+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian? I don't think so...

Bigudi

Hero Member
May 22, 2015
377
17
Montreal
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
27-05-2015
AOR Received.
20-07-2015
LANDED..........
08-08-2011
So... What's supposed to mean anyway? That every Canadian is equal, right?

When I was in my interview, just after my test, the CO told me to hold to my "landing record" document with my dear life, forever. When I apply for pension in the future, they will want to check that document. Even if I become a Canadian.

If a Canadian is a Canadian is Canadian, why does it matter where I was born? Or when I got here? If I'm a Canadian citizen, I should be no different in any way from a "jus soli" Canadian. Isn't this a little bit odd for you?
 

dnyfyn

Hero Member
Aug 31, 2011
681
10
Category........
Visa Office......
Colombo
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
03-2016
Doc's Request.
08-2016
Med's Request
08-2016
Med's Done....
08-2016
I understand your concept. I have seen officers asking for landing document for pensions. If not the birth certificate. So one of that should be present.
 

PMM

VIP Member
Jun 30, 2005
25,494
1,950
Hi


Bigudi said:
So... What's supposed to mean anyway? That every Canadian is equal, right?

When I was in my interview, just after my test, the CO told me to hold to my "landing record" document with my dear life, forever. When I apply for pension in the future, they will want to check that document. Even if I become a Canadian.

If a Canadian is a Canadian is Canadian, why does it matter where I was born? Or when I got here? If I'm a Canadian citizen, I should be no different in any way from a "jus soli" Canadian. Isn't this a little bit odd for you?
1. Because your Old Age Superannuation is based on the number of years you have resided in Canada. You require 40 years residence between the ages of 18 and 65 to receive a full OAS.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,419
3,161
Bigudi said:
So... What's supposed to mean anyway? That every Canadian is equal, right?

When I was in my interview, just after my test, the CO told me to hold to my "landing record" document with my dear life, forever. When I apply for pension in the future, they will want to check that document. Even if I become a Canadian.

If a Canadian is a Canadian is Canadian, why does it matter where I was born? Or when I got here? If I'm a Canadian citizen, I should be no different in any way from a "jus soli" Canadian. Isn't this a little bit odd for you?
Ditto PMM.


A longer answer:

Not every Canadian is equal, obviously. Tens of thousands of Canadians are not allowed to freely move from room to room, let alone city to city or to another province.

Not every Canadian is equally entitled to health care coverage, let alone equal coverage. There are residency requirements and different coverage in different provinces.

As for pension benefits, keeping your CoPR is really about the OAS benefits. Pension benefits are earned, and thus the amounts payable are dependent on the number of years and amounts contributed.

In contrast, the OAS, the Old Age Security benefits, are determined by how long the person has lived in Canada after the age of 18. Where you were born is irrelevant. The CoPR establishes the date you came to live in Canada for purposes of the OAS. The amount of this benefit is not at all dependent on any contribution made, but is dependent on (1) need (many Canadians will not get anywhere near a full OAS benefit because they already receive income from other sources, like CPP and private pensions), and (2) number of years since becoming a resident of Canada, after age 18 (minimum is 10 years, and maximum benefit comes after 40 years; in between the benefit is proportional depending on years in Canada). Thus, someone who immigrated to Canada in their early 20s will be entitled to the full OAS benefit, regardless of where they were born, subject of course to whatever the current limitations are based on other income. In contrast, for example, I came to Canada so late in life I will not qualify for OAS, as I am still way short of being in Canada ten years while I have already reached retirement age.


All Canadians have Equal Rights

All Canadians have Equal Rights. But "rights" should not be confused with entitlements or privileges or benefits. There are widely ranging qualifications for particular entitlements, privileges, or benefits. But all Canadians are equally entitled to procedural fairness in determining their eligibility for this or that entitlement, privilege, or benefit.

