Early Thoughts on Second Class Citizenship in Canada
In May 2015, Bill C-24—ironically titled the ‘Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act’—came into effect. For the first time ever, Canada imposed a tiered level of citizenship. While the government has touted the bill as a cost-effective method for fighting terrorism, legal experts around the country have suggested the main effect is the creation of a second class of citizens. This poses great concerns for all Canadians and fundamentally changes what it means to be a Canadian citizen.
Under the new bill, Canadian citizens who have no other citizenship and no right to obtain citizenship from another country have become the First Class. This First Class is not directly affected by the bill. However, the Second Class—Canadian citizens who hold dual citizenship or Canadian citizens that have a right to obtain citizenship from another country—are now at risk of losing their Canadian citizenship.
The grounds for revocation are currently limited to acts of terrorism and treason, which may seem like reasonable grounds at first glance. Section 10(2)(b) of Bill C-24 permits the Minister to revoke a Canadian’s citizenship if she commits “a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code—or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section—and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment.” The problem is that the bill “… impose[s] exile as an additional form of punishment. It imposes levels of citizenship rights for the first time in Canada. It is unfair and discriminatory.” Essentially, Second Class citizens are punished twice for the same crime. Yet this violates one of the oldest, most essential legal principles: the rule of law, which states that every citizen shall be equal under the law. As a Canadian citizen, whether you are a white male or a black woman, a young person or an old person, a dual, naturalized, or native citizen, you are supposed to be treated equally under the law. That is what it means to have a Canadian citizenship: equal rights, equal protections, equal punishments. Bill C-24 violates those principles and in so doing violates Canadian citizenship as a whole. Moreover, Canada prides itself on being one of the most multicultural and welcoming countries in the world. To allow the creation of Second Class Citizenship is not only foolhardy, but a grotesque violation of all that it means to be Canadian.
Second, whether or not you believe committing an act of terrorism or treason is grounds for losing one’s citizenship, the method Bill C-24 relies on to determine what constitutes terrorism is faulty. This is because first, it is not Canada but other countries that decide the definition of terrorism, and second the definition of terrorism is often grounded in political context. During times of political strife many governments frame competing political groups as terrorists and levy false charges against them. This means Canadians who have done no wrong could be stripped of their citizenship. For example, Nelson Mandela, who was awarded Canada’s highest accolades and given honorary citizenship, was falsely convicted of what could be considered an act of terrorism and sentenced to life in prison by the South African government. Under Bill C-24 Mandela could be stripped of his citizenship and exiled. A law that would punish one of the greatest human rights activists for being framed by a corrupt foreign government is certainly not a law worth having.
Third, the bill does not criminalize conduct in Canada pre-dating the relevant sections of the Criminal Code but includes that conduct abroad. This has the strange effect of allowing citizens convicted of terrorism against Canada in the past immunity, so long as the offence was committed in Canada. For example, citizens convicted of terrorism during the 1970 FLQ crisis would retain their citizenship even though Canada was the direct target, but anyone committing the same conduct abroad would lose their citizenship (CBA 24). That is simply absurd.
Fourth, according to Section 10.1(2) of the bill, “If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person, before or after the coming into force of this section and while the person was a citizen, served as a member of an armed force of a country or as a member of an organized armed group and that country or group was engaged in an armed conflict with Canada” he may revoke that person’s citizenship. This means people who were suddenly and involuntarily drafted to fight against Canada could lose their Canadian citizenship even if they never saw active duty, were vehemently against the conflict, and vacated as soon as possible. This is counterintuitive, especially since many immigrants come to Canada precisely to escape that sort of violence.
Moreover, it is not clear what constitutes an “armed conflict with Canada.” If a member of a political group you were with threw a shoe at a Canadian delegate, couldn’t that be construed as an armed conflict with Canada? Are we going to strip people of their citizenship for poor (but non-injurious) political behaviour and acts committed by third parties? Just how widely may the bill be interpreted? Nobody knows. Which is why the fifth point of interest is the incomprehensible language of the bill.
According to the Canadian Bar Association, “Bill C-24 uses excessive cross-referencing within the Act and to previous citizenship legislation to the point of near incoherence. This results [in] the legislation being inaccessible to the public as well as many public servants, politicians, lawyers, and judges, delayed processing times for citizenship applications and an increased backlog, and an increased burden on Canadian courts. Plain language drafting is in the interest of all parties.” When a group of trained legal professionals like the CBA says your law is incomprehensible and needs to be fixed, your law is incomprehensible and needs to be fixed. Without clear laws nearly anything can be read in, which could lead to terrible misinterpretations and unjust applications.
Finally, and possibly the most concerning problem with the bill, is that it designates the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the judge rather than a trained Federal Court justice, as was the case in the past. As Canadian citizens we have the right to be tried by a jury of our peers or at least a competent purveyor of the law. One man is not a jury. Nor is this lone individual likely to be a ‘peer’ in any sense of the word. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has historically been an aging white male, a far cry from the young, culturally diverse immigrants that typically apply for citizenship. Most disconcertingly, the Minister may have zero legal experience. Chris Alexander, the current Minister, does not hold a law degree of any kind. We could quite literally be putting the lives of extremely vulnerable individuals in the hands of an unqualified, untrained, politically motivated individual. By expediting the process in favour of cutting costs, we may be sending innocent people to their deaths.
If you would like to learn more about the bill, the constitutional challenges being launched against it, or want to sign the petition to repeal the law, visit the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association website at https://bccla.org/2015/06/its-official-second-class-citizenship-goes-into-effect/