Five bills likely to stoke Harper’s conflict with Supreme Court

On the list:

C-24, the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” received royal assent and became law June 19.

The government billed C-24 as a once-in-a-generation overhaul of citizenship law, but some of its provisions proved deeply divisive. Foremost among those is a clause that allows the government to strip citizenship from Canadian-born citizens if they’ve been convicted of treason, espionage or terrorism and have citizenship in another country.

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati launched a legal challenge against the provision on June 25, saying the government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to make the change. That was after several earlier warnings during committee consideration of the bill.

“It appears to be against the Charter, and I expect there will be significant litigation,” Barbara Jackman, a member of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Immigration Law Section, told a Senate committee considering the bill.

The CBA also took issue with a change in the bill that asks applicants to declare an intent to reside in Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has brushed aside concerns, saying Canadians aren’t required to stay in the country, but critics have pointed to provisions in the bill that allow citizenship-stripping in cases of fraud, and asked whether the “intent” clause could be considered in a fraud case. The CBA said the provision is “likely unconstitutional.

”Mr. Alexander assured a committee studying the bill that it was constitutional, a point put to Ms. Jackman by the committee.“I would remind the committee that [government has] passed other legislation that, again and again, the Supreme Court of Canada has struck down just recently. So the fact that the Department of Justice and the minister say it is constitutional doesn’t mean it is,” she replied.

Audrey Macklin, a professor and Chair in Human Rights Law at the University of Toronto, echoed many of the warnings on Charter compliance but also said that under C-24, those about to be stripped of citizenship are given the onus to prove they do not hold citizenship elsewhere – which would stop the process, as Canada won’t leave someone stateless – rather than making the government prove that person does hold citizenship elsewhere. Prof. Macklin warned that such a “reverse-onus provision” also violates the Charter.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also has raised warnings about the constitutionality of C-24.

“CCLA is seriously concerned that Bill C-24 has created a second tier of citizenship that is incompatible with equality principles,” General Counsel and Executive Director Sukanya Pillay said in an e-mail. “…We must remember that citizenship includes rights, and to strip individuals of citizenship is to re-introduce archaic punishments such as exile and banishment – the possibility of statelessness is also a serious concern. Any arbitrary loss of citizenship is incompatible with democratic values and fundamental rights.”

Five bills likely to stoke Harper’s conflict with Supreme Court – The Globe and Mail.

C-24 Citizenship Act: Senate Hearings – 11 June

Second and last day of witnesses at Senate Committee examining C-24. Same technical frustrations with Parlvu, so again have captured as best I can.

Starting with supporting witnesses:

Martin Collacott of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform noted these changes were long overdue. Longer residency and physical presence would reduce fraud, noting many “parked their families in Canada, benefitting from Canadian healthcare and education while they worked abroad.” Increased penalties and filing of tax returns made sense. However, the only secure way to eliminate residence fraud was through entry and exit controls. Higher language requirements were needed for more skilled labour and management and extension of language requirements to 14-64 was welcome. He supported revocation for treason or terror and noted UK has an even more strict approach (no statelessness provision). A 2012 survey showed 80 percent supported for revocation. He welcomed the Lost Canadians fix. He also stated the need for the government to end jus soli (birthright citizenship) but noted some of the challenges working with the provinces.
Sheryl Saperia of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies largely repeated her earlier testimony to CIMM. Revocation was about ‘updating the social contract of citizenship.”  It was “fitting to lose citizenship” for treason, terrorism or armed conflict. But the Bill should be tightened to terrorism in Canada, against Canadian targets or for Canadian listed entities. If nothing to do with Canada, there should be no citizenship consequences. Persons should not be able to use the Canadian passport to travel for terror; we needed to “remove this weapon of Canadian citizenship” given the freedom to travel that it entails. As before, she noted the need for a second test of due process and fairness in the case of foreign convictions. She also mentioned argued that Canadian passport applications should include an acknowledgement that engagement in terrorism or treason could entail revocation, again to reinforce the social contract.

Tim Edwards, President and Ron Cochrane, Executive Director Executive Director, Professional Association of Foreign Service Officers expressed their support for ensuring that the children born to Crown servants born abroad would have an exemption to the first generation limit to allow them to pass on Canadian citizenship to their children. No debate or discussion, apart from a quip by Senator Eggleton that “we should pass it and kill the rest.”

