Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[turboracer]

You know what folks let's protest hardly and gather the media attention

PUBLIC PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 30 2014 at 5 pm at :

5100 Yonge St, Toronto, Ontario M2N 5V7

Mel Lastman Square

https://www.facebook.com/events/329557137191849/


Please kindly join the protest who is against this bill C24

and also sign this petition:

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens


Thanks

 

[skhan123]

You know what folks let's protest hardly and gather the media attention

PUBLIC PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 30 2014 at 5 pm at :

5100 Yonge St, Toronto, Ontario M2N 5V7

Mel Lastman Square

https://www.facebook.com/events/329557137191849/


Please kindly join the protest who is against this bill C24

and also sign this petition:

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens


Thanks

Guys I think June 30 will be too late as last date for the Senate is 27th and everything might be over till 30th. Can it be done earlier?

 

[taleodor]

I've honestly no idea. But I don't think the date is that important. There is no chance of stopping the voting, Conservatives don't care about us. To me, the point is to show that we exist, and there will be costs for Conservatives, and a chance for us to repeal this bill sooner or later.

For other parts of Canada, it would be great, if you guys organize something in parallel. Feel free to create an event, hopefully, a lot of people, me including, would try to share it and recruit more people.

 

[S khan]

I was Silently following the forum but as it seems that bill is gonna pass soon so I decided to share my understanding of " Intent to reside".

Now first question is revoking Citizenship of someone on the basis of " Intent to reside".

If we read the Bill C-24 it clearly specifies for whom the minister can revoke the Citizenship. Bill gives the power to the minister to revoke the citizenship of terrorist, war criminals etc.

I don't know from where people started to assume that minister would have the power to revoke the citizenship if the person is not residing in Canada after he obtains his citizenship by signing "Intent to Reside". As with the current bill minister could do that only for people involved in heinous crimes.

Now, the second question is what this "Intend to Reside" for than ??

I believe all of us here went through the process of Canadian Immigration. If your category was spousal one than you should know that any Canadian who wants to sponsor spouse has to declare his or her intent to reside in Canada if he is living abroad. I have seen many cases where Canadian Citizens living abroad for long time just have to move back to Canada and take job and stuff and has to satisfy Immigration officer that he/she will reside in Canada after the approval of his/her spouse application.

Now the same will happen for people applying FOR Citizenship. For example considering current time period it is taking around 24 months for citizenship application to get processed. Now if a person who applies for Canadian Citizenship leaves for a very long period say 1 year than he will have to satisfy Citizenship Officer that once he gets citizenship he will move to Canada.

It has nothing to do with all those people who don't go out from Canada while there application is processed for continuous longer period of time. I know people who have applied for citizenship like 18 months ago and they are not living in Canada since the time they have applied for it. By adding " Intent to Reside" it wont remain possible to do like that.


And this is same thing what Minister said yesterday " Time between application filed and oath ceremony" .

 

[anon123]

I was Silently following the forum but as it seems that bill is gonna pass soon so I decided to share my understanding of " Intent to reside".

Now first question is revoking Citizenship of someone on the basis of " Intent to reside".

If we read the Bill C-24 it clearly specifies for whom the minister can revoke the Citizenship. Bill gives the power to the minister to revoke the citizenship of terrorist, war criminals etc.

I don't know from where people started to assume that minister would have the power to revoke the citizenship if the person is not residing in Canada after he obtains his citizenship by signing "Intent to Reside". As with the current bill minister could do that only for people involved in heinous crimes.

Now, the second question is what this "Intend to Reside" for than ??

I believe all of us here went through the process of Canadian Immigration. If your category was spousal one than you should know that any Canadian who wants to sponsor spouse has to declare his or her intent to reside in Canada if he is living abroad. I have seen many cases where Canadian Citizens living abroad for long time just have to move back to Canada and take job and stuff and has to satisfy Immigration officer that he/she will reside in Canada after the approval of his/her spouse application.

Now the same will happen for people applying FOR Citizenship. For example considering current time period it is taking around 24 months for citizenship application to get processed. Now if a person who applies for Canadian Citizenship leaves for a very long period say 1 year than he will have to satisfy Citizenship Officer that once he gets citizenship he will move to Canada.

It has nothing to do with all those people who don't go out from Canada while there application is processed for continuous longer period of time. I know people who have applied for citizenship like 18 months ago and they are not living in Canada since the time they have applied for it. By adding " Intent to Reside" it wont remain possible to do like that.


And this is same thing what Minister said yesterday " Time between application filed and oath ceremony" .

Here is the text of the bill: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6410225&File=24

This is the only legal document which defines Citizenship. It doesn't matter what the minister says, it doesn't matter how members of the commission interpret the bill, what is written in the bill is the only law.

It says in the bill:

(e) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,
(ii) to enter into, or continue in, employment outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, or
(iii) to reside with his or her spouse or common-law partner or parent, who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and is employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person.

Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship". How can this be used to revoke citizenship? Easy:

10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Do you see anywhere in the bill a requirement for hearing in front of a judge? For due process? For appeal? Nothing. The Minister (clearly they mean "a person authorized by the minister, i.e. a CIC employee") decides if "on a balance of probabilities" you really intended to reside in Canada when you signed this declaration or you falsely represented your intent. Now, how does the fact that you happen to be outside of Canada at some moment in the future balance the probabilities?

 

[rajmalhotra7]

I was Silently following the forum but as it seems that bill is gonna pass soon so I decided to share my understanding of " Intent to reside".

Now first question is revoking Citizenship of someone on the basis of " Intent to reside".

