Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[chakrab]

And now we get down to the really loathsome argument -- 'If you're not planning to go, you have nothing to worry about.' So you admit that if you do plan to leave Canada, you do have something to worry about from the 'intent' clause? Because that's what its supporters are arguing, here.

if a person plans to leave canada and doesn't want to return, why would he/she care about canadian citizenship? other than having the passport gives them the ability to visit places without visa.

 

[on-hold]

So you agree that the 'intent' clause can be used to strip citizenship?

 

[chakrab]

So you agree that the 'intent' clause can be used to strip citizenship?

i am saying the govt doesn't need a checkbox to do it. they can propose a rule later based on residency. whether you signed intend to reside or not, doesn't matter.

also do you feel that PRs will stop applying for citizenship if the bill passes with the clause? the citizenship has more benefits than the fear generated by that clause. that's what the conservative govt is depending on. so if PRs feel like they shouldn't be second class citizens, may be they should start a petition of stopping themselves for being one.

i mean we can argue all day and night long, but at the end of the day, most PRs will apply for citizenship.

 

[on-hold]

Actually, they CAN'T propose a rule based on residency, unless it covers Canadians-by-birth as well . . . this 'intent' clause, with its implications for misrepresentation, is the only way to have a residency-based citizenship that only applies to naturalized citizens . . . Are you OK with that, chakrab? And why won't you say, after your unpleasant insinuation that 'only those that plan to leave should worry', that the 'intent to reside' can be used to strip citizenship?

 

[chakrab]

Actually, they CAN'T propose a rule based on residency, unless it covers Canadians by birth as well . . . this 'intent' clause, with its implications for misrepresentation, is the only way to have a residency-based citizenship that only applies to naturalized citizens . . . Are you OK with that, chakrab? And why won't you say, after your unpleasant insinuation that 'only those that plan to leave should worry', that the 'intent to reside' can be used to strip citizenship?

how do you know they will be stripped off their citizenship? do you have proof of that? am just curious.

 

[on-hold]

how do you know they will be stripped off their citizenship? do you have proof of that? am just curious.

Ok, chakrab, you do know what we're discussing, right? Whether the 'intent to reside' oath can be used, after receiving citizenship, to revoke citizenship through misrepresentation. What else would it possibly be used for? When you yourself asked me what I was 'worried' about, what did you think I was worried about? I'm REALLY curious as to what you think this discussion is about?

 

[chakrab]

Ok, chakrab, you do know what we're discussing, right? Whether the 'intent to reside' oath can be used, after receiving citizenship, to revoke citizenship through misrepresentation. What else would it possibly be used for? When you yourself asked me what I was 'worried' about, what did you think I was worried about? I'm REALLY curious as to what you think this discussion is about?

well that's the thing. we are discussing about speculation. not facts. we are talking about consequences that we "think" may happen. we can discuss all we want, but neither of us knows for surety what's the penalty for failing the clause.

what i am saying is, let's say the law says you wont be stripped off citizenship but rather wont get certain govt benefits. would you still be worried about it?

 

[on-hold]

well that's the thing. we are discussing about speculation. not facts. we are talking about consequences that we "think" may happen. we can discuss all we want, but neither of us knows for surety what's the penalty for failing the clause.

on-hold

why are you getting so upset? if you dont plan to leave, then you shouldn't be worried about the clause. according to you, there are only few who leaves Canada. then only those few should be worried about the "intend to stay" clause. there is no need for the scaremongering then.

So what did you mean here? Why would you discuss it 30 minutes ago, but not now?

I've noticed that proponents of the 'immigrants coming back and eating social benefits tend to deflect the conversation when asked for numbers; if you have any of those, we can argue about that instead.

 

[chakrab]

So what did you mean here? Why would you discuss it 30 minutes ago, but not now?

i was referring to the penalty because of the clause. not losing citizenship. i dont think people will lose citizenship because they stay 5/10 years in some other country.

 

[Tolerance]

Guys,
Whats the current status? 2nd reading is over? What are the next steps? How much time is needed to make it the law?

Second reading completed, referred to committee now.

Next CIMM session is Monday: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6627824&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

They will be looking at the bill clause by clause. I doubt cons will allow any changes to the bill.

After that, third reading, and then the Senate. General opinion seems to be they will be done by June 20, and then Royal Assent.

 

[chakrab]

So what did you mean here? Why would you discuss it 30 minutes ago, but not now? I've noticed that proponents of the 'immigrants coming back and eating social benefits' hogwash tend to deflect the conversation as soon as they're asked for numbers. Again, you're worried about this happening; based on what?

currently there are 5000 cases under RCMP which will fall under the "intend" clause.

 

[maza]

Guys

This discussion is useless... It is apparent that Chakrab is unable to understand the whole thing .. this bill that is being forced now with all these rules on us just weakens the Canadian citizenship and minimizes it's values... what is the difference between a dictator and a democratic regimen?
when all power is in the hand of a minister and no power is in the hands of judges and courts... we will be loosing our freedom ...
CHAKRAB stop doing that.. adding the oath , wouldn't be useful unless it is used to strip off passports from those who leave

I am disappointed from the parliament voting today on such a bill...

 

[chakrab]

Guys

This discussion is useless... It is apparent that Chakrab is unable to understand the whole thing .. this bill that is being forced now with all these rules on us just weakens the Canadian citizenship and minimizes it's values... what is the difference between a dictator and a democratic regimen?
when all power is in the hand of a minister and no power is in the hands of judges and courts... we will be loosing our freedom ...
CHAKRAB stop doing that.. adding the oath , wouldn't be useful unless it is used to strip off passports from those who leave

I am disappointed from the parliament voting today on such a bill...

i dont understand the dramatics. how are you losing your freedom? if you dont think it's right then dont apply for the citizenship. i dont understand why people are so afraid of the clause. they are much worse clauses in the bill.

i would have thought the clause where someone being convicted in another country can cause lose of citizenship would be more of a worry. but no one is talking about that.

 

[on-hold]

i dont understand the dramatics. how are you losing your freedom? if you dont think it's right then dont apply for the citizenship. i dont understand why people are so afraid of the clause. they are much worse clauses in the bill.

So you've got no numbers for your assertion on elderly immigrants coming back for the benefits; and you don't understand the discussion about the 'intent to reside' clause. But it's nice that you're here to contribute!

 

[maza]

i dont understand the dramatics. how are you losing your freedom? if you dont think it's right then dont apply for the citizenship. i dont understand why people are so afraid of the clause. they are much worse clauses in the bill.

Freedom of movement is a human right... seems your knowledge is limited...
i would prefer to be a free bird anywhere rather than locked in inside heaven...

seems u have nothing to do and so just passing time by arguing..

i will not discuss this with you.. just go read the constitution first and then come back to argue..