Vancouver Observer: Conservatives defend suppression of debate over controversial citizenship bill

Opposition MPs asked why the Conservatives were limiting debate on the controversial bill, while Minister Christopher Alexander defended the time limitation, saying it was to "create certainty" for Canadians about citizenship. 

Conservatives defend suppression of debate over controversial citizenship bill Opposition MPs asked why the Conservatives were limiting debate on the controversial bill, while Minister Christopher Alexander defended the time limitation, saying it was to "create certainty" for Canadians about citizenship.

Citizenship Minister Christopher Alexander

Opposition members were outraged as Conservative MP Peter Van Loan moved to reduce debate on the controversial Bill C-24, the largest overhaul on citizenship laws in over a generation.

Click here to read original article on the Vancouver Observer website.

On Wednesday, Van Loan moved that "not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill", and that "15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided...any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order," and that every question would be put forward successively, without further debate or amendment. 

When The Vancouver Observer asked why the debate time was being reduced on an important bill, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Christopher Alexander defended the motion, saying it should be seen as a benefit:

"It is not – as the Opposition suggests – used to limit debate, but to  create certainty...it also helps the media, improving their ability to inform the public. Time allocation should be regarded as a scheduling device," Alexander said, through his spokesperson, Codie Taylor. 

Taylor criticized ongoing debate on the bill as "continued attempts by the Opposition to delay and obstruct important bills such as Bill C-24" and insisted that the NDP and Liberal Party "end their partisan attempts" to delay the passage of the bill, which was introduced in February and debated for a few hours since. 

During the debate, Alexander insisted quick passage of the bill would end the suffering of "tens of thousands of permanent residents" who wish to become citizens. But Citizenship advocate Don Chapman says the government is making a mistake by limiting public debate on the important citizenship bill. Earlier this month, the government blocked the testimony of Chapman and historian Melynda Jarratt, who are concerned that the bill would continue to exclude legitimate Canadians, even rendering some stateless.  

"The public has a number of concerns about this controversial bill, which makes it even more deplorable that the government is doing this yet again," Julian said.

"The government does not want to show openness in the House. It simply wants to impose its law, regardless of the consequences. We all know what kinds of consequences these controversial bills have. The bills are so badly botched that the government is forced to introduce new bills to fix the problems."

Vancouver Observer: Government invites, then blocks witnesses from citizenship and immigration debate

Toronto lawyer Chantal Desloges recalls being invited to speak as an expert witness before the citizenship committee last June, only to be shut out along with other witnesses.

Expert witnesses were shocked and "insulted" when the federal government recently flew them to Ottawa to speak to the Citizenship committee regarding a major new citizenship bill, only to muzzle them at the last minute.  

Click here to read original article on Vancouver Observer website

“Do they think citizenship legislation is a joke?” historian Melynda Jarratt said at the time, after being kicked out as the meeting carried on in camera, behind closed doors. “I’ve always felt this was a transparent process of democracy...I feel insulted and it’s brought out the worst of how people perceive politicians in Ottawa."

Since then, other witnesses have stepped forward and said told The Vancouver Observer this wasn't an isolated event. A nearly identical case of witness muzzling happened last June, when legal experts and international speakers were asked to speak before the citizenship committee, only to be excluded as the meeting carried on behind closed doors. 

With the biggest 'overhaul' of Canadian citizenship law in over a generation now underway with Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, some say the federal government is ignoring democratic process in order to push through major changes.

Witnesses shut out mid-meeting 

“There's a cost to taxpayers, who pay for the expenses of witness to be flown in, only to have them shut out of the process," said prominent Toronto immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges, who was invited by the government to attend a Citizenship Committee meeting last June. 

She had come to Ottawa, along with law students from the Toronto based Parkdale Community Legal Services Clinic, a leading institution that provides legal assistance for new Canadians. The Parkdale students had come in to appear before the committee to discuss changes to the visitor visa program.

“We’d been invited [at a time] when there were some serious changes in immigration policy," recalled Parkdale law student Clifford McCarten. "We've been around long enough and give a critical and progressive voice on proposed immigration changes.”

