Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[sicko86]

I second that. He tries to discredit everybody and everything, so I am afraid it is not as simple as him just having a different viewpoint. So when somebody wants to take things further along the lines of the law, I say it is ok to take our gloves off once in a while .

I don't want to defend him because I am personally against the Bill .. But you guys have to remember that the Conservatives won the elections and the Canadian people who voted for them! So he has the power now .. thats how the system works here .. 30K+ is nothing comparing to millions of Canadians who led the conservative to power ..thats how the game work! And there is always "Someone" who is against "something" in life .. I saw some pensions for people asking to "stop immigration to Canada"! I think we are in democratic country and if the Bill is passes "as is" .. it will be challenged in the court as unconstitutional and we will see what happens then!

 

[taleodor]

I am not talking the numbers here. I've already said before that 30k+ is actually a lot for a generally passive population.

But that's not the point. The point is that all he said about this petition is that someone has signed it without properly understanding its content. That clearly presumes that you, me, (or everyone else who's signed it) are so stupid that couldn't even understand what's in the petition. And also that we are defending terrorists. Don't you think, that's an insult?

 

[sicko86]

I am not talking the numbers here. I've already said before that 30k+ is actually a lot for a generally passive population.

But that's not the point. The point is that all he said about this petition is that someone has signed it without properly understanding its content. That clearly presumes that you, me, (or everyone else who's signed it) are so stupid that couldn't even understand what's in the petition. And also that we are defending terrorists. Don't you think, that's an insult?

Ya if thats the case I agree with you .. I didn't know he said we defend terrorists! If you disagree with the law doesnt mean you defend terrorists! thats insane.

 

[MrB]

If you've got something against the arguments raised by torontosm, then you come out and address those arguments. You don't attack the person, and you don't call him vulgar names.

By attacking the person, you've not only shown that you have no real arguments against what he says, you've essentially demonstrated that you yourself carry the negative characteristics you're attributing to him: you have an average 10 year old's IQ and lack the ability to critically and maturely address any issue.

The last fact stated by torontosm is correct: paying taxes does not in any way entitle you to eligibility for citizenship (correct in the sense that it can be proved so by pointing relevant citizenship law).

In general, I find that those who spent pre-PR time in Canada don't really have any valid arguments as to why it's unfair to eliminate the counting of pre-PR time for residence purposes, other than the fact that it inconveniences them. They try and try to appeal to emotions by saying they've been paying taxes and contributing to society but those arguments don't hold water when viewed from the side of someone not in that pre-PR group. Like I said before, if one person pays tax, everyone has to pay tax, and taxes are not conditional on anything else. What you're saying in essence is "I want to work in this country but since I'm not a permanent resident (yet) I should be exempt from taxes." You don't pass the laughing test.

As for you contributing to society (if we take the word in its literal sense), I bet a lot of Canadians beg to differ. They would see that you came here to study but then took work off campus that could be filled by a Canadian. Contribute to society my a**. You filled your own wallet with income that needs half a lifetime to be earned in some countries.

There you have it! Come out and say this isn't true (without calling ME names this time).

I strongly agree that the tax argument from some pre-PR folks is weak. However I think the elimination of pre-pr times is retrogressive and counter-productive when it concerns strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act. The reasons being:

1/ The minister in a press release published by CBC on the 24th of January stated that his motive for increasing residency times and eliminating pre -PR times was "That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about." If we go by the minister's quote, those who have been here long before obtaining PR such as the Canadian Experience Class are more likely to have integrated into Canada, hence know the value of Canadian citizenship.

2/ When the Canadian Experience Class was created, it was in recognition that those who have been trained in Canada i.e. both academically and professionally are of great value to Canada based on their experience. Here's my point, the government has already established and acknowledged that the Canadian Experience is very valuable to nation building, however when it comes to citizenship, do we just fall short of the experience? aren't we good enough? (I actually laughed out life typing that point).

3/ The minister also stated in parliament that another reason for eliminating pre-PR times, was so that everybody could be on equal grounds and to avoid confusion...lmao! Where is the logic in that? No, disrespect but that's not where Canada should be fighting for equality. The sad but simple reality, is that all immigrants are not equal and this has nothing to do with social status, it's simply in Canadian experience.

4/ If you want to tackle the issue of "citizenship of convenience" isn't it logical that it's those that have been here for longer i.e the pre-pr folks that are likely to stay? To me it's common sense! I think what you ought to ask is what's the justification for eliminating pre-pr times. I haven't heard one convincing argument from the minister or anyone in this forum.

