Vol. 149, No. 15 — July 29, 2015
Registration
SOR/2015-198 July 16, 2015
CITIZENSHIP ACT
Regulations Amending the Citizenship Regulations (Miscellaneous Program)
P.C. 2015-1101 July 16, 2015
His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to paragraph 27(j.2) (see footnote a) of the Citizenship Act (see footnote b), makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Citizenship Regulations (Miscellaneous Program).
REGULATIONS AMENDING THE CITIZENSHIP REGULATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROGRAM)
AMENDMENT
1. The Citizenship Regulations (see footnote 1) are amended by adding the following after section 7.1:
REVOCATION OF CITIZENSHIP
7.2 A hearing may be held under subsection 10(4) of the Act on the basis of any of the following factors:
- (a) the existence of evidence that raises a serious issue of the person’s credibility;
- (b) the person’s inability to provide written submissions; and
- (c) whether the ground for revocation is related to a conviction and sentence imposed outside Canada for a offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.
COMING INTO FORCE
2. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Issues
The Regulations amending the Citizenship Regulations were made on May 28, 2015, which prescribe the factors for consideration when deciding whether an oral hearing is required in citizenship revocation proceedings where the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is the decision-maker. This provision, section 7.2 of the Citizenship Regulations, was inadvertently repealed by SOR/2015-129, which, on June 11, 2015, implemented further changes to the Regulations required as part of reforms brought about by the passage of Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA).
Background
On June 19, 2014, the SCCA received royal assent. The legislation stemmed from several Government commitments, including the 2010 and 2013 speeches from the Throne. The legislation included new grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship and established a more streamlined decision-making process. The new grounds for revocation include the authority to revoke citizenship from dual citizens who have served as a member of an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada and/or those convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason or spying, depending on the sentence received.
Under the more streamlined decision-making process, the Minister of CIC decides on revocation cases involving the convictions listed above and most cases involving fraud. The Federal Court will decide on cases of fraud involving concerns related to security, organized criminality, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and also cases involving membership in an armed force of a country or an organized armed group engaged in an armed conflict with Canada, given that such cases raise complex issues of fact and law. In revocation cases based on fraud decided by the Federal Court, the Court could also be asked to make a finding of inadmissibility.
The new revocation process allows the vast majority of revocation cases to be decided by the Minister of CIC, making the system more efficient and less costly for the Government, while maintaining fairness.
Objectives
These amendments re-enact provisions that were inadvertently repealed on June 11, 2015, by SOR/2015-129, thereby providing the Minister with factors to consider when deciding whether or not an oral hearing is required in citizenship revocation proceedings where the Minister is the decision-maker.
Description
The Regulations outline the factors that the Minister will consider in determining whether an oral hearing may be required under subsection 10(4) of the Citizenship Act. The factors are
- (a) the existence of evidence that raises a serious issue of the person’s credibility;
- (b) the person’s inability to provide written submissions; and
- (c) whether the ground for revocation is related to a conviction and sentence imposed outside Canada for a terrorism offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence, as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code.
The first factor listed above would provide the Minister with the discretion to hold an oral hearing if there is evidence that raises an issue of the person’s credibility. In cases where there exists conflicting evidence between the evidence the decision-maker has on file and the evidence submitted by the person concerned following the notice, an oral hearing may be necessary to obtain further information regarding this conflicting evidence. This would provide the individual subject to revocation proceedings with an opportunity to address that evidence, and provide the decision-maker with any additional information that may be necessary to decide the case.
The second factor listed above is intended to assist an individual who is unable to make a written submission. For example, this could include cases where an individual has a medical condition or if the individual is illiterate or has extremely limited written language skills.
The third factor listed above is intended to provide the Minister with the discretion to hold an oral hearing in those cases where an individual is facing revocation proceedings as a result of a foreign terrorism conviction. Before commencing a revocation proceeding in these cases, an assessment of the equivalency of the offence, as well as the fairness of the judicial process in that country, would be undertaken. If there is no equivalency of the offence in Canada, revocation would not be pursued. If there is equivalency of the offence, but if there is evidence that the judicial process was unfair, the Minister could decide not to pursue revocation. If revocation is ultimately pursued following these equivalency assessments, an oral hearing could be held to provide the concerned individual with an opportunity to supplement information and evidence available before the decision-maker, for example, with respect to the fairness of the process that resulted in the foreign conviction.
The amendments come into force upon registration.
“One-for-One” Rule
The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply, as these are technical amendments to the Regulations and will not add to the administrative burden of businesses.
Small business lens
The small business lens does not apply, as these are technical amendments to the Regulations and will not have an impact on small businesses.
Rationale
These amendments are purely technical and are needed to re-enact a provision of the Citizenship Regulations that was inadvertently repealed on June 11, 2015.
Neither this inadvertent repeal nor the re-enactment of this provision has an impact on stakeholders, and there are no costs or financial benefits associated with these amendments.
Contact
Teny Dikranian
Director
Legislation and Program Policy Division
Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
180 Kent Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
Fax: 613-991-2485
- Footnote a
S.C. 2015, c. 9, s. 10 - Footnote b
R.S., c. C-29 - Footnote 1
SOR/93-246; SOR/2009-108, s. 1