That 'voice,' however, would end up going unheard by the Conservative-dominated committee.

Photo from Parkdale Community Legal Services website 

“We'd arrived at the committee chambers that morning a little after 8:30 a.m," said McCarten. The only witness to testify at that meeting was cut off mid-sentence around two minutes into her presentation, when MPs suddenly began arguing, he said. 

Conservative MP Rick Dykstra began insisting his item be dealt with before letting the witnesses speak. 

"I just find it utterly disrespectful to our witnesses who are here that we're sitting here bickering about who gets to talk first," NDP MP Rathika Sitsabaiesan protested, saying it was "unfounded" for members to interrupt witnesses during a speech. 

Dykstra began repeatedly threatening to move the meeting behind closed doors, and dismissed concerns that witnesses in Asia were staying up late to participate in the meeting. NDP MP Jinny Sims was appalled, comparing the committee to a "school playground".

Yet moments later, baffled witnesses were kicked out of the room as the MPs continued the meeting behind closed doors.  

"Along with at least five other witnesses -- some of whom had flown across Canada and stayed overnight -- we were told to remain waiting in the hallway," he said.   

Why fly in experts to meeting if they can't participate? 

He remembered some MPs were visibly upset. Why had the experts even been invited, if they were not allowed to speak? 

“Staff could not give us any information about what was happening, how long we would be waiting, or whether we should leave,” said McCarten.

“We stood around waiting for around four to five hours. During that time committee members and staff rushed in and out, all visibly angry, and all unable to tell us what to do,” he said. “We were trying to catch MPs who were coming out – everyone seemed angry and upset -- some were apologetic to us”.

Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux had pleaded to let witnesses speak, given the public funds spent to have them attend the meeting. He'd even invited witnesses from Asian countries to speak, and it seemed clear they would not have a say. 

“[We] want to make sure they’re afforded the opportunity to have the dialogue...Time has been set aside here,” he argued at the time. “We have individuals on conference call from the Philippines and from Chandigarh (in north India), and I believe it's very important for us to hear all of the presenters," he said.

But the meeting went on for hours out of the public eye, without any opportunity for the witnesses to listen to what was being said or have their say. 

“It's very disappointing, not only to myself but others -- especially those who come from away to testify as expert witnesses," Desloges said.

"These are busy people with lots of important things to do, and they get called upon specifically for their expertise. They take a lot of time to prepare for their short 7 minutes in front of committee."

The new Citizenship bill introduces sweeping new changes that have been sharply criticized in the media as a "Trojan horse". Ostensibly, it helps to restore citizenship to some Lost Canadians -- legitimate Canadians who were denied citizenship due to discriminatory provisions of past laws. But it also gives the Minister unprecedented power to strip a Canadian of citizenship without a court hearing. What's more, it significantly weakens the ability of Canadian citizens to challenge the government's rulings on citizenship in court.

Stifling of public discussion a 'systemic' problem

Asked why the witnesses were not allowed to participate, Deputy Principal Clerk José Cadorette provided no explanation but said it was nothing out of the ordinary. 

"For a variety of reasons, committees often go into, and out of, in camera," he said. Asked if this kind of exclusion happens regularly, Cadrorette responded the government's computer system is "not set up to track the number of times that occurs". 

Opposition MPs said the exclusion was regrettable, but not surprising. 

“The imposition of an in camera meeting by the Conservative majority is certainly regrettable, but not at all surprising,"  said NDP MP Sadia Groguhé, who was present at the time. "It is perfectly representative of the attitude that prevails both in the House and in committee.”

The long wait time and uncertainty caused some witnesses to leave out of frustration. 

"I had to cut my losses. We didn't know when we would be called in. In the end, we didn't speak on the issue,” Desloges said.

Desloges expressed her concern over the committee's disregard for the time that witnesses took to come to Ottawa and prepare arguments that ultimately no MP heard on that day. 

She feels the shutting out of debate has become 'systemic', and suggests that the government take steps to prevent this from happening to others.

