Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:
- Thread starter polarbear
- Start date
CIMM will be meeting monday, but that is not related to C-24. That much has already been said by other people a few days ago.
Second reading will be on Wednesday, May 28. Right now, you will not find that in the projected order of business I believe, but again, this came from two unrelated insiders.
Second reading will be on Wednesday, May 28. Right now, you will not find that in the projected order of business I believe, but again, this came from two unrelated insiders.
taleodor said:
Here is an overview of the parliamentary process by on-hold (as an outsider, I found this to be a pretty reasonable summary):
1) Vote in House of Commons, formally referring C-24 to the CIMM committee (2nd stage complete) -- according to the letter above, this is going to be May 28th. At that point, C-24 has 17 working days left before the break, 10 of them with extended hours.
2) CIMM studies the bill and produces a report for the House (this is the longest stage, but much of its work may have already occurred, with the meetings of the past few weeks); the conservative majority on CIMM will determine how much time is allocated for this. Once this stage is passed, the progress of the bill is a series of formal votes with little or no discussion.
3) House of Commons votes on C-24: 3rd stage complete.
4) Three votes in the Senate, which can be on three consecutive days. (4th, 5th, and 6th stages complete)
5) Royal assent, and implementation schedule.
There are really only two points that could eat up time: the second stage and the implementation schedule. With 17 days left, obviously the time allocated by CIMM for study is critical. Note that they could literally allocate 3 full weeks, all the way up to June 17th, and still have three days to vote the bill through the Senate (assuming that there are no details around advance scheduling of votes, etc.) Royal Assent won't require the Parliament to be sitting, it can happen any time if the voting takes place before June 20th.
I think if there is a protest, it should be done BEFORE the House of Commons is done with it. Third reading would be the final stage by the HoC, so some time before or on that date.
Once it leaves the House, it is almost a done deal. Implementation schedule would be important, but the Senate and the Governor mostly just go through the motions.
It really saddens me to see that a lot of us will just rely on our gut feelings and prayers. Seriously...
PMM said:
A reality check for those who are sure the bill will not pass.
In the 2011 Election, Cons got 166 ouf of 308 seats in the House. NDP was the next best with 103, and then the Liberals with 34.
MPs have to toe the party line - every MP will vote as their boss tells them (especially true with the Cons and Harper
).To adopt a question, a simple majority is needed. 166/308=54%. A simple majority means 51% I believe.
Does everybody understand now?
Tolerance said:
Lol its funny to me how much you analyzed and wrote to show how it is possible that the bill will pass before summer break. Then you critisize people who rely on their guts when what you did is exactly the same. I said it and I will say it again for the 10th time, this bill will not pass before summer break, guts or no guts.
Lets see you again writing a long a$$ article how it is still possible with your funny days analysis. I will still read what you write, its fun.
CanV,
Understandably, people are worried - with the level of worry probably being higher for those who most likely will end up applying somewhere nearer the border line between the regime of the old/new rules.
For example, you could argue that PRs who moved and resided here anywhere from 2009 to 2011 (2011 being the outer limit) could still apply under the old rules which are still in force as we speak (or write). Once you transition to PRs who moved to reside in Canada only in 2012 or later it becomes increasingly clear that they are most likely going to automatically apply under the new rules, since by 2015 the new law - whatever its final form - will be in force.
So, fair to say that the ones who are most jumpy /nervous/jittery are the 2009-2011 arrivals and full time residents in Canada who are in "varying degrees of readiness to apply in 2014".
Understandably, people are worried - with the level of worry probably being higher for those who most likely will end up applying somewhere nearer the border line between the regime of the old/new rules.
For example, you could argue that PRs who moved and resided here anywhere from 2009 to 2011 (2011 being the outer limit) could still apply under the old rules which are still in force as we speak (or write). Once you transition to PRs who moved to reside in Canada only in 2012 or later it becomes increasingly clear that they are most likely going to automatically apply under the new rules, since by 2015 the new law - whatever its final form - will be in force.
So, fair to say that the ones who are most jumpy /nervous/jittery are the 2009-2011 arrivals and full time residents in Canada who are in "varying degrees of readiness to apply in 2014".
CanV, you can't even keep your prejudices straight. You laugh at me for making an 'analysis' and then tell me that I'm relying on my gut, like you. Do you know that 'analysis' and 'relying on my gut' have opposite meanings? In the larger picture, I've always found that the world is divided into two kinds of people, those who understand the limits and obscure points that surround what they know, and people who don't. It's usually the latter group who becomes aggressive when challenged, because they aren't able to analyze things (as you admit).
As for finding my posts funny, well . . . most people don't find a list of parliamentary procedures amusing, but I guess it takes all kinds.
As for finding my posts funny, well . . . most people don't find a list of parliamentary procedures amusing, but I guess it takes all kinds.
I have heard from the clerk that the meeting tomorrow is about the bill. Not sure how the info from your so-called "insiders" can contradict the clerk of the committee.
The fact that the bill will pass is not a question. And at this point, the bill passing before the summer does not seem to be a question either...
