Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[torontosm]

The main concern for people on this thread is the proposed bill not considering pre-PR times. It is true that some people are out only for themselves but the core of the petition is for the collective good. Please if you don't mind educating us, how does eliminating pre-PR times benefit Canada in the long run or strengthen the integrity of the immigration system. You tend to forget that those at the helm of the bill are politicians not poets, neither are they activists. They have a political agenda and would go to any extent to manifest it, even if constitutes lying to the public and passing a bill with xenophobic undertones.

As I've said before, what this particular part of the Bill does is even the playing field and make it fair for everyone. The new rule says that you must reside in Canada as a PR for 4 years before qualifying for citizenship. That is the same rule for everyone, regardless of which program they became a PR through. No exceptions, no short cuts, no qualifications. It seems like a fair and sensible approach to me.

You can argue that someone who was a student and then worked here before qualifying is more Canadian than someone who just arrived. But by that logic, you can also say that the student/worker is Canadian enough to be a citizen. Why even bother going through the PR process at all? Or alternatively, a worker is more integrated into regular Canadian society than a student who is still fairly sheltered in a university environment. So then, should employment time carry more weight than time spent studying? I strongly believe that it makes sense to eliminate all the nonsense and have one standard rule for everyone.

As for the politicians lying, etc. I'm well aware of that. But, so did the Liberals, while shamelessly opened Canada's border and had no controls over the immigration system at all. Politicians will always be politicians.

 

[torontosm]

An international student lives in dorms, or they have to find their own place to rent. They go to classes with Canadians, they date Canadians, the get part-time jobs and work with Canadians, they study Canadian subjects. They learn how to function in the formal and informal levels of society. Harper does not consider this to be valuable experience towards becoming a Canadian citizen; even though they are doing far more than my wife has to. Why does having a PR in your pocket make your experience better? I don't think it does, and I haven't seen any evidence that shows that. Personally, I would give them even more credit than they get now -- they work, pay taxes, pay tuition, and contribute to Canadian society.

So what if a student doesn't work while studying? What if they only date people from their own country? Would you still consider them integrating into canadian society to a level where you think they deserve residency credit? Where do you draw the line? do you really want CIC examining each case individually?

I think we need to bypass all of these complications and just accept the fact that the new rule is transparent and fair for everyone.

 

[eileenf]

but in the end its just a 2 more year wait with the promise of faster processing times

The bill trades actual years of citizenship eligibility for the "promise" of faster processing. This promise is nowhere in the Bill. When politicians suggest trading away something real in exchange for a vague promise, I recommend assuming that there's a good chance that whatever they're promising will never happen.

So please don't parrot the soundbite about how fast everything is going to be. Until this Bill includes a maximum processing timeline, a service standard is added for citizenship or a commitment to address the chronic understaffing and underfunding of the citizenship program (even with that one-time $44 million), promises of speedy processing are just that: vague promises which don't hold much water.

 

[daktrader]

Completly agree!
The bill should include the "Maximum Processing Time" rather than a standard avg in which 80% of cases are completed.
The $44 Million was just a one time stimulus publicity stunt to get people's attention away from the Bill C-24...
I wont be surprised if the $44 Million went to Raises/House Cleaning Service (To Dust off the Applications not touched for years).
Just venting...

Hope the misery is over very soon for the people stuck in the system.

The bill trades actual years of citizenship eligibility for the "promise" of faster processing. This promise is nowhere in the Bill. When politicians suggest trading away something real in exchange for a vague promise, I recommend assuming that there's a good chance that whatever they're promising will never happen.

So please don't parrot the soundbite about how fast everything is going to be. Until this Bill includes a maximum processing timeline, a service standard is added for citizenship or a commitment to address the chronic understaffing and underfunding of the citizenship program (even with that one-time $44 million), promises of speedy processing are just that: vague promises which don't hold much water.

 

[MrB]

The bill trades actual years of citizenship eligibility for the "promise" of faster processing. This promise is nowhere in the Bill. When politicians suggest trading away something real in exchange for a vague promise, I recommend assuming that there's a good chance that whatever they're promising will never happen.

