Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[zardoz]

Maybe they should adopt a few ideas from the UK. Spouses of citizens have a shorter residency requirement and no intent to reside restrictions?

 

[Tolerance]

I guess you need to read my answer again and again. Everything is very clear there. But if some people don't wanna understand its there choice. In either way weather they like it or not this bill gonna pass.

And these lawyers always come in action to gain popularity. A supreme court cannot object on the law made by elected representatives of Canada.

Further, most resistance against this bill is from International Students who became PR. But I don't know why ...... What I know is neither USA nor Australia count the time people use to spend before the Green Card or Permanent Visa towards citizenship. So its just the right move.

"Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing"

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/path-us-citizenship


So I dont find anything super natural in the bill.

The Supreme Court CANNOT stop a bill. But it can review the constitutionality of a LAW and its compliance with the Charter.

That is why Galati will wait for the bill to become law, and then challenge it within 5 days. He probably has the paperwork and his argument ready to go.

The Canadian Bar confirmed this to me ( you challenge a law but not a bill) and said they will act as an intervenor in case of a challenge.

This is federal legislation, so they first go to the Federal Court, then if challenge fails, to the Federal Court of Appeal, and if it fails again, then the Supreme Court I believe... This would take five years perhaps.

I also do not understand why legislation in other countries should strengthen the case for legislation here. It seems to me when there isn't a good aegument in favor, people try that. Canada is a unique place, with huge immigration numbers, and affecting lives of millions after they spent years i n Canada working towards a goal is not ok. What if Rogers icreased your bill to 200% halfway through your contract? Here, the consequences are much greater, it is inhumane, and you don't get to complain.

 

[zardoz]

The Supreme Court CANNOT stop a bill. But it can review the constitutionality of a LAW and its compliance with the Charter.

That is why Galati will wait for the bill to become law, and then challenge it within 5 days. He probably has the paperwork and his argument ready to go.

The Canadian Bar confirmed this to me ( you challenge a law but not a bill) and said they will act as an intervenor in case of a challenge.

This is federal legislation, so they first go to the Federal Court, then if challenge fails, to the Federal Court of Appeal, and if it fails again, then the Supreme Court I believe... This would take five years perhaps.

I also do not understand why legislation in other countries should strengthen the case for legislation here. It seems to me when there isn't a good aegument in favor, people try that. Canada is a unique place, with huge immigration numbers, and affecting lives of millions after they spent years i n Canada working towards a goal is not ok. What if Rogers icreased your bill to 200% halfway through your contract? Here, the consequences are much greater, it is inhumane, and you don't get to complain.

Agreed... Canada should hold to the PROMISES that were made during TRV and PR applications.

 

[meyakanor]

I guess you need to read my answer again and again. Everything is very clear there. But if some people don't wanna understand its there choice. In either way weather they like it or not this bill gonna pass.

And these lawyers always come in action to gain popularity. A supreme court cannot object on the law made by elected representatives of Canada.

Further, most resistance against this bill is from International Students who became PR. But I don't know why ...... What I know is neither USA nor Australia count the time people use to spend before the Green Card or Permanent Visa towards citizenship. So its just the right move.

What you said about not counting pre-green card time was true, but Australia requires 4 years of legal residency, with at least one year as a permanent resident. So let's say you come to Australia, and spend five years as a foreign worker before becoming a PR. Then if you did not leave the country for more than one year within the last 4 years, and no more than three months within the last 12 months, you can apply for naturalization one year after becoming a PR.

To satisfy the residence requirements you must have:

4 years lawful residence in Australia. This period must include 12 months as a permanent resident immediately before making an application for Australian citizenship
and
absences from Australia of no more than 12 months in total in the 4 years prior to application, including not more than 90 days in the 12 months immediately prior to application.

Lawful residence means residence in Australia on a temporary or permanent visa.
https://www.ecom.immi.gov.au/citz/startIntervalCalc.do

Only the last 12 months need to strictly be under permanent residency, with time under student and working visas counting one-to-one for up to the first three years of the last four year period.

