Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[bongcan]

Quote from Costas Menegakis Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Link: http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/?singlepage=1

I would like to address the ill-informed argument against some of these measures, which states that the intention to reside provision contravenes mobility rights guaranteed under the charter. In fact, the provision simply signals that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their home. Citizenship applicants would be asked as part of the application process whether they intend to reside in Canada. I do not think we would find a Canadian in the country who would say that people can have citizenship even if they do not intend to reside here.

If applicants indicate that they do not intend to reside in this country, they would not be granted citizenship, as Canadian citizenship means contributing to Canadian life. These requirements are not onerous, and they are in line with those of key partner nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

Nothing about this provision would limit the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to Canada like any other citizen. In fact, as my hon. colleagues are aware, every government bill presented in the House of Commons is to be examined by the Minister of Justice to ascertain if it is consistent with the purposes or provisions of the charter. Bill C-24, as my hon. colleagues should know, is no exception, and it would not be before the House today in its current form if any such inconsistencies had been found.

 

[marcus66502]

Quote from Costas Menegakis Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Link: http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/?singlepage=1

I would like to address the ill-informed argument against some of these measures, which states that the intention to reside provision contravenes mobility rights guaranteed under the charter. In fact, the provision simply signals that citizenship is for those who intend to make Canada their home. Citizenship applicants would be asked as part of the application process whether they intend to reside in Canada. I do not think we would find a Canadian in the country who would say that people can have citizenship even if they do not intend to reside here.

If applicants indicate that they do not intend to reside in this country, they would not be granted citizenship, as Canadian citizenship means contributing to Canadian life. These requirements are not onerous, and they are in line with those of key partner nations, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.

To be in line with what CIC website calls "peer nations", that's the whole reason for this "intent-to-reside" clause (and along the same lines, to appeal to nativist Canadians who think many immigrants just want a passport of convenience). There has not in the past and there will never be in the future any case in which the government will be going after the ordinary citizen just for living abroad after the taking the oath. All court cases of citizenship revocation in the past have been high profile cases and have involved at a minimum a criminal conviction for fraud by some lower court.

There's no grand scheme or great ingenuity on the part of Canada here. This clause, like any major immigration/citizenship provision, is done just to appear to be comparable in policy to what Canadians consider peer countries (those with common British heritage). If the UK and Australia implement some citizenship provision, it's usually only a matter of time before Canada follows suit. It's just a show, people.

Unless you're convicted of a major criminal offense of fraud, the likelihood of the Minister moving to revoke your citizenship is lower than the likelihood of you getting killed in a plane crash. But yet you don't go about your days worrying about dying from a plane crash, do you?

If anyone believes that the intent-to-reside clause is adopted for reasons other than just for show, they should have their head examined .... (or as Bill Maher in his HBO show says, "... you should stop lecturing and start asking your doctor is Prozac is right for you!").

 

[RussCan]

Dear Surgi:

With reference to Suncor Energy. Should I purchase the SU140627C00041500 call option, or the SU140627P00040000 put option? I want a definite response, not one based in theory! Oh, yes, do you do horoscopes?

People, kindly forgive any semblance of sarcasm on my part, but this chatroom has substantially deviated from the topic "Bill C-24 Second Reading.....", remember that pesky little critter?

It is surprising, indeed embarrassing to me as a human being, that people should be so ungracious and critical of Canada, much as if Canada had lured them here with misrepresentations, only to leave them stranded, without fare to return home.

As is the case with the rest, I came to Canada voluntarily. My preconceptions as to the fine quality of Canadian life have been well confirmed, and for that I remain most grateful. For those who may be less appreciative of Canada and its people of all religious and political affiliations, perhaps the government could arrange for your one-way ticket back whence you have come.

To those whom my criticism fits, how does one say "ingratitude" in your native language?

By the by, a representative at the call centre told me in French that the date of implementation of C-24 is 19 July 2015. Her response was immediate, with the assertive import of authority.

Thank you.

Kaplan:

Thank you! You are the only voice of reason in this forum. I totally and utterly agree. No one is forced to stay here. Those who are not happy here should pack and leave. end of story.

 

[surgi]

Dear Surgi:

With reference to Suncor Energy. Should I purchase the SU140627C00041500 call option, or the SU140627P00040000 put option? I want a definite response, not one based in theory! Oh, yes, do you do horoscopes?

People, kindly forgive any semblance of sarcasm on my part, but this chatroom has substantially deviated from the topic "Bill C-24 Second Reading.....", remember that pesky little critter?

It is surprising, indeed embarrassing to me as a human being, that people should be so ungracious and critical of Canada, much as if Canada had lured them here with misrepresentations, only to leave them stranded, without fare to return home.

