“Protecting Canadian Citizenship” – Citizenship Fraud Update – Numbers Still Small

Citizenship Fraud.037Given the number of citizenship fraud investigations (some 3200), numbers are still relatively low (see my earlier Overstating “Fraud” – New Canadian Media – NCM).

While 300 Notices of Intent to Revoke Citizenship may seem a lot, in the context of an average 140,000 new citizens per year – 2009-13, or the 200,000 plus this year, appears that the rhetoric has exceeded the reality):

Since the beginning of 2014, the Government has revoked the citizenship of 22 people who obtained their Canadian citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation

… Since 1988, the government has revoked citizenship from 119 individuals who were found to have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.

The Government is revoking citizenship on a scale that has never been done before with 300 Notices of Intent to Revoke Citizenship since July 2011.

Protecting Canadian Citizenship – Canada News Centre.

Changes to live-in caregiver program won’t solve backlog, groups fear – Politics – CBC News

More shadow boxing on upcoming changes to the live-in caregivers program:

[Minister] Alexander acknowledged the growing need for more caregivers and nannies across the country.

“Canada needs caregivers … but we need them, and I think caregivers are the first to recognize this, in a broader range of occupations than ever before.

“Some in the traditional role of helping with young children at home. Others, helping with medical need situations in homes. And then in institutions as well where there are a wide variety of needs, professional needs, highly-skilled needs that aren’t necessarily being met anywhere close to the scale needed in many parts of the country,” Alexander said.

Employment Minister Jason Kenney was more critical of the caregiver program in June saying it had morphed into a family reunification program.

NDP immigration critic Lysanne Blanchette-Lamothe criticized the government for its “lack of transparency.”

“They’ve hinted at changes, while vilifying certain communities they claim are abusing the program, without providing any evidence. “They’ve refused to hold public and open consultations and have excluded important advocates and experts from their closed-door consultations,” Blanchette-Lamothe said in a written statement to CBC News.

Changes to live-in caregiver program wont solve backlog, groups fear – Politics – CBC News.

Confusion reigned at CIC after Kenney kept on multiculturalism

Embassy article on how CIC had to scramble to figure out the implications of Minister Kenney retaining responsibility for the multiculturalism file, including my quotes:

The Conservative government owes its current majority in part to strong support from ethnic communities in suburban Canada, and Mr. Kenney has led the party’s efforts to appeal to immigrant diasporas.

Prime Minister Harper credited Mr. Kenney for turning “small-c conservative” immigrants into “big-C conservatives” and urged United States conservatives to learn from his party’s example during a recent sit-down interview with the Wall Street Journal in New York.

“This is a huge transformation. It’s why we’ve come to office, and have stayed in office,” Mr. Harper commented, according to a report by the Canadian Press.

Andrew Griffith, a director general for citizenship and multiculturalism at Citizenship and Immigration Canada from 2007 until 2011 and now retired, said that the decision to keep Mr. Kenney on the multiculturalism file was “a political point.”

“He engaged the communities, he developed the contacts there, he recruited candidates for the party and he played a major role in the electoral strategy of the party,” said Mr. Griffith, author of the book Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

“It didn’t make any sense for them to switch to another minister who would have to build up the relationships. I suspect that Kenney probably didn’t want to give it up either, because it’s part of his political base.”

Even in situations where Mr. Alexander is responsible for signing off on multiculturalism decisions, Mr. Griffith said that the documents make clear that the minister for multiculturalism is responsible for the substance of those decisions.

“From a bureaucratic point of view, I don’t like it because it’s messier and I think it impacts the ability to do good policy work. But from a political point of view, I understand why the prime minister made that decision,” said Mr. Griffith.

“If I were him, I probably would have made the same decision.”

Message to current public servants: be careful what you say in emails. “Confusion reigns!” may be accurate but may also be too vivid for the public!

Confusion reigned at CIC after Kenney kept on multiculturalism | Embassy – Canadas Foreign Policy Newspaper.

Earlier blog posts and reporting:

Australian PM warns of strict penalties for returning extremists

Interesting that the Australian PM made no mention of revoking Australian citizenship. Just punishment in Australian jails, despite earlier signs the Australian government was considering revocation (George Brandis won’t say if Australians fighting in Syria will lose citizenship):

“If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed,” Abbott told Parliament.

