I think a lot of people are not sure what they think about the Bill because they don't know enough about it. We should first try to understand it and then perhaps give our opinions.
As far as I am concerned, the most useful review of the Bill was done by Prof. Audrey Macklin (UofT) and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. Here is the link to the video of her appearance before the CIMM (copy and paste into your browser): parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeMeetings.aspx?Cmte=CIMM&Mode=1&ControlCallback=pvuWebcast&Parl=41&Ses=2&Organization=CIMM&MeetingNumber=24&Language=E&NoJavaScript=true . In the English stream video, you will find Macklin at about 1 hr.18 min .35 sec into the video, to 1.27, then 1.34 to 1.41 and at 1.57 min. You can also read the CARL's brief to the CIMM regarding Bill C-24: carl-acaadr.ca/sites/default/files/CARL%20C-24%20Brief%20to%20CIMM.pdf .
I will try to summarize the major points.
1. Revocation provisions. Intent to reside will be a condition for acquisition of citizenship through naturalization. For 2cookies, that would affect the new citizens. If you sign the intent to reside, and then are accepted to school somewhere abroad, and you have to care for your family members, or get a great job offer abroad, the Minister, in his infinite wisdom, might decide that you misrepresented your intentions and start the revocation proceedings. As you will see, during those proceedings, your 'rights' will revert to those that are characteristic of the Middle Ages.
2. Unconstitutionality. Macklin cited the relevant case of Sauve v. Canada, where the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Federal Court of Appeals prohibiting prisoners from voting. So basically you cannot punish somebody for a criminal act by denying them a constitutional right. Stripping someone of their citizenship is denying them all of their constitutional rights.
3. Unconstitutionality again (Section 12 of the Charter).
- presumption of innocence -> reverse onus for statelessness
- proof beyond a reasonable doubt -> balance of probabilities or less
- open and fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal -> Ministerial decision, written submissions
- prohibition on retroactive laws -> retrospective for criminal convictions, engaging in armed conflict against Canada
- right not to be punished twice for -> imprisonment plus banishment for the same offence
4. Unconstitutionality again (Section 12 of the Charter). Stripping citizenship = cruel and unusual punishment in the US
Also prohibition on retroactive punishment
Punishing twice for the same offence (first in a proceeding by the court of law for terrorism/treason, resulting in imprisonment, then a second punishment for the same crime - citizenship revocation).
There is a functioning criminal justice system that in Canada, so the Minister (a politician) does not need to play prosecutor and judge and eliminate the courts.
5. Creating two classes of citizens (Sections 15, and 1). "Mono-citizens" would not vulnerable because Canada cannot create stateless individuals due to international obligations, while dual citizens could be stripped of citizenship just fine. Obviously, this is not equality under law.
6. Due process. Presumption of innocence (Bill C-24 proposes a reverse onus - proving that you are not a citizen of another country - which has been found to be unconstitutional). Right to an open and fair trial.
Macklin also said that this claim that similar laws are in force in countries such as Australia, New Zealand etc., is not true. Only in England is this true. So they are misrepresenting why they are changing the law.
Those are the view of the legal experts.
In my own opinion there is more problems with the Bill. It has been rightfully called 'Trojan' because they the short name for the Bill is "Strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act." In my view, undermining residents' rights in Canada only weakens citizenship. Studies have shown that citizenship promotes integration. And I don't need studies for that: As a PR, you cannot apply for government and military jobs (and many others), and, barring the few exceptions, immigrants become the toilet and garbage cleaners (a bit harsh, I know, but there is a lot of truth in it). What about the students, who spend years in Canada, and never even become PRs? To apply for PR, they have to work for two years (and the work permit lets them work for only the employer stated on the permit - creates a lot of room for exploitation). It takes some of them a decade to become a citizen. Refugees, who often ran away from certain death, come here to live in uncertainty for years as well (contrary to Canadian international obligations).