Moreover, as noted above, individual rights can be restricted, even greatly, if and when there is a legitimate government interest. Thus, the example I noted above, those who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons have many of their rights restricted, some (like the freedom to move to another province) may be totally taken away. Thus, provinces can impose residency requirements for benefits. The Courts can impose gag orders despite Section 2 Charter Rights, the rights of a free press and the right of expression. And so on.


The looming caveat:

The current Citizenship Act confers citizenship as a privilege, not just the grant of citizenship (which has long been considered a privilege), but citizenship itself, including the citizenship of Harper's old stock Canadians. Justice Rennie ruled, early this year before he was promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals, that indeed citizenship itself is a privilege.

Thus, while all Canadian citizens have equal rights, some Canadian citizens are (as provided in the current Citizenship Act) subject to the loss of Canadian citizenship for certain crimes committed while a citizen, whereas other citizens are not. See Section 10.4 in the current Citizenship Act for what citizens may be subject to the Section 10.(2) revocation grounds.

This is being challenged in the courts, in multiple cases. As noted, Justice Rennie already issued a decision upholding this, but that decision is currently in appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals.

This is also what Trudeau and the Liberals have committed to repeal.

Beyond that, see more in-depth discussions about this issue in other topics, such as the one specifically discussing the Galati challenge (which is the case Justice Rennie decided while a justice in the Federal Court).


Citizenship is not an inalienable right:

Regardless of the outcome of the legal challenges to section 10.(2) (revocation grounds based on crimes committed while a citizen) and 10.4, or the repeal of these provisions (and some additional related provisions), it is not clear whether Canadian citizenship itself, once obtained, is legally a right or a privilege. My sense is that it is a right, but again Justice Rennie has already ruled otherwise and so far as I know that decision, concurred in by another decision in the Federal Court, is the only one clearly ruling on this issue, and that decision states citizenship is a privilege not a right.

(Many courts have ruled that the grant of citizenship is a privilege, but the grant is easily distinguishable from the status of citizenship itself.)

But even if it is a right, it is clearly not an inalienable right. Renunciation of citizenship has been routinely done and upheld.

One might note, as best I understand the U.S. law about this (admittedly not well), that the U.S. has provisions which allow the government to, in effect, recognize the renunciation of citizenship based on certain acts. Thus, the U.S. citizen who commits treason, for example, is deemed to have himself renounced his U.S. citizenship by engaging in treason. Or, if an American citizen takes a high level policy making position in a foreign government, that can be deemed to constitute the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. For example, Tom Muclair is a citizen of both Canada and France. But if he was, rather, a citizen of both Canada and the U.S., if had won and taken the office of Prime Minister of Canada, the U.S. could deem that to be a renunciation of his U.S. citizenship, and he would no longer be a U.S. citizen.

Canada has long and consistently had provisions pursuant to which Canadian citizenship may be renounced. (If citizenship was an inalienable right, this could not be allowed.) Whether Canada could implement a process similar to that in the U.S., rather than the current revocation process (per Bill C-24) I do not know.
 

screech339

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2013
7,887
552
Category........
Visa Office......
Vegreville
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
14-08-2012
AOR Received.
20-11-2012
Med's Done....
18-07-2012
Interview........
17-06-2013
LANDED..........
17-06-2013
dpenabill said:
Ditto PMM.


A longer answer:

Not every Canadian is equal, obviously. Tens of thousands of Canadians are not allowed to freely move from room to room, let alone city to city or to another province.

Not every Canadian is equally entitled to health care coverage, let alone equal coverage. There are residency requirements and different coverage in different provinces.

As for pension benefits, keeping your CoPR is really about the OAS benefits. Pension benefits are earned, and thus the amounts payable are dependent on the number of years and amounts contributed.

