Voici une critique de Craig Forcese du projet de loi mis en oeuvre par le Parti Conservateur concernant notamment la révocation de la citoyenneté canadienne pour terrorisme.
Nous reproduisons en totalité l’article provenant son excellent blogue.

Revoking Citizenship of « Terrorists and Traitors »

Monday, February 10, 2014 at 1:57PM
The government tabled Bill C-24 last week.  The bill is a complete re-think of the Citizenship Act.  As expected, the government had chosen to pick up the thread from last session’s Bill C-425 and include new revocation provisions for people Minister Kenney has described as « terrorists and traitors ».  Unfortunately, the manner in which the bill is crafted guarantees constitutional challenges.  Indeed, it is near impossible to square Canada’s international obligations relating to statelessness and Charter equality rights.  Moreover, the government is probably picking an unnecessary fight over procedural rights, given the manner in the proposed system is  crafted.  My prediction is that this will be immigration security certificate-redux: Long years of litigation, huge costs, no real positive impact on national security, and instead a serious risk of alienating swathes of the Canadian population who are suddenly saddled with de facto second-class citizenship (and include the same populations in which the security services have invested serious out-reach and trust-building efforts). I have updated an article forthcoming in the Queen’s Law Journal to reflect the newly tabled provisions and will post a link here when it becomes available.  In the interim,I repoduce my abstract:
Denaturalization for “traitors and terrorists” is an idea consumed with legal flaws. International law limits exactly to whom denaturalization provisions for “traitors and terrorists” may apply, and in so doing, it forces the government to draw adistinction between native-born and naturalized Canadians. Such a distinction will be very hard to defend on equality rights grounds. Denaturalization of “traitors and terrorists” may also be perceived as a punitive measure, one whose impact and stigma likely triggers constitutional procedural protections that greatly exceed the current content of the Citizenship Act and its revisions.  Revocation of this sort meets few of the requirements of rights limitations in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Denaturalization of undesirable Canadians also seems unlikely to advance any clear Canadian national security interest, and accomplishes less than can be done through other areas of the law such as the Criminal Code. Denaturalization of this sort incites more condemnation than recommendation.