Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[zardoz]

Your map visually supports it as I look at it. Also, previous elections were in times of in / just after economic crisis. So a lot of ppl voted Conservative from the point of betting on the same horse.

I think they have a good chance to loose the Government in 2015.

If you actually look at the fine detail in the top box on the right hand side, you will see an awful lot of blue in the East... Somewhat inconsistent with your sweeping generalisation of "almost everything East of Ontario hates Conservatives wholeheartedly".

It seems that not all commentators share your view about 2015. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-benefit-big-from-2015s-new-electoral-map-elections-canada-data-shows/article16630731/

 

[taleodor]

If you actually look at the fine detail in the top box on the right hand side, you will see an awful lot of blue in the East... Somewhat inconsistent with your sweeping generalisation of "almost everything East of Ontario hates Conservatives wholeheartedly".

It seems that not all commentators share your view about 2015. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-benefit-big-from-2015s-new-electoral-map-elections-canada-data-shows/article16630731/

I lived in Quebec long enough to assure you that 'Conservative' is almost a swear word there. And if you dig a little further in history than last elections, you would see those patches of blue are somewhat inconsistent.
The article you are referring to is from January. Yesterday we have seen there is a huge chance voters in some key areas would not vote the same as in 2011.

 

[chakrab]

I lived in Quebec long enough to assure you that 'Conservative' is almost a swear word there. And if you dig a little further in history than last elections, you would see those patches of blue are somewhat inconsistent.
The article you are referring to is from January. Yesterday we have seen there is a huge chance voters in some key areas would not vote the same as in 2011.

i think that's more to do with tim hudak and his crazy policies that would hurt voters personally. however it may so happen that the conservatives learn from the error and make it work for 2015. the issue lies in the anti-conservative votes though. NDP is still not that strong in Ontario and Liberals aren't that popular everywhere. I don't see that changing at least at this time.

 

[dr_ziad80]

HI ALL

COULD ANY ONE TELL ME IF THIS LAW IS APPLIED , DOES A PERSON WHO BECAME CANADIAN CAN LEAVE CANADA FOR A YEAR OR TWO THEN COME BACK ?

WOULD HE BE DENIED ENTRY AT BOARDR BECAUSE HE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE ( INTENT TO RESIDE ) ?

DO ANYBODY KNOW HOW LONG A CANADIAN IS ALLOWED TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF CANADA WITHOUT GETTING IN TROUBLE ?

THANKS

 

[chakrab]

HI ALL

COULD ANY ONE TELL ME IF THIS LAW IS APPLIED , DOES A PERSON WHO BECAME CANADIAN CAN LEAVE CANADA FOR A YEAR OR TWO THEN COME BACK ?

WOULD HE BE DENIED ENTRY AT BOARDR BECAUSE HE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE ( INTENT TO RESIDE ) ?

DO ANYBODY KNOW HOW LONG A CANADIAN IS ALLOWED TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF CANADA WITHOUT GETTING IN TROUBLE ?

THANKS

honestly sir, no one other than CIC knows. everyone is speculating. frank opinion is no one will know till something like that happens. that is, some body is denied entry. the law and consequences are very vague at this point.

 

[admontreal]

Could someone tell me what Alexander is trying to say here ?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/12/tories_insist_changes_to_citizenship_act_will_respect_charter_constitution.html

The only thing I understand is that :

1/He's a liar
2/He's an idiot
3/All of the above

 

[sicko86]

HI ALL

COULD ANY ONE TELL ME IF THIS LAW IS APPLIED , DOES A PERSON WHO BECAME CANADIAN CAN LEAVE CANADA FOR A YEAR OR TWO THEN COME BACK ?

WOULD HE BE DENIED ENTRY AT BOARDR BECAUSE HE DIDN'T COMPLY WITH THE ( INTENT TO RESIDE ) ?

DO ANYBODY KNOW HOW LONG A CANADIAN IS ALLOWED TO LIVE OUTSIDE OF CANADA WITHOUT GETTING IN TROUBLE ?

THANKS

Guys Please be reasonable .. do you think it will be that simple to revoke somebody's Citizen, just because he left for a year or two .. We are in CANADA not in a third world country that abuses Human rights , how can they deny your entry to your own country (once you are Citizen) Do you think if that happened people will stay silent.. it will go all over the media .. there is human rights in this country .. and even if the intent to reside clause was implemented it wont be just too simple to revoke somebody's Citizen in the airport like that or deny their entry.

Read the third reading today and what Chris Alexander said, he said clearly once you obtain the Citizen you can freely travel and leave .. "This is your right by the Constitution" my opinion this intent to reside clause might be only problematic before obtaining citizenship as they might reject somebody's Citizen because "he doesn't intent to reside or he didn't show an intent to reside" and thats the problamatic part mainly .. once you obtain the citizen it wont be too simple to revoke it!

