Challenging Misinformation: Canadian Citizenship

Law Explained
On February 6, 2014, the federal government tabled Bill C-24, introducing sweeping changes to
Canadas citizenship laws. For more information about Bill C-24, please see our legal primer.
The governments statements in support of Bill C-24 are shrouded by myths and
misinformation. The circulation of these myths and misinformation is one of the biggest barriers to
understanding the pernicious effects of this proposed legislation. This page highlights some of the
proposed laws key provisions to correct the record and provide accurate information.
1. Citizenship is not a licence the government can revoke for misbehavior
2. Citizenship stripping is not commonplace in other countries. Bill C-24 makes Canada an outlier
among western states
3. It is the role of the criminal justice system, not elected officials, to punish people for wrongdoing
4. The new law does not just target criminal wrongdoers; it poses a serious threat to the rights of all
Canadians
5. Citizenship is not a privilege; it is an interest fundamental to full membership in Canadian society
6. The new law greatly reduces due-process rights, replacing fair judicial process with Ministerial
discretion
7. The new law diminishes the ties non-permanent residents have established in Canada
8. The new law does not adequately ensure citizens maintain strong ties to Canada
9. The new law does not strengthen or protect the value of Canadian citizenship; it diminishes it

1. Citi zenship Is Not A Licence The Government Can Revoke For
Misbehavior

Bill C-24 proposes to give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the authority to strip dual
nationals of Canadian citizenship in certain circumstances. Stripping a person of citizenship is an
arbitrary and medieval practice that serves no valid purpose, and is inconsistent with basic notions of
justice as outlined in Canadian law. The words of United States Chief Justice Earl Warren remain as
true today as they were in 1958: Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior . . . And
the deprivation of citizenship is not a weapon that the government may use to express its
displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be.

2. Citi zenship Stripping Is Not Commonplace In Other Countries. Bil l C-24
Makes Canada An Outlier Among Western States

The federal government has falsely claimed that citizenship stripping is commonplace in other
countries, and that the new law brings Canada in line with most of our peer countries. In fact, the
only western state to make use of this practice in the last few years is the United Kingdom, and it is
an outlier whose use of it should serve as a cautionary tale. Citizenship stripping has been
unconstitutional in the United States for over 50 years.

3. It Is The Role Of The Criminal Justice System, Not Elected Officials, To
Punish People For Wrongdoing

The new law proposes to give elected officials the power to strip Canadian citizenship of people who
commit unlawful acts. But it is not the job of elected officials to make these judgments. Canadian
law already has established mechanisms by which to punish criminal wrongdoers. Unlike the
Conservative government, CARL has full confidence in the Canadian criminal justice systems ability
to effectively punish individuals who violate the law. We do not need to revive the medieval practice
of banishment to achieve the goals of punishment, namely deterrence, retribution, denunciation, and
rehabilitation. We now have the benefit of a modern judicial process that includes prosecution, trial
before an independent judge and, in the event of conviction, a punishment that expresses societys
condemnation with the full weight of the law.

4. The New Law Does Not Just Target Criminal Wrongdoers; It Poses A
Serious Threat To The Ri ghts Of All Canadians

The new law allows the Minister to revoke citizenship if he believes citizens did not have the
intention to live in Canada when they applied for citizenship. This means that Canadian citizens
could be stripped of their citizenship without a hearing, if they move to another country to be with a
dying relative, to live with their children, or to pursue a business, academic, or other
employment opportunity.

5. Citi zenship Is Not A Pri vilege; It Is An Interest Fundamental To Full
Membership In Canadian Society

In support of the new law, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander has statedthat
citizenship is not a right, it is a privilege. This is inaccurate. Canada has pledged its commitment
to the aspirational rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that
everyone has a right to a nationality, and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
nationality. Canadian courts have also long recognized that citizenship is foundational to ones
membership in Canadian society. The Supreme Court of Canada, for example, has stated that it
could not imagine an interest more fundamental to full membership in Canadian society than
Canadian citizenship. The Federal Court of Canada has similarly statedthat citizenship constitutes
both a fundamental social institution and a basic aspect of full membership in Canadian
society. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has also held that the revocation of citizenship
clearly triggers the protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

6. The New Law Greatly Reduces Due-Process Ri ghts, Replacing Fai r
Judicial Process With Mini sterial Discretion

Under Canadas current laws, citizenship can only be removed after a hearing before a judge. Under
the new law, the Minister will, in most cases, make this decision without a hearing. Bill C-24 intends
to remove the right of citizens to appeal to the courts. Instead, a person whose citizenship is
revoked will have to apply to the Federal Court for permission to start an appeal. It is likely that in
many cases, the Federal Court will be reluctant to disagree with the Ministers assessment of the
evidence so the scope of any review by the Courts will be very limited.

7. The New Law Di minishes The Ties Non-Permanent Residents Have
Established In Canada

The federal government has stated that the new law will ensure citizenship applicants maintain
strong ties to Canada. Under the new law, a person who applies for citizenship will not be able to
count time spent in Canada as a non-permanent resident towards his/her citizenship application.
There is no reason why time spent as a non-permanent resident should not count towards
citizenship. If the idea behind imposing wait time for citizens is to ensure that citizenship applicants
have lived in Canada, it should make no difference that the applicant was in Canada with some other
form of status other than permanent residence status (for example, as a student). This proposed
change would also adversely impact refugees, who often have to wait for years to obtain permanent
residence in Canada.

8. The New Law Does Not Adequatel y Ensure Citi zens Mai ntain Strong Ties
To Canada

The federal government has stated that the new law reinforces the value of Canadian
citizenship. The new law introduces a requirement that persons who apply for citizenship must show
intent to reside in Canada after they obtain citizenship. Of course, the government may legitimately
encourage present and future Canadians to reside in Canada. But thats not what this provision
does. Rather, it empowers government officials to speculate on an applicants future intentions, and
then potentially deny them citizenship on the basis of that conjecture. It also holds out the implicit
threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do),
or forms a relationship with someone abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to
strip him/her of citizenship for misrepresenting their intention to reside in Canada when they were
granted citizenship. Whether the government acts on the threat is not the issue; it is enough that
people will be made insecure and apprehensive by the possibility that a government official may
arbitrarily decide to launch revocation proceedings against them if they leave Canada too soon, or
remain away too long.

9. The New Law Does Not Strengthen Or Protect The Value Of Canadian
Citi zenship; It Diminishes It

The federal government has stated that the new law will protect the value of Canadian
citizenship. This is patently untrue. The value of Canadian citizenship does not lie in cruelly
depriving some citizens of their most basic rights, or in drawing distinctions that represent new
Canadians as objects of suspicion and mistrust. Instead, the value of Canadian citizenship lies in a
commitment to rights protection, equality, dignity, and multiculturalism, as outlined in theCanadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As Canadians, we make our citizenship feeble if we give
government ministers the power to extinguish it. The value of Canadian citizenship is diminished
not enhanced by the new law proposed by the government.