The fact that the bill will pass is not a question. And at this point, the bill passing before the summer does not seem to be a question either...
Hi PMM,
i have a question for you and hope you can enlighten all of us here since you have a strong knowledge about the canadian citizenship and immigration.
do you think the bill will pas the way it is now or there will be some amendments?
thank you so much.
i have a question for you and hope you can enlighten all of us here since you have a strong knowledge about the canadian citizenship and immigration.
do you think the bill will pas the way it is now or there will be some amendments?
thank you so much.
on-hold said:
On-hold, if it is any comfort, I find your posts very informative, analytical, and on-target. CanV likes to rely on gut feelings, but I don't think we should argue among ourselves. CanV, I am not here to waste my time or yours. Presumably, we are here for the same reason - we are concerned about a disturbing bill that will affect our lives badly, the lives of our families and friends, and many other good people.
So basically, I am not here to have a guessing game, is it going to pass, or is it not. It is not about my ego either, whether I am right, not right, or whatever. You might have noticed, I did not claim it was going to pass or not - I just said it was POSSIBLE it might.
If it is possible it might be passed during the summer (as insiders have led us to believe), then the natural question is, can I do anything about it. If not, then keep saying your prayers and you should not waste your time here.
If the law can possibly be passed during the summer, but if there was something we could do about it (at least in theory), then we can try to do something. Obviously, my answer to the two questions are, yes it might be passed during the summer, and yes, immigrants could make their voices heard and perhaps influence the outcome.
If I thought it will not pass (ever, as apparently you think), and even if it did, there was nothing anybody could do, then why waste my time here
?I think we are hopefully all good people, who wanted better for us and our families and friends, we worked hard to come here and sacrificed a lot, so it is natural a lot is at stake and we feel strongly about it.
So, peace out, and let's try to have some tolerance here
.QianLi said:
As a reminder, the insiders I was referring to were the parliamentary secretary of Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (MP and the official immigration and citizenship critic for the oposition), and someone else said here they called their MP and also heard the second reading should be May 28.
For Monday, May 26, here is what it is about: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6611990&Language=E&Mode=1 .
My impression is that this is part of the CIMM's normal business, but probably not directly related to C-24. I might be wrong.
Either way, Monday or Wednesday, that is too soon for my taste
.Tolerance said:
This is just one interpretation of the bill and there are others who would say it's not correct. One could argue that "intent to reside" means just what it says, with 'intent' being the key word at the time just before taking the oath. It's possible that circumstances can arise after the grant of citizenship which would compel the new citizen to live abroad.
Merely living abroad after the grant of citizenship is not in itself sufficient grounds for revoking citizenship. The minister has to prove that the new citizen did not intend to reside in Canada before taking the oath (and hence was never eligible for citizenship in the first place because he/she did not meet the 'intent to reside' requirement and was granted citizenship only by misrepresentation of intent). Evidence of this lack of intent would be a finding that the applicant for citizenship had applied for jobs abroad before taking the oath. This is the key requirement: action to revoke citizenship has to be based on what the applicant did before taking the oath. The minister cannot rely only on actions that took place after the grant of citizenship.
Conversely, lack of 'intent to reside' in Canada before the grant of citizenship cannot be cured by actually living in Canada after the grant. If the new citizen finds out that the Minister's office has discovered his pre-oath lack of intent to reside (for instance discovery of a job offer abroad), and decides not to accept the job offer abroad and to continue to live in Canada, he could still be stripped of his citizenship. This is so because the new citizen still misrepresented his intent to reside in Canada at the time of application.
I agree with Tolerance that people don't know how to feel about this bill because they don't know enough about it. However, I'm afraid what Tolerance has given you is a lot of interpretation of the bill (and in a forum like this, it's hard to separate fact from opinion).
The only way to learn about the bill is to read the text of the bill itself. No, I'm not going to provide a link to Bill C-24. Anyone who came to Canada as a skilled worker should be skilled enough to find the bill's text himself.
Tolerance said:5. Creating two classes of citizens (Sections 15, and 1). "Mono-citizens" would not vulnerable because Canada cannot create stateless individuals due to international obligations, while dual citizens could be stripped of citizenship just fine. Obviously, this is not equality under law.
Good luck to us all!
This is also not correct. No country has any obligation to provide a citizenship for a person whose statelessness has resulted from his own actions. Renouncing your old citizenship will not provide protection against the Minister's action to revoke your Canadian citizenship. The Minister will argue in court that any statelessness resulting from revocation is actually due to the new citizen's renunciation of his old citizenship.
This whole 'statelessness' business is misinterpreted a lot in the news media because it plays to readers' feelings and feelings drive up ratings. Truth is a country's international obligations cannot run contrary to its own laws. For example, consider a foreign national who enters Canada illegally, destroys any papers that indicate his nationality, and then comes out and claims statelessness and demands Canadian citizenship. Would Canada, by your logic, be obligated to grant him citizenship? No, of course not. He does not qualify for citizenship according to Canadian law. There is no international treaty that forces Canada to act differently.