People are being accused for being sentimental for opposing the elimination of pre-PR times, but they haven't admitted that their support for the bill is also sentimental and based on the perception, (lies been fed by the govt) an illusion of the integrity of Canadian citizenship being at risk. When in essence it's a cheap tool to score political points for the upcoming elections.

 

[Sharif11]

I strongly agree that the tax argument from some pre-PR folks is weak. However I think the elimination of pre-pr times is retrogressive and counter-productive when it concerns strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act. The reasons being:

1/ The minister in a press release published by CBC on the 24th of January stated that his motive for increasing residency times and eliminating pre -PR times was "That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about." If we go by the minister's quote, those who have been here long before obtaining PR such as the Canadian Experience Class are more likely to have integrated into Canada, hence know the value of Canadian citizenship.

2/ When the Canadian Experience Class was created, it was in recognition that those who have been trained in Canada i.e. both academically and professionally are of great value to Canada based on their experience. Here's my point, the government has already established and acknowledged that the Canadian Experience is very valuable to nation building, however when it comes to citizenship, do we just fall short of the experience? aren't we good enough? (I actually laughed out life typing that point).

3/ The minister also stated in parliament that another reason for eliminating pre-PR times, was so that everybody could be on equal grounds and to avoid confusion...lmao! Where is the logic in that? No, disrespect but that's not where Canada should be fighting for equality. The sad but simple reality, is that all immigrants are not equal and this has nothing to do with social status, it's simply in Canadian experience.

4/ If you want to tackle the issue of "citizenship of convenience" isn't it logical that it's those that have been here for longer i.e the pre-pr folks that are likely to stay? To me it's common sense! I think what you ought to ask is what's the justification for eliminating pre-pr times. I haven't heard one convincing argument from the minister or anyone in this forum.

People are being accused for being sentimental for opposing the elimination of pre-PR times, but they haven't admitted that their support for the bill is also sentimental and based on the perception, (lies been fed by the govt) an illusion of the integrity of Canadian citizenship being at risk. When in essence it's a cheap tool to score political points for the upcoming elections.

Well said.

 

[MWM]

Actually 33 K for the first petition , 6 k for the second , 10 k for the third so total around 49 k , till morning it will be 50 k .
That's almost 0.75 % out of Canada population , but don't forget that not all people in Canada are allowed to vote , you have immigrants , refugee's , students , workers , under 18 ,..... ETC , so the percentage is not bad .... as a lot of people are watching only and do not do anything . Lets hope .

 

[anon123]

I strongly agree that the tax argument from some pre-PR folks is weak. However I think the elimination of pre-pr times is retrogressive and counter-productive when it concerns strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act. The reasons being:

1/ The minister in a press release published by CBC on the 24th of January stated that his motive for increasing residency times and eliminating pre -PR times was "That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about." If we go by the minister's quote, those who have been here long before obtaining PR such as the Canadian Experience Class are more likely to have integrated into Canada, hence know the value of Canadian citizenship.

2/ When the Canadian Experience Class was created, it was in recognition that those who have been trained in Canada i.e. both academically and professionally are of great value to Canada based on their experience. Here's my point, the government has already established and acknowledged that the Canadian Experience is very valuable to nation building, however when it comes to citizenship, do we just fall short of the experience? aren't we good enough? (I actually laughed out life typing that point).

3/ The minister also stated in parliament that another reason for eliminating pre-PR times, was so that everybody could be on equal grounds and to avoid confusion...lmao! Where is the logic in that? No, disrespect but that's not where Canada should be fighting for equality. The sad but simple reality, is that all immigrants are not equal and this has nothing to do with social status, it's simply in Canadian experience.

4/ If you want to tackle the issue of "citizenship of convenience" isn't it logical that it's those that have been here for longer i.e the pre-pr folks that are likely to stay? To me it's common sense! I think what you ought to ask is what's the justification for eliminating pre-pr times. I haven't heard one convincing argument from the minister or anyone in this forum.

People are being accused for being sentimental for opposing the elimination of pre-PR times, but they haven't admitted that their support for the bill is also sentimental and based on the perception, (lies been fed by the govt) an illusion of the integrity of Canadian citizenship being at risk. When in essence it's a cheap tool to score political points for the upcoming elections.

The justification for eliminating pre-pr time is to allow CIC to process the backlog of applications for people who would have otherwise had to wait for 2 years, but now, with no new applicants & more money thrown at CIC by the government, they will get their citizenship in less than 1 year. When it's time to vote, Alexander hopes the "new Canadians" (who will not have to sign the "intent to reside" mind you!) will vote Conservative.