The UK has longer residency period, a.k.a 5 years, but even for the UK, you only need to have held the indefinite leave to remain (similar to PR in Canada and Australia) for the last 12 months, so we see how pre-PR legal time in the country can be counted up to 4 years of the five year period. Check point #4 under the residency requirement, page 5 of

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/300182/booklet-an.pdf

 

[anon123]

The lack of the right of appeal if your Citizenship is removed because the minister is convinced you never had the "intend to reside", is an issue that needs to be addressed and will probably be the subject of a constitutional appeal.

Why is it not addressed by the bill then? Why are all the witnesses and opposition MPs dimissed when they bring it up? Is it not the "spirit of the law" in a democracy that an elected individual does not have the absolute power to determine who is a subject of the state and who is not?

Although if the "intend to reside" clause applies to you it would probably be risky to leave Canada permanently less than 12 months after getting your Citizenship unless there is an obvious and unexpected change to your circumstances.

Why should a naturalized citizen's rights granted by the Charter be subject to probability and risk? Where are the 12 months "probationary Citizenship period" defined? When should a naturalized citizen in Canada wake up and feel at home?

I agree with the reasons behind the "intent to reside", but I don't agree with treating naturalized citizens as second class citizens. If the Minister claims the applicant had no intent to reside, he/she should be required to present lawfully obtained evidence or witnesses in front of a judge, allowing the citizen to defend his/her case, and presuming the citizen is innocent until proven guilty. Then there needs to be at least one opportunity for appeal. That's what a person immigrating to a leading democracy like Canada expects. Is it too much?

 

[Ansieh]

what a weird bill.... my brother just like me are dual citizens (Canada being one of them) since 2002. My brother went back to our birth country in 2009 to study in local university for 5 years, and he plans to return to Canada and work in august 2014 and stay in my place. I hope he does not lose his Canadian citizenship

 

[Shaxin]

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.

 

[taleodor]

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.

The law is technically approved. All amendments have been rejected. Not a single change has been made in the course of the hearings. That looks more like 'ignorance and arrogance' from the governing party, not from us.

Again, please read the thread and the papers prepared by organizations which represent thousands of lawyers. They don't see any clarity in this bill.

 

[MrB]

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.

There are no assumptions here my friend. It is true that a lot of people don't know what they are talking about in regards to the bill, however many people hold informed perspectives based on the expert analysis done on the bill, more specifically the numerous ambiguities. The same can be argued for you as a yeasayer, stop being ignorant and arrogant by assuming a perfect deal has been drafted and tabled.

 

[canadian88]

We wont be able to leave country anymore for any reason. it is sad. They try to take my mobility right . They can't revoke my citizenship if l don''t live in Canada for 10 15 years. i will sue them . Canada won't be Democratic country anymore after this law.

 

[thepolestar]

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??

 

[marcus66502]

I got an e-mail from a very reliable source (an acquaintance who is close the Minister's staff) that once the new bill takes effect the Minister plans to authorize the creation of a special task force within CIC to investigate cases of new citizens who are absent from Canada for long periods of time and have not filed tax returns with CRA, for possible revocation proceedings on grounds of fraud (misrepresentation of intent to live in Canada at time of oath).

 

[marcus66502]

........ just kidding of course but you almost believed me, didn't you? (be honest now)

;D ;D ;D

 

[anya]

We wont be able to leave country anymore for any reason. it is sad. They try to take my mobility right . They can't revoke my citizenship if l don''t live in Canada for 10 15 years. i will sue them . Canada won't be Democratic country anymore after this law.

How? Just curious as you won't be able to enter the country because you won't be a citizen anymore.

 

[handsomeishere]

Ha ha ha, you almost got me

........ just kidding of course but you almost believed me, didn't you? (be honest now)

;D ;D ;D