Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Tolerance]

What we are trying to do now is to figure out the government's real motives, which goes to show nobody is buying their "strengthening the value of citizenship" ploy.

If this whole thing was really about taxation, then it would be fair for them to say it. But it is not that simple. Cons do care about kicking out the 'foreigners,' as is the case for cons around the world. Their re-election platforms are based on that. They are catering to their conservative base, which in combination with uninformed public might make is possible for them to pass the bill without much opposition.

A lot of people renounce US citizenship and take up Canadian citizenship to dodge the taxes. Where would they go if now Canada copied the US system ?

Like someone said on a different thread, everything in life is convenience. Apparently some of us here NOT because we want a better life for our families, but rather because we inexplicably fell in love with the Canadian air and soil and xenophobes, so we would stay here forever even if there were no jobs and if we lived in poverty.

Citizenship in Monaco is mostly based on convenience, and nobody is complaining about it .

These arguments are ridiculous. If you are against the law, oppose it. Don't make yourself believe that you actually love the xenophobia that is targeted against you .

I maintain that a citizen should be free to come and go as they please (as confirmed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), and any attempts otherwise are moving us towards an Orwellian-type of existence (seen Equilibrium with Christian Bale ?).

 

[Tolerance]

And could we please drop the 'citizenship of convenience' thing? It came out of the same dictionary as 'strengthening the value of citizenship.'

 

[on-hold]

And could we please drop the 'citizenship of convenience' thing? It came out of the same dictionary as 'strengthening the value of citizenship.'

Totally agree! This is Canada's version of the American 'welfare queen'. People who want to use this term should define it and provide numbers particularly about whether they are, in fact, a drain upon social services. Besides this, I have three thoughts:

1) I don't see the harm -- in a globalized world, I predict it will be an advantage to have communities of Canadians interacting and succeeding in places like Hong Kong, Mumbai, and Beirut. Trans-national mercantile communities are an ancient phenomenon, maybe they can bring something to Canada that is more than accountants for pulp mills. Let us be more than hewers of wood and welders of pipelines!

2) If you must hate these people, include in your hatred the huge numbers of Canadians who grow up, take advantages of Canada's excellent schools systems and health care, and then decamp for college and eventual employment in the United States. It's nasty to use this term as something aimed at naturalized Canadians, when the original prototype has always had a real affinity for southern pastures . . . Check out some of Robertson Davies' earlier books.

3) It is totally disingenuous of the current government to reference the Lebanon airlift as an argument against this -- it is an accepted standard of international law that when a dual citizen is in one country of their citizenship, the other has no responsibility for them.

 

[libra81]

And could we please drop the 'citizenship of convenience' thing? It came out of the same dictionary as 'strengthening the value of citizenship.'

No! We shouldn't, Tolerance. The citizen of convenience is real, and we just cannot drop a fact. No matter what the true intent of the Cons is, those people gave them a pretext to enforce and impose the law, unfortunately, on us all. Let me tell you two stories.

A few days ago, I had a conversation with a couple, the husband got his Phd degree in France and his wife has 2 masters degrees. Unlike many other immigrants, they got the white collar jobs the moment they came to Canada. Even though they are underemployed, they got a decent living here. However, they told me that as soon as they have the passport, they move back to their own country. Having a Canadian passport is all they need because it allows them to move freely to 170 countries in the world without having to apply for a visa-Thing they can only dream of with their original passport. I can understand they move elsewhere for better career opportunities or whatever the reason, yet I don't see them having any attachment with this nation, who gave them many. Moreover, they want to send their children back when they come of age, and to come back for healthcare and retirement, etc.

Other story is about a girl who just got her passport and the minute she got it, she posted a message on facebook asking whether she could lose her citizenship if she leaves Canada. It just happend yesterday. That's why I found out about the Bill and then found this topic.

Do you think those people are deserved to be targerted by the new immigration system?

Yes, all canadians must have the right to move to and to live wherever they want, but they must understand that there is no free meal in life. They can choose either living elsewhere and losing canadian privileges or contributing to this country like we do. I highly doubt those people will leave if they possibly lose these privileges.

I stand against the Bill because it creates two categories of citizen, not because it targets the citizens of convenience.