Until recently, when going to job interviews, they told you that you did not have Canadian experience, and that a good fit for you, a holder of several foreign degrees (it usually is the case), are a good fit for dangerous manual labour. I 2012 I believe asking for "Canadian experience" was found to be unconstitutional by the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or whatever their name is. I don't know if it still constitutional in other provinces.
All of this needs to be seen in its historical context. The Canadian Pacific Railway was built by Chinese workers, who were given the most back-breaking jobs. They were paid $1 a day, while the white people got safer jobs, were paid 1.50-2.00 and did not have to pay for the equipment. Canada used them to do the dirty work, and they when they got scared too many Chinese were still coming, they instituted the head tax to discourage them from coming. There is also a long history of genocide and extermination of the Natives, as you will find in the history and social work books. As late as the late 1990s, Natives' children were taken from their parents (all deemed to be unfit as parents) and sent to residential schools to be brainwashed into decent Christians. Large numbers of families have been torn apart, and even today those poor kids are killing themselves and finding it very hard to be functioning and productive member of the Canadian society.
Does any of this seem familiar? Now again, after 30 years, immigrants are being sent the message that they are not welcome here. This is hard to believe in a country that was created by immigrants (now totally ignoring the Natives, as is popular here
).
To me, one of the biggest problems is that, when I applied to come to Canada, and when I got my PR, I signed a contract with the Canadian government. Now they are going to renege on that contract (residency requirements). The government acts out of paranoia and accuses immigrants of terrorism and crime (when studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes). As far as terrorism, what is the percentage of immigrants who committed terrorist acts (which are kind of open to interpretation and seem to be directed towards certain nationalities more than others)? Does that justify treating millions of immigrants like criminals? This nationalism and xenophobia is similar to that seen in some European countries, like Hungary, Belgium, Austria. Luckily, those xenophobic groups represent only very small minorities.
The worst thing is the intent to reside. I pride myself on being a citizen of the world, and I will not be a second-class citizen. Some citizens can go to Qatar and UAE and whenever, make a lot of tax-free money, while if I cross the border, I might lose my citizenship. Mobility is one of the fundamental human rights in almost every country of the world. If this is the Canada that I am supposed to live in, and where my children are supposed to grow up, I would rather have them be brought up somewhere else.
And you cannot think only of yourselves and how it applied to you directly. What about your spouses, relatives, friends, and all the good and decent people who have a dream, are told fairy tales by Canadian consulates and their propaganda, and they come here to not be able to work, and to have to spend years here not daring to leave?
There is a study that shows that about 80% of immigrants live in poverty for the first 5 years in Canada. Most of them were comfortably off somewhere else, and wanted to come to a peaceful country. For those 5 years, they spend all of their savings, and many of them go back ashamed. Canada collects that money, the money from international students, etc. They were not complaining about collecting those billions, but now when they have to grant citizenship to those same people, they got cold feet
.
You can tell I feel strongly about these things, can't you
. Anyway, I am sorry if I am ranting and rambling, but I hope that this post at least helps everyone to understand the Bill a little better.
For the end, here is what Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe's Parliamentary Secretary said when I asked what were good ways to protest the Bill:
Contacting your MP is always a good way to let your opinion know. We can also sent a letter or a memoir to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration:
Julie Lalande Prud'homme
Greffière du Comité | Clerk of the Committee
Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration (CIMM)|
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM)
Direction des comités et services législatifs | Committees and Legislative Services Directorate
Chambre des communes | House of Commons
131, rue Queen, 6e étage | 131 Queen Street, 6th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Tel. | Tél. 613-995-8525
Fax | Télécopieur 613-947-3089
Alternatively, you can aslo write to the Minister (email).
or you can write to the following address:
The Honourable Chris Alexander, P.C., M.P.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
365 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
Finally, there is a petition on the web that is garnering thousands of signatures at the moment: change.org/en-CA/petitions/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens .
Good luck to us all!
