The End of Canadian Citizenship as We Know It
Yesterday I sent my registration as a Canadian elector residing abroad. I’m gearing up to vote in the next Federal election as there is a good chance it will make history. I also want to do my part to make sure there is an end to the implementation of the Conservatives’ agenda.
About a year ago, Bill C-24 received royal assent. This means that this particular piece of legislation — meant to be cited as the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act” — became law after being blessed by the Queen. It’s coming into effect this month, which is why even if it was discussed at length last year, it’s surfacing again in conversations about Canadian politics.
The Toronto Star had an excellent piece last year explaining what has been so controversial about the bill. In essence, the intention of Minister Chris Alexander in sponsoring the bill has been to make Canadian citizenship more of a privilege than a right. It’s now harder to obtain and easier to lose. The bill also bypasses entirely the role of an independent jury in determining if an applicant is granted citizenship. The power to grant citizenship is entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Immigration and Citizenship in order to “streamline the process”.
A permanent resident applying for citizenship must now provide a letter demonstrating his intent of residing in Canada. They must also show a higher degree of proficiency in English and/or French and answer more questions relating to the values of Canada. Immigrants aged 14 to 65 must now answer all these questions, while previously it was only asked of immigrants aged from 18 to 55. I’m not saying all of these changes are bad. The problem I see is that by complicating the application process, you increase the odds that applicants will make mistakes. Then, by centralizing the power to grant citizenship in fewer hands, you reduce accountability. The Ministry can decide to nitpick applications, refuse citizenship to people it doesn’t like, and it is accountable to no one besides itself.
Chris Alexander affirms that bill C-24 tackles the problem of “convenience Canadians”, who become Canadian citizens only to obtain the Canadian passport and benefit from the freedom to travel, while never contributing to Canadian society. How big of a problem is this? Is it worth redefining what it means to be a Canadian citizen? No one except Minister Chris Alexander himself says so.
Another odd consequence of the bill is the creation of second-class citizens. First-class citizens are born in Canada and they are not also citizens of another country, or even eligible to be. Under no circumstances can these first-class citizens have their citizenship revoked, which is what makes citizenship a right. On the other hand, second-class citizens can have their citizenship revoked if they have been determined to have participated in activities contrary to the interests of Canada. A court from another country can make that determination. As my friend Akshay duly noted, one interesting consequence of this is that there can be no terrorist who is Canadian. George Carlin once said that a right isn’t a right if a government can just take it away…
Even more troubling is the following scenario. A journalist who is a naturalized Canadian reporting on a dictatorship can have said dictatorship declare her a terrorist. Then, if the Minister feels like it, they can revoke her citizenship and deny her protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, leaving the dictatorship deal with her as it pleases. I hope I’m wrong about this particular implication, and I hope it will never happen if I’m not.
I’m very likely to become a dual Canadian-American citizen in the next 5 years. That will make me a second-class citizen. I won’t fit the club’s guidelines anymore. I really hope that in practice the new powers engendered by bill C-24 won’t be abused, and I should stress there’s a decent chance they won’t. But the justification for these powers fall flat, and the reason for their existence is only too transparent. Bill C-24 reeks of xenophobia. It results from a view that immigrants and “impure” citizens are not real Canadians.
- Read more on what it means to be a Canadian citizen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law#Rights_and_responsibilities_of_citizens
- Read more criticisms of bill C-24: http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels/bilingual/bilingual-corner/bill-c-24.html
- Read the bill itself: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6684615&File=4
Fair warning though: the bill is very difficult to read. It contains sneaky jargon: words that are familiar but have been defined narrowly for the purpose of bill. There is also a lot of double-negatives and actual legal jargon. In addition, the bill is an amendment which means you need to go back and forth between the actual Citizenship Act and the bill to put things in proper context. I tried to read it, and I gave up after having racked up too much of a headache. As far as I can tell, the reporting on it is accurate.
Here’s a thunderstorm over Geneva. Make it full screen and watch in a dark room. You can also find the best photos I took during that storm in my Atmosphere flickr album.
