Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Matt the Aussie]

...

Here's a scenario in which a PR's oath of intent could be called into question. They take the oath of intent to reside, become a citizen. Three months later they leave Canada to care for an aging mother who is ill. The mother dies, leaves them a bunch of money in their home country. They settle down to sort things out. Later, the government shows that the mother's illness predated the Oath of Intent -- did this PR REALLY intend to reside afterwards?

...

This. EXACTLY this. How does this citizen prove against the CIC's accusations?

 

[torontosm]

Imagine, you're in a court room about this. And you bring up an argument to the judge that some MP has said something about the bill. Does that not make you laugh?

As opposed to relying upon the views of people who may/may not have read the text of the bill and are just commenting on Internet forums?

 

[torontosm]

In this case, you can and you will. The case I invoked is just a proof of concept that can happen. Here's the guy's official website, if you prefer http://www.justicefordeepan.org/

If bill C-24 is passed there will be much more cases of people being stateless. Again, no one will care about the Parliament debate once the bill is passed.

You need to understand the unique attributes of the case. The Canadian government maintains that Deepan was never actually a citizen, and that is passport was issued in error. Their position is that as his parents were diplomats, he was not eligible for citizenship despite being born in Canada, and that he was actually Indian by birth. That is very different than stripping anyone else of citizenship and making them stateless.

Again, if you go back and actually read the parliamentary transcripts where the bill is being debated, you will see the Minister himself saying that NO ONE will ever be made stateless by this bill, and that the "citizenship stripping" clause relates only to dual citizens. Now if you wish to ignore this, and try and warp unrelated cases to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

 

[meyakanor]

In this case, you can and you will. The case I invoked is just a proof of concept that can happen. Here's the guy's official website, if you prefer http://www.justicefordeepan.org/

The problem with Budlakoti's case is the fact that his parents were under diplomatic status when he was born, so he was never really a citizen to begin with (despite the fact that he was born in Canada). He was issued passport (and all other documents citizens are entitled to) not because he was a citizen by mistake, but because Passport Canada mistook his citizenship status.

It was not his fault, so I guess he can probably make some H&C arguments, but the position of the government was clear in that he was never a citizen to begin with, and any court decisions would have to take this fact into account (and the fact that the Canadian government never really revoked his citizenship status since he never had it to begin with).

This is a bit different than the case of Thiara vs. Canada, where the man was accused of misrepresentation on his citizenship application, but the court later decided that his citizenship was granted by mistake. He was already granted the citizenship, albeit by mistaken, the court dealt later that he would get to keep it (no revocation) since there was no evidence of intentional misrepresentation on his part.

Again, if you go back and actually read the parliamentary transcripts where the bill is being debated, you will see the Minister himself saying that NO ONE will ever be made stateless by this bill, and that the "citizenship stripping" clause relates only to dual citizens. Now if you wish to ignore this, and try and warp unrelated cases to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

A person can still, at least in theory, be rendered stateless by this bill if the government decides that he/she misrepresents his intent to reside in Canada BEFORE the person becomes a citizen. Revocation that may render to statelessness is not prohibited, provided that the citizenship has been gained through fraudulent means or misrepresentation.

 

[torontosm]

I like your term 'deserve' citizenship; it shows that you feel that there are some applicants who do not 'deserve' citizenship. Receiving citizenship is a statutory process, the CIC officer is not determining if the applicant 'deserves' citizenship, they are determining if they meet the statutory requirements. People who hate immigrants worry about 'undeserving' foreigners getting this status. People who recognize that immigrants are also people don't judge the qualified applicants who apply.

Yes, I do believe that naturalized citizenship is a privilege to be earned, and not a right. To me, becoming Canadian is much more that satisfying minimum requirements and checking boxes.

I won't get into commenting on all the hypothetical examples you raised as it's pointless. I'm sure the final text of the Law (once this Bill is passed) will provide sufficient details that any ambiguity will be eliminated.

 

[RAY2112]

Well said torontosm. Guys just wait, we are living in a great country. And be optimistic.

 

[us2yow]

such a mockery and joke ! disgusting !

 

[RAY2112]

Sorry Tolerance, I removed it.

 

[Tolerance]

Amendment defeated, voting on the main motion to refer the bill to committee. Second reading done.

 

[Tolerance]

140 yays vs 101 nays.

I wonder how much time the cons will allow the committee.

A number of people have said that the law will go through the houses before the summer recess,becoming law during the summer.

 

[us2yow]

There is when it will get Royal Assent ............

and more importantly what the Coming into Force details would be. With the exception of the Lost Canadians related one which is retroactive to April 2009, the dates for the rest will be set by the Governor in Council

 

[on-hold]

Yes, I do believe that naturalized citizenship is a privilege to be earned, and not a right. To me, becoming Canadian is much more that satisfying minimum requirements and checking boxes.

I won't get into commenting on all the hypothetical examples you raised as it's pointless. I'm sure the final text of the Law (once this Bill is passed) will provide sufficient details that any ambiguity will be eliminated.

My example isn't hypothetical at all, unless you take the position that out of the 250,000+ people who immigrate each year, none of them have aging parents who they might want to return to and care for, for an indefinite time. Since it's real, and since these people will be affected negatively by the clause you support, I'd like to hear your comment on it.

 

[Raincouver]

I don't understand about status very well...Can anybody explain what next step? Does this bill effect soon?

 

[torontosm]

My example isn't hypothetical at all, unless you take the position that out of the 250,000+ people who immigrate each year, none of them have aging parents who they might want to return to and care for, for an indefinite time. Since it's real, and since these people will be affected negatively by the clause you support, I'd like to hear your comment on it.

In his comments, the Minister said:

""It is important to note that the new rules would not restrict the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to the country just like other citizens. Rather, the purpose of the provision is to reinforce an expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to continue to reside in Canada. Once newcomers become citizens, they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians."

I'm not sure how much clearer he can be. Once the PR becomes a citizen, he/she is free to leave Canada for whatever reason, be it to take care of their parents or to pursue careers abroad. So, sitting here and hypothesizing about how Courts may interpret whether the person knew they would have to go back to their country of origin before they became a citizen or not is pointless as there would never be a court case in the first place. Once citizenship is conferred, then the provisions of the "intent to reside" clause have been satisfied.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

In his comments, the Minister said:

""It is important to note that the new rules would not restrict the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to the country just like other citizens. Rather, the purpose of the provision is to reinforce an expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to continue to reside in Canada. Once newcomers become citizens, they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians."

I'm not sure how much clearer he can be. Once the PR becomes a citizen, he/she is free to leave Canada for whatever reason, be it to take care of their parents or to pursue careers abroad. So, sitting here and hypothesizing about how Courts may interpret whether the person knew they would have to go back to their country of origin before they became a citizen or not is pointless as there would never be a court case in the first place. Once citizenship is conferred, then the provisions of the "intent to reside" clause have been satisfied.

How about by specifically writing this into the legislation?