As is the case with the rest, I came to Canada voluntarily. My preconceptions as to the fine quality of Canadian life have been well confirmed, and for that I remain most grateful. For those who may be less appreciative of Canada and its people of all religious and political affiliations, perhaps the government could arrange for your one-way ticket back whence you have come.

To those whom my criticism fits, how does one say "ingratitude" in your native language?

By the by, a representative at the call centre told me in French that the date of implementation of C-24 is 19 July 2015. Her response was immediate, with the assertive import of authority.

Thank you.

You know everybody in this forum has his suggestions and speculations on the subject simply because there are many things which are not clear about the Bill. The text is different from the speech of the minister and some cons PMs. Each of us try to find the answer somewhere maybe as I did I went to a PM and discussed with her many aspects of the Bill . She said to me clearly ( The politics of the conservative party towards immigrants are clearly racist and I am ready to say that to the media) . She was concerned herself about the intent to reside not only because it limits the mobility but also because other Bills may follow and put rules and regulations which explain it and be very aggressive to some of the immigrants.
Another thing Canada is not the conservative and Conservatives are not Canada. Here I am talking about the cons who disfigure Canada ,so do not play with words and terms and say if I am against this Bill I would be against Canada I came here to live and work because in my own country I found the same speech as you are trying to tell us if you are against the government decisions so you are against the country. It is a political game!!
Is that a logic question when an applicant apply for Canadian citizenship do you INTEND to stay in Canada or not? If this is a player do you expect as Mengakis said he will say no I do not intend to stay in Canada? How many no you will get. So , the process of judgment of whether you are intended to stay or not will be based on the speculations of the immigration officer who will decide if your own intention . to stay or not. Do not forget also in this Bill you do not have the right to challenge his decision in front of a judge. It is final decision by ministerial order. Is that fair??!! In addition who will sign this intention will be under the pressure of such law while other millions are going and coming to Canada without any suspicion?? They have the right to go to the court and challenge any decision as in any democratic developed country. if you sign this intention it means you accept all decision and gave away your right to challenge the decision.
Now I am away from practice more than 2 years I will never be allowed to get a license except if I have to go to practice my profession for at least one year, or some provinces requires 2 years of practice so I have to leave Canada to a place where I am licensed to practice. If I came back because I got a license and a job,it is possible the officer take a decision that I lied about the intention to reside and will ignore the requirements of the licensing body to be in practice during the process of licensing. It is a final decision not possibility to say that officer did a mistake and that is unfair.
Really you look to it from a very narrow point of view and that is too bad because if you walk with a group in a picnic you have to walk at the rate of the slowest person not to run in front of them and say I am strong I am hero,!! and other people do not love Canada!!!!

 

[surgi]

Kaplan:

Thank you! You are the only voice of reason in this forum. I totally and utterly agree. No one is forced to stay here. Those who are not happy here should pack and leave. end of story.

I have another solution let us say who does not like the Bills of cons ,get citizenship and vote against them!! Volunteer with other parties to achieve this goal and live happily in Canada!!!! Canada is different under NDP or Liberals!!!

 

[anon123]

I have another solution let us say who does not like the Bills of cons ,get citizenship and vote against them!! Volunteer with other parties to achieve this goal and live happily in Canada!!!! Canada is different under NDP or Liberals!!!

This is one constructive comment. The only solution is to volunteer our time, effort and even money to help the opposition parties let Canadians know about Bill C-24. Canadians are against racism, they spoke during the Quebec elections. They will speak again. Cons are saying the bill has majority support but if you look at the comments in HuffingtonPost about the constitutional challenge: all comments are against the bill. There is no comment saying two classes of citizenship and limiting mobility rights is good.

Some say intent to reside will never be applied. Then why have it in the law? Others say it will be applied only in criminal cases: isn't that banishment and second class citizenship if an immigrant is punished differently than Canadian born? We can't accept such totalitarian treatment.

You say we should be grateful to Canada. I disagree. Unless you are a refugee, otherwise Canada accepted you for mutual benefit: both for Canada and for you. Not out of good feelings. But we, immigrants, were promised democracy as defined in the Charter. Now we find this promise may not hold: revoking of citizenship without possibility for appeal, minister guessing about your intent, banishment only for people who may be eligible for another citizenship. That's not democratic and most Canadians agree. They just need to hear our voices and they will speak on election day.

 

[surgi]

Lack of hearing, equitable considerations
Bill C-24 eliminates the right to a Federal Court hearing for those subject to revocation of
citizenship, except in limited circumstances. In all other cases, the Minister will make the
decision without being required to hold a formal hearing. The CBA Section believes that for a
matter as serious as the revocation of citizenship, a formal hearing before an independent and
impartial decision-maker must be maintained.