In contrast, the OAS, the Old Age Security benefits, are determined by how long the person has lived in Canada after the age of 18. Where you were born is irrelevant. The CoPR establishes the date you came to live in Canada for purposes of the OAS. The amount of this benefit is not at all dependent on any contribution made, but is dependent on (1) need (many Canadians will not get anywhere near a full OAS benefit because they already receive income from other sources, like CPP and private pensions), and (2) number of years since becoming a resident of Canada, after age 18 (minimum is 10 years, and maximum benefit comes after 40 years; in between the benefit is proportional depending on years in Canada). Thus, someone who immigrated to Canada in their early 20s will be entitled to the full OAS benefit, regardless of where they were born, subject of course to whatever the current limitations are based on other income. In contrast, for example, I came to Canada so late in life I will not qualify for OAS, as I am still way short of being in Canada ten years while I have already reached retirement age.


All Canadians have Equal Rights

All Canadians have Equal Rights. But "rights" should not be confused with entitlements or privileges or benefits. There are widely ranging qualifications for particular entitlements, privileges, or benefits. But all Canadians are equally entitled to procedural fairness in determining their eligibility for this or that entitlement, privilege, or benefit.

Moreover, as noted above, individual rights can be restricted, even greatly, if and when there is a legitimate government interest. Thus, the example I noted above, those who are incarcerated in Canadian prisons have many of their rights restricted, some (like the freedom to move to another province) may be totally taken away. Thus, provinces can impose residency requirements for benefits. The Courts can impose gag orders despite Section 2 Charter Rights, the rights of a free press and the right of expression. And so on.


The looming caveat:

The current Citizenship Act confers citizenship as a privilege, not just the grant of citizenship (which has long been considered a privilege), but citizenship itself, including the citizenship of Harper's old stock Canadians. Justice Rennie ruled, early this year before he was promoted to the Federal Court of Appeals, that indeed citizenship itself is a privilege.

Thus, while all Canadian citizens have equal rights, some Canadian citizens are (as provided in the current Citizenship Act) subject to the loss of Canadian citizenship for certain crimes committed while a citizen, whereas other citizens are not. See Section 10.4 in the current Citizenship Act for what citizens may be subject to the Section 10.(2) revocation grounds.

This is being challenged in the courts, in multiple cases. As noted, Justice Rennie already issued a decision upholding this, but that decision is currently in appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals.

This is also what Trudeau and the Liberals have committed to repeal.

Beyond that, see more in-depth discussions about this issue in other topics, such as the one specifically discussing the Galati challenge (which is the case Justice Rennie decided while a justice in the Federal Court).


Citizenship is not an inalienable right:

Regardless of the outcome of the legal challenges to section 10.(2) (revocation grounds based on crimes committed while a citizen) and 10.4, or the repeal of these provisions (and some additional related provisions), it is not clear whether Canadian citizenship itself, once obtained, is legally a right or a privilege. My sense is that it is a right, but again Justice Rennie has already ruled otherwise and so far as I know that decision, concurred in by another decision in the Federal Court, is the only one clearly ruling on this issue, and that decision states citizenship is a privilege not a right.

(Many courts have ruled that the grant of citizenship is a privilege, but the grant is easily distinguishable from the status of citizenship itself.)

But even if it is a right, it is clearly not an inalienable right. Renunciation of citizenship has been routinely done and upheld.

One might note, as best I understand the U.S. law about this (admittedly not well), that the U.S. has provisions which allow the government to, in effect, recognize the renunciation of citizenship based on certain acts. Thus, the U.S. citizen who commits treason, for example, is deemed to have himself renounced his U.S. citizenship by engaging in treason. Or, if an American citizen takes a high level policy making position in a foreign government, that can be deemed to constitute the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. For example, Tom Muclair is a citizen of both Canada and France. But if he was, rather, a citizen of both Canada and the U.S., if had won and taken the office of Prime Minister of Canada, the U.S. could deem that to be a renunciation of his U.S. citizenship, and he would no longer be a U.S. citizen.

