Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[taleodor]

Study: Subject Matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Study/Activity Home
Currently there are no available publications for this Study/Activity. The publications for this Study/Activity will appear in this section as they become available.

Isn't that strange that even when no report on the Subject Matter of Bill C-24 has been tabled until now in the parliament, how has the bill reached to 3rd reading stage.

If you will research a little bit you will know that it has never happened that even before the report for subject matter has been tabled, the clause by clause reading by the committee had been done and bill was pushed further.

What was the use of doing the subject matter study for C-24 then??

Cons want it fast, they don't care. Lying and making up facts is their 2nd nature.

100+ people for the protest, 1000+ invited. Please join: https://www.facebook.com/events/329557137191849/

 

[marcus66502]

Ha ha ha, you almost got me

Just goes to show how easy it is to spread a rumor and have people take it as fact!

 

[canadian88]

Cons want it fast, they don't care. Lying and making up facts is their 2nd nature.

100+ people for the protest, 1000+ invited. Please join:

l ll be there. most of Canadian don't know about this bill. please send more request to people.

l don't wanna be second class citizen

 

[MWM]

Big week coming , we reached the end .

 

[taleodor]

Just goes to show how easy it is to spread a rumor and have people take it as fact!

1. Says a thing or two about the poster.

2. Explains how Cons are brainwashing people to think their bills are awesome.

 

[anon123]

Just goes to show how easy it is to spread a rumor and have people take it as fact!

It is not hard to fall for it. What you said is possible with Bill C-24. And CIC in the past 2-3 years has a history of doing just that: investigating and revoking citizenships. You can read about the cases they went after: a person was charged with a crime 5 days before Oath, then later found not guilty, but he forgot to notify CIC (may be he didn't know he needs to notify them of a crime he didn't commit?), his citizenship revoked. Another case, the person was born in Canada 6 months after his parents stopped working in the Indian mission and became privately employed, his citizenship revoked (CIC claims they were still working for the Indian mission).
Bill C-24 was advertised on the CIC website long before the house procedures began, they are ready to start enforcing it the moment it gets royal assent.

 

[marcus66502]

This is no longer a joke, and a bit off-topic but (for what it's worth) I had a friend who studied at a good Advertising School in Chicago a few years ago and he told me that the first thing they tell you in Advertising School, like the very first day, is that "you can tell people anything, and they'll believe it." And they want you to believe that wholeheartedly. They tell you that if you don't truly believe that, then you don't belong in Advertising School.

These are the people who design all the ads we get bombarded with, from highway billboards to TV commercials.

 

[marcus66502]

Back to topic, I honestly don't believe there's going to be even a trace of the feared massive witch hunt for any "non-intenders" who may have left Canada after the grant of citizenship. Logistical and resource problems aside, it's going to be damn near impossible to get a Federal Court declaration of misrepresentation of intent based solely on actions after the grant of citizenship, because those are in no way indicative of pre-oath intent. They would need evidence of lack of intent before the oath. If you start looking for jobs abroad while your application is still in process, why then you'd have nobody to blame but yourself.

 

[rajmalhotra7]

We are putting the cart before the horse. We are assuming that the bill is flawed even if it was not yet a law. Naysayers are misinformed about the true nature of the intent to reside. Again, for purposes of clarity, the intent to reside is from the day you become eligible by applying for citizenship until you take your oath. Nothing in the bill states that after you have taken an oath your mobility rights will be impaired. Naysayers should wait before the law is approved then you can make your dramatic challenged before the SCC or in the streets. Equipped your self with proper knowledge of the bill before you open your mouths and raised your fists in ignorance and arrogance.

You are mistaken. Read the whole document written by Canadian Bar Association on bill C-24
http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

In section II D, Bar Associations wants "Intent to Reside in Canada if Granted Citizenship" to be eliminated from bill.

 

[dandash]

Any scheduled meetings for today guys ?!

 

[transformer]

Guys,

we need to contact the media so they can film the protest and it has further reach.........anybody have any ideas?

another good idea is to contact the liberal/ndp party or Kathleen Wynne to come and give support

that lawyer would be a good bet too

a better place to protest would be the ministers office dont you think?

also dont you think the day before canada day is a bad timing as most news outlets would be focused on celebrations rather than a bunch of immigrants crying over having to stay 1-2 years extra and having to ACTUALLY remain in canada

(note I am only saying the above because I want the protest to have maximum reach...i am effected by this bill just as much as you guys)

 

[flamingteeth]

Hi all:

Any meetings scheduled today? Hoc thrid reading?

 

[on-hold]

Back to topic, I honestly don't believe there's going to be even a trace of the feared massive witch hunt for any "non-intenders" who may have left Canada after the grant of citizenship. Logistical and resource problems aside, it's going to be damn near impossible to get a Federal Court declaration of misrepresentation of intent based solely on actions after the grant of citizenship, because those are in no way indicative of pre-oath intent. They would need evidence of lack of intent before the oath. If you start looking for jobs abroad while your application is still in process, why then you'd have nobody to blame but yourself.

It's your last sentence that's problematic -- it assumes that 'intent' can be clearly read from actions. How about the following situations?

- PR applies for citizenship, goes home to visit parent; parent is seriously ill, PR stays to take care of them. What's their intent?

- Parents apply for citizenship with children; 17 year old daughter applies to study for one year in university in home. Wants to stay for four years, come back to Canada afterwards. What's her intent?

- Immigrant fills citizenship requirements, wants to join a missionary organization for a year's posting abroad. What's their intent?

- PR applies for citizenship, loses job -- but finds a good opportunity in the Gulf. They want to take it, use it as a foothold to come back to Canada; it's easier to find a professional job when you already have a professional job. What's their intent?

In all of these situations, a birth-Canadian would feel free to do whatever they wanted. An immigrant Canadian is not going to feel free to do what they want. Even if there is no witch-hunt at all, the 'intent' clause is a burden on them. That's what people are missing, it's bad faith to argue that unless there are revocations, this clause is meaningless -- what it does is remove a fundamental strut of Canadian citizenship, which is security. This is particularly true, because the Canadian government reserves the right to go back and revise citizenship decisions that were made decades ago, meaning that if the definition or evidentiary proof of 'intent' changes 20 years from now, actions taken around the time of the oath can be revisited.

Here's an example of the latter: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/15/i-cant-be-stateless-born-in-canada-criminal-fighting-deportation-after-ottawa-decides-citizenship-not-valid/

The man in question received two Canadian passports prior to having his citizenship revoked; which prevented him (or his parents) from taking actions that would have secured his citizenship at the time.

 

[CanV]

Hi all:

Any meetings scheduled today? Hoc thrid reading?

3rd reading at 3:00, results predetermined.

 

[flamingteeth]

3rd reading at 3:00, results predetermined.

Thanks for this. It seems that the royal assessment will not be held until next week, right?

I will submit my application on next Monday June 23rd, 2014, it is Okay?