Another aspect of concern is the absence of consideration of equitable factors. Neither the
Minister nor the Federal Court would be able to do so. The involvement of the Governor in
Council, which can consider these factors under the Act, would be eliminated.
Bill C-24 would expand the scope of those subject to citizenship revocation to include all those
born in Canada presumed able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their
parents. It would also significantly expand the grounds on which citizenship may be revoked.

The revocation process will primarily be a paper one, where the Minister gives notice of intent
to revoke, the person responds and a decision is made by the Minister. The Minister may hold a
hearing in some instances, and in limited circumstances there will continue to be a hearing
before a Federal Court judge. There is no longer any recourse to the Governor in Council, who
may take into account equitable considerations after a finding that revocation is warranted due
to a breach of the Act.

 

[Kaplan]

Dear Surgi:

I have not, do not, nor shall I air my political views in this forum. My reasoned opinion is that certain provisions of C-24 might well not withstand judicial scrutiny.

However, it is clear from many comments that many have not taken the time to familiarise themselves with the precise and even general provisions of the Bill. Thus, although ignorant people have a right to criticise, I would suggest that those whose only source for discontentment is his/her emotions, based upon rumours, hearsay, misconceptions and abject ignorance, should refrain from comment in this forum.

This forum was created for informed discourse. It is neither a fishing forum for those who haven't mastered the art of numerical calculations of time periods, nor a punching bag for ill-informed, ungracious malcontents.

Thank you for your usual insightful commentary.

 

[surgi]

Dear Surgi:

I have not, do not, nor shall I air my political views in this forum. My reasoned opinion is that certain provisions of C-24 might well not withstand judicial scrutiny.

However, it is clear from many comments that many have not taken the time to familiarise themselves with the precise and even general provisions of the Bill. Thus, although ignorant people have a right to criticise, I would suggest that those whose only source for discontentment is his/her emotions, based upon rumours, hearsay, misconceptions and abject ignorance, should refrain from comment in this forum.

This forum was created for informed discourse. It is neither a fishing forum for those who haven't mastered the art of numerical calculations of time periods, nor a punching bag for ill-informed, ungracious malcontents.

Thank you for your usual insightful commentary.

I expect if you consider people who criticize the Bill not grateful to Canada, you will start talking about ignorant and ignorance . Who do not share your opinions should be ignorant and have`t mastered the art of numerical calculations!!! wooow punching bag , ill-informed and ungracious malcontents!!! what great expressions!!!! I think the discussion became here pointless!!
greetings!!!!

 

[nettoyant]

Hey guys,

Today the time spent in Canada before getting a PR counts in half for citizenship. Will this also be true after this bill?

Thanks!

 

[glowingheart]

Hey guys,

Today the time spent in Canada before getting a PR counts in half for citizenship. Will this also be true after this bill?

Thanks!

it still counts
buut if you apply after June something next year it won't count

 

[sanlitun]

Guys

I just called the CIC and they have informed me that the new law specifically the (4 out of 6 years) clause and the( intent to reside in Canada) will be enforced starting June 2015 , they didn't tell exactly the day .

Thanks for the info. May I know what number you called? Thanks!

 

[Destined]

it still counts
buut if you apply after June something next year it won't count

I have a question for members here :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Just in case if Supreme Court gives its judgement against C-24 bill's single provision/point(Ex: against revoking of citizenship from Dual citizens ).. Will the rest of C-24 bill will be still implemented minus the provision or will the entire bill go back to parliament for discussion. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Any Idea, when will there be a official declaration of the date from which new citizenship applicants will be under C-24 bill.

Thankyou

 

[on-hold]

I have a question for members here :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
Just in case if Supreme Court gives its judgement against C-24 bill's single provision/point(Ex: against revoking of citizenship from Dual citizens ).. Will the rest of C-24 bill will be still implemented minus the provision or will the entire bill go back to parliament for discussion. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Any Idea, when will there be a official declaration of the date from which new citizenship applicants will be under C-24 bill.

Thankyou

Aside from your skillful use of emoticons, this post is so far ahead of events it's like reading a letter from the future. C-24 is law, and it'll be implemented on CIC's schedule. Any court challenge is hypothetical, and an even-more hypothetical Supreme Court decision is years away.

 

[Kaplan]

Dear Destined

It is highly unlikely that a member of our Supreme Court should chance upon this humble blog room. Even in such event as he/she should, he/she would hardly be at liberty to express a preconception about C-24, especially at this early stage. Nor would his/her views be representative of those of his/her brethren on the Court.

A word of advice to you and others who come in search of solutions to life's wondrous mysteries:

A sagacious person can offer neither consult nor solace, as to the outcome of a judicial challenge to C-24. :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

If you have come in quest of the advice of a fool, please be virtually seated. A response should be forthcoming. ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

मैं तुम्हें अपने अर्थ को समझने की उम्मीद है.