Canada has long and consistently had provisions pursuant to which Canadian citizenship may be renounced. (If citizenship was an inalienable right, this could not be allowed.) Whether Canada could implement a process similar to that in the U.S., rather than the current revocation process (per Bill C-24) I do not know.
What's your thought on Fred Rose who lost his Canadian citizenship due to treason. MP King revised the citizenship law so that citizenship wont be taken away. So if a PM can change law to prevent stripping of citizenship, surely a PM can change law to allow it.
 

Bigudi

Hero Member
May 22, 2015
377
17
Montreal
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
27-05-2015
AOR Received.
20-07-2015
LANDED..........
08-08-2011
Thank you very much dpenabill,

Very clarifying. As usual.

;D ;D ;D
 

nope

Hero Member
Oct 3, 2015
301
52
I have a question on a related matter. I first came to Canada as an international student, and studied here for four years. 16 years later, I landed as a permanent resident. Will my 4 years in Canada as a student count towards my OAS? On the one hand, it seems silly that they would. On the other, everything I've seen simply says 'years lived in Canada after the age of 18'. I was older than 18, and I was living in Canada . . .

Also, do 'years' mean calendar years, or 'years of time'. In 1990, I was only in Canada for 4 months; but from September 1990 to October 1991 I was in Canada for 10 months. From September 1990 to May 1994, I was in Canada for probably a total of 36 or so months, but only three of those calendar years did I approach 9-10 months per year. Anyone have an idea how the GoC calculates this?
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,419
3,161
nope said:
I have a question on a related matter. I first came to Canada as an international student, and studied here for four years. 16 years later, I landed as a permanent resident. Will my 4 years in Canada as a student count towards my OAS? On the one hand, it seems silly that they would. On the other, everything I've seen simply says 'years lived in Canada after the age of 18'. I was older than 18, and I was living in Canada . . .

Also, do 'years' mean calendar years, or 'years of time'. In 1990, I was only in Canada for 4 months; but from September 1990 to October 1991 I was in Canada for 10 months. From September 1990 to May 1994, I was in Canada for probably a total of 36 or so months, but only three of those calendar years did I approach 9-10 months per year. Anyone have an idea how the GoC calculates this?
I do not know the answer to this question, but I think it is based on living in Canada as a Canadian, that is, as either a Canadian citizen or Canadian PR. But I do not really know.

I would suggest visiting relevant Service Canada web pages or making an inquiry directly to Service Canada. For example, for more information about OAS, see the Service Canada web page containing FAQ type questions and answers regarding eligibility.

I should clarify that the amount subject to income from other sources is the portion referred to as the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I am not sure of the full benefit now which is not subject to reduction due to other income, but I think it is in the range of $500 to $600 -- as I previously noted, despite already being retirement age (or, perhaps one might say because I am already in my retirement years, albeit no chance of me retiring until I am forced to do so, being on the American-Republican style retirement plan, which is work-until-I-die), I will not be eligible for the OAS, due to my age when I became a PR, so it is not something I have looked into in detail.
 

nope

Hero Member
Oct 3, 2015
301
52
dpenabill said:
I do not know the answer to this question, but I think it is based on living in Canada as a Canadian, that is, as either a Canadian citizen or Canadian PR. But I do not really know.

I would suggest visiting relevant Service Canada web pages or making an inquiry directly to Service Canada. For example, for more information about OAS, see the Service Canada web page containing FAQ type questions and answers regarding eligibility.

I should clarify that the amount subject to income from other sources is the portion referred to as the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I am not sure of the full benefit now which is not subject to reduction due to other income, but I think it is in the range of $500 to $600 -- as I previously noted, despite already being retirement age (or, perhaps one might say because I am already in my retirement years, albeit no chance of me retiring until I am forced to do so, being on the American-Republican style retirement plan, which is work-until-I-die), I will not be eligible for the OAS, due to my age when I became a PR, so it is not something I have looked into in detail.
I agree that living in Canada as a Canadian would be the reasonable interpretation of the clause -- but, as you point out in your tagline, the clause doesn't say anything about being a Canadian, and the bureaucracy should do what the clause says. There are many possible permutations -- a temporary worker who becomes permanent, and then a citizen; a refugee whose claim is under review for many years before they are accepted permanently; and at least online, none of these nuances are gone into.