 

[meyakanor]

If taxes were what they were concerned about, then they should just say it, and modify the tax law accordingly to make it similar to the US, rather than setting a potential legal loop-hole for revocation of citizenship due to this 'intent-to-reside' clause. Or if they really want to create two-tiered citizenship system (which, I believe, is already the case in Canada to a lesser extent with regards to the ability to pass on citizenship for children born abroad), they can implement something similar to the one in Ireland (where naturalized citizens need to report every year if they are abroad or risk losing citizenship). I really hope they won't go that far though...

 

[Observer]

Hi All,
The activity of May 28th meeting is “Main Estimates 2014-15: Votes 1 and 5 under CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Vote 1 under IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD”.

 

[Tolerance]

No! We shouldn't, Tolerance. The citizen of convenience is real, and we just cannot drop a fact. No matter what the true intent of the Cons is, those people gave them a pretext to enforce and impose the law, unfortunately, on us all. Let me tell you two stories.

A few days ago, I had a conversation with a couple, the husband got his Phd degree in France and his wife has 2 masters degrees. Unlike many other immigrants, they got the white collar jobs the moment they came to Canada. Even though they are underemployed, they got a decent living here. However, they told me that as soon as they have the passport, they move back to their own country. Having a Canadian passport is all they need because it allows them to move freely to 170 countries in the world without having to apply for a visa-Thing they can only dream of with their original passport. I can understand they move elsewhere for better career opportunities or whatever the reason, yet I don't see them having any attachment with this nation, who gave them many. Moreover, they want to send their children back when they come of age, and to come back for healthcare and retirement, etc.

Other story is about a girl who just got her passport and the minute she got it, she posted a message on facebook asking whether she could lose her citizenship if she leaves Canada. It just happend yesterday. That's why I found out about the Bill and then found this topic.

Do you think those people are deserved to be targerted by the new immigration system?

Yes, all canadians must have the right to move to and to live wherever they want, but they must understand that there is no free meal in life. They can choose either living elsewhere and losing canadian privileges or contributing to this country like we do. I highly doubt those people will leave if they possibly lose these privileges.

I stand against the Bill because it creates two categories of citizen, not because it targets the citizens of convenience.

Libra81,

I did not mean to sound confrontational, so sorry if it came out that way. I would encourage as many of us as possible to share their opinions here, so thank you for your contribution.

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly won't try to spam you out of here (as does happen here ).

Here is what I meant to say. Conservatives, for some reason, love euphemisms and word play. That is why I mentioned Orwell (Big Brother, Ministry of Truth=Ministry of Lies etc.). If you think about it, you will probably remember that when you just came here, you were probably (just like me) confused by the language and especially job titles. Personal Support Worker sounded great halfway across the world, but here I learned my degreed friends were $hit cleaners, really . There are vacancies that are begging for Manager Trainees, when this person really does what no-one else will for the minimum wage. Visible minorities (or racialised minorities now) are a phrase not used elsewhere in the world.

That was to briefly illustrate the Cons' love of words. What I am trying to say is, be careful when you use their own constructs, there must be a trap there somewhere .

As on-hold pointed out, 'citizens of convenience' has not been defined, and nobody can tell the extent of the 'problem.' Also, why are naturalized citizens targeted by such a construct? A lot of smart Canadian-born folks got the hell out of Dodge looking for better jobs and livelihood, because there are no good jobs here. Would any of us be sitting here in substandard circumstances (a huge euphemism ) if we could go to, say Dubai, and make 200,000 there instead of the minimum wage here?

Of course, I do not think that what happened here was entirely intentional. The point system encouraged highly educated people for years, attracted too many of them (and mislead them into believing their education and skills are in demand here), and that depressed their value in the job market, and logically, inflated the value of skilled labour in the market. So, for a quick fix for your troubles, become a welder or a crane operator . Even that will take years though, because they put barriers in place (certification etc.) to make sure you are the last one to get the job.

I believe the real problem is this: the Cons want to prevent new citizens from leaving Canada, and they want to do that by force. The people targeted obviously feel that their best interests lie elsewhere (at least for the time being), but if the new law is passed, that should make them stay here and live a miserable life, while they can see better opportunities elsewhere (again, for the time being).

