On Canada’s Proposed Bill C-24: The So-called ‘Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act’

A new bill proposed by the Canadian government’s Citizenship and Immigration Minister, Chris Alexander, has been getting a lot of press recently. (You can find the bill here and the current Act here). Bill C-24, called by its proponents the ‘Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,’ is meant to do just that: Strengthen Canadian Citizenship. The changes it proposes to the extant Canadian Citizenship Act are legion, and vary in their significance. Certainly, the changes are not all bad. It calls, for example, for modifications that would allow so-called ‘lost Canadians’ a chance to become citizens. People who, for one reason or another, never received citizenship when they should have. It also introduces more consistently gender-neutral language, rather than favouring the masculine pronoun, and acknowledges common-law partnerships, where the current act only recognizes marriage. These are good things. But, the press hasn’t focused on these gains. This is because a series of changes proposed by the bill will also make Canadian citizenship harder to get and easier to lose. Like others, I’m opposed to the latter set of changes being proposed. However, unlike others, my dissent isn’t based on the introduction of what is being called a distinction between first and second-class citizens. Instead, it is based on the assumption, implicit in proposed bill and explicit in the rhetoric of its defense, that citizenship is a privilege and not a right.

 The Worrisome Changes:

First, the proposed bill will make it harder to become a citizen. The changes it calls for does this in four ways:

1. By extending the time that it takes to become a citizen. This is achieved in two ways: First, the bill requires one more year of residency than the current requirements. The current Act requires that the applicant have lived 3 of the previous 4 years in Canada. The bill proposes requiring that the applicant have lived 4 of the previous 6 years in Canada. Second, it no longer permits time spent in the country before the acquisition of permanent resident status to count towards one’s residency requirement. On the current Act, each day spent in the country prior to receiving permanent resident status counts towards one half day of total residence required for citizenship. The bill would no longer permit this.
2. By increasing the cost of applying for citizenship. The current cost is $100. The bill proposes to raise this to $300.
3. By increasing the age range for which a demonstration of competence in English or French and some knowledge of Canadian history and values are necessary. Currently, only those who are between the ages of 18 and 54 have to demonstrate these capacities. The bill proposes changing the age range to 14 to 64.
4. By adding the requirement that the applicant demonstrate the submission of income tax returns in the years prior to receiving citizenship. Many of those applying for citizenship will have been required to submit income tax returns anyway. However, it will now become necessary for them to demonstrate that submission (or prove they didn’t have to).

Second, the proposed bill will make it easier to lose citizenship. These changes will only affect those with dual citizenship. The government has made clear that no Canadian who is not a citizen of another country will lose his or her citizenship. The changes it calls for makes it easier for dual citizens who have Canadian citizenship to lose their Canadian citizenship in two ways. Citizenship will be revoked if:

1. The person has been convicted of crimes such as: 1) terrorism, high treason, treason or spying or, 2) war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other human and international rights violations. The first set of crimes may lead to the revocation of citizenship by the Immigration Minister without a trial. That is, according to the proposed changes, whether or not the convicted person loses his or her citizenship would be up to the discretion of the Immigration Minister. Appeal of such decisions would not be permitted. The second set of crimes may lead to the revocation of citizenship if decided by a Federal Court.   
2. It is known (with the provision of reasonable evidence) that the person is engaged in hostilities against Canada.

 What to Say About the Worrisome Changes:

The common response to the Worrisome Changes has been to state that they introduce a distinction between first and second-class Canadians and that such a distinction is bad. There are those for whom Canadian citizenship is a secure and meaningful status, and those for whom it may be revoked at the whim of the Immigration Minister. While rhetorically quite strong, I think the complaint is less well founded than its proponents believe. Canada already implements a legal distinction of the sort being decried by objectors to Bill C-24. That is the distinction between a permanent resident and a citizen. The inclusion of another tier (if that is indeed what the bill is proposing) would merely add finer degrees to a distinction that has already been made. It would not be creating a new kind of distinction between those who permanently reside in Canada [1]. This is important. There is already a distinction between: visitors; permanent residents (who possess many of the rights and obligations of citizens—for example, income tax contributions and benefits—but cannot vote); and full citizens. It is therefore unhelpful to point out that another distinction is wrong. We need an answer to the question: Why is this distinction wrong when the others are not?

I think we can answer this question if we examine the assumption, implicit in the bill and explicit in the Immigration Minister’s support for it, that citizenship is a privilege and not a right. This strikes me as especially pernicious. This is what leads to the view that it is okay for a single (appointed, not elected) individual to determine a basic legal status of some individuals in certain cases without the possibility of appeal. Don’t get me wrong; it would be bad for there to be Canadians who are convicted of the crimes for which revocation of citizenship is a punishment. However, the badness of these acts should not be used as a reason to take away basic rights. To assert that Canadian citizenship is a privilege that can be taken away is not just to introduce insecurity in the status of those who possess dual citizenship. It makes a claim about the nature of citizenship in general.

Here is how I view the division that this bill would create between Canadians: There would be those for whom citizenship is a right, not to be taken away no matter the crime they have committed, and there would be others for whom citizenship is a privilege. The rhetoric of ‘privilege, not right’ would only be true of some Canadians. But this distinction can’t have any principled grounding, because renouncing the second citizenship one holds would be sufficient to turn Canadian citizenship into a right. Just as taking up citizenship in another country would be to turn Canadian citizenship into a privilege. Rather than strengthening Canadian citizenship, the changes this bill proposes would make it an ambiguous title; one that changes its nature depending on contingent circumstances of the person’s activity, even when that activity has nothing to do with Canada. The introduction of insecurity to dual citizens signals a greater disregard for the status of citizenship as a whole. For this reason, not because of the introduction of another tier of bundles of rights for Canadian residents, the proposed bill should be modified.

[1] I am aware of the move I have made here from Canadians to those who live permanently in Canada. I don’t believe anything rests on this change.

By Luke J. Davies. Follow Luke on Twitter!