Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Tolerance]

marcus66502,

What I wrote before was based on the opinion of Audrey Macklin of UofT, she is a legal expert.

Following her opinions, I provided mine, and I admitted this was my understanding of it. I agree though, my opinion is not sacred, so I welcome criticism that would bring about better understanding of this whole thing.

I will say one more thing though. Usually laws stipulate that wrong-doing has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As Macklin has pointed out (and I painfully realized after I read the Bill), this bill takes a new approach: "a balance of probabilities."

So, it seems to me, the minister does not have to PROVE anything; he just has to be satisfied that the probability that you misrepresented your intent to reside is greater than the probability you did not. Also, there is no court to which he would prove it to - he WOULD BE the court.

The relevant section of the bill:

10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Anyway, I think the whole point is moot, because the main question is: how would you feel about some citizens of your country not having their fundamental right based on the charter (mobility), and other citizens being free to come and go as they please?

 

[Tolerance]

There is no international treaty that forces Canada to act differently.

"4. Continued commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: According to Alexander, Canada will maintain its support for this UN convention, meaning it will not revoke Canadian citizenship from an individual if the result would be statelessness for that person. Essentially, this means the government can only revoke citizenship from individuals with citizenship in more than one country."

The source: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/02/06/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-proposed-citizenship-act-changes/

But it does not matter I think who is correct - if marcus is correct then his version is even worse to the new citizens than mine .

 

[on-hold]

This is also not correct. No country has any obligation to provide a citizenship for a person whose statelessness has resulted from his own actions. Renouncing your old citizenship will not provide protection against the Minister's action to revoke your Canadian citizenship. The Minister will argue in court that any statelessness resulting from revocation is actually due to the new citizen's renunciation of his old citizenship.

This whole 'statelessness' business is misinterpreted a lot in the news media because it plays to readers' feelings and feelings drive up ratings. Truth is a country's international obligations cannot run contrary to its own laws. For example, consider a foreign national who enters Canada illegally, destroys any papers that indicate his nationality, and then comes out and claims statelessness and demands Canadian citizenship. Would Canada, by your logic, be obligated to grant him citizenship? No, of course not. He does not qualify for citizenship according to Canadian law. There is no international treaty that forces Canada to act differently.

This just isn't true -- and you've made a basic mistake, which is not understanding that 'providing' citizenship to someone is not the same as 'not revoking' it. No, Canada has no obligation to provide citizenship to anyone whose actions make it impossible. Yes, Canada is unable to strip citizenship from a person who has no other citizenship, this is a basic law -- Canadian citizens do not cease being Canadian citizens because they do something unpleasant. This is one reason that C-24 is controversial, because it creates a class of Canadians (dual citizens) whose citizenship can be stripped, and a class of citizens (mono citizens) whose citizenship cannot be stripped.

The minister cannot rely only on actions that took place after the grant of citizenship.

Conversely, lack of 'intent to reside' in Canada before the grant of citizenship cannot be cured by actually living in Canada after the grant. If the new citizen finds out that the Minister's office has discovered his pre-oath lack of intent to reside (for instance discovery of a job offer abroad), and decides not to accept the job offer abroad and to continue to live in Canada, he could still be stripped of his citizenship. This is so because the new citizen still misrepresented his intent to reside in Canada at the time of application.

Also, not strictly true. The Minister can rely on actions that take place after signing the intent, if those actions are to stay in Canada. A naturalized citizen who lives in Canada is not going to have their citizenship stripped for any reason at all. It's really a daydream to imagine that citizenship could ever be stripped from someone who accepted a job offer abroad but then decided to stay in Canada.

 

[Tolerance]

This just isn't true -- and you've made a basic mistake, which is not understanding that 'providing' citizenship to someone is not the same as 'not revoking' it. No, Canada has no obligation to provide citizenship to anyone whose actions make it impossible. Yes, Canada is unable to strip citizenship from a person who has no other citizenship, this is a basic law -- Canadian citizens do not cease being Canadian citizens because they do something unpleasant. This is one reason that C-24 is controversial, because it creates a class of Canadians (dual citizens) whose citizenship can be stripped, and a class of citizens (mono citizens) whose citizenship cannot be stripped.
Also, not strictly true. The Minister can rely on actions that take place after signing the intent, if those actions are to stay in Canada. A naturalized citizen who lives in Canada is not going to have their citizenship stripped for any reason at all. It's really a daydream to imagine that citizenship could ever be stripped from someone who accepted a job offer abroad but then decided to stay in Canada.

Macklin also said that the minister would be able to retroactively punish people - which goes against the basic legal principles.

