C-24 Third reading (first time debated) on June 11, 2014

[access]

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 -- C-24 Third reading (first time debated) at 6:30 p.m

Voting — not later than the expiry of the 5 hours provided for debate, pursuant to Order made Monday, June 9, 2014.

 

[sicko86]

Wednesday, June 11, 2014 -- C-24 Third reading (first time debated) at 6:30 p.m

Voting — not later than the expiry of the 5 hours provided for debate, pursuant to Order made Monday, June 9, 2014.

That Sucks .. I though maybe it will take a little longer before passing it to the senate.

The Senate have 10 Business days to proceed with it before the summer break! (assuming that it passes today from the house of common).

I hope things will be different in the senate!

 

[Sharif11]

That Sucks .. I though maybe it will take a little longer before passing it to the senate.

The Senate have 10 Business days to proceed with it before the summer break! (assuming that it passes today from the house of common).

I hope things will be different in the senate!

The Senate is already debating it.

 

[sicko86]

The Senate is already debating it.

Yes but not as First Reading .. Pre-Study is not unique to that Bill .. this happens to many Bills.

Most likely it wont pass before June 27th (Last Day of Senate before summer break)... if that happened it will be insanity!

 

[Sharif11]

Yes but not as First Reading .. Pre-Study is not unique to that Bill .. this happens to many Bills.

Most likely it wont pass before June 27th (Last Day of Senate before summer break)... if that happened it will be insanity!

Totally agree.

 

[sicko86]

The Problem I just can't understand how the conservative party think ... All other parties in the Parliament are standing against the bill .. at least they should re-consider rewording the problematic part of the bill!

If we put our personal cases a side I dont see much problem in increasing residency requirement ... but this intent to reside clause look to be vague .. what defines if you intent to reside or if you didn't! What about Canadians who were born outside of Canada and never even came here (I know some)! why those shouldn't intent to reside?

According to the Minister of Immigration in one of the sessions, he said "intend to reside" applies to the 4 years out of 6? Ok if thats the case whats the value of this clause then .. you should stay anyways to be eligible! the whole thing is vague and will make naturalized citizens worried all the time.

 

[sicko86]

The Problem I just can't understand how the conservative party think ... All other parties in the Parliament are standing against the bill .. at least they should re-consider rewording the problematic part of the bill!

If we put our personal cases a side I dont see much problem in increasing residency requirement ... but this intent to reside clause look to be vague .. what defines if you intent to reside or if you didn't! What about Canadians who were born in Canada and left when they were babes and never even came here again (I know some)! why those shouldn't intent to reside?

According to the Minister of Immigration in one of the sessions, he said "intend to reside" applies to the 4 years out of 6? Ok if thats the case whats the value of this clause then .. you should stay anyways to be eligible! the whole thing is vague and will make naturalized citizens worried all the time.

 

[admontreal]

It applies to the 4 years in the sense that during their investigation, if they realize that you don't show enough proofs that you won't live in Canada, or if you apply and then leave, they are in their rights when denying your application.

That's all. The same as the Intent to reside in Quebec that you sign during your QSW Permanent residency application.

 

[sicko86]

It applies to the 4 years in the sense that during their investigation, if they realize that you don't show enough proofs that you won't live in Canada, or if you apply and then leave, they are in their rights when denying your application.

That's all. The same as the Intent to reside in Quebec that you sign during your QSW Permanent residency application.

Do you mean that this will just be part of applying to Citizenship and once granted thats it? Can't they just revoke it claiming you didnt intent to reside on fraudulent bases?

 

[admontreal]

Exactly, that's what I meant and that what they say it's supposed to be. But the way it's phrased gives the possibility (very unlikely and difficult to prove) that they could accuse you of misrepresentation after. But again the risk is very small and the best way to clear it is to clarify the phrasing of the clause. They're not trusthworthy enough.

 

[sicko86]

It make scene, People who want to reside here should only be allowed to get the citizen .. not people who are planning ahead of time to live only during the application period (3 years as for now) and leave immediately after, I know people who lived here exactly the required period and they left immediately after sending the application .. came back to the test/oath and left again .. they were never planning to live here .. they just wanted the citizenship as it is easier for them for travelling and as a backup plan! On the other hand, I know a friend of mine who intended to live here but got a great job offer in California and left few months after obtaining the citizen so this is different! The Problem here .. there is no criteria to define who intend to reside and who do not!

 

[sweetakash]

Heard that CIC is recruiting God as the delegate to the Minister of Immigration so that He can decide if an immigrant's intent to reside was true or not, because only God knows about it for sure.

 

[admontreal]

It may seem funny but in some countries, you can be charged and convicted with the following offense : 'Wrongful thoughts against the government' and be jailed for 15 years.

 

[sicko86]

Heard that CIC is recruiting God as the delegate to the Minister of Immigration so that He can decide if an immigrant's intent to reside was true or not, because only God knows about it for sure.

Lol .. The problem now for the new applicants they will be at risk of rejection even though they resided the required period on the basis that they didn't show an intent to reside in Canada! So nothing defines what that intend to reside means exactly and it will be up to the officer to understand it however he/she want. Thats is a real problem if this Bill became a law as is! Similarly visitors to Canada can be rejected a visitor visa on the basis that they didn't show a prove of real establishment in their home country and this is usually decided by the officer directly! I am just afraid this how the citizenship applications will be proceeded in the future!

 

[admontreal]

Well as long as they don't hire morons as Citizenship Officers...