Changes to Citizenship Process in 2014

Remarks about the proposed legislation giving the Minister unilateral, unchecked power to revoke naturalized citizen's status, as I have previously illuminated, are utterly unfounded, not merely gross exaggerations but patently untrue. Indeed, the proposed provisions will provide an additional layer of judicial review not available under the current law. Moreover, again, how these provisions will be construed and applied, not just pursuant to the Minister's interpretation but also the interpretation of the Federal Court, the Federal Court of Appeals, and potentially even Canada's Supreme Court, will necessarily be grounded in principles of jurisprudence, in the rule of law, for which Constitutional, Charter, and precedential judicial decisions, will all factor extensively.

Let me just say, with some emphasis, that some background reading and digesting of revocation cases will offer some perspective which is necessary (absolutely necessary) to understanding what the current law and proposed provisions will actually mean, how they would (could) be actually applied to particular cases. Without that perspective, observations about what the proposed changes could mean are not merely speculative, but frankly irrelevant, not grounded in the real jurisprudence governing when and how such a drastic action might be employed.

There is controlling perspective. Attempts to read the proposed provision in the abstract, dissociated from the jurisprudence and governing rule of law, the principles which will necessarily prescribe how these provisions can be applied, as if a fiat unto itself, is uninformative hyperbole.

More thorough analysis and illumination of this is addressed in the topic about revoking citizenship.



***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***   ***
As for the what-should-be-the-policy regarding time present in Canada, relative to counting or not counting time in Canada prior to obtaining PR status, that is indeed a policy decision. At this point there is no indication this will be subject to any meaningful debate. Perhaps, but not likely. In other words, in drafting this legislation, the Harper inner circle decided what the policy would be and that is what is reflected in Bill C-24; only time while a PR will count, and that is what will almost certainly become law.

Those hoping for a meaningful debate about this legislation, and in particular those who are hopeful there will be a meaningful effort to make amendments during the committee process which will improve the law, are likely to be disappointed. There is virtually no indication that Harper's control of things will slip much if at all. As indicated previously, for other legislation this government has pushed through since obtaining a majority, the Conservatives have not allowed opposition party proposed amendments to be implemented even if they were entirely about correcting an obvious error in the Bill as is. Their control of the legislation itself is near absolute, and that control is driven from the Prime Minister's Office (Minister Alexander's role is largely as messenger).

The prospect of substantive amendments to this legislation is close to nil. (Although, the scope of the expanded grounds for revocation, based on a naturalized citizen's behavior after becoming a citizen, may be something which invites a level of unexpected controversy, so I suppose that aspect of the Bill could see some backtracking, but I certainly would not count on that happening.)

So, the bill is now on 2nd reading stage from today. When I was watching 6th Feb CTV news where reporter was saying that Govt. is hoping to introduce the bill by end of this year.. 

Edited by Rayman - 27 Feb 2014 at 11:18pm

dpenabill wrote: Remarks about the proposed legislation giving the Minister unilateral, unchecked power to revoke naturalized citizen's status, as I have previously illuminated, are utterly unfounded, not merely gross exaggerations but patently untrue.

I thought you already changed your mind on this issue?

What does this G&M article get wrong?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tories-to-speed-citizenship-stripping/article16762064/

Particularly, they quote an actual immigration lawyer:

“What’s happening here is they’re proposing that citizens could lose their citizenship on a paper-based process with no hearing at all and no independent tribunal – forget about going in front of a judge to make the decision; you may not get to speak to or even see the officer,” said Peter Edelmann, a Vancouver immigration lawyer who sits on the executive committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section. “They’re making it much easier to revoke citizenship.”

coldnomad wrote: dpenabill wrote: Remarks about the proposed legislation giving the Minister unilateral, unchecked power to revoke naturalized citizen's status, as I have previously illuminated, are utterly unfounded, not merely gross exaggerations but patently untrue. I thought you already changed your mind on this issue? What does this G&M article get wrong?http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tories-to-speed-citizenship-stripping/article16762064/Particularly, they quote an actual immigration lawyer:“What’s happening here is they’re proposing that citizens could lose their citizenship on a paper-based process with no hearing at all and no independent tribunal – forget about going in front of a judge to make the decision; you may not get to speak to or even see the officer,” said Peter Edelmann, a Vancouver immigration lawyer who sits on the executive committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Law Section. “They’re making it much easier to revoke citizenship.”

I changed my mind about how the proposed law will change the procedures, and that a "declaration" from the Federal Court will not be a prerequisite to the Minister proceeding with revocation proceedings for those based on having obtained citizenship by fraud. This will not, however, give the Minister unilateral, unfettered power to revoke citizenship. There will actually be more judicial oversight available than there is currently, so in some respects there will be more procedural safeguards, not less.

