Canadian citizenship has fundamentally changed.
It was, more or less, irrevocable. There was a possibility of citizenship revocation under the former citizenship law, but this was rare. As my colleague, Steven Meurrens points out in his excellent blog, between 1977 and 2010 only 63 people had their citizenship revoked.
I've commented on the changes to combat terrorism with Al Jazeera. One of my concerns is that this government is scapegoating newcomers to Canada, instilling fear in ordinary Canadians that outsiders, such as recent immigrants are a risk. This was best exemplified by Chris Alexander, Canada's current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration unfortunately correlating niqabs and terrorists:
“Until this court decision last year -- which we think was very mistaken and that's why we're appealing it -- there was no controversy about this, and the overwhelming majority of people were happy to be seen and heard taking the oath,” Alexander told Vice’s Justin Ling.
“The overwhelming majority of Canadians want that rule to continue to apply. We've done a lot in the past year to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. People take pride in that. They don't want their co-citizens to be terrorists.”
Alexander has said he was referring to terrorists in the wider context of strengthening Canada’s immigration laws, and was not referring to Canadians who wear niqabs. Ling has agreed in his own response to the interview.
Another of my concerns is that the legislation is too broadly worded, allowing the outsourcing of determinations of terrorism (and the consequences that flow from that) to other countries. There is a great potential for injustice based on the legislation as it currently reads.
Agree with him or disagree, Canada's former immigration minister stood his ground on these changes. His piece for the National Post graciously extended credit for Bill C-24 (and now law) to back bench Member of Parliament Devinder Shory (who proposed far more modest and non contentious legislation).
In addition to revocation based on a terrorist related conviction there is now a requirement to state your intention to reside in Canada. This requirement likely had a genesis with the desire to address the apparent scourge of so-called Canadians of Convenience. After the 2006 war in Lebanon, more than 10,000 Canadians were extricated (only for the majority to return after the end to the hostilities). I have a feeling that misrepresentation will thus be the instrument of choice to deprive someone of their Canadian citizenship. I have a stronger feeling that revocation will disproportionately affect certain communities over others.
In any event, the government had a mandate and have put their stamp on what was previously a sacred cow. The true consequences, both intended and unintended, for this law remain to be seen.
Comments