Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[shaazdeh]

Can someone please tell me exactly when parliament summer breaks start and when they go back to work?

Thanks,

 

[Observer]

last working day before the break is June 20th and first working day after the break is Sept 15th.

 

[shaazdeh]

Thank you Observer

 

[Observer]

You are welcome shaazdeh.

 

[Travel Dream]

And you would be wrong. They consider immigrants to have provisional citizenship, good for living in Canada only. Their citizenship is permanent, because they were born here. It's different! See, we came here to live and work, so if we don't do those things, we lose citizenship (in their eyes); but they were born here, they didn't have a choice, so it doesn't get taken away.

I'm not making this up! I mean, these people are not the cream of the crop, it's not everyone, and they aren't that bright . . . but they're Canadians, and that's how some of them think. Read the comments on newspaper articles about immigration.

It's not logical, or legal, or moral, or anything at all -- these people just don't like immigrants, they don't want to see them 'getting away' with anything, and they like Harper's law.

This is a citizenship ( not PR or contract). Even with those people opinions.... have you think about people from countries that do not allow dual citizenships. They abandoned their home countries citizenship so they do have any choice ( like people who born in Canada). If they go outside Canada it will be a risk for them to live without any identity.

 

[Travel Dream]

On another topic, I don't know if it was brought up in this thread but I want to precise something about the Intent to reside. Many of those who immigrated as skilled workers in Québec may have signed a form called : Declaration of Intent to Reside in Québec

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/imm0008_5e.pdf

It's a very simple form but I think it has the same implications as the new clause contained in the C-24 Bill.

I did sign that form, and I always had the intent to live in Québec. However, I two years ago I got a job offer and I left Québec for Ottawa for one year. Now I'm back to Montréal and I never had any problem about that. Should I be stripped of my PR card ?

Per my experience, I don't know anyone who faced a revocation of his PR status because of that intent. But it may change, as well as what has been said to us for the intent to reside in Canada as future citizens.


PS : I will apologize for my previous and future English mistakes, as you know all, I'm just a humble French Speaking Immigrant. I hope they won't put a new clause restricting the grant of citizenship to English native speakers only ;D

I know someone faced some questions in citizenship interview about residency in Québec but it went ok. you have a good reason you landed in Québec and moved because job offer so you do not have anything to worry about. but about comparing this with the intend to reside in citizenship it will be different because one knows how the government will use this in the future.

 

[informatics]

I know someone faced some questions in citizenship interview about residency in Québec but it went ok. you have a good reason you landed in Québec and moved because job offer so you do not have anything to worry about. but about comparing this with the intend to reside in citizenship it will be different because one knows how the government will use this in the future.

To add a little more to your point , "admontreal" knew even before coming come to Canada that he will have to reside in Quebec permanently,so he had made up his mind already.However , in this case we were promised to grant a citizenship status provided we legally and lawfully live here for 3 years ,now how come they can change the requirements suddenly ?

It could be logical for new PRs but not for us .

 

[torontosm]

So, are you even in this boat with the rest of us? My experience says that those who are 100% in favor of the bill in its current format are usually people who are already citizens and don't like for others to have this privilege, not reasonably fair anyway.

No, I'm in the "boat" for the betterment of Canada. I'm a citizen, and I have nothing against other having the same privilege, so long as it is controlled and reasonable and in Canada's interests. I am against the loose, unsupervised Liberal immigration policies and the rampant abuse of the system under their watch. And while I disagree with many things that the cons do as well, I support them fully in their efforts to reform immigration.

And one last thing: why do we need this important bill with its significant implications passed IMMEDIATELY without a proper public debate? Why should we ignore this huge number of concerns raised by experts (like Canadian Bar Association) and public (like folks in this forum) and even add more reforms (meaning more restrictions)? I really can't see how an honest person not having some political or personal agenda, saying that. Aren't the immigrants one of the main (if not the main) reasons Canada is what it is now?

We need this bill passed ASAP so that the problem doesn't get any worse than it already is. If you stopped thinking about yourself, and for one minute tried to view this through the eyes of a citizen (which you will be soon enough), you would understand. When you become a citizen, you will inherit the same problems this Bill is trying to eliminate. You will be forced to bear the financial burden of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of immigrants who want to obtain a passport solely for the benefits it offers without any intent to reside in Canada, contribute to Canada or better Canada. You will, over the course of your time living in Canada, be forced to pay for the healthcare, education, benefits, etc. of not only these immigrants but also their children and possibly their children's children. Sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

 

[blueshirt]

Hi Guys, one of my friend had citizenship test yesterday at st clair. I accompanied him and talked to one of the officer their and inquired about applying for citizenship if spouse is already a Canadian can one apply before 3 yrs complete. He said you cannot apply and also he said now you have to wait 6 years and apply not 3 yrs as new rule has passed. Is this true. as I have not heard the new rule passed already.