 

[PMM]

Hi

Hi PMM,

i have a question for you and hope you can enlighten all of us here since you have a strong knowledge about the canadian citizenship and immigration.
do you think the bill will pas the way it is now or there will be some amendments?

thank you so much.

1. I think that the "intent to remain will be either dropped or not enforced, and the revocation will be cleaned up.

 

[marcus66502]

marcus66502,

I will say one more thing though. Usually laws stipulate that wrong-doing has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. As Macklin has pointed out (and I painfully realized after I read the Bill), this bill takes a new approach: "a balance of probabilities."

So, it seems to me, the minister does not have to PROVE anything; he just has to be satisfied that the probability that you misrepresented your intent to reside is greater than the probability you did not. Also, there is no court to which he would prove it to - he WOULD BE the court.

The relevant section of the bill:

10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Anyway, I think the whole point is moot, because the main question is: how would you feel about some citizens of your country not having their fundamental right based on the charter (mobility), and other citizens being free to come and go as they please?

Oh that's great, except you conveniently ignored the part of the bill you quoted which I have set in boldface (the "Subject to subsection 10.1(1)" part). Here is that subsection:

10.1 (1) If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act other than a fact that is also described in paragraph 36(1)(a) or (b) or (2)(a) or (b) of that Act, the person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked only if the Minister seeks a declaration, in an action that the Minister commences, that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and the Court makes such a declaration.

That declaration of misrepresentation comes from the courts. Under the current law, the court declaration is not required unless the affected citizen demands it. Under the new law, the Minister has to get a court declaration before he can strip someone of his citizenship (whether the affected party wants it or not).

So, yes, the Minister DOES have to prove misrepresentation in court. He has no right to unilaterally revoke your citizenship just because he woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning. Canadian laws are barbaric but they haven't yet reached the point of making Kings out of the officials of the executive branch.

I do agree though that the standard of proof is a 'balance of probabilities'. This, however, is common in civil proceedings. As far as I'm aware, the 'beyond-reasonable-doubt' standard exists mostly in criminal cases (i.e. cases where the potential punishment is much harsher, such as stripping someone of his liberty).

 

[marcus66502]

"4. Continued commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness: According to Alexander, Canada will maintain its support for this UN convention, meaning it will not revoke Canadian citizenship from an individual if the result would be statelessness for that person. Essentially, this means the government can only revoke citizenship from individuals with citizenship in more than one country."

The source: http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/02/06/10-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-proposed-citizenship-act-changes/

But it does not matter I think who is correct - if marcus is correct then his version is even worse to the new citizens than mine .

The UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness is not an international treaty. Oral commitments do not in any way obligate a country to act a certain way consistently. What you're saying makes no sense. Like I said, if what you're saying is true, all a person has to do is manage to land on a foreign country's soil, destroy any evidence of his previous nationality and he'd be entitled to demand citizenship from the new country. If only it were that easy. I'd have US citizenship by now.

If anyone firmly believes Tolerance's absurd position on this, they're welcome to bet their own new Canadian citizenship on it. Why don't you renounce any other citizenships you hold and then present the Minister with evidence of lack of intent to reside in Canada before your oath.

It's one thing to talk the talk. It's quite another to put your money where your mouth is. It's a lot like the oath to Queen Elizabeth that you take to get Canadian citizenship. People will say the oath because they know their loyalty to the queen will never really be tested. It's not like you'll ever be forced to join the army and fight a distant war if the queen suddenly demands it.

 

[marcus66502]

The Minister can rely on actions that take place after signing the intent, if those actions are to stay in Canada. A naturalized citizen who lives in Canada is not going to have their citizenship stripped for any reason at all. It's really a daydream to imagine that citizenship could ever be stripped from someone who accepted a job offer abroad but then decided to stay in Canada.

You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. It's not "any reason at all" that's legal grounds for revocation. It's the material misrepresentation of intent to reside in Canada at the time of application (before the oath). If the Minister can show that, then he has met his burden of proof for revocation. Nothing else about you is relevant to his case, certainly not the fact that you continue to live in Canada after proceedings against you have begun.

 

[marcus66502]

After doing some more research, it turns out that on-hold is entirely wrong on the statelessness issue as I suspected. Canada is a contracting state to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. However, according to Article 8 of this treaty, a contracting state may nonetheless deprive a person of citizenship if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Here is the relevant text:

2.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a person
may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State:
(a)
in the circumstances in which, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7, it
is permissible that a person should lose his nationality;
(b)
where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

So, it appears, that statelessness cannot be used as a defense against the Minister's revocation proceedings on grounds of misrepresentation or fraud. Canada is within its rights to revoke nationality in this case.