Contrary to what the lawyer appears to have said, there is a process for obtaining a hearing (which the Charter would require even if the law did not specify, but the proposed law does) and there is judicial oversight, so there will be an "independent tribunal" in the process. The current law, by the way, mostly adds in the step of referral to the Governor in Council, who is not an independent tribunal by any stretch of the imagination . . . eliminating the step of referring revocations to the Governor in Council will make the procedures easier, yes, but that does not mean these new provisions will lower the bar as to what must be proven to justify revocation for fraud.

In any event, my observations are explained in depth in the topic specifically about revocation of citizenship.

dpenabill wrote: Verbatim transcript of members' speeches and statements in the Second Reading debate, yesterday, regarding Bill C-24, along with some partisan bantering, is indeed available now at the Parliament web site. I have not read every statement by every member, but it is, for the most part, what was to be expected: the Minister and Conservative members touting platitudes, superficial conclusions about what is promised in the Bill, while the slings and arrows flung by opposition members largely go unanswered. The opposition parties made a motion to amend to block the Second Reading. For what that is worth. I did note, though, in looking through discussions about other pending legislation, that there are tools the opposition can employ to slow down a Bill's progress considerably unless the Conservatives overtly vote to block or terminate the procedure employed. This is largely about proceedings in committee. In any event, I found little of useful substance in the debate yesterday, and as regards those aspects of this legislation which are potentially more controversial, even the opposition's statements are rather shallow, occasionally repeating some of the more pointed (but largely unfounded) criticisms expressed in some of the media coverage (which is much less than I expected, way, way less than I hoped it would be) without really addressing or illuminating actual substantive information about the potentially more controversial provisions. There was a lot of mixed reaction from the opposition, saying that this Bill does a lot of good, is overdue, but there are flaws. Which is my take on it, and which is why I hope for less focus on hyperbolic and largely (if not entirely) irrelevant criticisms and more focus on the real substance and the flaws therein. Odds are this is going to become law. It will be far better if an effort is made to improve the final product, the Bill which is ultimately adopted, than using sound bytes to take political, partisan shots . . . while I hope that the NDP and the Liberals manage to get the message out that this Conservative government is bad for Canada, my sense is that it would be a mistake to pick this legislation for mounting a battle. Foremost, the Citizenship Act needs real reform, so it is important to get a good law adopted. Secondly, the Conservatives are almost certain to make sure this Bill does get adopted, so it is important to induce them to make improvements, to address its flaws, rather than fight a futile battle to stop it altogether. And, finally, I am afraid that the sound byte topography favours the Conservatives on this one, that the Canadian populace, particularly the voting Canadians, are not likely to get it beyond the more or less superficial "strengthening" Canadian citizenship rhetoric, which is to say I am afraid that the opposition parties may get the worst of it publicly if they go to war over this Bill.

My feelings exactly!  The Canadian public is not interested in the technical details of the bill because most Canadians are not affected by it in any way, shape, or form. So, yes, the professionally crafted sound bytes coming from the Conservatives are precisely what's going to resonate with the people: strengthening the Canadian citizenship, combatting fraud, and increasing government efficiency in processing applications. I say 'professionally crafted' sound bytes because I have no doubt that the message that's being gotten out to the public has been part and parcel of the bill's design right from the start and was meant to stoke nationalistic pride in Canadians in order muster up general support for the bill. Rest assured, the Conservatives have prepared themselves extremely well for this battle.

The bad news is that it's us, the prospective applicants, who are going to get shafted in one way or another, whether it's losing credit for pre-PR time in Canada, or waiting an extra year before you're eligible to apply, or [ fill in your personal situation here ]. While there is no doubt that this bill will pass, with most of its provisions intact, the least the opposition could do (in the uphill battle of seeking to improve the bill) is do us a favor by slowing down the bill's progress and delaying its passage as much as possible (and ultimately its take-effect date).

This is a very agreeable goal since it's obvious that neither the Conservatives in Government nor the public are in any big rush to see the bill take effect. The public for the most part just wants to be assured by media sound bytes that 'something' is being done to appreciate the Canadian citizenship. As for the Conservatives in Government, once the bill is passed, they have achieved their strategic objective to look good to the public. The rest of the work (implementation and taking effect) is dirty work. (Here is where I have to disagree slightly with an assertion by dpenabill in an earlier post that Harper's Government wants the bill to take effect soon in order to prepare reports showing the public that they've gotten more efficient at processing citizenship applications just in time for the 2015 elections. Even if the bill came into force today, its effects won't be seen for a good 18 months or so. There is simply not enough time for the Government to release a look-good report before the end of 2015)