At least 60 Australians were fighting in Iraq and Syria with Islamic State and another al-Qaida offshoot, Jabhat al-Nursa, also known as the Nusra Front, the prime minister said.

He revealed that more than 60 Australian would-be fighters had had their passports cancelled on secret service advice to prevent them from flying to the Mideast.

Dozens of suspected fighters have already returned to Australia from the battlefields. Security agencies fear that they now pose a domestic terrorist threat.

Australian PM warns of strict penalties for returning extremists.

Unlike Canadian Minister Alexander, who declined to provide numbers on the number of Canadian passports cancelled, PM Abbott was open – 60 passports cancelled:

Outside the Commons, Alexander cited privacy and security concerns for his refusal to release numbers.

“It’s an administrative issue, it’s an operational issue,” he said in response to questions from reporters after question period.

“There are privacy considerations. We will not be saying how many have been revoked … but we have the power to do that.”

Despite a barrage of follow-up questions, Alexander held his ground and denied that he was “afraid” to give a number.

“We will uphold a longstanding practice, which is not to go into the details of operational national security matters,” he insisted.

“That’s absolutely reasonable.”

But Australia’s definition of “reasonable” in disclosing the numbers strikes me as more reasonable:

Revoking ISIS passports: Government refuses to disclose numbers

Canadian government revoking passports of citizens trying to join extremist groups

Sensible measure:

He [Alexander] would not disclose the number of passports Citizenship and Immigration Canada had revoked over the conflict but said there were “multiple cases.” The government says about 30 Canadians are with extremist groups in Syria and 130 are active elsewhere.

“Yes, I think it’s safe to say that there are cases of revocation of passports involving people who’ve gone to Syria and Iraq already,” Mr. Alexander said. “I just don’t want to get into the numbers, but multiple cases.”

The action means Canadian fighters in Syria and Iraq may effectively be stranded there. Their passports are no longer valid and therefore cannot be used to return to Canada. Nor could they be used to travel elsewhere.

…. Mr. Alexander said while they were few in number, he was troubled that Canadians had joined ISIS, which has been committing widespread atrocities in an attempt to impose its militant version of Islamic law on Syrians and Iraqis.

“We are not by any means the leading contributor of foreign fighters to Syria, even though the dozens that are there and the 130 that are abroad [with other extremist groups] is a disturbing number for all Canadians. But we want to ensure that Canada’s good name is not besmirched by these people any more than it already has been and that Canadians are protected.”

Canadian government revoking passports of citizens trying to join extremist groups

Canadians fighting with Islamic State could lose citizenship | Toronto Star

Minister Alexander’s standard talking points on revocation:

Canadians with dual citizenship fighting with Islamic extremists in Iraq and Syria could have their citizenship revoked under newly passed legislation, Immigration Minister Chris Alexander says.

Alexander says revoking the citizenship of those convicted of terrorism offences — allowed now under new citizenship legislation that became law earlier this year — is an important tool to help stem the tide of foreign fighters flocking to join Islamic State also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

“We will do it in every case we can, in the case of dual nationals,” Alexander told reporters Monday.

“Terrorism, espionage, treason are the most serious acts of disloyalty that you can commit. Terrorism is incompatible with citizenship.”

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati is challenging the legislation, saying Parliament does not have the constitutional power to strip a Canadian-born citizen of his or her citizenship.

But Alexander said that revocation would happen only with “clear safeguards,” such as a court conviction for terrorism.

“Only when we have that conviction will revocation become a possibility,” the immigration minister told reporters on Parliament Hill.

The inconvenient truth is the number of Canadian-born with single nationality (e.g., Damian Clairmont, André Poulin, the Gordon brothers, John Maguire) would not be subject to revocation (those still alive), thus different punishments for the same crime.

Another likely defeat for the Government when the first cases come before the courts.

Canadians fighting with Islamic State could lose citizenship | Toronto Star.