In reality, most of the articles of this treaty are concerned with statelessness at birth (either because the baby does not inherit his parents' citizenships or because he/she was found abandoned and his parents/nationality are unknown). The treaty seeks to minimize this situation by requiring contracting states to grant citizenship at birth to a child born stateless within its territory. The state may either grant the child automatic citizenship at birth or later in life by application from the child.

However, according to Article 1, paragraph 2(d), in the case of later-in-life grant by application, the person must apply before the age of 18 and citizenship may only be granted if the person has always been stateless. An adult who voluntarily renounces any previous citizenship would not be covered by this treaty.

So there you have it: You won't be able to renounce your old citizenship and then waltz into court and fight the Minister in his revocation proceedings against you by using statelessness as a defense. The Minister will rebut your defense by arguing that revocation is being pursued on the grounds of misrepresentation and hence you're not covered by the UN Convention. Moreover, the UN treaty is mostly concerned with statelessness at birth. You chose to renounce your old citizenship as an adult. Again, you're not covered by the treaty.

 

[Marypetty]

There are some good points in Bill C-24 are being missed, and the only people who should worry are those who seek to gain citizenship fraudulently, those who want to engage in terrorism and those who just want to grab their citizenship and go live in another country. The Canadian Forces will benefit, people in the Foreign Office will benefit, the Lost Canadians will benefit, as well as all those seeking genuine Canadian citizenship. Asking people to prove they want to reside in Canada by extending the time spent working in Canada should not be a problem for those who genuinely want to work and live in Canada. Revocation will only happen if fraud has occurred - and having visited several immigration sites, I can see there are some who will not benefit from this Bill and would wish it to just disappear. I also believe that I will get my citizenship a lot quicker under the new Bill than before - who wants to wait 2-3 years for citizenship applications to be approved as is the present case. And for those who do not know, Canada has taken in and welcomed more immigrants that almost any other western country that I can think of, so my suggestion is that there are benefits to this Bill and they should not be ignored.

 

[Tolerance]

They don't really need this law to speed up the processing of citizenship applications, do they? They already implemented processing fee hikes, so they could throw more people on it. The opposition's stated reason for dismissing the bill, among others, was that it does not sufficiently address reducing processing times, which have been steadily increasing for a few years.

It seems to me that the real intention is to slow down and decrease the granting of new citizenships. They are not trustworthy. If processing times will go down, it should not be a hope, but it should be evident how exactly.

I have never in my life seen processing times as in Canada. It is a joke, yet people's lives depend on it.

 

[on-hold]

After doing some more research, it turns out that on-hold is entirely wrong on the statelessness issue as I suspected. Canada is a contracting state to the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. However, according to Article 8 of this treaty, a contracting state may nonetheless deprive a person of citizenship if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Here is the relevant text:

2.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a person
may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State:
(a)
in the circumstances in which, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7, it
is permissible that a person should lose his nationality;
(b)
where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

So, it appears, that statelessness cannot be used as a defense against the Minister's revocation proceedings on grounds of misrepresentation or fraud. Canada is within its rights to revoke nationality in this case.

In reality, most of the articles of this treaty are concerned with statelessness at birth (either because the baby does not inherit his parents' citizenships or because he/she was found abandoned and his parents/nationality are unknown). The treaty seeks to minimize this situation by requiring contracting states to grant citizenship at birth to a child born stateless within its territory. The state may either grant the child automatic citizenship at birth or later in life by application from the child.

However, according to Article 1, paragraph 2(d), in the case of later-in-life grant by application, the person must apply before the age of 18 and citizenship may only be granted if the person has always been stateless. An adult who voluntarily renounces any previous citizenship would not be covered by this treaty.

So there you have it: You won't be able to renounce your old citizenship and then waltz into court and fight the Minister in his revocation proceedings against you by using statelessness as a defense. The Minister will rebut your defense by arguing that revocation is being pursued on the grounds of misrepresentation and hence you're not covered by the UN Convention. Moreover, the UN treaty is mostly concerned with statelessness at birth. You chose to renounce your old citizenship as an adult. Again, you're not covered by the treaty.

Marcus, you've totally missed the point again. Canada already has the right to revoke citizenship in any situation in which it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation -- I don't know how this conflicts with the alternate prohibition on making someone stateless (when the person in question has no other citizenship), but this new bill doesn't affect that at all. No one's arguing about that. This new bill involves the situation of a naturalized Canadian citizen committing terroristic or criminal acts, and having their citizenship stripped, not fraud, something that can't be done to a birth citizen without dual citizenship.

You're arguing just for the sake of arguing. It's not "any reason at all" that's legal grounds for revocation. It's the material misrepresentation of intent to reside in Canada at the time of application (before the oath). If the Minister can show that, then he has met his burden of proof for revocation. Nothing else about you is relevant to his case, certainly not the fact that you continue to live in Canada after proceedings against you have begun.