“I feel it’s a systemic problem," she said. "There needs to be more certainty and some rules on how these committees need to function and what happens with respect to witnesses."

"There needs to be assurances that witnesses will be heard, because of their valuable expertise and also because of the taxpayers’ expense.” 

Hill Times: Citizenship bill flies under the radar, it shouldn’t

Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander appears to support
the suppression of testimony unfavourable to Bill C-24.

By Andrew Griffiths

One month ago, Parliamentary hearings started on Bill C-24, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act. Witnesses ranged from those who support the bill unreservedly, to those who oppose without qualification.

Click here to read original article on Hill Times website and on Andrew Griffith's website Multicultural Meanderings

It was more Kabuki theatre than debate, given the government mainly probed supporting witnesses and the opposition opposing witnesses. However, many had significant nuances, particularly on due process questions, which may prove significant when the bill proceeds to more formal review.

Apart from the Canadian Jewish community, represented by CIJA, B’nai Brith and J-RAN, there is relatively little testimony from the larger ethnic community organizations. There has also been relatively little press coverage that I have seen in the ethnic media. This is somewhat surprising, given the impact that this bill will have on their communities.

Secondly, lawyers testified strongly against the bill, noting major concerns regarding Charter compliance, particularly with respect to revocation, notwithstanding Immigration Minister Chris Alexander’s assertion that the bill “is fully compliant with the requirements of our Constitution.” Additional concerns were expressed regarding the increased discretion for officials and the minister. Given the track record of the government before the courts, the minister’s confidence will likely be tested as cases emerge.

Thirdly, opinion is highly polarized between those who support the government’s approach of making citizenship “harder to get and easier to lose,” and those who believe the current approach is largely successful and believe in a more facilitative and flexible approach. Overall, more witnesses were opposed to the overall direction of the government.

This article aims to provide the general state-of-play on testimony to date.

Residency: There is no clear consensus and positions are split down the middle. However, some of those supporting the increased residency time and physical presence expressed the need for more flexibility, primarily for those with business reasons for travel. There was general opposition to removal of half-time credit for temporary residence (e.g., foreign students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and live-in caregivers) towards meeting residency requirements. The “intent to reside” provision was opposed by most witnesses, with some fearing that determination by citizenship officers of an applicant’s “intent” could be arbitrary, in addition to the broader question treating naturalized Canadians differently from born Canadians.

Knowledge and language testing: More organizations opposed increased coverage (from 18-year-olds to 54-year-old and 14-year-olds to 64-year-olds), particularly, refugee and settlement organizations. A number of witnesses also opposed the imposition of up-front language testing (introduced to streamline processing), as this effectively increased the language barrier. While some of the concerns regarding older applicants are valid, the 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds automatically will meet language requirements, as they will have been educated in a Canadian school.

Fee increases: Refugee advocates strongly opposed these increases, given that for many the cost could be prohibitive. Citizenship is particularly important for refugees given that many have had to sever connections with their country of origin.

Criminal convictions abroad: While not subject to much testimony, both those supporting and opposing expressed concern regarding the equivalence between Canadian and foreign courts, which needed greater clarity in the bill.

Revocation for fraud: All supported the principle for revocation of fraud or misrepresentation, but the vast majority opposed this being at ministerial discretion with no appeal to the Federal Court. There was support, however, for the streamlined process that removes the Cabinet role and consolidates revocation and removal proceedings.

Revocation for terrorism, high treason, or who take up arms against Canada: Not surprisingly, this formed the bulk of testimony on both sides of the issue, evenly divided. For many, such crimes break the “fundamental social contract of Canada” given that they are acts against Canadian values. For others, the fundamental issue is treating dual nationals, whether by birth or naturalization, differently from Canadian-only nationals, changing Canada’s long-standing policy since Diefenbaker.

Most of those who supported revocation noted the need to add to the existing test, “was the offence equivalent to Canadian law,” a second test, “was the judicial process also equivalent.”

