Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[CanuckForEver]

Hey guys,

Those of you who want to know about the status of that petition, here is the owner of the petition. Please contact them to express your interest in pushing it to the HOC ASAP.

Josh Paterson, Executive Director
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
900 Helmcken Street 2nd floor
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6Z 1B3

Tel: 604.687.2919
Toll-free: 866.731.7507
Fax: 604.687.3045

If you are contacting them about getting assistance with a civil liberties issue, please send an email directly to their caseworker, Alyssa Stryker, at alyssa@bccla.org. This will result in a more prompt reply. They encourage you to check out the “http://bccla.org/getting-help” section of their website first. There you will find a detailed description of the kinds of services that they can and cannot provide.

 

[CanV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uj36oX-WQY

 

[CanuckForEver]

so in other words you're saying naturalized Canadian citizens who went through the intend to reside clause can loose their citizenship by the minister's impulse if they have an extended stay elsewhere? that is against the consititution. Constitution guarantees the mobility rights.

 

[sazamizi]

Nice talk !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uj36oX-WQY

 

[taleodor]

I find a lot of very interesting points in this threads. One of them is that Canadians are generally passive in regards of this question and are often fed by Conservatives' lies (as an example, there are couple of trolls on this forum which spend some budget on this).

So what we can do (IMO) is focus on the next elections in a year, making sure that any opposition party coming to power will scrap this bill (or leave only a few good points that it has), and then try to inform as many people as we can, that Conservatives at this moment are a plague of this country. This should have much greater effect than an individual right to vote.

I also want to say that Canada is a great democratic country, and we must use democratic process to bash liars and cheaters from the Parliament Hill.

And yes, saying that we will never in our lives vote Conservative, while true, wouldn't have any effect. What would matter, is making them loose next year elections. For the past year, there were enough reasons to kick them out. We should just add to that their complete fiasco in Immigration. I also agree, that what happened with TFW program is absolutely disgusting, and probably worse than this bill. All I'm saying is the Conservatives must bear responsibility for this fiasco by loosing their seats in 2015. Then, current opposition should significantly amend or scrap this bill.

 

[paw339]

I think there might be a misunderstanding of how the "intend to reside clause" works. Provided when you take the oath there is a genuine intention to reside in Canada it won't matter if at a later date your circumstances change; for example you receive a overseas job offer, family illness etc and you then leave Canada. New Zealand has the same clause and the only people I've heard it has affected were a very small number that had already booked their flights to leave or had already accepted overseas employment before they had even been granted New Zealand Citizenship.

Regards

 

[taleodor]

I think there might be a misunderstanding of how the "intend to reside clause" works. Provided when you take the oath there is a genuine intention to reside in Canada it won't matter if at a later date your circumstances change; for example you receive a overseas job offer, family illness etc and you then leave Canada. New Zealand has the same clause and the only people I've heard it has affected were a very small number that had already booked their flights to leave or had already accepted overseas employment before they had even been granted New Zealand Citizenship.

Regards

Just 2 things about this clause:
1. No one really knows how it's going to be implied (MPs including). Once there is a court precedent, only then we can make some conclusions.
2. If it is so harmless and doesn't really mean anything, as a few people here trying to present, why do Conservatives defend this clause so fiercely? This just doesn't add up.

 

[informatics]

Hi ,

Does anyone here any idea will this bill really going to affect the current PRs , as one of my friends recently called CIc and was told by one of the CSRs that since she was already a PR ,she is safe. I remember a post by a member at the same forum mentioning the same thing , although I highly doubt it , still looking for your inputs.

Thanks

 

[ahmadz]

...........
Mr. Mitchell J. Goldberg (Lawyer, As an Individual):
Thank you, Bernie.
The intent to reside provision, on the face of it, on paper, doesn't sound so terrible. What's wrong with forcing people to sign a declaration that they're going to live in Canada? Except when you think of the impact it's going to have on new Canadians, it's going to create a polar vortex chill. I, the lawyer, will have to advise my clients that if they leave Canada because their child gets accepted into a university, they get a job overseas, they go to take care of a sick relative, they're taking a risk that their citizenship will be stripped from them, that some bureaucrat will speculate on what their true intentions were when they became citizens.
We think that's wrong.

..........

this qoute was made in the committee discusion on the 14th of May. the conservative members didnt deny the comment the laywer made that people will sign a form. if you read the discussion on that day (which was focusing on the intent to stay clause) the conservatives did reply on every comment the witnessess said and they didnt say any comment denying the signiture thing.

so i expect people will sign forms.

 

[RAY2112]

Guys Long live the queen, we need to send her majesty the petition we don't trust this PM. or we will wait till next year and hopefully the NDP's or liberals win the election pand Mr. TRADEUA comes .

For me this law does not make canada as a leader of human rights, this law is the same as any law that issued by any dictatorship country. its really dividing canada into parts and for me I will not invest my time and experience with this government. I will wait until next year and see the elections, after that I will decide my next step.

 

[paw339]

I assume the clause is being defended so fiercely because it has a specific aim that most Canadians appear to agree with; to stop a small minority abusing the system and obtaining a passport of convenience (insurance) when they have no intention of making Canada their home and feel no real loyalty to Canada.

I sat next to a very pleasant individual on a flight from Hong Kong to London a few years ago who I discovered had a Canadian passport, but lived in Hong Kong. He was very open that his Canadian passport was just insurance for him and his family.

Mind you in his situation I might have done exactly the same thing

Regards

 

[anya]

Does this bill affect all the citizens (born/naturalised/old/new) equally or it's only for the new ones who will apply after it's implemented?

 

[RAY2112]

So good, go to cic and tell them about this case there is already a law for these cases. But you know what; I hope they will revoke your PR or citizenship for a silly reason and let me see your smile again.

I assume the clause is being defended so fiercely because it has a specific aim that most Canadians appear to agree with; to stop a small minority abusing the system and obtaining a passport of convenience (insurance) when they have no intention of making Canada their home and feel no real loyalty to Canada.

I sat next to a very pleasant individual on a flight from Hong Kong to London a few years ago who I discovered had a Canadian passport, but lived in Hong Kong. He was very open that his Canadian passport was just insurance for him and his family.

Mind you in his situation I would have done exactly the same thing

Regards

 

[paw339]

Ray I thought there currently isn't an intend to reside clause which is why it's being brought in?

 

[CanuckForEver]

I assume the clause is being defended so fiercely because it has a specific aim that most Canadians appear to agree with; to stop a small minority abusing the system and obtaining a passport of convenience (insurance) when they have no intention of making Canada their home and feel no real loyalty to Canada.

I sat next to a very pleasant individual on a flight from Hong Kong to London a few years ago who I discovered had a Canadian passport, but lived in Hong Kong. He was very open that his Canadian passport was just insurance for him and his family.

Mind you in his situation I might have done exactly the same thing

Regards

Then it makes 2 of you. You deserve to get your citizenship revoked too. Ready for that? Where is the petition I will gladly sign that. Pot calling kettle black.