My question is, why does Canada feel it has to FORCE people to stay here against their best interest? Canada SHOULD be in their best interest if we expect those people to stay. If Canada has to resort to such measures, it means it has failed its residents. For some reason, there is a better life around the world than in the best country of the world.

My argument would be, why does not Canada work towards MAKING this place so good to everyone, that they simply choose to stay here, because it is in their best interest? Surely, nobody would go to Afghanistan (as I have) or similar countries to make some money there.

When the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that the 'Canadian experience' requirement was unconstitutional when interviewing candidates for jobs, they said that Canada might see braindrain, i.e. people going elsewhere because they do not want to be discriminated against. People who have travelled the world and made a lot of money, made a lot of sacrifices do not want to live in poverty for years. PhDs do not want to drive cabs. MDs do not want to be PSWs. It is demeaning and it is a shame.

Here is an interesting article that might provide some perspective:
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/land-of-misfortune/

To conclude, I think that even those we call 'citizens of convenience' experienced very little convenience and a lot of misery because they came to Canada. They were fooled by the point system into thinking they would be welcome here. Instead, they spend their savings here, and have to work for years to accomplish what Canadian-born (and often, Anglo-Saxon-born) folks take for granted. If immigrants find it hard to stay in Canada, then Canada might try treating them better (see the article above). So, I respect everyone's opinion, but I still feel Canadian citizens should be equal and free to go as they please. The laws of economics govern our lives and we simply go where our value is greatest at the time. This could actually work to Canada's advantage, and not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Amen .

 

[us2yow]

Incidentally, looks like they are discussing only standard budget stuff this Wednesday, May 28th.

Main Estimates 2014-15: Votes 1 and 5 under CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Vote 1 under IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6612533&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

 

[ms12001w]

Well said!

what does his mean? is this related to C24? is this a second reading?

any idea when the second reading will take place?

 

[daktrader]

Well Said!

Libra81,

I did not mean to sound confrontational, so sorry if it came out that way. I would encourage as many of us as possible to share their opinions here, so thank you for your contribution.

You are entitled to your opinion and I certainly won't try to spam you out of here (as does happen here ).

Here is what I meant to say. Conservatives, for some reason, love euphemisms and word play. That is why I mentioned Orwell (Big Brother, Ministry of Truth=Ministry of Lies etc.). If you think about it, you will probably remember that when you just came here, you were probably (just like me) confused by the language and especially job titles. Personal Support Worker sounded great halfway across the world, but here I learned my degreed friends were $hit cleaners, really . There are vacancies that are begging for Manager Trainees, when this person really does what no-one else will for the minimum wage. Visible minorities (or racialised minorities now) are a phrase not used elsewhere in the world.

That was to briefly illustrate the Cons' love of words. What I am trying to say is, be careful when you use their own constructs, there must be a trap there somewhere .

As on-hold pointed out, 'citizens of convenience' has not been defined, and nobody can tell the extent of the 'problem.' Also, why are naturalized citizens targeted by such a construct? A lot of smart Canadian-born folks got the hell out of Dodge looking for better jobs and livelihood, because there are no good jobs here. Would any of us be sitting here in substandard circumstances (a huge euphemism ) if we could go to, say Dubai, and make 200,000 there instead of the minimum wage here?

Of course, I do not think that what happened here was entirely intentional. The point system encouraged highly educated people for years, attracted too many of them (and mislead them into believing their education and skills are in demand here), and that depressed their value in the job market, and logically, inflated the value of skilled labour in the market. So, for a quick fix for your troubles, become a welder or a crane operator . Even that will take years though, because they put barriers in place (certification etc.) to make sure you are the last one to get the job.

I believe the real problem is this: the Cons want to prevent new citizens from leaving Canada, and they want to do that by force. The people targeted obviously feel that their best interests lie elsewhere (at least for the time being), but if the new law is passed, that should make them stay here and live a miserable life, while they can see better opportunities elsewhere (again, for the time being).

My question is, why does Canada feel it has to FORCE people to stay here against their best interest? Canada SHOULD be in their best interest if we expect those people to stay. If Canada has to resort to such measures, it means it has failed its residents. For some reason, there is a better life around the world than in the best country of the world.

My argument would be, why does not Canada work towards MAKING this place so good to everyone, that they simply choose to stay here, because it is in their best interest? Surely, nobody would go to Afghanistan (as I have) or similar countries to make some money there.