 

[Observer]

the proposed bill is not passed yet.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

No, I'm in the "boat" for the betterment of Canada. I'm a citizen, and I have nothing against other having the same privilege, so long as it is controlled and reasonable and in Canada's interests. I am against the loose, unsupervised Liberal immigration policies and the rampant abuse of the system under their watch. And while I disagree with many things that the cons do as well, I support them fully in their efforts to reform immigration.

We need this bill passed ASAP so that the problem doesn't get any worse than it already is. If you stopped thinking about yourself, and for one minute tried to view this through the eyes of a citizen (which you will be soon enough), you would understand. When you become a citizen, you will inherit the same problems this Bill is trying to eliminate. You will be forced to bear the financial burden of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of immigrants who want to obtain a passport solely for the benefits it offers without any intent to reside in Canada, contribute to Canada or better Canada. You will, over the course of your time living in Canada, be forced to pay for the healthcare, education, benefits, etc. of not only these immigrants but also their children and possibly their children's children. Sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

I've lived here 6 years and am now a PR. I ALREADY HAVE inherited the same problems. I pay taxes towards all of these people just like you do. Understanding there's a problem that should be fixed is one thing, and I agree there are problems. The PR Residency Obligation for me is one of the glaring areas that needs to be tightened...how can anyone be considered a PR if they only live somewhere 40% of the time?

But the Conservative plan has some really disturbing measures that are not fair, and therefore I cannot support them. I won't go through them again because I've already done that in previous posts.

 

[ghatot201]

When you become a citizen, you will inherit the same problems this Bill is trying to eliminate. You will be forced to bear the financial burden of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of immigrants who want to obtain a passport solely for the benefits it offers without any intent to reside in Canada, contribute to Canada or better Canada. You will, over the course of your time living in Canada, be forced to pay for the healthcare, education, benefits, etc. of not only these immigrants but also their children and possibly their children's children. Sound reasonable to you? It doesn't to me.

You DON'T need to be a citizen to bear all the financial burden that you so eloquently mention above. PR holders contribute to the economy, pay taxes (which some lazy canadians take advantage of)

 

[torontosm]

You DON'T need to be a citizen to bear all the financial burden that you so eloquently mention above. PR holders contribute to the economy, pay taxes (which some lazy canadians take advantage of)

Your point is correct and is absolutely fair. Under the current system, both PR's and citizens who are residing in Canada must bear this burden. However, I am fairly certain that at some point in the future, Canada will be forced to go towards universal taxation on citizens as there is no way the cost of the aging population can be borne by resident taxpayers. If that does happen, the impact on citizens will be dramatic.

I'm not saying that the current bill closes all loopholes or solves all problems, and I agree that there are some areas that require modification. However, in my opinion, it is a step in the right direction and is better than anything we have had to date.

 

[on-hold]

It would be really nice to actually see some figures on these apocryphal immigrants who come here, get a passport, and never come back (or come back in old age). I'd like to know their numbers, and I don't want to hear about the Lebanese evacuation -- this is completely irrelevant, because if the Canadian government had simply behaved like every other government in the world and left them to their fate (owing to their being in the country of their other citizenship) the bill would have been zero.

1) Some actual figures on the 'millions' of immigrant Canadians who get passports and then leave. Also, an answer as to WHY these cost the country so much?

2) How many of these immigrants return to Canada in their age to collect pensions? And an explanation as well as to why this works, when CPP is based on amount worked in Canada, and OAS requires you to have lived in Canada for 10 years to get the minimum amount (and 20 years, if you're living outside Canada).

3) Exactly why would someone want to live outside Canada for most of their life and suddenly return in their old age, simply to collect a pension that lets them live in poverty? This entire premise is based on the assumption a lot of native Canadians make that life here is better then elsewhere. It's not. Canada's systems and institutions are better -- it's better to learn in Canada, have a legal problem in Canada, travel with a Canadian passport -- but life itself is pretty good elsewhere. Why would an elderly person, at the age when they settle down, do things with their grandkids, sit in the sun and gossip, suddenly say to themselves: "OK, time to move to Brampton!"