If they keep the pre-pr time, then pre-prs will still qualify as they normally would because most have more than the 4 years required.

Another justification is the calculation. Bill C-24 requires 4 full years of residence out of 6 and each one of the years which count has to be more than half year. They want it to be more than half year because then the applicant is required to file a tax return as a resident, and that's what they really care about: did you pay tax or no? With pre-pr time counting as half days it makes this calculation confusing.

 

[taleodor]

One more important argument about the timing change, is that people were actually planning this pre PR-time to take account in their citizenship application. In example (but not limited to), by delaying their travel plans, etc.

Now, this Government shows that its own words dated a year ago mean absolutely nothing. So who is a cheater here?

After this law is passed, the whole Canadian Government system will only make people laugh. If you think, you have a lot of abuse now, this figure will increase 10-fold after the way this Government behaves. Abusers will simply say something like: 'you guys tried to do this the normal way, look how the Government is screwing you up'.

 

[MWM]

Question :

As they have a plan for future Do you think some immigrants & workers or refugee's will leave Canada after the new rule applies because of the extend period which they were not expecting ? as with the new rule a minimum period of 2 years will be added to anyone plus of course the intend to reside Part !

 

[Tolerance]

I don't want to defend him because I am personally against the Bill .. But you guys have to remember that the Conservatives won the elections and the Canadian people who voted for them! So he has the power now .. thats how the system works here .. 30K+ is nothing comparing to millions of Canadians who led the conservative to power ..thats how the game work! And there is always "Someone" who is against "something" in life .. I saw some pensions for people asking to "stop immigration to Canada"! I think we are in democratic country and if the Bill is passes "as is" .. it will be challenged in the court as unconstitutional and we will see what happens then!

When you take a look at those millions who voted, turns out 14.7 mil voted (half of the population), 5.8 mil voted conservative, and all other parties combined got almost 9 mil. Still, the cons got 166/308 seats I believe,which is an official majority. Yet, others combined got more votes.

Hardly an argument for everybody in Canada having to follow the cons blindly. Clearly, the others also have some legitimacy, but the government is refusing to accept that. Majority means I can do anything I want.

 

[anon123]

Question :

As they have a plan for future Do you think some immigrants & workers or refugee's will leave Canada after the new rule applies because of the extend period which they were not expecting ? as with the new rule a minimum period of 2 years will be added to anyone plus of course the intend to reside Part !

Absolutely. People feel cheated. They feel the Canadian government is not trustworthy. Bill C-24 is the beginning of inequality & second class citizenship. Nobody came to Canada expecting to have less rights than a native-born, including having to live in fear of losing a precarious citizenship. When the bill passes PR will have more rights than a naturalized citizen: as PR I can live anywhere I want as long as I spend 2 years out of 5 in Canada. I think those crimes that leave you stateless, for PRs there is a judicial process before one can be convicted. Less people will apply for citizenship then. But in my opinion the conservatives will change PR rules next, they will make it 3/5 or 4/5 years.

 

[marcus66502]

1/ The minister in a press release published by CBC on the 24th of January stated that his motive for increasing residency times and eliminating pre -PR times was "That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about." If we go by the minister's quote, those who have been here long before obtaining PR such as the Canadian Experience Class are more likely to have integrated into Canada, hence know the value of Canadian citizenship.

The Temporary Workers and Foreign Students we're talking about have no better understanding of citizenship than the people who land here as permanent residents. We all understand citizenship for what it is: a status that allows you the privilege of drawing a passport from Canada. Let's be honest here. Nobody applies for Canadian citizenship just for the hell of it. If I were to tell you "You can apply for citizenship but it doesn't come with the right to get a passport. Not for you!" would you be motivated to apply?

2/ When the Canadian Experience Class was created, it was in recognition that those who have been trained in Canada i.e. both academically and professionally are of great value to Canada based on their experience. Here's my point, the government has already established and acknowledged that the Canadian Experience is very valuable to nation building, however when it comes to citizenship, do we just fall short of the experience? aren't we good enough? (I actually laughed out life typing that point).

Sorry but unless you're Albert Einstein or a Nobel Prize winner, you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that as a TFW or Foreign Student you've been "contributing" to society. What you've been doing is trying to improve your economic lot, which is fine by me as long as you call it what it is. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, "contribute to society" is a cheap soundbyte designed to move people at an emotional level.