What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com

From my piece in the Hill Times (pay wall) on birth tourism or “anchor babies:”

But it is clear, that allegations of abuse play to the value Canadians attach to fairness, and fits into the overall government message and politics of cracking down on fraud.

But the evidence we have is clear: there is no business case to inconvenience millions of Canadians, for whom a birth certificate may no longer be sufficient identification, and cost taxpayers significant amounts to address a tiny problem.

Alexander’s spokesperson recently stated, refreshingly, that decisions will be “informed by facts,” rather than anecdotes.

What general lessons can we draw from this?

First, anecdotes drive identification of policy issues.

Second, rhetoric runs ahead of evidence.

Third, the provinces provided the most effective brake on anecdote-driven policy given that any workable response required their cooperation. Contrast this to the Citizenship Act changes, where the government had no need to be flexible.

Fourth, funding implications and provincial constraints ensured evidence trumped anecdote.

What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com.

Temporary Foreign Workers: Film, TV industry assured timely permits

Another sector adversely affected but whose concerns appear reasonable for the Government:

Christian Allen, the chair of the Commercial Production Association of Western Canada, has been calling on the government to give the film and TV industry the same exemption it recently gave musicians.

“The meeting was incredibly positive. The government is very aware of the issues and is responding by working with us to correct the problems as quickly as possible.”

A spokesperson for Alexander would not say what action the minister agreed to take but said he acknowledged the economic contribution the film and TV industry brings to the Canadian economy.‎

“Minister Alexander met with representatives from the television and film industry in Vancouver yesterday [Wednesday] because he understands the sector creates jobs and economic opportunity for Canadians.

It was clear that some of their concerns predate our government’s reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program,” Codie Taylor told CBC News in an email Thursday.

Temporary Foreign Workers: Film, TV industry assured timely permits – Politics – CBC News.

India: Liberal immigration norms make Canada new destination for techies

Nice to see positive messaging for a change:

But Alexander was clear the popular reaction is positive. “We are an immigration country. We have built our success on immigration and we have protected that legacy through the economic crisis of 2008-09. We are still a growth play, whether in the technology and resource sectors or finance.”

For many reasons – English education and skills – Indians score high in the acceptability chart. “We have three countries that are in a league of their own as sources of immigration – China, India and the Philippines.”

In 2013, over 33,000 Indian immigrants came to Canada, Alexander said. Around 60 per cent were economic migrants, rest were families.

Alexander is clear that unlike the US, Canada has had a more positive evolution of its immigration systems. “We have reformed, we have evolved.”

It is far easier to get permanent residence in Canada. Alexander said, “It only requires you to be in Canada for two years out of five. So someone who is global and wants to go back and forth can do that – be a Canadian permanent resident while doing some part of business here in India.”

Liberal immigration norms make Canada new destination for techies – The Economic Times.

Federal government to appeal ruling reversing cruel cuts to refugee health

No surprise that the Government intends to appeal, what is strong condemnation from the federal judge against the cuts to refugee claimant healthcare and a major victory for refugee advocates, if the decision is upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal and possibly Supreme Court:

Alexander said in a statement that the government “will vigorously defend the interests of taxpayers and … the integrity of our fair and generous refugee determination system.”

The court found the governments treatment of refugees is “cruel and unusual” because it jeopardizes their health and shocks the conscience of Canadians.

Judge Anne Mactavish ruled the federal cabinet has the power to make such changes and that the procedure was fair, but that the people affected by the changes are being subjected to “cruel and unusual” treatment.

“This is particularly, but not exclusively, so as it affects children who have been brought to this country by their parents,” Mactavish wrote in the 268-page decision.

“The 2012 modifications to the [Interim Federal Health Program] potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives, of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages Canadian standards of decency. “I have found as a fact that lives are being put at risk.”

Given refugee reform, particularly the safe country provisions, that have resulted in dramatic declines in numbers of refugee claimants (from 20,503 in 2012 to 10,372 in 2013 if my reading of the stats is correct).

Given this decline, and  consequent reductions in health costs, questionable whether the original rationale is as strong as before, Ministerial rhetoric notwithstanding.

Federal government to appeal ruling reversing cruel cuts to refugee health – Politics – CBC News.