DISSENTING OPINION
While I agree with most of the report, Citizenship Revocation: A question of due process and respecting Charter Rights, I must dissent specifically with recommendations 4, 5 and 8. They would change, profoundly, the principles and process through which citizenship is granted.
With regard to recommendations 4 and 5
The “standard of proof” proposed in recommendations 4 and 5 is unsupportable for the following reasons:
| | • | Revocation is a measure with serious consequences. As demonstrated by the limited number of cases over the years, this is a recourse that must be used only where there is strong evidence that people did not qualify for citizenship in the first place. | |
| | • | When a person applies for citizenship, the client does not have to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the information they provided on their application is true. Instead, government assesses on a “balance of probabilities” that the client is telling truth when applying for citizenship. | |
| | • | Applying a different standard when revoking citizenship would be inconsistent and hold government to a different standard than the client. It would also prolong the processing time lines and make the granting of citizenship extremely difficult. | |
| | • | The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the “balance of probabilities” is an appropriate standard for revocation proceedings. | |
| | • | Applying a criminal standard of evidence to a civil proceeding would represent a significant change in the administration of law in Canada. | |
| | • | Revocation is not prosecution of a crime; it is a mechanism to address the concealment of information that had a bearing on admissibility to Canada or eligibility for citizenship. | |
With regard to recommendation 8
This recommendation proposes other forms of punishment than removal of citizenship for those who obtained citizenship through misrepresentation or fraudulent means. It cannot be supported for the following reasons:
| | • | Citizenship is a right subject to criminal and other prohibitions, with defined criteria to determine who qualifies for that right. | |
| | • | Removing citizenship is an appropriate remedy for individuals who used misrepresentation or fraudulent means in order to obtain that citizenship. | |
| | • | Individuals who were successful in concealing facts that would have disqualified them from receiving citizenship should not be rewarded by retaining that citizenship. It would be unfair to the vast majority who waited until they could honestly fulfill the criteria before applying. It would also send the wrong message to those who were truthful when applying and consequently did not qualify for citizenship. | |
Sincerely,
The Hon. Hedy Fry, CPC, MP Vancouver-Centre
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration