Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[on-hold]

In his comments, the Minister said:

""It is important to note that the new rules would not restrict the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to the country just like other citizens. Rather, the purpose of the provision is to reinforce an expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to continue to reside in Canada. Once newcomers become citizens, they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians."

I'm not sure how much clearer he can be. Once the PR becomes a citizen, he/she is free to leave Canada for whatever reason, be it to take care of their parents or to pursue careers abroad. So, sitting here and hypothesizing about how Courts may interpret whether the person knew they would have to go back to their country of origin before they became a citizen or not is pointless as there would never be a court case in the first place. Once citizenship is conferred, then the provisions of the "intent to reside" clause have been satisfied.

The oath of intent to reside happens BEFORE the citizenship oath. Thus, a false intent to reside could be construed as obtaining citizenship fraudulently, no? You've said very often that citizenship should be revoked from people who obtain it under false circumstances; how could swearing that you intend to stay in Canada (when you don't intend to), not be considered false?

 

[admontreal]

The oath of intent to reside happens BEFORE the citizenship oath. Thus, a false intent to reside could be construed as obtaining citizenship fraudulently, no? You've said very often that citizenship should be revoked from people who obtain it under false circumstances; how could swearing that you intend to stay in Canada (when you don't intend to), not be considered false?

It would be very difficult to prove that someone thought not to reside in Canada after obtaining citizenship.
Someone could leave the country the day after the oath with the intention of coming back someday to reside here, so the requirement would still be satisfied.
Even though I understand all the concerns, I think people are making a lot of noise about this Intent to reside thing.
I could leave with most of the clauses of the C-24, the main concern I have and that we should focus on is the Citizenship revocation provision :

1- The fraud cases should still be subject to due process. Instead of undermining the right of due process, why don't they implement a simplified judicial process for those cases ?

2- The citizenship revocation for dual nationals only is a very dangerous path, I've never seen a country who strips citizenship from his natural-born citizens...

3- The ambiguity of all those revocation clauses makes all the dual or potential dual nationals at the mercy of the Minister in power... You could lose your citizenship by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Another and 1000th example : A Canadian of Irish origin who was on holidays in Thailand, and finds himself stuck in a riot between the Reds and the Yellows, he's arrested and convicted of terrorism. The Minister of Immigration decides that it's too expensive to offer consular assistance, on the grounds of the C-24 law, he strips the citizenship of this Canadian who was born and raised in Windsor ...

 

[chakrab]

The oath of intent to reside happens BEFORE the citizenship oath. Thus, a false intent to reside could be construed as obtaining citizenship fraudulently, no? You've said very often that citizenship should be revoked from people who obtain it under false circumstances; how could swearing that you intend to stay in Canada (when you don't intend to), not be considered false?

well how would you deal with people who take the citizenship only for passport and government benefits? there are many people who go back to their old country and then return later in life to enjoy the old age benefits. i believe that's what the govt is trying to end. one way would be to tax citizens irrespective of where they stay, just like the US.

 

[admontreal]

well how would you deal with people who take the citizenship only for passport and government benefits? there are many people who go back to their old country and then return later in life to enjoy the old age benefits. i believe that's what the govt is trying to end. one way would be to tax citizens irrespective of where they stay, just like the US.

The other way would be to impose residence conditions for all those government benefits. And to implement ways to controle the respect of those residence conditions.

You can't leave Canada after 3 years of presence and come back 35 years later of absence to claim old age benefits. It's not how it works ! http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/oas/pension/index.shtml

 

[chakrab]

am not talking just about OAS, but rather benefits that is utilized in old age like pension benefits, health care, etc.

but let's say we discuss OAS. rule says
- have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after turning 18.

so someone can easily come back at 57 and get the benefit at 67 when it is available. the 10 years can be split out as it doesn't say 10 years continuous.

 

[on-hold]

How would you deal with Canadians who are born here, use the excellent schools, fine health care, and awesome infrastructure for 18 years, then leave and go study in the States and live their lives there? I think they should receive a bill at the border.

"There are Canadians who blah blah blah use benefits blah blah blah". Give us some figures, how many Canadians do this? Of 250,000 Canadians who become citizens each year, how many are going to go back to their home countries to live and then return here in their old age for Canadian benefits?

Also, what are these Canadian benefits that they'll be getting? Not OAS, because that requires ten years of residence in Canada to get anything at all, and it's pretty small at that level. Not CPP, because that's indexed to how much they worked; anything they receive is fair. So you're probably talking about medical care and nothing else. How will these people be living, as they mooch health care? Well, if they're coming back to Canada to live when they're old, there's a pretty good chance they'll be wealthy -- so they're paying property taxes. They'll likely have some local income. Already they're contributing more than large numbers of Canadians -- a significant sector of the population never contributes much at all in taxes, and gets the same benefits as everyone else. I wonder why you've singled out only immigrants for criticism, here?

Or is this part of the fantasy that Canada is such an awesome place to live that people with lives and strong ties to their community want to come here when they're old, and live apart from everyone they know in a cold, expensive city?

Again, give us a few numbers. How many people aspire to this?

 

[on-hold]

It would be very difficult to prove that someone thought not to reside in Canada after obtaining citizenship.
Someone could leave the country the day after the oath with the intention of coming back someday to reside here, so the requirement would still be satisfied.
Even though I understand all the concerns, I think people are making a lot of noise about this Intent to reside thing.
I could leave with most of the clauses of the C-24, the main concern I have and that we should focus on is the Citizenship revocation provision :

1- The fraud cases should still be subject to due process. Instead of undermining the right of due process, why don't they implement a simplified judicial process for those cases ?

2- The citizenship revocation for dual nationals only is a very dangerous path, I've never seen a country who strips citizenship from his natural-born citizens...

3- The ambiguity of all those revocation clauses makes all the dual or potential dual nationals at the mercy of the Minister in power... You could lose your citizenship by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Another and 1000th example : A Canadian of Irish origin who was on holidays in Thailand, and finds himself stuck in a riot between the Reds and the Yellows, he's arrested and convicted of terrorism. The Minister of Immigration decides that it's too expensive to offer consular assistance, on the grounds of the C-24 law, he strips the citizenship of this Canadian who was born and raised in Windsor ...

This is only true depending on the standard of evidence they use. You're right, it would be very hard to prove that someone had no intention at all of residing in Canada prior to taking the oath. It would be much easier, however, to prove that someone was ambivalent about residing in Canada -- like a Facebook post "Mom, I miss you so much, I wish I was there to take care of you! But I can't, yet . . ." Does that person 'intend' to reside in Canada? Do they misrepresent themselves by swearing that they do?

 

[admontreal]

am not talking just about OAS, but rather benefits that is utilized in old age like pension benefits, health care, etc.

but let's say we discuss OAS. rule says
- have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after turning 18.

so someone can easily come back at 57 and get the benefit at 67 when it is available. the 10 years can be split out as it doesn't say 10 years continuous.

If the person worked for 10 years in Canada, where is the problem ??? The requirement can be changed to :

- have workedin Canada for at least 10 years after turning 18.

All the T4s are communicated to the CRA at the end of the year, you couldn't say it's not traceable.

It's less complicated than stripping him of his citizenship, which is simply disgusting !

 

[chakrab]

on-hold

why are you getting so upset? if you dont plan to leave, then you shouldn't be worried about the clause. according to you, there are only few who leaves Canada. then only those few should be worried about the "intend to stay" clause. there is no need for the scaremongering then.

 

[chakrab]

If the person worked for 10 years in Canada, where is the problem ??? The requirement can be changed to :

- have workedin Canada for at least 10 years after turning 18.

All the T4s are communicated to the CRA at the end of the year, you couldn't say it's not traceable.

It's less complicated than stripping him of his citizenship, which is simply disgusting !

i highly doubt anyone is talking about stripping citizenship. even the minister hasn't said it. it's just us who are speculating what may happen, thinking the worse. may be we should just wait and see what happens. even without the "intend to reside" checkbox, the govt can propose a law that says a citizen must stay a certain number of years to get benefits.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

Agree fully with on-hold. Also:

am not talking just about OAS, but rather benefits that is utilized in old age like pension benefits, health care, etc.

but let's say we discuss OAS. rule says
- have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after turning 18.

so someone can easily come back at 57 and get the benefit at 67 when it is available. the 10 years can be split out as it doesn't say 10 years continuous.

Yes, really "easy" to return to a place you haven't lived in for several years, pick up a new job at age 57 and keep that job for 10 straight years? I don't think anyone is going through that much hassle to get the OAS.

i highly doubt anyone is talking about stripping citizenship. even the minister hasn't said it. it's just us who are speculating what may happen, thinking the worse. may be we should just wait and see what happens. even without the "intend to reside" checkbox, the govt can propose a law that says a citizen must stay a certain number of years to get benefits.

Which would make more sense because it would apply to ALL citizens and not just those applying for naturalization after a certain date.

 

[on-hold]

on-hold

why are you getting so upset? if you dont plan to leave, then you shouldn't be worried about the clause. according to you, there are only few who leaves Canada. then only those few should be worried about the "intend to stay" clause. there is no need for the scaremongering then.

And now we get down to the really loathsome argument -- 'If you're not planning to go, you have nothing to worry about.' So you admit that if you do plan to leave Canada, you do have something to worry about from the 'intent' clause? Because people who support it are arguing that it's merely symbolic -- but you seem to think that's not the case.

 

[chakrab]

Agree fully with on-hold. Also:

Yes, really "easy" to return to a place you haven't lived in for several years, pick up a new job at age 57 and keep that job for 10 straight years? I don't think anyone is going through that much hassle to get the OAS.

Which would make more sense because it would apply to ALL citizens and not just those applying for naturalization after a certain date.

dont need a job for 10 years to get OAS. that's just CPP. and yes, it should be for all citizens. not just new ones.

 

[skhan123]

Guys,
Whats the current status? 2nd reading is over? What are the next steps? How much time is needed to make it the law?

 

[Matt the Aussie]

dont need a job for 10 years to get OAS. that's just CPP. and yes, it should be for all citizens. not just new ones.

My apologies, but I copied from your post where you used OAS instead of CPP also.