4) If you truly believe that immigrants' kids, and immigrant's kids' kids, are going to be a drain on the system, you know what? That says more about you than Canada; and if it's true, it says more about Canada than it does about immigrants. If you don't want them to be a drain on the system, then work towards a Canada that is free of prejudice and offers equal opportunities to all children, whether they live on Jane Street, Richmond Hill, or Brampton.

This entire 'debate' -- which is conducted without figures -- is the Canadian equivalent of the American 'welfare queen'. The inner-city, black/Hispanic/drug addict, who lives off of Welfare, eating T-bone steaks and driving new cars while industrious white Americans toil to support them. If you think immigrants are bleeding the system, get some data.

 

[torontosm]

It would be really nice to actually see some figures on these apocryphal immigrants who come here, get a passport, and never come back (or come back in old age). I'd like to know their numbers, and I don't want to hear about the Lebanese evacuation -- this is completely irrelevant, because if the Canadian government had simply behaved like every other government in the world and left them to their fate (owing to their being in the country of their other citizenship) the bill would have been zero.

1) Some actual figures on the 'millions' of immigrant Canadians who get passports and then leave. Also, an answer as to WHY these cost the country so much?

Unfortunately, there are no reliable figures available about the exact number of Canadians (and PR's) who don't actually reside in Canada. My views are based on personal experience, where I have encountered countless people around the world who hold a Canadian passport and have lived in Canada for 3 years at most. Many people I have spoken to capitalized on the Liberal's loose border policies and have only been to Canada twice (once for landing and once for the citizenship test) and yet gained citizenship.

As for WHY these cost so much, I thought this was fairly obvious. These citizens qualify for free healthcare for the remainder of their lives, as do their families. In addition, they and their families qualify for free or highly subsidized education. Also, they are eligible for pension so long as they live in Canada for an additional 7 years. I'm sure there are other benefits as well.

2) How many of these immigrants return to Canada in their age to collect pensions? And an explanation as well as to why this works, when CPP is based on amount worked in Canada, and OAS requires you to have lived in Canada for 10 years to get the minimum amount (and 20 years, if you're living outside Canada).

Again, there are no stats out there. But, have you driven through Richmond Hill or Markham recently? People return not just for the pensions, but for the free healthcare. As I'm sure you know, it is very difficult for elderly people to obtain health insurance in most countries, and even then, the standard of healthcare available is generally below that offered in Canada. so, as people age, they wish to avail the free quality healthcare that Canada affords. Add to that the benefit of living in a clean, stable and relatively safe country with free money and free education for kids and suddenly the proposition becomes highly attractive.

3) Exactly why would someone want to live outside Canada for most of their life and suddenly return in their old age, simply to collect a pension that lets them live in poverty? This entire premise is based on the assumption a lot of native Canadians make that life here is better then elsewhere. It's not. Canada's systems and institutions are better -- it's better to learn in Canada, have a legal problem in Canada, travel with a Canadian passport -- but life itself is pretty good elsewhere. Why would an elderly person, at the age when they settle down, do things with their grandkids, sit in the sun and gossip, suddenly say to themselves: "OK, time to move to Brampton!"

Why do you assume they will live in poverty? that seems like an extreme and baseless assumption. when people retire, they usually aren't poor or struggling, otherwise they wouldn't be retiring int he first place. Plus, see my answer above about healthcare and benefits.

4) If you truly believe that immigrants' kids, and immigrant's kids' kids, are going to be a drain on the system, you know what? That says more about you than Canada; and if it's true, it says more about Canada than it does about immigrants. If you don't want them to be a drain on the system, then work towards a Canada that is free of prejudice and offers equal opportunities to all children, whether they live on Jane Street, Richmond Hill, or Brampton.

What exactly does this say about me? As I have said before, I have never encountered any sort of prejudice in Canada, and do believe that it affords equal opportunities to all. If you disagree, take walk down Bay Street and look at the number of minorities that hold senior roles in major financial institutions.

This entire 'debate' -- which is conducted without figures -- is the Canadian equivalent of the American 'welfare queen'. The inner-city, black/Hispanic/drug addict, who lives off of Welfare, eating T-bone steaks and driving new cars while industrious white Americans toil to support them. If you think immigrants are bleeding the system, get some data.

I am not the one who does the surveys or creates the data. If you think immigrants aren't bleeding the system, why don't you offer up some data supporting your position?