When the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that the 'Canadian experience' requirement was unconstitutional when interviewing candidates for jobs, they said that Canada might see braindrain, i.e. people going elsewhere because they do not want to be discriminated against. People who have travelled the world and made a lot of money, made a lot of sacrifices do not want to live in poverty for years. PhDs do not want to drive cabs. MDs do not want to be PSWs. It is demeaning and it is a shame.

Here is an interesting article that might provide some perspective:
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/land-of-misfortune/

To conclude, I think that even those we call 'citizens of convenience' experienced very little convenience and a lot of misery because they came to Canada. They were fooled by the point system into thinking they would be welcome here. Instead, they spend their savings here, and have to work for years to accomplish what Canadian-born (and often, Anglo-Saxon-born) folks take for granted. If immigrants find it hard to stay in Canada, then Canada might try treating them better (see the article above). So, I respect everyone's opinion, but I still feel Canadian citizens should be equal and free to go as they please. The laws of economics govern our lives and we simply go where our value is greatest at the time. This could actually work to Canada's advantage, and not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Amen .

 

[sthaeem]

what does his mean? is this related to C24? is this a second reading?

any idea when the second reading will take place?

According to some of the NDP MP offices: Second reading on May 28th in the house.

This is different then May 28th committee meeting.

 

[maza]

From Tolerance
To conclude, I think that even those we call 'citizens of convenience' experienced very little convenience and a lot of misery because they came to Canada. They were fooled by the point system into thinking they would be welcome here. Instead, they spend their savings here, and have to work for years to accomplish what Canadian-born (and often, Anglo-Saxon-born) folks take for granted. If immigrants find it hard to stay in Canada, then Canada might try treating them better (see the article above). So, I respect everyone's opinion, but I still feel Canadian citizens should be equal and free to go as they please. The laws of economics govern our lives and we simply go where our value is greatest at the time. This could actually work to Canada's advantage, and not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. Amen .

[/quote

Great Conclusion Tolerance...

I think CANADA is going to loose it's competitivity over time because of these LAWS... i am a doc and immigrated as a doc , but when i arrived i was shocked to know that most of my degrees( That were recognised when i applied for immigration) are not recognised in Canada and that they want me to repeat all the training i ever had, instead of testing me and see if i am good enough to work and practice here, while doctors from ANGLO-SAXO countries.. have their degrees certified and immediately start working and making 10 times more than other doctors.. so why do they want these well educated and smart people to stay here for?? to work as a taxi driver when you used to work as a specialist doc in many other countries and even get paid more than specialists here??

the current situation is a win-win thing... but the new law will interrupt the balance... the thing is .. having lived here for years , i like CANADA and want the system to change in a way that would make it here more attracive for smart people .. so we can all benefir from them..

 

[pedram19518]

CanV,

Understandably, people are worried - with the level of worry probably being higher for those who most likely will end up applying somewhere nearer the border line between the regime of the old/new rules.

For example, you could argue that PRs who moved and resided here anywhere from 2009 to 2011 (2011 being the outer limit) could still apply under the old rules which are still in force as we speak (or write). Once you transition to PRs who moved to reside in Canada only in 2012 or later it becomes increasingly clear that they are most likely going to automatically apply under the new rules, since by 2015 the new law - whatever its final form - will be in force.

So, fair to say that the ones who are most jumpy /nervous/jittery are the 2009-2011 arrivals and full time residents in Canada who are in "varying degrees of readiness to apply in 2014".

I got my PR in March 2012, and will be eligible to apply for citizenship on June 23rd! Then it s better if they make the new law applicable to any one who's got his PR after 2012.

 

[CanV]

Incidentally, looks like they are discussing only standard budget stuff this Wednesday, May 28th.

Main Estimates 2014-15: Votes 1 and 5 under CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Vote 1 under IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6612533&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

Whats all that, I dont get it. Couldnt they just say second reading if it was second reading?

 

[us2yow]

Nope. It was scheduled a long time ago. See point no. 1 in minutes below from April 1, 2014 Committee meeting (and nope this aint no April Fool joke ;D)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6508928&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

So, he's doing it within the prescribed timeframe and very close to the stipulated deadline.