a,

i
i
ee

~ nn

Andrew Kenway
Team Member

assed in June, Bill C-24, which allows the

Canadian government to deport suspects
of terrorism who have dual citizenship,
shows a startling change in Canada's current
political attitudes to immigration.

Our willingness to accept immigrants into
our country could be seen as one of our
country's defining features, and arguably
is part of why Canada even functions as it
does. Bill C-24 is meant to make Canadian
citizenship harder to get, but also gives
government the power to remove dual
citizenship status from anybody convicted
of terrorism, treason, or spying abroad.

This bill is called the Strengthening Canadian
Citizenship Act. The title is in keeping

with the North American trend of dressing
up our least appealing legislation with
conspicuously positive names. They often
sound as though as the people who wrote
them were on the defensive as soon as they
started, and in this case, understandably so.

During the house debate, Bill C-24 was
criticized, not only for its blatant violation of
unalienable rights, but for wasting resources,
as the bill was guaranteed to end up before
the supreme court. At that time, Pat Toome
of the NDP spoke his mind on Immigration
Minister Chris Alexander's proposed bill, "I

cannot understand why government always
expects the supreme court to fix its mistakes.
The government is abusing the legal system,
and I find it very discouraging that the
minister has introduced a bill as badly
written as Bill-C24." Hardly a glowing review.

It is normal to see opponents disagree with
a bill's principles, but another entirely to
question its very legibility. Toome’s issues
come with many of the poorly defined powers
that have been granted in the bill. According
to Steven Meuren's article in Canadian
Immigrant, "the bill is certain to create a
second class of citizens who will have to fear
travelling and working abroad." Meuren
goes on to explain that being born in Canada
no longer necessarily gains one citizenship,
"although specifics have yet to be provided."
Either way, the message is clear that those
with dual citizenships face a different

set of challenges now in this country.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said
that the bill is intended to fight fraud. This
is an arguably negligible issue in Canada, or
so one might infer from CBC's article on the
supposed citizenship fraud epidemic in 2003.

Under the old Immigration Minister, the

CBC reported, “of the 3000 suspected
fraudsters, only 286 have been actually found
by the department and given notice their
citizenship is on the line." Of these, twelve
lost their citizenship for reasons related

to the fraud investigation. So if fraud isn't
actually that much of an issue, then the other
purpose is to streamline the process; a great
goal to be sure. If speeding up the process
requires removing the right to a trial and an
appeal--and it does--many Canadians and
potential Canadians might prefer to wait.

This new bill is a dramatic tangent from

the permissive policy of the past. It has a
variety of devastating consequences. These
are examined in the Toronto Star's highlights
of the bill, which include: lengthening

the delay until one can get citizenship,
expanding the age range where knowledge
and language tests are required--as early as
16, now--triples application fees, extends
the length of time one has to live in Canada,
requires that the applicant must somehow
prove intent to stay in Canada, and more.

This bill, of course, was placed conveniently
before the new Conservative's proposed
Bill C-50. According to Canadians.org's
media release, "the purpose of the bill is

to prevent many Canadians living overseas
from voting, despite a recent court decision
upholding their right to do so". With the
upcoming election, it might be hard for
some not to view these political moves as
partisan power-grabs. If the Conservative
Party's goal was to strengthen Canadian
citizenship, why do they seem so invested
in stopping Canadians from voting?

As for the idea of strengthening Canadian
citizenship, it reminds one of the 1964 Bond
film, Goldfinger. In it, the villain reveals

his dastardly plan to make his gold more
valuable by breaking into Fort Knox and
irradiating America's entire supply. It's

a simple matter of supply and demand,
expressed in an almost cartoonish act of evil.

If we're to assume that this isn't a partisan
push to deny voting rights to people who
generally prefer not to vote conservative,
then strengthening Canadian citizenship
must be the point. If it's the goal, then I think
most sane Canadians would rather improve
the value of our citizenship through means
that don't resemble those of Bond villains.

The attempt to increase the value of
Canadian Citizenship by denying to people
who--before this bill was passed--would
have been gladly welcomed as Canadian
citizens seems misguided at best. If the
point of this bill isn't to stop fraud, which
does not seem to be a major issue, then

it is either happening to speed up the
process, or to "strengthen Canadian
citizenship." Unfortunately, the bill aims
to do this by making it a rare commodity.

A simple supply and demand scenario seems
entirely too simple an approach to define our
Canadian citizens, and the people who do,
will, and have been a part of this great nation.