Bill C-24 Committee Stage

[shaazdeh]

Thank you so much. That was the comprehensive answer. You gave me hopes I can apply for my citizenship on Oct 3 this year by current law! I just wanna apply and done with this citizenship business.

Let's hope for the best

 

[danpat]

I'm in the same situation, I'll become eligible around Sept 15th under the current rules. I'm hoping either to apply under the current rules, or that they will extend rather than eliminate the days-before-PR rules. There are several groups yet to speak who will raise the removal of days-before-PR as a major issue (one group has pointed out that there is a "Canadian Experience" PR category, which surely demonstrates experience in Canada that should be counted towards citizenship).

 

[shaazdeh]

Yeah, I have the pre-PR days issue too LOL

If the process goes as slowly as it is now, we both should be eligible

 

[us2yow]

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.

As far back as Feb/March, first a reporter covering the introduction of bill C-24 and then the Minister himself in some interview said they expect it to pass ....sometime end of the year...

Even if it gets carried over after Summer break and is still in House of Commons for 3rd reading and wrap up, it will move into Senate and go through the motions etc and I would think...still make it to end of year deadline for Assent... ONLY AFTER WHICH when the new bill becomes effective will be known.... even there it could be right away in Jan 2015 or still with some grace period and say a future date in 2015...

But all that is minor detail with the big detail all happening now until Royal Assent happens. I guess it is fair to say that those applying in 2015 will likely fall into the new rules (with those qualifying earlier in the year possibly lucky if the coming into force of the new law is staggered to a later 2015 date)

 

[danpat]

I think you're right, early next year is likely. My hunch is that the current government wants to use reduced processing times and "stronger laws" as a platform for the next election (approx Oct 2015). They'll need the bill to be law for 6 months to get any decent statistics.

 

[shaazdeh]

Just to be clear, when all the process finish, they announce when the law will be effective, so they set the date for or can they just be quiet about it and one morning the announce that it is effective from today?

 

[chakrab]

obviously they have to set a date. they need to train the officers as well.

 

[shaazdeh]

Thank you

 

[dr_majed8835]

Hi guys,

Is the meeting at 1:30pm EST?
How can I watch it online?

 

[handsomeishere]

Fingers crossed, my 1095 days would be completed on october 8 , if law stays the same the would be applying this october

As far back as Feb/March, first a reporter covering the introduction of bill C-24 and then the Minister himself in some interview said they expect it to pass ....sometime end of the year...

Even if it gets carried over after Summer break and is still in House of Commons for 3rd reading and wrap up, it will move into Senate and go through the motions etc and I would think...still make it to end of year deadline for Assent... ONLY AFTER WHICH when the new bill becomes effective will be known.... even there it could be right away in Jan 2015 or still with some grace period and say a future date in 2015...

But all that is minor detail with the big detail all happening now until Royal Assent happens. I guess it is fair to say that those applying in 2015 will likely fall into the new rules (with those qualifying earlier in the year possibly lucky if the coming into force of the new law is staggered to a later 2015 date)

 

[dr_majed8835]

Is it 1:30 EST?
Because they are discussing other stuff now

 

[dr_majed8835]

Any good or bad news from today's meeting.

 

[danpat]

Today was all lawyers as witnesses. Some were for, some were against. All agreed that the wording of some clauses was poor and should be re-written. Key points:

- intent to reside - although the Minister has said it's not intended to apply after citizenship, all the lawyers agreed that that's not how it is worded, and that while the current government may do what they say, it's open for abuse in the future. It probably conflicts with several sections of the charter, most agreed that it would not survive a supreme court challenge.

- criminal conduct of dual citizens opens all kinds of doors for abuse. The wording says that conviction elsewhere may lead to loss of Canadian citizenship, which may lead to foreign unfriendly governments making false convictions to have Canadian citizenship revoked from dual citizens who partake in peaceful protest while overseas. Other examples like this were raised.

- the ability revoke citizenship of natural born citizens is also a possibility, if they inherit citizenship through their parents to another country. Technically, the wording would allow a genocidal foreign government to declare a Canadian dual citizen as a terrorist (i.e. Tamils in Sri Lanka) which would technically allow the Canadian government to revoke natural born Canadian citizenship. Most lawyers agreed that the bill should be altered.

- there was some discussion about the unfairness of broadening the language requirements, highlighting in particular some of the refugee classes that would find those requirements difficult to meet.

Most of the discussion revolved around those topics. The meeting was what I would expect from a bunch of lawyers, they were very focused on the actual wording of the bill and quite concerned with what it said, whether it was constitutional, and why/how the wording differed from the stated intention of the current government.

Overall, I would definitely expect to see a few changes to the bill based on today's meeting. These are the people that will end up in court arguing cases related to the bill in the future, so I suspect their opinions will be noted.

 

[spartacus]

sadly enough none of the three main parties are standing against the bill :-X

 

[danpat]

One of the Liberal MPs today said "the law could stay exactly the same as long as they fix the appalling processing delays".

On the whole though, nobody is fully against the bill, it introduces several elements and uses the word "terrorist" enough that it would be political suicide to be against it on the whole.

There are significant discussions occurring regarding the major changes though, I would hope that some of the more egregious parts will be modified or removed.