 

[chakrab]

Could someone tell me what Alexander is trying to say here ?
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/12/tories_insist_changes_to_citizenship_act_will_respect_charter_constitution.html

The only thing I understand is that :

1/He's a liar
2/He's an idiot
3/All of the above

he's not a liar because he believes what he says. unfortunately not everything is as black and white as things are in his head. is he an idiot. well i wouldn't use the term but he sure isn't smart enough to lay out the terms on the bill. even if what he believes to be true, it wouldn't matter later because it's not on the bill and another minister after him can do just the opposite.

so he says, all a person needs is to declare himself just citizen of canada to be safe (i am not proposing that ), then why not just put it on the bill. we have heard about north african nations not revoking citizenships. that will help with the issue.

 

[admontreal]

Guys Please be reasonable .. do you think it will be that simple to revoke somebody's Citizen, just because he left for a year or two .. We are in CANADA not in a third world country that abuses Human rights , how can they deny your entry to your own country (once you are Citizen) Do you think if that happened people will stay silent.. it will go all over the media .. there is human rights in this country .. and even if the intent to reside clause was implemented it wont be just too simple to revoke somebody's Citizen in the airport like that or deny their entry.

Read the third reading today and what Chris Alexander said, he said clearly once you obtain the Citizen you can freely travel and leave .. "This is your right by the Constitution" my opinion this intent to reside clause might be only problematic before obtaining citizenship as they might reject somebody's Citizen because "he doesn't intent to reside or he didn't show an intent to reside" and thats the problamatic part mainly .. once you obtain the citizen it wont be too simple to revoke it!

Exactly.
Other countries have similar provisions, I agree it's very ambiguous but it's not the most scandalous part of the bill.
This clause is only supposed to help agents denying applications from peoplewho left Canada after submitting. Which makes a bit of sense.

 

[sicko86]

Quoting Chris Alexander:

"First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:

For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person’s intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.""

THEY CANT REVOKE CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE OF THIS INTENT TO RESIDE CLAUSE .. They can only reject your Citizenship application on the basis that you do not intent to reside. (This is still problematic, if it will be jugded by CIC but if it is only declaration that you intent to reside it make sense .. why would they give you Citizenship if you don't want to reside", I mean if your plans changed after and you got a better Job in another country or had to leave for other reason it is a different story)

 

[admontreal]

he's not a liar because he believes what he says. unfortunately not everything is as black and white as things are in his head. is he an idiot. well i wouldn't use the term but he sure isn't smart enough to lay out the terms on the bill. even if what he believes to be true, it wouldn't matter later because it's not on the bill and another minister after him can do just the opposite.

so he says, all a person needs is to declare himself just citizen of canada to be safe (i am not proposing that ), then why not just put it on the bill. we have heard about north african nations not revoking citizenships. that will help with the issue.

To declare it where ?
If someone is considered as a citizen by Iran no matter what, how the hell could he claim he is not ?
In the eyes of CIC (an awesome model of fairness and transparency around the world), I'm really noy sure it's going to be that simple.

 

[chakrab]

To declare it where ?
If someone is considered as a citizen by Iran no matter what, how the hell could he claim he is not ?
In the eyes of CIC (an awesome model of fairness and transparency around the world), I'm really noy sure it's going to be that simple.

well he just opened a can of worms upon his own department with that. the issue even is , because i believe they take into account possible citizenship. so even if someone never claims to be a citizen of a country, CIC/CBSA will assume the person potentially can be.

but if you think for a sec, i don't any of the other countries will acknowledge the citizenship of a terrorist at the time, whether it's iran or north africa (unless for political reasons)

 

[admontreal]

As he's now used to do ;D
I can't believe that this guy was representing Canada in Afghanistan...

 

[admontreal]

but if you think for a sec, i don't any of the other countries will acknowledge the citizenship of a terrorist at the time, whether it's iran or north africa (unless for political reasons)

Oh yeah they will.

Especially if Canada pays them for.
I heard about Albania who was even willing to grant citizenship to Chinese suspected (but at the end of the day, innocent) terrorists detained in Guantanamo in exchange of US endorsment for their European Union adhesion request.

OR Koweit who litterally bought citizenship for Stateless bedouins from Comoros to get rid of them, albeit they were living in the Koweit desert for many generations.

 

[Hasher]

well he just opened a can of worms upon his own department with that. the issue even is , because i believe they take into account possible citizenship. so even if someone never claims to be a citizen of a country, CIC/CBSA will assume the person potentially can be.

but if you think for a sec, i don't any of the other countries will acknowledge the citizenship of a terrorist at the time, whether it's iran or north africa (unless for political reasons)

According to one MP, in her speech she pointed out Israel, no water what does not allow its Jewish Citizens to disown its Citizenship and some similar cases for Arab countries.