FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

News

Meet the Man Challenging Canada’s New Two-Tiered Citizenship System

We talked to Rocco Galati, the lawyer challenging the Canadian government on Bill C-24, the bill that allows the government to strip citizenship from Canadians holding more than one passport.

Immigration lawyer Rocco Galati is challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-24. Photo via the author.

As of June, Canada has two kinds of citizens: One is an inalienable Canadian, the other is a Canadian who holds a second passport and can be banished by the government.

This monumental change happened under a law misleadingly called the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

The act, known also as C-24, is heralded by the government as one of the ways to protect Canadians from threats to national security. In his first speech after the Ottawa shootings, Stephen Harper listed C-24 as an example of how the government is acting to strengthen its laws. This week, Harper tabled amendments to C-24 and the CSIS Act to empower police to surveil, detain, arrest and to revoke citizenship.

Advertisement

Specifically, C-24 permits the government to strip citizenship from Canadians who hold another nationality if they're convicted of certain crimes (the crimes include terrorism, treason and spying). Aside from its provisions for stripping citizenship, C-24 creates longer wait times for would-be citizens, and higher processing fees.

Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati is one of C-24's biggest critics (though he's by no means alone) and he's currently taking the government to court over the constitutionality of the law. His concern with C-24 is its effects on people who are politically active in ways beyond casting a ballot. Terrorism, as defined by the criminal code, is more all-encompassing than most realize. For instance, a protest that blocks an essential service like an ambulance could justify a terrorism charge, according to Galati.

"It's a vehicle by which they can literally banish dissident voices," he said in an interview.

As a constitutional lawyer whose history of clients include Omar Khadr's older brother, Galati is also personally concerned C-24 which could pave the way for his own conviction on terrorism charges in the course of his job. "I was under wire tap for 10 years," Galati said in a court hearing for his challenge. "In the states, defense lawyers who've been under wiretap have been charged and convicted for breaching terrorism laws, so my fears are not whimsical or illusionary." The infamous case of Lynne Stewart, a defense lawyer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for defending her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, against terrorism charges weighs heavily on Galati's mind.

Advertisement

Galati filed his challenge of C-24 after it became law in June with the Constitutional Rights Centre, represented by lawyer Paul Slansky. They argue citizenship is a constitutional right and, under Canada's current constitution, Parliament doesn't have the authority to pass a law that would take it away.

But surely someone, over the course of the three readings that proposed legislation goes through, should have noticed that C-24 violated our constitution, right? Technically there are two people designated to ensure that this problem never occurs; the Governor General and the Attorney General of Canada. The AG is supposed to ensure government action complies with the constitution. The GG provides their "royal assent" to all legislation that makes it through three readings in the house. With the GG's assent, bills become law. A seemingly well-oiled machine-except for the fact we now, according to Galati, have an unconstitutional law on the books. Galati sent a letter to Governor General David Johnston before C-24 passed outlining his position.

"He responded saying well, you know, I've read your letter… Sayonara!" said Galati. Johnston declined to comment to VICE. "So we also moved to declare that his royal assent is unconstitutional." Then all hell broke loose.

Galati's fears seemed to come true when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander linked him to Al-Qaeda on CBC and in the House of Commons. The government's affidavit filed to the court denied that Alexander meant for his comments to link Galati to Al-Qaeda. The government lawyers declined to be interviewed for this article.

Advertisement

The affidavit includes a transcript of Alexander's interview with CBC's Evan Solomon:

The court case heard on Oct. 23 would make any constitutional nerd/law student go wild. A major point of contention was whether the case should even be in court at all. The government's legal team conceded the legitimacy of whether Parliament has the authority to make C-24 law but argued Galati and Slasky as individuals don't have the legitimacy to bring the case to court. "That's where the perversity and the really repugnant aspect of the system comes in," said Galati, after court adjourned. "They know in most cases people won't go and bother-and they bank on that."

The government's legal team argued that the issues raised by Galati and Slansky should be coming to the courts through people who are directly affected by the law, which comes into effect in June 2015. "They recognize that we're acting as watchdogs for government abuse but they're trying to undercut us anyway," said Slansky.

Neither Galati nor Slansky could say how much this case has cost them in terms of hours worked, out-of-pocket expenses and work they've had to pass up. Galati estimated the total would be more than $42,000, which was the cost of their last case to challenge the appointment of an ineligible justice to the Supreme Court. The fight itself is over for now. After five hours of explanation and debate, the judge retired to reflect on the arguments. Galati expects a decision in a few months but regardless what the judge decides he's confident they'll be back in court soon. "No matter how it goes it's going to appeal one way or the other. If we win, they'll appeal. If they win, we'll appeal. So, it's just a rollercoaster ride."

@EK_Hudson