Bill C-24 Committee Stage

[vvppaa]

sashali78,


I am aware of your group and definately supporting it. However, my question was mostly about the other 5 meetings that conservatives, Liberals and NDPs will witness. I would appreciate if you can share the dates for each of these meetings.

 

[sashali78]

sashali78,


I am aware of your group and definately supporting it. However, my question was mostly about the other 5 meetings that conservatives, Liberals and NDPs will witness. I would appreciate if you can share the dates for each of these meetings.

Thank you. Here is a link to committee page where some information is available: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committeebusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?Cmte=CIMM&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Unfortunately, I can only share the timing/process for my group testimony...

 

[vvppaa]

Thanks!

 

[Xenophon2010]

For April 30th:

Orders of the Day Ordre du jour

Televised Télévisée

Subject Matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Objet du projet de loi C-24, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la citoyenneté et d'autres lois en conséquence

Witnesses Témoins

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 15 h 30 à 16 h 30

Canadian Bar Association Association du Barreau canadien

*Christopher Veeman, Executive Member
National Immigration Law Section *Christopher Veeman, membre de l'Éxécutif
Section nationale du droit de l'immigration

Barbara Jackman, Member
National Immigration Law Section Barbara Jackman, membre
Section nationale du droit de l'immigration

Kerri Froc, Staff Lawyer
Law Reform and Equality Kerri Froc, avocate-conseil à l'interne
Réforme du droit et Égalité

As an individual À titre personnel

Robin Seligman, Barrister and Solicitor Robin Seligman, avocate et procureure

Videoconference - Vancouver, British Columbia Vidéoconférence - Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique

As an individual À titre personnel

Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst Richard Kurland, avocat et analyste de la politique

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 16 h 30 à 17 h 30

B'nai Brith Canada B'nai Brith Canada

David Matas, Senior Honorary Counsel David Matas, avocat principal honoraire

Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas, Executive Director Debbie Douglas, directrice générale

Videoconference - Vancouver, British Columbia Vidéoconférence - Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique

Centre for Immigration Policy Reform Centre pour une Réforme des Politiques d'Immigration

Martin Collacott, Spokesperson

 

[glowingheart]

it says televised what channel?

For April 30th:

Orders of the Day Ordre du jour

Televised Télévisée

Subject Matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Objet du projet de loi C-24, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la citoyenneté et d'autres lois en conséquence

Witnesses Témoins

3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. 15 h 30 à 16 h 30

Canadian Bar Association Association du Barreau canadien

*Christopher Veeman, Executive Member
National Immigration Law Section *Christopher Veeman, membre de l'Éxécutif
Section nationale du droit de l'immigration

Barbara Jackman, Member
National Immigration Law Section Barbara Jackman, membre
Section nationale du droit de l'immigration

Kerri Froc, Staff Lawyer
Law Reform and Equality Kerri Froc, avocate-conseil à l'interne
Réforme du droit et Égalité

As an individual À titre personnel

Robin Seligman, Barrister and Solicitor Robin Seligman, avocate et procureure

Videoconference - Vancouver, British Columbia Vidéoconférence - Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique

As an individual À titre personnel

Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst Richard Kurland, avocat et analyste de la politique

4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. 16 h 30 à 17 h 30

B'nai Brith Canada B'nai Brith Canada

David Matas, Senior Honorary Counsel David Matas, avocat principal honoraire

Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)

Debbie Douglas, Executive Director Debbie Douglas, directrice générale

Videoconference - Vancouver, British Columbia Vidéoconférence - Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique

Centre for Immigration Policy Reform Centre pour une Réforme des Politiques d'Immigration

Martin Collacott, Spokesperson

 

[Xenophon2010]

You can find it on ParlVU (has a link on the meetings page, on top right corner).

Go on event info and you watch old casts as well as live casts:

"parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11595"

 

[vvppaa]

Hi,


Anyone has any news from April 28 meeting?


Thanks

 

[danpat]

The minutes aren't posted yet, but you can listen to the whole thing here (remove spaces after http

http: //parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11650

The main things I took away:

1) The "intent to reside" requirement is poorly worded, the Minister understood it to apply to the period before citizenship is obtained. If you are called or moved overseas after citizenship is obtained (i.e. your intent changes), they do *not* intend you to lose your citizenship.
It was pretty clearly highlighted by a questioner that this makes the intent clause pointless. The conversation here ended with an impasse. I would expect at least the wording to change on this clause, it was obvious to all that it made no sense as it currently stands (it was not clear how to enforce it, when it would apply, etc).

2) They plan to speed up processing to <1 year by:
- increased capacity, they're hiring more officers
- simplifying the process to 1 step, rather than 3, with the new officers being able to fully process applications, with far fewer requiring the intervention of a citizenship judge
- people meeting the residence requirement is the main source of contention for applications, should be simplified in the future by electronic entry/exit records (which are being implemented now)

3) Regarding the elimination of pre-PR time. Only about 13% of applicants use time before PR to count towards residence. The government feels that they should only count time after PR as that is when people indicate an intent to stay in Canada.

