Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[zardoz]

HI Zardoz

Do you mean the 4- points listed in my post as exclusions were rejected to be excluded from the bill in vote # 157 and then in Vote # 158 were accepted to be excluded from the bill please elaborate on this point and which vote is to our favor as an immigrants .

It means that the complete vote 157 was rejected and NONE of those amendments took place. The Bill C-24 carried on to Vote 158 unchanged. Vote 157 had absolutely no chance of being passed. It was a token gesture by the opposing parties. They would have already known that it couldn't pass that vote. - A joke really.

 

[civic]

Here is the web page for the BC Civil Liberties Association:
http://bccla.org/2014/05/challenging-misinformation-canadian-citizenship-law-explained/#share
Josh is the guy who is sponsoring the 25 k petition. I asked him when he plans to submit it, through facebook - no reply yet.

You can use the image files to put them on your social media and spread the word.

I think civic is right - most people don't have a clue about this whole thing, nor do they care.

In regards to Bill C-24, when Chris Alexander speaks to the House that the majority of Canadians do support his proposal on this bill, I highly doubt his words. I challenge him to walk on the street of Ottawa or any major cities, grab 50 random people and ask them about the status of Bill C-24 and what's on it, what is the benefit and arguments around the bill. And then bring his survey back to the House. What a fictional story he tries to make us believe. And what is the fact? The fact is only few MPs and few debate hours been allocated for this controversial bill. The fact is that Cons is trying to ram it down our throats. Bullying has become a core part in their culture. The fact that not many Canadians go to polling stations for federal election prove that there is a huge gap between Canadians and our government works. Having the power in Parliament is just a game of luck. Mr. Alexander better shuts up or tell the truth. It's 21st century.He has young kids. How can he education his kids on honesty and equality when he tries to put his political interest above the truth. How can he not be ashamed to teach his kids not to bully, not to discriminate others at school?

 

[rayman_m]

Harper brought Alexander in place of Kenney just to implement his hidden agenda. Alexander skills and knowledge on immigration are far less than Kenney. Probably he was more reasonable and may have opposed parts of bill-24 during idea/drafting stage before he was shifted to employment ministry..

It will be very sad if Harper implements the new law before Dec,2014 as his minister Alexander said the bill will be implemented end of year when he first announced the bill.

 

[on-hold]

In regards to Bill C-24, when Chris Alexander speaks to the House that the majority of Canadians do support his proposal on this bill, I highly doubt his words. I challenge him to walk on the street of Ottawa or any major cities, grab 50 random people and ask them about the status of Bill C-24 and what's on it, what is the benefit and arguments around the bill. And then bring his survey back to the House. What a fictional story he tries to make us believe. And what is the fact? The fact is only few MPs and few debate hours been allocated for this controversial bill. The fact is that Cons is trying to ram it down our throats. Bullying has become a core part in their culture. The fact that not many Canadians go to polling stations for federal election prove that there is a huge gap between Canadians and our government works. Having the power in Parliament is just a game of luck. Mr. Alexander better shuts up or tell the truth. It's 21st century.He has young kids. How can he education his kids on honesty and equality when he tries to put his political interest above the truth. How can he not be ashamed to teach his kids not to bully, not to discriminate others at school?

This thread is starting to get hysterical -- as Matt the Antipodean has pointed out, what is happening is how laws are made in a parliamentary system. It's normal. The minority makes noise, the majority does what it wants. Furthermore, this bill is not controversial -- large majorities of the population agree with making it harder to get citizenship, a lot of Canadians are concerned about that. It's also normal. The objections to the bill are technical and philosophical. People who think about citizenship are generally opposed to the idea of making it two-tiered. Other people object to the bill because of its procedural issues around citizenship revocation, oath of intent to stay, etc. I object to it for those reasons, and selfishly too, because I want to apply this year.

It's probably going to pass unchanged, and then the issues around oath of intent and revocation of citizenship will be fought first procedurally and then legally. Until that happens, no one will know how those clauses will affect us. Practically, there is every chance that they will have no impact at all, at first, but time will tell on that.

