加拿大华人论坛 多伦多 Toronto转贴：这张选票投给谁(3)? （C-24法令解读。备注：作者是律师）

在加拿大

首先, 投票权来之不易, 大家都应该认真思考自己这一票应该给谁:1) 哪个政党更能代表你的个人信仰 (包括宗教, 价值观, 世界观);2) 哪个政党更有能力管理国家事务(包括经济, 社会);3) 哪个政党更能在世界上代表加拿大的声音4) 哪个政党的所做所为更能以未来着眼(政策和措施是否就国家长期竞争机制和国民长期利益为出发点)5) 哪个政党的政策会有益于个人利益(经济, 社会)6) 哪个政党候选切实为人个人选区/社区谋利益此次大选中, 自由党和新民主党关于C-24中有关政府取消加拿大国籍的议题大做文章, 借此影响移民群体的投票意向. 因此, 本人认为有必要读一读C-24相关条款. 以下是本人的理解:C-24 第10. (1)条法令: 10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.意思是说, 在10.1(1) 成立基础上, 部长有权决定取消一个通过虚假信息或隐瞒重要事实而获取公民身份者加拿大国籍.再看看10.1(1)说的是什么: 10.1 (1) If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Actother than a fact that is also described in paragraph 36(1)(a) or (b) or (2)(a) or (b) of that Act, the person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revokedonly if the Minister seeks a declaration, in an action that the Minister commences, that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and the Court makes such a declaration.意思是说, 如果有人反移民法规定(34, 35, 36) 通过虚假信息或隐瞒重要事实而获取公民身份, 政府必须首先要根据民法起诉当事人. 起诉其违反移民法规定(34, 35, 36) 通过虚假信息或隐瞒重要事实而获取公民身份, 而法庭必须作出相关声明后才有可能取消一个人的加拿大国籍.民法的标准是BOP, 一般是50% 以上, 也就是说法庭要先判定一个人至少有50% 以上可能靠欺瞒手段获得公民身份之后, 而隐瞒内容必须涉及移民法规定(34, 35, 36)部长才可以有权取消他或她的加拿大国籍. 而移民法34, 35, 36的规定都涉及一个人有过或将要违反加拿大的国家利益和危及加拿大国家安全, 而不得成为永久居民的人.C-24立法第10(2) 法令, 如下:(2) The Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship if the person, before or after the coming into force of this subsection and while the person was a citizen,意思是说, 如果以下成立, 部长有权取消一个人的加拿大国籍:(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section; (依据刑法第47条, 叛国罪行成立并被判终身监禁者)(b) was convicted of 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; (依据刑法第2条, 恐怖罪行(包括境外恐怖罪行)成立并被判5年以上监禁者;(c) was convicted of an offence under any of sections 73 to 76 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life because the person acted traitorously; (依据国防法第73到76条, 投敌罪行成立并被判终身监禁者(d) was convicted of an offence under section 78 of the National Defence Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; (依据国防法第78条,为敌方从事间谍, 罪行成立并被判终身监禁者(e) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 47 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life; (依据国防法第130和刑法第47条, 叛国罪行成立并被判终身监禁者(f) was convicted under the National Defence Act of a terrorism offence as defined in subsection 2(1) of that Act and sentenced to at least five years of imprisonment;(依据依据刑法第2(1)条定义, 依据国防法, 恐怖罪行(包括境外恐怖罪行)成立并被判5年以上监禁者;(g) was convicted of an offence described in section 16 or 17 of the Security of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life; or (依据国家信息安全法依据刑法第16或17条. 向外国政府或恐怖组织泄露信息罪行成立并被判终身监禁者;(h) was convicted of an offence under section 130 of the National Defence Act in respect of an act or omission that is punishable under section 16 or 17 of theSecurity of Information Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life. (依据国防法第16或17条, 或国家信息安全法向外国政府或恐怖组织泄露信息罪行成立并被判终身监禁者

评论
政府必须首先要根据民法起诉当事人. 起诉其违反移民法规定(34, 35, 36) 通过虚假信息或隐瞒重要事实而获取公民身份, 而法庭必须作出相关声明后才有可能取消一个人的加拿大国籍.这样政府官员必须经过法庭程序才能取消国籍。

评论
_________________________來生還做自干五_____________________________時政觀察_________________________ 超赞 赏 R ruby88 0$(VIP 0) 1,1702015-10-18#4 那都是些什么人这么反对此法？

评论
经过一套严格的法律程序，处理取消国籍的做法应该值得支持。自由党只是为了反对而反对，这样是损害了公众利益的。

评论
_________________________來生還做自干五_____________________________時政觀察_________________________ 超赞 赏 反馈:清风拂面 和 cuc3+cuc3 J Jason.Z 0$(VIP 0) 3812015-10-18#7 原始链接呢？

评论
ruby88 说:那都是些什么人这么反对此法？点击展开...我觉得这篇文章的标题应该改一下，改做，都是什么人这么反对C-24，这样会有更多人来看看这些跳来跳去的人的真面目

评论
大家之前都看到了，都是些没有投票权的人，不是公民的人在鼓噪，盯着c-24不放，好像有了这部法律，加拿大就是地狱了。还很好笑地吓唬人，说孩子出国上个学旅游一下都会被取消国籍。真不知道他们究竟有多少不能说的秘密，让他们这么担心这条和平常百姓根本不搭边的法律。