There were other questions on language requirements and revocation due to criminal/terrorist activities, but I didn't pay much attention to those as they wouldn't affect me personally.

Decisions are not made during these meetings, mostly just broadcasting of queries and currently known answers. It will be interesting to see if the ministers position changes on any of the questions in the upcoming meetings.

 

[daktrader]

Thanks!
please do keep us all posted.

The minutes aren't posted yet, but you can listen to the whole thing here (remove spaces after http

http: //parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11650

The main things I took away:

1) The "intent to reside" requirement is poorly worded, the Minister understood it to apply to the period before citizenship is obtained. If you are called or moved overseas after citizenship is obtained (i.e. your intent changes), they do *not* intend you to lose your citizenship.
It was pretty clearly highlighted by a questioner that this makes the intent clause pointless. The conversation here ended with an impasse. I would expect at least the wording to change on this clause, it was obvious to all that it made no sense as it currently stands (it was not clear how to enforce it, when it would apply, etc).

2) They plan to speed up processing to <1 year by:
- increased capacity, they're hiring more officers
- simplifying the process to 1 step, rather than 3, with the new officers being able to fully process applications, with far fewer requiring the intervention of a citizenship judge
- people meeting the residence requirement is the main source of contention for applications, should be simplified in the future by electronic entry/exit records (which are being implemented now)

3) Regarding the elimination of pre-PR time. Only about 13% of applicants use time before PR to count towards residence. The government feels that they should only count time after PR as that is when people indicate an intent to stay in Canada.

There were other questions on language requirements and revocation due to criminal/terrorist activities, but I didn't pay much attention to those as they wouldn't affect me personally.

Decisions are not made during these meetings, mostly just broadcasting of queries and currently known answers. It will be interesting to see if the ministers position changes on any of the questions in the upcoming meetings.

 

[handsomeishere]

Cheers , ,

The minutes aren't posted yet, but you can listen to the whole thing here (remove spaces after http

http: //parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11650

The main things I took away:

1) The "intent to reside" requirement is poorly worded, the Minister understood it to apply to the period before citizenship is obtained. If you are called or moved overseas after citizenship is obtained (i.e. your intent changes), they do *not* intend you to lose your citizenship.
It was pretty clearly highlighted by a questioner that this makes the intent clause pointless. The conversation here ended with an impasse. I would expect at least the wording to change on this clause, it was obvious to all that it made no sense as it currently stands (it was not clear how to enforce it, when it would apply, etc).

2) They plan to speed up processing to <1 year by:
- increased capacity, they're hiring more officers
- simplifying the process to 1 step, rather than 3, with the new officers being able to fully process applications, with far fewer requiring the intervention of a citizenship judge
- people meeting the residence requirement is the main source of contention for applications, should be simplified in the future by electronic entry/exit records (which are being implemented now)

3) Regarding the elimination of pre-PR time. Only about 13% of applicants use time before PR to count towards residence. The government feels that they should only count time after PR as that is when people indicate an intent to stay in Canada.

There were other questions on language requirements and revocation due to criminal/terrorist activities, but I didn't pay much attention to those as they wouldn't affect me personally.

Decisions are not made during these meetings, mostly just broadcasting of queries and currently known answers. It will be interesting to see if the ministers position changes on any of the questions in the upcoming meetings.

 

[civic]

The minutes aren't posted yet, but you can listen to the whole thing here (remove spaces after http

http: //parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11650

The main things I took away:

1) The "intent to reside" requirement is poorly worded, the Minister understood it to apply to the period before citizenship is obtained. If you are called or moved overseas after citizenship is obtained (i.e. your intent changes), they do *not* intend you to lose your citizenship.
It was pretty clearly highlighted by a questioner that this makes the intent clause pointless. The conversation here ended with an impasse. I would expect at least the wording to change on this clause, it was obvious to all that it made no sense as it currently stands (it was not clear how to enforce it, when it would apply, etc).

2) They plan to speed up processing to <1 year by:
- increased capacity, they're hiring more officers
- simplifying the process to 1 step, rather than 3, with the new officers being able to fully process applications, with far fewer requiring the intervention of a citizenship judge
- people meeting the residence requirement is the main source of contention for applications, should be simplified in the future by electronic entry/exit records (which are being implemented now)

3) Regarding the elimination of pre-PR time. Only about 13% of applicants use time before PR to count towards residence. The government feels that they should only count time after PR as that is when people indicate an intent to stay in Canada.

There were other questions on language requirements and revocation due to criminal/terrorist activities, but I didn't pay much attention to those as they wouldn't affect me personally.

Decisions are not made during these meetings, mostly just broadcasting of queries and currently known answers. It will be interesting to see if the ministers position changes on any of the questions in the upcoming meetings.

The 13% of applicants representing foreign students and skilled workers do not deserve to be considered for their intergration efforts. 13% is a small number to CIC and the Minister doesn't care. Wow!