One could also make an argument that all of these are irrelevant, because the criteria for things like OAS should be participation in the Canadian economy -- which I did, as a student. For citizenship, one could argue that perhaps being a student disqualifies one for eligibility, owing to the different mindset, but receiving OAS is not predicated on a mindset; and permanent residents receive it too.

But your main point, that I should just ask someone, is correct . . . My question isn't in the FAQs, I'm afraid.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,419
3,161
screech339 said:
What's your thought on Fred Rose who lost his Canadian citizenship due to treason. MP King revised the citizenship law so that citizenship wont be taken away. So if a PM can change law to prevent stripping of citizenship, surely a PM can change law to allow it.
My sense is this is not an effort to engage in sincere discussion (you have, for example, posted about Fred Rose in multiple topics where there is not even a remote relevance to the topic), but I will offer the following:

The reference to Fred Rose, after all, is to a case in the early Cold War era (soon after WW II) involving an individual who was convicted of spying in Canada for the Soviets. Even for the time period, that was a one-off, isolated case, largely an anomaly. It occurred more than a half century ago, and predated the modern Canadian Citizenship Act (adopted in 1977) by two decades, and really is of no relevance to the discussions in this topic (and not remotely relevant where you have brought this up in other topics). It certainly has no roots in or relevance to the Citizenship Act, which again has governed Canadian citizenship law since 1977, and which did not contain any provisions about revoking citizenship for treason before it was amended by Bill C-24 in 2014.

Moreover, the Fred Rose case occurred years prior to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and more than two decades prior to when Canada became a signatory to that Convention. It is this Convention, and additional related international agreements and treaties which Canada is a party to, which underlies the so-called two-tier citizenship created by Section 10.4 in the Citizenship Act (as amended by Bill C-24). There was no Canadian Charter of Rights at that time. Even the Canadian "Bill of Rights" was not enacted until years later, in 1960. In short, the Fred Rose case is not relevant to any of these in any way, not even in the same ballpark.

In contrast, however, the modern Canadian Citizenship Act, including portions remaining in it right up to 2008, has had various provisions which had the practical effect of terminating the citizenship of persons who had acquired or even were born with Canadian citizenship. These provisions give weight to the reasoning of Justice Rennie's decision in the Galati challenge, that citizenship is a privilege within the power of Parliament to prescribe not just when it is conferred or granted, but also as to conditions which may result in its loss. For example, within just the last couple days (in another topic) I referenced and linked the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act (as it was constituted until 2008), which prescribed that Canadian citizens by birth, but born outside Canada, ceased to be a Canadian citizen on their 28th birthday unless they made an application to retain citizenship. (This provision was repealed in an act adopted by Parliament in 2008, when the Conservatives had a minority government.)

I nonetheless think that Justice Rennie's ruling is overbroad and misstate's the nature of what citizenship status is, and in particular understates the scope of its protection as a fundamental right once it is conferred -- I get why the courts are well-settled in the view that the grant of citizenship is a privilege.*
(*see note re citizenship as a privilege below)

In any event, there is indeed much to talk about, many aspects and angles to this issue, many lacking consensus, and it can get complicated. That is, if one is in fact sincerely interested in engaging in discourse about it.

But, again, Fred Rose is not relevant. Canada had no prohibition against rendering persons stateless at that time (or for a long time thereafter). Again, additionally, there was no Canadian Charter of Rights at that time. Even the Canadian "Bill of Rights" was not enacted until 1960. And the modern Citizenship Act was not enacted until two decades later.

There is also the obvious: the scope of Parliament's powers is more particularly defined given the Constitutional Act of 1982, long, long after the Fred Rose case or the legislation enacted the year following that case.

I have no idea who "MP King" is or what your statement "MP King revised the citizenship law so that citizenship wont be taken away," is in reference to. (I suppose you might be referring to when the Conservative Party government was in power in 1958, John Diefenbaker the PM, and Parliament passed a law prohibiting the revocation of citizenship for treason, but it is not clear that is what you meant to reference.) But then you also state: "So if a PM can change law to prevent stripping of citizenship, surely a PM can change law to allow it." But of course, assuming "PM" refers to a Prime Minister, a PM can NOT change any Canadian law, let alone the law governing citizenship.

If by "PM" you really meant Parliament, and in that trying to be brief and thus meaning change as made through the Parliamentary process, including passage of the legislation by the Senate, and the grant of Royal Assent, the statement is nonetheless overly general, and exceedingly so. Even with a majority in Parliament, and with the assent of the Senate, and all the other formalities of adopting legislation, the legislation itself must also, otherwise, meet certain requirements, and especially pass muster per the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. The fact that Parliament may legitimately adopt this or that provision, does not really offer much insight in what other legislation may be adopted, and in particular what Parliament may repeal does prescribe the scope of what Parliament may enact.

That is, there are parameters limiting the scope of what Parliament can do, and the legitimacy of particular legislation is not directly dependent on the legitimacy of other legislation (unless it is predicated on that other legislation).

In particular, the power to remove or repeal provisions does not necessarily mirror the power to enact legislation, and vice versa. For example, Parliament cannot legitimately enact a law stripping citizenship from those advocating environmentalism any more than it could from those who are autistic, because they are environmentalists or autistic, but it might in fact enact such laws even though they would be invalid; but if such a law was ostensibly adopted and became part of Canada's laws, Parliament could legitimately repeal it.

And as things turned out, Harper's Conservatives were no stranger to adopting legislation which Parliament could not legitimately adopt, and thus the Supreme Court of Canada had to do the difficult job of invalidating various enactments by the Conservatives. Indeed, the issue about the constitutionality of sections 10.(2) (revocation grounds based on crimes committed while a citizen) and 10.4 (provision prescribing which citizens are or are not subject to 10.(2) revocation) is still before the courts. Many firmly believe that despite enacting these provisions, Parliament could not lawfully do so, and they are invalid. The Liberal government could, perhaps, avoid the judicial wrangling over this by repealing these provisions and rendering the court challenges moot. And indeed that seems likely.

My initial, "longer" response to Bigudi's post about inequalities among citizens was largely to identify the distinction between the status of citizenship, and its fundamental nature, and the extent to which yes, indeed, there is great variety and oft times disparity in the benefits, privileges, and entitlements individual citizens are afforded. Having equal rights does not mean equality in all things, or even most things.

Harper and Justice Rennie and Sections 10.(2) and 10.4 in the Citizenship Act proffer a rather insubstantial form of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. Justice Rennie might be right that there is NO Jus Soli, but that does not mean there is no fundamental right to retain the status of citizen once a person is a citizen.

Just what sort of right is embedded in citizenship status itself? This question may not be answered anytime soon if the Liberals repeal Sections 10.(2) and 10.4 in the Citizenship Act and the courts then dismiss the related challenges as moot.