You know what, though? This bill is less of a change than shifting FSW to an EOI model. I think that's a REALLY low blow.

Could I also ask that people who are weighing into this thread with the question "When will the bill pass? When will the bill take effect?" please read the thread, in which this question has been analyzed in great depth and detail? Thank you!

 

[Tolerance]

On-hold, I support what you said.

I do want to add something though. In a parliamentary democracy,it seems ok when the majority decides. However,there is the priciple called continuity of government,which means governments should not reverse earlier governments' decisions. To ensure continuity,each government must listen to the opposition,or else it is a war,and the minute the new government takes office,they will reverse their enemies' decisions. In that case, the country looks like a joke.

I would say that when conservatives absolutely ignore the opposition, legal experts,and the stakeholders, that does not bode well for the democracy.

 

[us2yow]

True and many Canadians (the enlightened, cosmopolitan, well traveled, city dweller or someone with a generally liberal welcoming outward looking mindset) are absolutely shocked at how Canada's standing whether in the UN or even locally has really suffered in ways that it never quite had to before !

Change....and Change.org ! and Supreme Court challenges ! Maybe even the International Court of Justice at this rate ! :-X

 

[Matt the Aussie]

This thread is starting to get hysterical -- as Matt the Antipodean has pointed out, what is happening is how laws are made in a parliamentary system. It's normal. The minority makes noise, the majority does what it wants. Furthermore, this bill is not controversial -- large majorities of the population agree with making it harder to get citizenship, a lot of Canadians are concerned about that. It's also normal. The objections to the bill are technical and philosophical. People who think about citizenship are generally opposed to the idea of making it two-tiered. Other people object to the bill because of its procedural issues around citizenship revocation, oath of intent to stay, etc. I object to it for those reasons, and selfishly too, because I want to apply this year.

It's probably going to pass unchanged, and then the issues around oath of intent and revocation of citizenship will be fought first procedurally and then legally. Until that happens, no one will know how those clauses will affect us. Practically, there is every chance that they will have no impact at all, at first, but time will tell on that.

You know what, though? This bill is less of a change than shifting FSW to an EOI model. I think that's a REALLY low blow.

Could I also ask that people who are weighing into this thread with the question "When will the bill pass? When will the bill take effect?" please read the thread, in which this question has been analyzed in great depth and detail? Thank you!

Nice reference there that probably no one else will get ;D

Also agree fully with the rest of your post.

 

[sazamizi]

I'm wondering if Opposition parties can do obstruction ?

 

[us2yow]

not quite fair dinkum ! of course we get it.... "mate" !

 

[xando]

i have learned a lot from this thread, about politics, about discussion, about investigation, and so on. this campaign has shown that we immigrants have a number of excellent members, as makes me feel pride and confident. that seems the positive side of bill c-24. a lot of thanks to my friends in this thread i have never seen, and the best wish to your future living. more waiting time, not a serious problem. let's move on. we are strong today, and everything that doesn't defeat us will make us stronger tomorrow. during the next decades, give the conservative some color see see

 

[on-hold]

I think it's important to remember that Canada is still one of the very few countries in the world to accept random migrants. If you just feel like become Swiss, for instance, you can't do that; same for most European countries (unless you're already a citizen of another EU country). You can live in Japan for 50 years and you won't be Japanese, nor will your kids. A lot of countries accept a few refugees, in the classical sense, and most have some way for people to immigrate via marriage, but when you talk about skilled migration, it's Canada, the US, Australia, and NZ. (And I'm not even sure if all of those let skilled migrants eventually become citizens.) Of those countries, Canada's current 3-year residency for citizenship is the shortest; with the new law, it will be equal to Australia's (which is however more reasonable, since it still counts non-PR time). However, under the new system, Canada will also give you 2 years to be out of the country during that period, which is also generous. Personally, I am very grateful for that, for personal reasons . . .