So please don't parrot the soundbite about how fast everything is going to be. Until this Bill includes a maximum processing timeline, a service standard is added for citizenship or a commitment to address the chronic understaffing and underfunding of the citizenship program (even with that one-time $44 million), promises of speedy processing are just that: vague promises which don't hold much water.

Very good point, let's see definite processing times (the promise) included in the bill. They don't want any accountability...lol.

 

[on-hold]

So what if a student doesn't work while studying? What if they only date people from their own country? Would you still consider them integrating into canadian society to a level where you think they deserve residency credit? Where do you draw the line? do you really want CIC examining each case individually?

I think we need to bypass all of these complications and just accept the fact that the new rule is transparent and fair for everyone.

How is the current rule not transparent and fair for everyone? Students and TFW get half credit, up to a year -- where is the nontransparency? Harper's change has nothing to do with this issue -- its ostensible purpose is to promote making people more 'Canadian' by the time they apply for citizenship; but peculiarly, it penalizes people who are in the position to integrate the most.

 

[CanuckForEver]

and what about a random Citizenship officer having the ability to strip any naturalized Canadian off his citizenship and that does not require a warrant nor it can be followed up by a hearing?

and what about the stupid clause of "intend to reside"? isn't it implicit that one applies for citizenship only to intend to reside in that country? the citizenship minister simplemindedly argues in the committe meeting saying that was meant to be a confirmation that applicants have completed the residence requirement in the past and not meant to apply once after the applicant got the citizenship. Either he is pathetically obtuse (which I doubt) or blatantly maneuvering in getting this passed so he can disenfranchise as many Canadians as he can and guess what? No questions can be asked about it because there's no need for a hearing!

 

[torontosm]

and what about a random Citizenship officer having the ability to strip any naturalized Canadian off his citizenship and that does not require a warrant nor it can be followed up by a hearing?

Surely you are being a bit dramatic. Citizenship can be stripped if you are convicted of certain defined serious crimes. If you are worried about this, don't commit terrorist acts. It's that simple. No one has the right, with or without C-24, to strip you of citizenship because they feel like it.

 

[eileenf]

As I've said before, what this particular part of the Bill does is even the playing field and make it fair for everyone. The new rule says that you must reside in Canada as a PR for 4 years before qualifying for citizenship. That is the same rule for everyone, regardless of which program they became a PR through. No exceptions, no short cuts, no qualifications. It seems like a fair and sensible approach to me.

You are conflating an arbitrary rule with a fair rule. Applying a rule equally to unequal situations does not prove that it is fair.

For example, the first generation limit on passing down citizenship is unfair to children of foreign service and military officers, because their children have "less equal" citizenship due to their parents' service to Canada. Most would agree that creating exceptions for the children of embassy workers or people in the military (who was assigned to work overseas to serve Canada) would improve fairness, while not weakening the purpose of the first generation born-abroad limit.

One's PR status is almost wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the residence requirement, (exposure to Canadian society through time in Canada) as discussed in court cases and in Parliament. Acknowledging the time and exposure that students in Canadian universities and workers in Canadian businesses have with Canadian society (and grocery stores, as is mentioned in at least one court case about residence requirements) is not unfair to other PRs nor citizens and does not contravene the purpose of the residence requirement.

The only purpose of eliminating pre-PR time is to make it harder and slower to become a citizen.

 

[eileenf]

The bill should include the "Maximum Processing Time" rather than a standard avg in which 80% of cases are completed.

The Bill doesn't even include the 80% average (which is backward looking, not forward looking, as a service standard would be).
The bill includes zero discussion and zero insinuation of future timelines.

 

[daktrader]

Its a shame then...
Hope whatever the bill is; its in the best interest of everyone concerned...

The Bill doesn't even include the 80% average (which is backward looking, not forward looking, as a service standard would be).
The bill includes zero discussion and zero insinuation of future timelines.

 

[CanuckForEver]

Surely you are being a bit dramatic. Citizenship can be stripped if you are convicted of certain defined serious crimes. If you are worried about this, don't commit terrorist acts. It's that simple. No one has the right, with or without C-24, to strip you of citizenship because they feel like it.