*Note regarding citizenship as a "privilege:"

Just this week, once again a Federal Court justice, Justice Gleeson in another case where CIC appealed, described "citizenship" as a privilege, citing last year's decision by Justice LeBlanc in another CIC appeal, where Justice LeBlanc cited numerous other federal court decisions similarly describing citizenship as a "privilege" (see citations at paragraph 21 in Justice LeBlanc's decision). The language in these decisions states, specifically, that "Canadian citizenship is a privilege," but the context is really about the grant of citizenship not the nature of citizenship itself or to what extent it is a protected status once conferred. Justice Rennie's decision makes no distinction, but my sense is that the higher courts will be more nuanced. But I do not really know how this issue will be decided if the challenges to Section 10.(2) and 10.4 reach the Supreme Court of Canada, if they reach the Supreme Court. In any event, my strong sense is that the higher courts will recognize there is a profound difference in the fundamental nature of citizenship itself, versus the statutory entitlement to a grant of citizenship. It is the latter which the numerous decisions clearly establish is a privilege, and that makes sense in the general scheme of Canadian constitutional and citizenship law.

By the way, this is in the realm of Canadian Constitutional law, a realm of jurisprudence in which there are few experts, and I am certainly not among them, not by a long shot. Nor is it the expertise of any of the Canadian lawyers I have been personally acquainted with. And the particular question, regarding the nature of citizenship itself, is one which in large part has been avoided in the higher courts, or at least not directly addressed.
 

mjh49783aa

Hero Member
Sep 22, 2011
285
2
Ontario, Canada
Category........
Visa Office......
Buffalo, USA
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
12-05-2011
Nomination.....
Sponsor approved: 13-06-2011
AOR Received.
03-11-2011
File Transfer...
28-06-2011
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
04-01-2012
VISA ISSUED...
COPR received 13-01-2012
LANDED..........
15-01-2012
To my mind, and I'm certainly not a legal expert myself, it is completely logical that the process of a non-citizen being granted citizenship, would be a privilege bestowed by the government. The government does set the criteria in which the non-citizen would have to meet, before citizenship is granted, and it is not reasonable, for a non-citizen to demand it, as though it is a right. If as a foreign national, you have to meet criteria in order to be granted permanent resident status, then why would be the granting of citizenship be any different?

However, citizenship, once granted, becomes a right, because the former non-citizen EARNED that right by meeting the criteria as implemented by the government. To then refer to an earned right as a privilege, would be inconsistent with what the concept of citizenship actually is. Logically, the implementation of different punishments for different people over the same offence, based on this flawed understanding of citizenship, would also be inconsistent with the rule of law, where everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. In the end, it is a bad law that is unlikely to withstand a Charter challenge.
 

screech339

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2013
7,887
552
Category........
Visa Office......
Vegreville
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
14-08-2012
AOR Received.
20-11-2012
Med's Done....
18-07-2012
Interview........
17-06-2013
LANDED..........
17-06-2013
Sorry for the MP / PM mixup. But you know who I was referring to. I thought PM King introduced an fred rose amendment to prevent citizenship stripping. You are probably right that it was Diefenbaker that made the change. But i see that you like to make fun of my history knowledge, (an attempt to dismiss me?) when you and I fully know that PM dont change the law, but the parliament introduce bills to change the law. Gee, didnt the parliament just did that, the same manner Diefenbaker's government did, only this time stripping is allowed.

As for statelessness statue, it didnt matter if Canada was signatory to preventative of statelessness or not. Fred Rose had dual citizenship. He wasnt stateless when he lost citizenship. So doesnt apply there either.

You may think it is unrelated event but I think it does. Judges have always used past precedents / rulings as their guide in determining their decisions, including using other countries' law into considering as well. Judges cannot ignore a precedent that has happened in the past. If judges can make a ruling based on extreme hypothetical situation that never actually happened yet, surely they cant ignore an event that actually happened in the past.

Judge Rennie may be correct that there is no absolute right to citizenship, including jus soli, according to charter or constitution. Otherwise it would have been spelled out in charter or constitution specifically.