3/ The minister also stated in parliament that another reason for eliminating pre-PR times, was so that everybody could be on equal grounds and to avoid confusion...lmao! Where is the logic in that? No, disrespect but that's not where Canada should be fighting for equality. The sad but simple reality, is that all immigrants are not equal and this has nothing to do with social status, it's simply in Canadian experience.

Again, soundbytes: "all immigrants are not equal" and "fighting for equality". Who are you to say that someone who got her permanent residence from outside Canada is less entitled to citizenship than someone who spent time here as a non-immigrant? I have to concede: I don't know that there is any objective standard on this. I'm pretty sure a Canadian citizen would argue that his spouse, whom he sponsored three years ago as a permanent resident should be given priority over anyone else. Try as I might, I can't think of any argument to offer against THAT.

4/ If you want to tackle the issue of "citizenship of convenience" isn't it logical that it's those that have been here for longer i.e the pre-pr folks that are likely to stay? To me it's common sense!

No, there's very little about it that's logical. People who have stayed here a lot of years by extending their worker or student status have done so in order to continue looking for ways to qualify to get permanent residence without having to first return home (where it would be much harder to do so). Once they get permanent residence and citizenship you'll see a huge increase in the trips they take abroad (mostly back to their home countries to brag to family and friends about their new PR Card or Passport). Don't insult us. Many of us have been through similar hoops ourselves. We know how it works.

 

[taleodor]

The Temporary Workers and Foreign Students we're talking about have no better understanding of citizenship than the people who land here as permanent residents. We all understand citizenship for what it is: a status that allows you the privilege of drawing a passport from Canada. Let's be honest here. Nobody applies for Canadian citizenship just for the hell of it. If I were to tell you "You can apply for citizenship but it doesn't come with the right to get a passport. Not for you!" would you be motivated to apply?

Sorry but unless you're Albert Einstein or a Nobel Prize winner, you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that as a TFW or Foreign Student you've been "contributing" to society. What you've been doing is trying to improve your economic lot, which is fine by me as long as you call it what it is. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, "contribute to society" is a cheap soundbyte designed to move people at an emotional level.

Again, soundbytes: "all immigrants are not equal" and "fighting for equality". Who are you to say that someone who got her permanent residence from outside Canada is less entitled to citizenship than someone who spent time here as a non-immigrant? I have to concede: I don't know that there is any objective standard on this. I'm pretty sure a Canadian citizen would argue that his spouse, whom he sponsored three years ago as a permanent resident should be given priority over anyone else. Try as I might, I can't think of any argument to offer against THAT.

No, there's very little about it that's logical. People who have stayed here a lot of years by extending their worker or student status have done so in order to continue looking for ways to qualify to get permanent residence without having to first return home (where it would be much harder to do so). Once they get permanent residence and citizenship you'll see a huge increase in the trips they take abroad (mostly back to their home countries to brag to family and friends about their new PR Card or Passport). Don't insult us. Many of us have been through similar hoops ourselves. We know how it works.

I don't care about convincing you in anything. I see nothing logical in what you've written by the way. Following your logic, no one should be entitled to citizenship. Maybe someone born in Canada shouldn't be granted citizenship because (s)he may become a criminal? Or maybe PRs on a welfare shouldn't get citizenship? With this type of thinking you can challenge any idea in the world whatsoever.

Now, that the bill has de facto passed, the most important thing is broken, which is the system of rules. The rules don't exist any more, since this Government is ready to change them any day. So, unless we get a normal Government on the next elections, or this bill gets successfully challenged in the court, you may go as far as you want in your logical exercise.

 

[Sharif11]

Just to clarify: There are thousands and thousands of Internationale students who are fully sponsored by their governments (don't have to work) come to Canada every year. Yes, they receive good education but, they also contribute to Canada. They pay 2x tuition fees, buy cars pay for auto-insurance, medical insurance, they rent or buy houses, buy food and the list goes on.

Same goes for foreign workers.

 

[alwayspositive]

I have been following posts here for a while and I'm particularly surprised by the assertion that foreign students do not contribute anything to the Canadian society. I'm surprised by this because every year Canadian universities come to my country to recruit students using enticing packages, trying to convince students with reasons why they should study in Canada. Is it purely an act of kindness on the part of these universities and the Canadian government? As a PhD student, my husband did groundbreaking research which resulted in several publications with his supervisors while still a student. He presented papers at conferences and was made to present at workshops to share with scientists groundbreaking research which by the way earned him job offers even before his graduation. Surely, this should count as contribution to society. Pls correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, then I need to be educated on what contribution to society means.
Wish everyone the best.
Cheers.