Citizenship Act ‘anti-Canadian’

New court challenge from rights group, refugee lawyers denounces ‘unjust’ bill

Two legal advocacy groups are launching a constitutional challenge to the Conservative government’s new Citizenship Act in federal court, calling it “anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, anti-democratic, and unconstitutional.”

Both the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers are filing a judicial review application and a statement of claim Thursday arguing that Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, creates a “twotier citizenship regime” that discriminates between dual nationals — born here or abroad — and naturalized citizens.

The legal challenge focuses on some key provisions in the act that add an intent to reside in Canada provision before being granted citizenship, expand the grounds upon which a person can have citizenship revoked, and amend the procedures that lead to that revocation.

“This citizenship-stripping law is unjust, legally unsound and violates the core values of equality enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” said Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman, one of the litigators handling the case and a member of the executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers.

“With this law, the federal government shows a flagrant disregard for these values, and for the basic rights of all Canadians.”

Minister of Immigration Chris Alexander vigorously defended Bill C-24 when it was first introduced and as it was debated in Parliament.

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 application fees for citizenship to $300 a person; expanding the age range for those required to demonstrate language proficiency and a knowledge test for those 14 to 64 years old and streamlining the application process.

At the time of its introduction in February 2014 and afterward, there was widespread and vociferous criticism of the bill. One legal challenge, by Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati and the Constitutional Rights Centre, was filed last year and has been dismissed. That decision is being appealed. Waldman says the law creates two classes of citizens and a profoundly unfair process and exposes many Canadians to not only losing their citizenship without due process but also their rights to move and travel out of the country.

The claim also argues that new Canadians — who have become citizens under Bill C-24 — could lose their citizenship if they move abroad for work or school or family because they must sign an intent to reside in Canada when they receive their new citizenship. That requirement was not in effect for new citizens before the passage of Bill C-24.

This is fundamentally an issue of equality, says Josh Paterson, executive director of the BCCLA.

“All Canadian citizens used to have the same citizenship rights, no matter what their origins,” Paterson said. “Now this new law has divided us into classes of citizens — those who can lose their citizenship and those who can’t. Bill C-24 is anti-immigrant, anti-Canadian, and anti-democratic. It undermines — quite literally — what it means to be Canadian.”

The legal arguments focus on the fact the bill violates equality rights, mobility rights, the rights to freedom and security of person, due process rights, the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment — all freedoms guaranteed to Canadians under the charter, Paterson said.