Technical observations regarding effective date of Bill C-24 provisions:
As of today, the Order by the Governor in Council which fixed June 11, 2015 as the day certain provisions in the
SCCA came into force, including those provisions of primary interest in this topic, those governing the requirements for the grant of citizenship (naturalized citizenship), still does
NOT show up in either the Parliamentary Business web pages (purporting to be
current as of June 23, 19 days
after the Governor in Council's order) nor even in the Privy Council database. Thus, neither is it yet reflected in the
official version of the
Citizenship Act.
As noted before, the coming into force of the provisions in the
SCCA which prescribe new grounds and procedures for the revocation of citizenship was fixed in a May 28, 2015 Order as that day. This Order, while made just a week before the one still not appearing any where other than the Gazette (both Orders registered and published in the June 17 issue of Part II), is also published at the Parliamentary Business web site and appears in the Privy Council database. And it has been reflected in the official version of the
Citizenship Act since June 24, 2015.
While it is a distinction without a difference, of no consequence, it is interesting that
CIC web pages post the WRONG date for the coming-into-force of the revised revocation provisions. CIC's web site refers to
May 29, 2015, when in fact these provisions came into force
May 28, 2015 (see the
official order in the Gazette).
I bring this up because the published article about Hiva Alizadeh being the first person targeted to have his citizenship stripped according to the revised provisions, a National Post story on Canada Day (
linked here), also gets the date
wrong.
Here's the RUB: These proceedings are
confidential unless and until there is a Federal Court case. Even when (under the prior procedure, the Minister now takes the action) the Governor in Council issued the Order revoking citizenship (there are just over a hundred such orders issued while Harper has been PM; see the Privy Council data base), that Order would only state who the individual was affected by the Order by reference without identifying the individual by name.
So how did Stewart Bell, whose byline appears in the National Post story, come by this information about the government taking action to strip Hiva Alizadeh of citizenship?
We know CIC is the source of the
wrong date for when these provisions came into force. And guess what date Steward Bell cites. The same wrong date.
We know who has the information about the government taking this action to strip Hiva Alizadeh's citizenship: CIC.
Is there a motive? Why would CIC leak this information to a newspaper reporter?
The Conservatives recently released a campaign advertisement which actually incorporated video which the Government
prohibits distribution of in Canada (because it is a recruiting video for ISIS) . . . anyone else who used that video would be subject to prosecution . . . but the Tories used it in an ad targeted at disparaging Trudeau's alleged weaknesses regarding the threat of terrorism.
Hmmmmmmmm . . .
And now this leaked story about going after Hiva Alizadeh.
Is someone trampling Canadian law just to get out a message about how tough they are on terrorism?
There seems to be little or no doubt about that:
YES. No surprise when the sitting Prime Minister is the first and only Prime Minister in Canadian history to be found in contempt of Parliament (in 2011).
And sure, scores of Canadians will applaud. And will vote again for a Conservative majority. In the meantime, however, profound principles are being trampled upon.
It is easy to applaud the punishment of known truly bad guys.
It is not so easy to protect the core values of a society built on the rule of law, social justice, and a system designed to protect not just our best citizens but everyone equally.
Sure, it appears that Hiva Alizadeh deserves harsh punishment. But the rest of us also deserve a government which protects all individuals equally and we deserve a government that does not abuse the system for political purposes (like illegally leaking information just to make a political message).
In any event, all this leads back to the
real issues about the new grounds for revoking citizenship:
The government has passed a new law (Bill C-24) and (apparently) is using this new law to
add a new punishment for Hiva Alizadeh for acts committed
before the new law was even proposed let alone took effect.
Additionally, the government is using this new law to strip citizenship for criminal conduct committed
after the person became a citizen.
These are two big issues. I do not know how the Courts will rule regarding these issues. These issues go well beyond political differences of opinion but go to the essential core of what citizenship means. There is no hint, none at all, that Hiva Alizadeh's citizenship was invalid. Can Parliament pass a law which (1) ex post facto takes away citizenship (that is, for crimes committed before the law took effect)? a law which (2) invalidates citizenship lawfully acquired based on acts after citizenship is acquired?
These are questions about the rule of law, fundamental principles, and the core meaning of citizenship. This is not about whether Hiva Alizadeh should retain citizenship or not. It is about our fundamental system of rights, responsibilities, and justice.
We know Justice Donald Rennie's opinion about this. Justice Rennie is OK with Parliament having absolute authority to pass such legislation.
That, however, is certainly not going to be the last word about these huge, huge issues.
I would note, in passing, however, it is disconcerting and disappointing to see this matter trivialized. This is not about Hiva Alizadeh. This is about us, our government, our core values, the country we have, the country we want, the people we are and will be. This matter deserves more than one-liner zingers.
how can we make sure about that? If i can come back in few years with no problem 