Thn why hasn't CIC got the grits to include that revoking only applies to those who participate in treasonous activities. Otherwise, it is just a manipulative way of getting wider powers so that you can stip off anyone their citizenships without any categorical reason. and why wont CIC not put itself for a hearing to justify its decision? because it could get slapped by the supreme court (like every single time this administrations gets slapped)?

 

[Marypetty]

That article is laughable, and it is clearly written by some pathetic lawyer who is worried about losing future revenue as a result of the clarification of the process. He writes about citizenship being harder to obtain as if it is a bad thing. His arguments are comically weak, as in claiming that it is unfair that people have to be able to speak either French or English to become a citizen, or that it's not right that the residency obligation should be 4 years instead of 3 without actually offering any explanation as to why. Then, the rest of the article consists of baseless fabrications, such as his claim that citizenship processing times will increase to 8-10 years!

Anyone who reads and believes this nonsense needs to start thinking for themselves.

Oh, and if you are so worried about having your citizenship stripped, either: (i) don't commit any terrorist acts; or (ii) give up your other citizenship. It's not that hard.

I read the article and I get it more than ever...we need this bill passed immediately, and need further reforms as well.

I found the article confusing to say the least. Where did they get the increase to 8-10 years? I couldn't find it in the Bill. I thought mainly the only ones to lose citizenship would be terrorist or fraudsters. Not 99.999% of the rest. Yes, we may have to wait another year, but if you are working here and have decided to make Canada your home (as I hope I will), that year should pass without any problem that I can see. The writer of the article is just scare-mongering. We should all not worry about it, sit back and wait for the outcome, and when we become citizens, enjoy all that Canada has to offer.

 

[eileenf]

They don't want any accountability.

This is a big problem with the CIC and this government more generally! Accountability is something only for the applicants. There is no general culture of accountability or transparency with this agency.

The experience that really typified this for me personally was during my interview when I asked the name of the citizenship officer (this is something I am in the habit of doing with CIC call centre agents after receiving too much conflicting or inaccurate information). Her badge was not visible because it was clipped at her waist. This officer who was holding a file with every tax and bank and credit card statement from the last 7 years, this person who could have told me the name of the attending physician at my daughter's birth, whether I had an epidural or not and how often I went to the dentist sat silently staring at me for some long seconds before muttering out a first name in the tone I used to use as a 21 year old college student who didn't want to talk to that weirdo harassing me and my friends at the bar.

After a bit of further research, it seems the name was a fake.

 

[MrB]

As I've said before, what this particular part of the Bill does is even the playing field and make it fair for everyone. The new rule says that you must reside in Canada as a PR for 4 years before qualifying for citizenship. That is the same rule for everyone, regardless of which program they became a PR through. No exceptions, no short cuts, no qualifications. It seems like a fair and sensible approach to me.

You can argue that someone who was a student and then worked here before qualifying is more Canadian than someone who just arrived. But by that logic, you can also say that the student/worker is Canadian enough to be a citizen. Why even bother going through the PR process at all? Or alternatively, a worker is more integrated into regular Canadian society than a student who is still fairly sheltered in a university environment. So then, should employment time carry more weight than time spent studying? I strongly believe that it makes sense to eliminate all the nonsense and have one standard rule for everyone.

As for the politicians lying, etc. I'm well aware of that. But, so did the Liberals, while shamelessly opened Canada's border and had no controls over the immigration system at all. Politicians will always be politicians.

I think an attempt to even the playing field and make it "fair" for everyone is a myopic approach from the government. It actually accomplishes the exact opposite and makes the playing field uneven. The logic is simple, the idea of a utopia is naive in modern society especially when it concerns immigration policies and other aspects of society. Take for example the FSW program, work experience is a major requirement for eligibility. The Canadian Experience is even more glaring, it was created because those who are eligible for it are thought to be more integrated into Canadian society based on their experiences which include work, education, and knowledge of Canada.

Here's a quote from the minister when questioned about eliminating the pre-PR times and increasing the residency requirements... "That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about." So explain how it's fair to exclude people like me for example, who have stayed here 11 years in total. 9 pre-PR years and 2 post-PR, can you also please explain how many more years it would require for me to "have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"?