If we read the Bill C-24 it clearly specifies for whom the minister can revoke the Citizenship. Bill gives the power to the minister to revoke the citizenship of terrorist, war criminals etc.

I don't know from where people started to assume that minister would have the power to revoke the citizenship if the person is not residing in Canada after he obtains his citizenship by signing "Intent to Reside". As with the current bill minister could do that only for people involved in heinous crimes.

Now, the second question is what this "Intend to Reside" for than ??

I believe all of us here went through the process of Canadian Immigration. If your category was spousal one than you should know that any Canadian who wants to sponsor spouse has to declare his or her intent to reside in Canada if he is living abroad. I have seen many cases where Canadian Citizens living abroad for long time just have to move back to Canada and take job and stuff and has to satisfy Immigration officer that he/she will reside in Canada after the approval of his/her spouse application.

Now the same will happen for people applying FOR Citizenship. For example considering current time period it is taking around 24 months for citizenship application to get processed. Now if a person who applies for Canadian Citizenship leaves for a very long period say 1 year than he will have to satisfy Citizenship Officer that once he gets citizenship he will move to Canada.

It has nothing to do with all those people who don't go out from Canada while there application is processed for continuous longer period of time. I know people who have applied for citizenship like 18 months ago and they are not living in Canada since the time they have applied for it. By adding " Intent to Reside" it wont remain possible to do like that.


And this is same thing what Minister said yesterday " Time between application filed and oath ceremony" .

I don't think you have read the bill yourself. Read the below document

www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

 

[rajmalhotra7]

I don't think you have read the bill yourself. Read the below document

www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

The website is down for maintenance. It will be up on Monday. I read the document couple of days ago and it was scary after reading what is mentioned in bill.

 

[S khan]

Here is the text of the bill: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6410225&File=24

This is the only legal document which defines Citizenship. It doesn't matter what the minister says, it doesn't matter how members of the commission interpret the bill, what is written in the bill is the only law.

It says in the bill:

Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship". How can this be used to revoke citizenship? Easy:

Do you see anywhere in the bill a requirement for hearing in front of a judge? For due process? For appeal? Nothing. The Minister (clearly they mean "a person authorized by the minister, i.e. a CIC employee") decides if "on a balance of probabilities" you really intended to reside in Canada when you signed this declaration or you falsely represented your intent. Now, how does the fact that you happen to be outside of Canada at some moment in the future balance the probabilities?

Thanks a lot for your response. And let me try to heal your concerns.

Your concern

"Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship".

That's incorrect. IF you just scroll little bit down to the subsection 5.1 of the Bill the law clearly states that :

[size=10pt]1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.[/size]


Your second concern was regarding this clause 10 of the Bill.

10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Now have a closer look on all four cases.

1. Obtained : That's nothing new. Government can do that right now.They did a lot of them in 2010 in crackdown.
2. Retain: That has nothing to do with us. Retaining Citizenship is a problem for people born outside Canada after 1977.Have a look to there official document

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/cic/Ci51-203-2007-eng.pdf

3.Renounced : Its for those who want to give up his Canadian Citizenship. It has nothing to do with us. Have a look

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp

4.Resume : It again has nothing do with us. Have a look

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/resume.asp


So stop panicking and have a nice sleep.

 

[us2yow]

Rocco Galati possesses courage

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/letters/rocco-galati-possesses-courage

 

[CanV]

Enough Already!! You're like a broken record. You repeat the same things again and again..

OMG dont freaking enough him!!!!!!!!! This has to be posted every freaking second so everyone knows and attends.

I will be doing posting all day, all over the forum so if you don't like it leave the forum now!

 

[CanV]

Thanks a lot for your response. And let me try to heal your concerns.

Your concern

"Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship".

That's incorrect. IF you just scroll little bit down to the subsection 5.1 of the Bill the law clearly states that :

[size=10pt]1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.[/size]


Your second concern was regarding this clause 10 of the Bill.

10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

Now have a closer look on all four cases.

1. Obtained : That's nothing new. Government can do that right now.They did a lot of them in 2010 in crackdown.
2. Retain: That has nothing to do with us. Retaining Citizenship is a problem for people born outside Canada after 1977.Have a look to there official document

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/cic/Ci51-203-2007-eng.pdf

3.Renounced : Its for those who want to give up his Canadian Citizenship. It has nothing to do with us. Have a look

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp

4.Resume : It again has nothing do with us. Have a look

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/resume.asp


So stop panicking and have a nice sleep.

I agree

 

[hussinhamid]

Guys
with due respect to what you have said regarding the clause " intent to reside in Canada " there is an additional option in their hand (the Gov) to apply this clause for the folks who intents to leave Canada after granting citizenship which is not worded in this draft, that was left to the interpretation of the minister and his Reps, can any one answer why they drafted the clause in the past tense " intends, if granted citizenship, (i) to continue to reside in Canada), so they are talking after granting the citizenship not as you said before although you refer to the illustration in 5.1

 

[rayman_m]

I think the peoples who drafted this bill must be lacking of English grammar knowledge. In his interview minister said the clause means "after submitting application, an applicant only will have to reside in Canada until the oath and after that there is no bindings he can leave anywhere in the world". OK.. if this is the case, then why this simple meaning clause made so complicated ? I think under the new application format he will have to clear this issues..

 

[hussinhamid]

did you look at his face when he said that , he didn't tell the truth .he was hiding some thing !!!

 

[dandash]

The thing is if he meant so then why not amending the bill accordingly to tackle this confusion !!!!