评论
为什么故意忽略居住意向条款呢？为什么移民官可以取消公民身份不让法庭聆讯呢？https://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf多思考一下移民顶尖专业法律协会人士的意见，移民部长的解释或者其他人给你的解释，都是从个人角度，不具有100%的法律效力！D. Intent to Reside in Canada if Granted CitizenshipThis proposal is one of the most troubling in Bill C-24 and is highly vulnerable to abuse. The CBA Section strenuously opposes requiring applicants to demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship.First, the proposed requirement is likely unconstitutional. It would distinguish between naturalized and other Canadian citizens, and would violate mobility rights. （There would also be an incidental impairment of mobility for natural born Canadian citizens with naturalized children and spouses.）It would create two tiers of citizenship: natural born Canadian citizens, who could travel and live abroadwithout restriction; and naturalized Canadians, who would risk losing their status if they were ever to leave Canada. Naturalized citizens could find themselves in a situation where, despite having an intent to reside in Canada at the time of application, need to go abroad temporarily for employment or personal reasons. Under the Bill, a single officer would decide whether the original intent to reside was a misrepresentation and potentially strip citizenship on this basis.The intent requirement will result in a significant drain on CIC resources for both assessment and enforcement. Processing times will inevitably be longer with a subjective review of each applicant’s intent along with supporting documents. The requirement will not clarify or simplify the criteria or processing of citizenship, contrary to the Bill’s objective.RECOMMENDATION:6. The CBA Section recommends that the requirement that an applicant demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship be eliminated.取消公民上诉权利新移民法赋予移民部官员撤销加拿大公民身份的极度权力。无论是被认定无意图居住在加拿大的归化公民，又或透过触犯刑事、国防法又或信息保安法而被撤销公民身份的人，除了涉及违反国际人权和战争罪行之外，其它所有撤销都不得上诉和向法院提出复核申诉。大律师公会指出，新移民法同时根本性地改变了撤销公民身份的程序。旧有法律赋予当事人到联邦法院聆讯的权利，即使法院认同部长的决定，公民撤销是由院督（Governor in Council）所执行，在撤销前院督都会再审视撤销公民身份的理据和公正性。新移民法生效后，撤销公民程序只是以文书方式进行。当移民部官员作出决定后，部长会向当事人发出撤销通知，当事人可以书面回复，然后移民部长便会作出最后决定。当事人既不得向法院提出申诉，其撤销亦不会交给院督处理。大律师公会严正地指出，移民部长绝对不是一位独立和公正的决策者。撤销公民身份如此重大的事情，必须经过正式的聆讯，由独立公正的法官，才符合法治和加拿大公民权的价值。令人难以置信的是，在新公民法实施后，公民的司法权利竟然可以比永久居民和难民还要小。无论是永久居民的入籍申请，又或难民申请被移民部所拒絶，都可以获得独立聆讯，但贵为公民的若果被撤销公民身份放逐，却竟然没有申诉的权利。C. Lack of Hearing, Equitable ConsiderationsThe Bill would fundamentally alter the process of revocation of citizenship. Currently, theprocess consists of three steps. The first is a report under s. 10 of the Act, that the Minister issatisfied that a person obtained citizenship fraudulently. Second, once notified of the report,the person can request that the matter be referred to the Federal Court for a hearing. Third, ifthe Federal Court makes the finding requested by the Minister, citizenship is revoked by theGovernor in Council, which can and does consider equitable factors in addition to the breachitself.The proposed process cuts out the Federal Court hearing, except where persons have engagedin conflict against Canada or have misrepresented in relation to specific inadmissibilitygrounds under IRPA. In all other cases, the Minister will decide with no requirement of aformal hearing. For a matter as serious as revocation of citizenship, a formal hearing before anindependent and impartial decision-maker must be maintained. A fair process for revocation,including an oral hearing before an independent judge, reflects the value of Canadiancitizenship and respect for the rule of law.Another aspect of these changes of grave concern is the absence of consideration of equitablefactors. Currently, the Governor in Council may consider these factors. Under the proposedprocess, this will no longer be possible – the decision of the Federal Court judge on revocationis determinative and there is no further consideration of equitable factors by the Governor inCouncil. Where the Minister is responsible for revoking citizenship, there is no discretion.Even if discretion could be implied, the Minister is not an independent or impartial decision-maker.A permanent resident alleged to have misrepresented to obtain status under IRPA would havethe opportunity to make written submissions to an officer before being referred to theImmigration Division for an admissibility hearing. If the Immigration Division found theminadmissible, the person would have a right to appeal the removal order to the ImmigrationAppeal Division. The Immigration Appeal Division could consider the validity of the decision to issue a removal order, and also equitable or humanitarian and compassionate factors. Oncebecoming a citizen, the same person could lose their citizenship, permanent residence andbecome an inadmissible foreign national on a decision by a single officer. 11The end result is that Canadians are given less consideration and fair process than permanentresidents. Given the importance of the rights lost, a statutory tribunal, like the ImmigrationAppeal Division, ought to have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the decision toterminate citizenship if ministerial revocation is maintained, as well as humanitarian andcompassionate factors that warrant retention of permanent residence if not citizenship.RECOMMENDATIONS:11. The CBA Section recommends that a citizen facing revocation always have theright to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker.12. The CBA Section recommends that citizenship not be revoked without anassessment of humanitarian and compassionate factors by an independent andimpartial decision-maker.

评论
清风拂面 说:大家之前都看到了，都是些没有投票权的人，不是公民的人在鼓噪，盯着c-24不放，好像有了这部法律，加拿大就是地狱了。还很好笑地吓唬人，说孩子出国上个学旅游一下都会被取消国籍。真不知道他们究竟有多少不能说的秘密，让他们这么担心这条和平常百姓根本不搭边的法律。点击展开... 其实这些人就是脚踏2只船的人，要回流赚钱的或有几个身份的，如那个新加坡身份的

  ·中文新闻 2024 年 HSC 成绩：北悉尼男子高中连续排名第一
·中文新闻 2024 年 HSC 成绩：新南威尔士州顶尖学校排名