This has nothing at all to do with the bill in question. Repeat, NOTHING. We're arguing about the provision that naturalized Canadians can lose their citizenship for criminal acts after obtaining it. At least I am, and I assume Tolerance is, not sure what you're arguing about.

 

[libra81]

I just heard about the Bill yesterday, and yet realized that I will be the first one to be affected by the Bill if it passed before summer break as I am only 3 months away from citizenship application.I went through the entire topic and read all of the arguments from both sides. Although I don't mind to wait for another year to apply, I found some parts of the Bill unresonable and unfair for us-the naturalized citizens.

I came to Canada and chose this great nation my new home because I love freedoom and justice, not because of the "economic opportunities" that Canada supposedly to provide me ;D. I am the one who strongly oppose to the Canadians of Convenience of whom I know many. These people don't deserve places in this country, which already graciously gave them many privileges as its citizens. I agree that stricter law should be implemented to banish those people for good.

However, I am terrified by the fact that this Bill will create two categories of citizen. How on earth I will be treated differently and unfairly than the born-canadian. I am working and contribute to this country as mush as everyone else does. Afterall, all of us owns the same passport, don't we? This went against the value of justice and freedoom that we hold dearly. So I think I have to fight to protect those values.

Why don't they find better way to deal with the problems such as increasing fine, tightening the PR requirements, or stripping of the privileges including "free healthcare", cheap education,etc from those who live outside the country and don't pay a dime af tax.

Anyway, even if the Bill is passed, any chance we could challenge it in the Supreme Court?

 

[marcus66502]

Marcus, you've totally missed the point again. Canada already has the right to revoke citizenship in any situation in which it has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation -- I don't know how this conflicts with the alternate prohibition on making someone stateless (when the person in question has no other citizenship), but this new bill doesn't affect that at all. No one's arguing about that. This new bill involves the situation of a naturalized Canadian citizen committing terroristic or criminal acts, and having their citizenship stripped, not fraud, something that can't be done to a birth citizen without dual citizenship.


This has nothing at all to do with the bill in question. Repeat, NOTHING. We're arguing about the provision that naturalized Canadians can lose their citizenship for criminal acts after obtaining it. At least I am, and I assume Tolerance is, not sure what you're arguing about.

This has everything to do with the bill in question and everything to do with what you've been saying in response to my posts. I've proved you wrong by citing the official source, the UN Treaty on Reduction of Statelessness. Instead of hiding behind another topic that we were not discussing, you need to have the balls to admit you were wrong.

We weren't discussing loss of citizenship because of criminal acts after obtaining it (not that there's much to discuss there; the answer has always been clear: you can't lose it solely because of acts after the grant, unless it's for treason).

You were trying to say that Canada is bound by the UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness and cannot revoke citizenship of someone who has no other citizenship. Truth is, the UN Convention in question says nothing about the case of someone who has voluntarily made himself a 'mono-citizen' by renouncing any other citizenships he had in the past. Any government will make a good argument in its courts that such people are not covered by the UN Convention because they have not always been mono-citizens. Hence their statelessness would not be an accident (like at birth) but rather a result of their own actions.

If you want to take your chances in court against the Minister and argue that you're covered by the UN Statelessness Convention after you have renounced all your other citizenships, by all means go ahead. I'll bet my savings you won't pass the laughing test.

 

[Newbie2014]

... I am terrified by the fact that this Bill will create two categories of citizen. How on earth I will be treated differently and unfairly than the born-canadian. I am working and contribute to this country as mush as everyone else does. Afterall, all of us owns the same passport, don't we? This went against the value of justice and freedoom that we hold dearly. So I think I have to fight to protect those values.

Why don't they find better way to deal with the problems such as increasing fine, tightening the PR requirements, or stripping of the privileges including "free healthcare", cheap education,etc from those who live outside the country and don't pay a dime af tax.

I agree. The reason they have so many "citizens of convenience" is that it does not cost people anything to be a citizen. You can live your life earning tax free dollars in distant countries, while sending your children to school in Canada at tax-subsidized rates. I actually think alot of these people would be fine paying Canadian taxes. After all, they are abroad for the opportunity to earn alot while they are in the prime of their life -- which is a natural and wise thing to do.

The solution for Canada is to tax on a citizenship basis, not on a residency basis (similar to what U.S. citizens are required to do). I believe that most Canadian expatriates would have no problem paying their taxes to Canada, and getting a tax credit back from the countries they live in. That means that Canadians who live in the U.S., Middle East, Asia, etc would all be contributing to health care and social retirement funds. In this global era, we shouldn't have to be tied down to one geographical area at a loss to our career competitiveness.