Opposing the Bill were:

Barbara Jackman, Kerri Froc, Barbara J. Caruso, Canadian Bar Association started with their overall assessment that C-24 discouraged persons from applying through its “layers of regulations, harder, longer and more costly process.” Like others, CBA opposed elimination of pre-P.R. time. They questioned how an applicant would prove their intent to reside and reiterated their concern that despite the Minister’s assurance regarding possible grounds for misrepresentation should one’s intent to reside change post-citizenship. CBA, like most lawyers, opposed revocation for dual nationals. It is discriminatory and takes away the “certainty of citizenship.” Banishment or exile was a way to “get through the back door what the Government couldn’t get through the “front door.”

Yuen Pau Woo, President and CEO, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada provided a different perspective by focussing on the contribution made by Canadians living abroad. He focussed this criticism on the increased residency requirements. He believed that this would result in reduced citizenship accession rates. This would result in fewer economic benefits to Canada; if citizenship was relatively easy, more new Canadians would invest in their human capital and improve their earning power. The intent was not clear: if to punish immigrants, this would not increase attachment. If to curb abuse of social benefit programs, given that these programs are available to permanent residents, increasing citizenship requirements would not make a difference. The best mix was a high bar to entry but a relatively low bar for citizenship. The general implications of the Bill were that Canadians residing in Canada were “more Canadian than those abroad.” This was an outdated view, given the high mobility of labour in today’s world, particularly the most highly talented (“best and brightest”). Some 2.8 million Canadians lived abroad, or 9 percent of the population. Restoring voting rights beyond 5 years was an additional way to encourage attachment to Canada. Increased residency requirements would reduce both economic benefits and attachment to Canada.

Melynda Jarratt, Canadian War Brides, in a strongly worded statement, talked about the history of Canadian war brides who were initially welcomed to Canada along with their children as Canadians but the “bureaucrats changed their mind.” Canadian citizenship did not start in 1947 with the first Citizenship Act but there were many government statements and court decisions that mentioned Canadian citizenship before then. She argued for the need for a citizenship ombudsman and amnesty program to address the remaining estimated 50,000 Lost Canadians not addressed by C-24. It was also important to recognize the Canadian war dead from both World Wars as Canadian, not just British subjects. She ended by saying that it was “disgraceful” how Don Chapman was treated and not able to testify.

Particular points of interest:

  • As expected, focus was on revocation. Senator Eggleton noted the current trial in Egypt of Mohamed Fahmy, a dual citizen. If convicted, theoretically his citizenship could be revoked. Collacott noted that was a worst case and unlikely  scenario.  Revocation was needed to deal with serious acts against Canada.
  • Senator Eaton questioned Canadian Iranians who go to Iran, engage in political activity, and then “wave their Canadian passport when they get into trouble. “Why get involved if Canada is your home?” A bit odd, given the Government’s encouragement of Ukrainian Canadians and others to participate in their “homeland” issues.
  • Saperia said that not every distinction is necessarily discriminatory. People who choose dual citizenship should not view themselves as discriminated against. C-24 protected people against statelessness. Collacott, rather candidly, noted that “we can’t get rid of Canadians we don’t like” but we can for dual nationals. Caruso noted the equality and mobility rights of the Charter made this approach discriminatory.
  • A somewhat amusing exchange between Senator Eggleton and Saperia over whether revocation was really only about Omar Kadr. Saperia, reluctant to get into a debate over Kadr, cited the recent Globe article, Made-in-Canada terror is real – and it’s being ignored, said it is a broader issue.
  • Saperia stated that the decision-making process was less important than ensuring the right factors were concerned. Whether decided by the Courts, the Minister or an official was secondary.
  • Senator Tkachuk challenged the assertion that the increase in fees was unreasonable.Caruso said the increase was “overwhelming for many.”
  • Good discussion on increased residency requirements. Senator Seidman noted that 4 years out of 6 provided considerable flexibility to address work, study, or family related travel. Woo emphasized that in a world of global careers, the need to diversity Canada’s trade beyond the US and the importance of contacts, more flexibility is required. Otherwise, Canada would get a “poorer quality of applicants.” Both Collacott and Senator Eaton expressed scepticism over the benefits to Canada of such internationally mobile citizens.
  • Woo also noted that too much attention was paid to the evacuation and return of Lebanese Canadians in 2006. There was a need to protect against abuse. Evacuations could be paid by the evacuees.

Committee hearings today feature Minister Alexander, so expect a spirited exchange given the tone of some of his recent remarks on critics of the Bill.