 

[meyakanor]

I haven't seen the whole thing, but Alexander did not seem to have a clear-cut answer to the question posed by John Collum on intent to reside after citizenship. Alexander kept on talking that the intent-to-reside clause is there to ensure that permanent residents physically reside in Canada for four years out of six years to qualify for citizenship, and to get rid of the ambiguity in the meaning of 'residency' under the current law.

I don't understand. The proposed bill C-24 has already made it very clear that physical presence would be required for four out of the last six years. If the intention of the clause was to make sure that the residency requirement is crystal clear, I really think that it has already been accomplished by the phsyical presence requirements. I really thought that it would just be a binary on whether you have the required number of days of physical presence or not. The intent to reside need not be there if all they care about is whether a person is physically present in Canada for four years BEFORE becoming citizens. My suggestion: implement exit checks for non citizens (like in the UK or Australia, except that exit checks apply to UK and Australian citizens as well in these countries), and we would not have to worry about residency fraud anymore.

The wording of the clause is clear that the intent-to-reside is for AFTER the grant of citizenship. As it is, despite the practicality of enforcement and despite what Alexander said the intention was, it provides a loop-hole for the government to revoke, or at least, charge for citizenship revocation for any naturalized citizens that have moved out of the country (they can easily claim misrepresentation or fraud, and all of a sudden, one's citizenship would be in jeopardy and you would have to defend yourself).


EDIT: his word (translated from French) when asked by Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe on the declaration of intent to reside in Canada

The declaration of intent to reside in Canada relates to the four year period (in the context of the new bill), the four year period out of six for which the person must reside in Canada to qualify, NOT the period of time after receiving the citizenship.

Again, I don't understand. The provision of bill C-24 is clear that the intent to reside must apply AFTER the grant of citizenship, and not before. I agree with John Cullum that if it was meant for before the grant of citizenship, then it is redundant.

 

[youqing]

I am certainly sure that the 13% number is largely flawed.

Here is the case:
Most people submit their Citizenship application with counting the PR days. But the Citizenship application process is so long that many of them have enough residence time when their case is reviewed.

In addition, if the government raise the required PR time for Citizenship application from 2 years to 4 years, then definitely more than 13% people will be affected.

What dirty politicians we have!

The minutes aren't posted yet, but you can listen to the whole thing here (remove spaces after http

http: //parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?lang=en&ContentEntityId=11650

The main things I took away:

1) The "intent to reside" requirement is poorly worded, the Minister understood it to apply to the period before citizenship is obtained. If you are called or moved overseas after citizenship is obtained (i.e. your intent changes), they do *not* intend you to lose your citizenship.
It was pretty clearly highlighted by a questioner that this makes the intent clause pointless. The conversation here ended with an impasse. I would expect at least the wording to change on this clause, it was obvious to all that it made no sense as it currently stands (it was not clear how to enforce it, when it would apply, etc).

2) They plan to speed up processing to <1 year by:
- increased capacity, they're hiring more officers
- simplifying the process to 1 step, rather than 3, with the new officers being able to fully process applications, with far fewer requiring the intervention of a citizenship judge
- people meeting the residence requirement is the main source of contention for applications, should be simplified in the future by electronic entry/exit records (which are being implemented now)

3) Regarding the elimination of pre-PR time. Only about 13% of applicants use time before PR to count towards residence. The government feels that they should only count time after PR as that is when people indicate an intent to stay in Canada.

There were other questions on language requirements and revocation due to criminal/terrorist activities, but I didn't pay much attention to those as they wouldn't affect me personally.

Decisions are not made during these meetings, mostly just broadcasting of queries and currently known answers. It will be interesting to see if the ministers position changes on any of the questions in the upcoming meetings.

 

[shaazdeh]

Hi folks,

Does anyone know when is the reading 2?? Would it be May 7th?

Thanks

 

[danpat]

The second reading will probably conclude after the Standing Committee finishes discussing the bill. The committee has 5 meetings allocated to discussing the issue. April 28th, 30th and May 7th are the only ones I can find dates for right now.

Once the committee is done, I imagine more time will be allocated to finish the second reading. They ran out of allocated time to conclude the second reading, mostly because of the debate raised. The Leader of the House (Peter Van Loan) has indicated that they will put forward a motion to allocate more time to conclude the reading, but that has not yet happened, I suspect they're waiting to see what happens during the committee discussions.

Once the second reading is completed, and the committee returns its report, the third reading and vote by the House of Commons will occur.

Once the bill passes the House of Commons, it will go to the Senate and go through basically the same process (perhaps faster if there are few objections and concerns have already been addressed by the HoC).

After the Senate passes it for Royal Assent, it will become law.

This all needs to happen before about June 15th. Otherwise, it'll be delayed until after the summer recess, which usually ends about mid-September. Given the size and nature of the bill, I wouldn't expect it to pass into law before the summer recess, much likely later in the year.