Thank you for your response on fred rose even though you think it is an unrelated matter to C-24.
 

mjh49783aa

Hero Member
Sep 22, 2011
285
2
Ontario, Canada
Category........
Visa Office......
Buffalo, USA
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
12-05-2011
Nomination.....
Sponsor approved: 13-06-2011
AOR Received.
03-11-2011
File Transfer...
28-06-2011
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
04-01-2012
VISA ISSUED...
COPR received 13-01-2012
LANDED..........
15-01-2012
I can understand, and appreciate the sentiment, that those who commit such acts that demonstrate a severe act of disloyalty to a country, ought to have their citizenships stripped. But then, it is only fair that those with no other citizenship should have their citizenships stripped, too.

As to the argument that those with dual citizenships ought to be singled out, for having divided loyalties, frankly, I think it's a load of bunk. How many people of only a single nationality, have run off from their countries to join the fight with ISIS? Why should they keep their citizenships? Simply because they have no other? To be frank, I don't think that's right at all.

If the ONLY argument that can be made against this, is because of some dust covered international agreement to reduce statelessness, then maybe it's time to rip it up? Otherwise, the only other conclusion left, is that arbitrarily stripping people of their citizenships, for ANY reason, is just plain wrong. I am also uncomfortable with these people running around free in their countries, recruiting more terrorists, when they ought to be imprisoned.

Oh, and before someone brings up the argument about immigration and citizenship fraud, citizenship acquired through fraudulent means are 100% illegitimate, just as though it never even happened.
 

alphazip

Champion Member
May 23, 2013
1,310
136
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
dpenabill said:
In contrast, the OAS, the Old Age Security benefits, are determined by how long the person has lived in Canada after the age of 18. Where you were born is irrelevant. The CoPR establishes the date you came to live in Canada for purposes of the OAS. The amount of this benefit is not at all dependent on any contribution made, but is dependent on (1) need (many Canadians will not get anywhere near a full OAS benefit because they already receive income from other sources, like CPP and private pensions), and (2) number of years since becoming a resident of Canada, after age 18 (minimum is 10 years, and maximum benefit comes after 40 years; in between the benefit is proportional depending on years in Canada). Thus, someone who immigrated to Canada in their early 20s will be entitled to the full OAS benefit, regardless of where they were born, subject of course to whatever the current limitations are based on other income. In contrast, for example, I came to Canada so late in life I will not qualify for OAS, as I am still way short of being in Canada ten years while I have already reached retirement age.
Dpenabill, I'm not sure what country you immigrated from, but if it's a country that has a Social Security agreement with Canada (e.g., the USA), time spent in the other country (under that country's retirement system) can be used to qualify for OAS in Canada. (In other words, the 10 year qualification period could have been spent outside of Canada.) However, in that case, only a partial pension is paid, based on the number of years actually lived in Canada. This does not affect a person's entitlement to benefits in the original country, so a person can receive a pension both in Canada AND in the country of origin (e.g., OAS and Social Security).

There is no requirement that a person apply for OAS at 65. He/she may do so at any time after 65, if that is more beneficial. So, if a person does not have 10 years of residence (and doesn't come from a country with an agreement), he/she can wait until they do have 10 years to apply. Of course, in some cases, death will arrive first!

As to your comment about "need", OAS only starts to be clawed back at an overall income of $71,592, and disappears entirely at $114,815. It's really the Guaranteed Income Supplement that is more related to "need."
 

alphazip

Champion Member
May 23, 2013
1,310
136
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
dpenabill said:
as I previously noted, despite already being retirement age (or, perhaps one might say because I am already in my retirement years, albeit no chance of me retiring until I am forced to do so, being on the American-Republican style retirement plan, which is work-until-I-die), I will not be eligible for the OAS, due to my age when I became a PR, so it is not something I have looked into in detail.
On the contrary, if you're an American (and worked under Social Security) you're likely eligible for OAS right now! However, the monthly amount would not be much.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/international/countries/unitedstates.shtml

"If you do not qualify for an Old Age Security pension based on your years of residence in Canada, Canada will consider your periods of contributions to the pension program of the United States after the age of 18 and after January 1, 1952 as periods of residence in Canada."