One reason this bill frustrates me so much is that it could have been done well, and been part of a good debate about immigrants and the responsibilities of citizenship -- four years is no big deal, and I understand some of the worries of birth Canadians. But . . .

- 'intent to reside' clause is just nasty, it feeds prejudices.
- why not post-date the 4-year requirement? It's not an urgent problem, let PRs who are here now work through the system that they applied under.
- why cut off the student/TW time? Makes no sense.
- why have citizenship revocation done by ministerial decree and not the courts? Mind-boggling.

It makes people like me wonder if these are clever nose-of-the-camel attempts by the CPC to start the ball rolling on things they want down the road, or if they're just stupid and can't help themselves . . .

 

[RAY2112]

Oh yeah give the conservatives some color , they better amend this bill, because there will be after a while a new citizen wave that are going to vote against them 8).

 

[RAY2112]

Agree On-Hold.

This thread is starting to get hysterical -- as Matt the Antipodean has pointed out, what is happening is how laws are made in a parliamentary system. It's normal. The minority makes noise, the majority does what it wants. Furthermore, this bill is not controversial -- large majorities of the population agree with making it harder to get citizenship, a lot of Canadians are concerned about that. It's also normal. The objections to the bill are technical and philosophical. People who think about citizenship are generally opposed to the idea of making it two-tiered. Other people object to the bill because of its procedural issues around citizenship revocation, oath of intent to stay, etc. I object to it for those reasons, and selfishly too, because I want to apply this year.

It's probably going to pass unchanged, and then the issues around oath of intent and revocation of citizenship will be fought first procedurally and then legally. Until that happens, no one will know how those clauses will affect us. Practically, there is every chance that they will have no impact at all, at first, but time will tell on that.

You know what, though? This bill is less of a change than shifting FSW to an EOI model. I think that's a REALLY low blow.

Could I also ask that people who are weighing into this thread with the question "When will the bill pass? When will the bill take effect?" please read the thread, in which this question has been analyzed in great depth and detail? Thank you!

 

[meyakanor]

The intent-to-reside clause, while indeed nasty, is actually nothing new among developed nations. The US, New Zealand, the UK and Australia all have this 'intent-to-reside' provision as a requirement to apply for naturalization. Republic of Ireland has even gone a step further by literally creating two-tiered citizenships, where naturalized citizens are subject to residency requirements. Not sure how effectively they can enforce it though. These countries all pro-claim similar values as Canada, though I doubt any of their naturalized citizens ever lost citizenships due to regular residence abroad (except maybe in the case of Ireland).

Revocation of citizenships due to acts of terrorism has been done several times by the UK government. Some citizens even had their citizenships revoked even though they gained their citizenships by birth, and even though they were only suspected and not convicted of the acts (I'm not sure though if any of these people had ever been made stateless due to the revocation). While the law may have had the best of intentions to protect Canadian interests, in the hand of an abusive minister, who knows what could happen? It has happened in the UK where citizens got their status stripped for merely suspicion (and NOT conviction), who is to say for sure it won't ever happen in Canada?

The pre-PR time however should still count if we are to align our laws closer to other countries with similar values. Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, etc, count time residents have spent in the country legally (one-to-one). The US, though, counts only time after green card is granted, so if the stated goal had been to align it closer to the US, then I can see where they're coming from on eliminating pre-PR time for citizenship qualifying residency purpose.

 

[MasterGeek]

Would you object or support this bill if you were already a Canadian citizen ? Wouldn't you think that there too many immigrants arriving and taking the jobs of citizens like you and that's it's too easy to get citizenship, which devaluates your Canadian passport ?

Once I become a Canadian citizen, is there a way to inform the Canadian authorities that I have renounced my original citizenship so that I can be protected from any arbitrary revokation of my Canadian citizenship that could be made by error ?
What if the original country doesn't have a process for renouncing citizenship ? Would a formal declaration to the Canadian authorities that I repudiated my original citizenship/country be enough to be considered a non-dual citizen ?