Others opposed the reverse burden of proof on citizens to demonstrate that they did not have dual citizenship. It is unclear whether this includes only the right to another citizenship (e.g., Israel’s Law of Return which has parallels in a number of countries), or actually formally having exercised that right. Retroactive revocation was also criticized (the Omar Khadr provision?).

Less discussed issues included the reduced role for citizenship judges, the requirement to provide tax returns, providing preference to applicants having served in the Canadian Forces (very small numbers), Crown servant first generation exception, and the regulation of citizenship consultants.

A number of witnesses supported the expansion of “lost Canadians” to those born before 1947 (date of the first Canadian Citizenship Act) as well as their first generation born abroad. However, the government suppressed the testimony of long-standing activists Melynda Jarratt and Don Chapman who remain concerned that the bill only fixed war brides and their children, not posthumously recognizing Canadian citizenship of those who died before 1947, including Canadian war dead.

One of my favourite comments, from the Canadian Bar Association, is that the bill should be completely redrafted, with less cross-referencing, in plain language.

After the initial flurry of interest and commentary, the hearings are largely happening under the radar. Mainstream media are not covering it and ethnic communities and media are largely absent. Neither opposition party appears, at this stage, to be making this a major issue, in sharp contrast with C-23, the Fair Elections Act, and controversy over Temporary Foreign Workers. Alexander is lucky indeed.

There are some obvious areas where the government could respond to some of the testimony without changing the fundamentals. There seems no sound policy or political rationale not to count pre-permanent residency time towards citizenship. The intent to reside provision needs further clarification on how citizenship officers will decide whether it is genuine or not. It seems pointless to extend language assessment to 14-year-olds to 17-year-olds given that they have been in Canadian schools for six years before applying. There should be some flexibility for fees for low-income refugees. Greater clarity on Canadian equivalency on foreign criminality convictions will improve fairness. Revocation for terrorism and treason should similarly also test for equivalence to Canadian judicial processes, and have greater clearer criteria and language (e.g., “act” rather than “offence”).

None of this will address the philosophical differences between the government and its supporters, and those of its critics. The overall tightening of citizenship will likely reduce the number of permanent residents taking up citizenship. Increased residency and related requirements may make Canada less attractive to the “best and brightest,” and most mobile immigrants Canada wishes to attract. Revocation for terror and treason changes long-standing policy of treating all Canadians equally, whether born in Canada or naturalized.

As Bill C-24 moves to more formal parliamentary debate, we shall see if the political dynamics change and Canadians start pay more attention to this tougher approach to Canadian citizenship, and the likely effects over time, on Canada.

Rick Howe Show 88.9 FM: Interview with Don Chapman of the Lost Canadians

Don Chapman of the Lost Canadians speaks to Rick Howe of 88.9 FM about the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act in Bill C-24 and the Citizenship Committee's latest shenanigins in Ottawa, when they perverted the course of democracy by blocking Chapman's appearance before the Committee on May 12.

Click here to listen to the interview on 88.9 FM Radio!

Vancouver Observer: Government muzzles expert witnesses on major citizenship bill

Citizenship advocate Don Chapman sits in an empty committee room. ©2014 Jean Chartrand

Citizenship advocates Don Chapman and Melynda Jarrett are fuming after seeing what they call a flagrant violation of the democratic process in Parliament unfold before their eyes.

Just moments before they were set to testify before the Citizen and Immigration committee on Monday, Conservative caucus member Ted Opitz  motioned to close the meeting to the public, preventing them from speaking on bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act.

"I've never seen anything like it," said Chapman, stunned by the move. "This is an important bill that will determine who's a Canadian, and yet they don't want to hear from stakeholders about it?"

'Do they think citizenship legislation is a joke?' 

Jarrett, a historian, was invited by the government at the taxpayer’s expense to provide expert testimony on the history affecting this legislation, along with other concerns. Chapman and Jarrett arrived in Ottawa from Vancouver and New Brunswick respectively, but didn't get any chance to say a word before the committee.
“Do they think citizenship legislation is a joke?” said Jarrett, angered by the last-minute changes.

