateurs de l’opposition au programme actuel, l’historien Éric Bédard, qui, commentant la défaite du Parti québécois du 7 avril, explique : « On annonce un peu vite la défaite du mouvement souverainiste. Cette trame nationale traverse notre histoire. »

Le ballon est maintenant entre les mains du nouveau gouvernement. Durant la campagne électorale, Philippe Couillard a déclaré : « Je veux m’assurer qu’on est dans une direction de mieux informer les gens de notre histoire, et qu’il n’y ait pas de teinte politique partisane, qui est parfois subtile. » Le moment est venu de s’en assurer. Et de procéder pour sauver un enseignement de l’histoire de qualité qui peut encore être sauvé, un enseignement de l’histoire moderne sachant tenir compte des réalités de notre époque et des besoins des élèves d’aujourd’hui.

Sauver l’enseignement de l’histoire en préservant la forme moderne du programme en vigueur, cependant, n’empêcherait pas de corriger certains des irritants que les enseignants ont constatés dans leur pratique, et dont plusieurs, il est juste de le dire, sont mentionnés dans le rapport Beauchemin–Famhy-Eid. Nous pensons par exemple au rétablissement d’une chronologie continue, à une rédaction plus claire du programme, à la clarification des connaissances à faire acquérir… Le rapport propose aussi d’accroître la part de l’histoire dans la formation des maîtres, ce que nous appuyons.

Le gouvernement Couillard peut sauver la réforme de 2006 | Le Devoir.

Why is Canada botching the Great War centenary? – Granatstein

Funny to see how the academics who support the overall thrust of the Government’s change of emphasis on Canada’s historical narrative, particularly the increased emphasis on the military, have started to realize the limitations of the Government’s commitment. Jack Granatstein’s commentary on the commemoration of WW1 and Canada’s role is valid and telling (for his critique of the Government’s cuts to Library and Archives Canada see Who will preserve the past for future generations?:

But the Great War years also changed the homeland. Women relatives of Canadian soldiers got the vote in 1917, and thousands of women left farms and hearths to work in munitions factories that produced a quarter of the artillery shells for British and Dominion forces by 1917. Prohibition cut off alcohol sales; millions were raised in Victory Loan campaigns; income tax came into effect (as a “temporary” wartime measure); and farmers and workers began to organize politically as inflation hit everyone. Above all, conscription in 1917 split the nation, pitting farmers against city dwellers, labour against bosses, French against English. That year’s election, won by the pro-conscription Unionist government of Sir Robert Borden, was the most racist in our history.

We certainly don’t want to celebrate all of these wartime events and changes, but we need to talk about them and learn from them. We need TV documentaries on the war and its battles and on the events, positive and negative, on the home front. We need books, conferences, lectures and displays in our national and local museums. We need to remember.

This requires some modest new funding. There will be a surplus by 2015, and there will be money available – if the government wishes to use it. There will also be the money to ensure that veterans get the help they require. It’s not a zero-sum game.

We really must remember the Great War properly. It was when Canada stood proudly on the world stage for the first time, and it would be a disgrace for the government to shortchange it.

Why is Canada botching the Great War centenary? – The Globe and Mail.

Spotlighting a law that stripped U.S.-born women of citizenship

Good reminder of some of the past history of citizenship policy, and how people lost their citizenship, in this case due to marriage of an immigrant:

Daniel Swalm was researching his family when he came across a disturbing episode in immigration history. That discovery would lead to a move in the U.S. Senate to apologize for action the nation took more than a century ago.

Swalm discovered that under an obscure 1907 law, his grandmother Elsie, born and raised in Minnesota, was stripped of her U.S. citizenship after marrying an immigrant from Sweden.

Swalm had never heard of the Expatriation Act that required a U.S.-born woman who married a foreigner to “take the nationality of her husband.”

Swalm, who lives in Minneapolis, found out about the law when he stumbled across an alien registration form filled out by Elsie Knutson Moren.

“I could not figure out why Grandma Elsie had to fill one out, because she was born in the United States,” he said.

The law has caught others by surprise, too.

“There are all these people doing their genealogy, and they come across relatives who were declared alien enemies during World War I, and they’re trying to figure out why that would be if they were born in the United States,” said Candice Bredbenner, a history professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.

Spotlighting a law that stripped U.S.-born women of citizenship – latimes.com.

Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals?

Konrad Yakabuski on C-24’s proposed revocation measures for terrorism-related crimes, calling for serious debate on the implications, given recent US and UK revelations regarding US drone strikes on former UK citizens whose citizenship was revoked. See also Chris Selley’s Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.

Will be interesting to see if the debate within Committee focuses on the long-standing principle since Diefenbaker that a citizen is a citizen, whether born in Canada or naturalized, or more on due process and rule of law in any referrals to the Federal Court seeking revocation.

Still, C-24 is not perfect. Its proposal to strip dual nationals convicted of terror-related crimes of their Canadian citizenship warrants serious scrutiny in light of recent revelations by the British news media. If the intent is to ease CIA drone strikes, or the extradition to the United States of terrorist suspects living abroad, MPs should think long and hard about what that means for Canada.

Mr. Alexander has said he is “confident” that many of the 130 Canadians believed to be fighting with extremist groups abroad are dual nationals. Revoking their citizenship while they’re outside the country could prevent them from ever returning to Canada. This country would effectively absolve itself of their fate, even though some of them may have been born here…

Mr. Alexander has insisted that “the courts will play a very important role” in the process of revoking the Canadian citizenship of a dual national convicted of terrorism. That’s an improvement over the British system, where most of the power lies with the Home Secretary. But is it enough? The Commons citizenship committee needs to ask Mr. Alexander some tough questions.

Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals? – The Globe and Mail

Or, given the “shopping for votes” culture, opposition parties focus more on fee increases and increased residency requirements.