Conservative government vows to defend citizenship act against legal challenge
The Harper government says it will “aggressively defend” Bill C-24 against a constitutional challenge filed by two legal advocacy groups on Thursday.
Thestar.com
Aug. 21, 2015
By Debra Black
The Conservative government will “aggressively defend” Bill C-24, the Strengthening Citizenship Act, against a recent legal challenge filed by two legal advocacy groups, says Kevin Menard, a spokesperson on the Conservative Party federal election campaign team.
“Our Conservative government has strengthened the value of Canadian citizenship more than any government in the history of Canada,” Menard says. “In 2014, we also granted citizenship to a record number of people. These achievements were possible because of the measures in C-24, which the overwhelming majority of Canadians support and which was passed despite nonsensical objections from the NDP and Liberals.”
Nancy Caron, a spokesperson for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, told the Star it would be inappropriate for the ministry to comment on a case before the courts.
B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers filed a legal challenge Thursday questioning the constitutionality of a number of provisions in Bill C-24. The two groups argue that those provisions violate a number of sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“This citizenship-stripping law is unjust, legally unsound and violates the core values of equality enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” says Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman, one of the litigators handling the case and a member of the executive of the Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers.
“With this law the federal government shows a flagrant disregard for these values and for the basic rights of all Canadians.”
Josh Paterson, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, called the act “anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, anti-democratic.”
“All Canadian citizens used to have the same citizenship rights, no matter what their origin,” says Paterson. “Now this new law has divided us into classes of citizens - those who can lose their citizenship and those who can’t.”
The legal challenge focuses on some key clauses in the act that add an intent to reside in Canada provision before being granted Canadian citizenship, expand the grounds upon which a person can have his or her citizenship revoked and amend the procedures that lead to that revocation.
Under the act, which came into effect in June, Canadians could see their citizenship revoked if convicted of certain serious crimes in Canada or abroad - even in countries that do not have due process, according to the statement of claim.
But Menard defends the act. “Canadians are generous and welcoming but do not believe that dual nationals convicted of the most serious crimes - terrorism, espionage, treason and taking up arms against members of the Canadian Armed Forces - ought to enjoy the many privileges and benefits that come with Canadian citizenship,” he says.
“We will aggressively defend our position before the courts and will reserve further comment for the time being.”
The act also introduced a series of sweeping changes, including altering residency requirements for permanent residents to four out of six years before being eligible for citizenship, increasing the fees for applications for citizenship to $300 a person, expanding the age range for those required to demonstrate language proficiency and a knowledge test to 14-years-old to 64-years-old and streamlining the application process.