The pair were ushered to leave the committee along with various members of the public, media and parliamentary staff in unusual afternoon drama after Conservative MP Ted Opitz motioned to move the meeting to in camera, which was carried by a majority vote.


Photo of Don Chapman. ©2014 Jean Chartrand

The Conservative-dominated committee – of which five members are Canadian immigrants from countries including India, Sri Lanka and Taiwan – is currently reviewing the bill, which has already been lambasted as a “Trojan horse”, giving the Harper government unprecedented power to strip Canadians of their citizenship.
Liberal MP John McCallum left the meeting in frustration shortly after the decision was made to muzzle the witnesses. “I can’t talk about what happened in-camera, but as you can see by my actions, I’m not happy,” he said. 

The bill, which Citizenship Minister Chris Alexander called the most comprehensive overhaul of citizenship legislation in over a generation, specifically includes a section on "Lost Canadians" --  legitimate Canadians who lost their citizenship due to racial discrimination, sexism and the federal government’s insistence that Canadian citizenship began after 1947 despite Supreme Court precedents that clearly state otherwise.

Even though the government made national headlines by saying it was finally going to fix legislation flaws that caused Canadians to lose citizenship, its exclusion of witnesses suggests that the law won't be open to any input from people directly affected by the legislation. 

Muzzling witnesses and scrapping democratic process  

Both Chapman and Jarrett have extensive knowledge and personal experience with the issue of Lost Canadians, and were shocked to have been denied their say.

“I’ve always felt this was a transparent process of democracy in being invited to speak as an expert. Now, I feel insulted and it’s brought out the worst of how people perceive politicians in Ottawa," Jarratt said. "The look on their faces today with their sense of entitlement --- how they can treat members of the public, and taxpayers money, with such contempt?”

A visibly frustrated Champan wasn’t as diplomatic.

“I’m glad Canada was accepting of you, when you needed help,” he said to Conservative MPs Joe Daniel, Chungsen Leung and Devinder Shory – who are Canadian immigrants – as they left the committee room once the meeting adjourned.

“They wouldn't even look at me," Chapman said indignantly. "They're undermining the democratic process by ignoring the evidence of witnesses.”


Conservative MPs Devinder Shorey, Joe Daniel and Chungsen Leung leave Monday's Citizenship and Immigration Committee . ©2014 Jean Chartrand

The new bill also changes an individual’s ability to challenge the government in court, which experts say is disconcerting.

“There’s intent to shift power from the judiciary to the executive, and which undermines the constitutional role of the courts in Canada’s democratic systems” said lawyer Bill Kinsel.

Thousands of Canadians remain without citizenship, many of whom go most of their lives without knowing that they don’t have Canadian citizenship until they apply for passports, healthcare, driver’s licenses or old age pensions.

Also escorted out of the room that afternoon was Heather Harnois, 25, an Ontario-based mother of Ojibwa heritage. Despite her family's strong roots in Canada, the federal government does not recognize Harnois as either Canadian or aboriginal, due to rule that prevented Indian women from passing on status.

As a result, Harnois is unable to apply for a social insurance number or receive health care coverage. She has repeatedly asked for lawmakers to grant her Canadian citizenship, to no avail. Her case is similar to that of Donovan McGlaughlin, a half-Aboriginal Yukon resident of Susquehannock origin who has lived in Canada for over 40 years but has been denied citizenship due to lack of government documents.  Others denied citizenship in the past include children of Canadian soldiers, and Canadian veterans of the Second World War.

"They're doing this all wrong," Chapman said. "The term 'Lost Canadians' comes up 20 times in the Legislative Summary of Bill C-24, yet they don't have one Lost Canadian to speak to the committee. They're not interested in the truth. This is bill number seven on this issue and they still can't get it right."

Chapman had also been calling Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Parliamentary Secretary Costas Menegakis repeatedly for a week, and said neither even acknowledged him.

"I've called Menegakis at least 20 times," he said. "No response."

Citizenship and Immigration Canada was reached for comment but did not provide a response in time for publication.