Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[sicko86]

Hello folks, check out this:



Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to what you said about the intent to reside in Canada.

Someone who states that they intend to reside in Canada, becomes a citizen and leaves Canada to live abroad could not be accused of having made a false statement to acquire their citizenship. Their citizenship cannot be revoked because they left Canada shortly after acquiring it. Did I understand correctly?




4:25 p.m.

Conservative



Chris Alexander Ajax—Pickering, ON

Absolutely. Under the new bill, the declaration of intent to reside in Canada applies to the period of four years out of six when the individual must live here to be eligible for Canadian citizenship.




4:25 p.m.

NDP



Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

So that does not apply after they become citizens.




4:25 p.m.

Conservative



Chris Alexander Ajax—Pickering, ON

That's correct.

Of course, we will continue to promote residing in Canada, as that is the objective of our immigration system and our citizenship program. However, we recognize the global nature of our economy and we know that a Canadian company could offer a new citizen a job in Berlin, Hong Kong or Kinshasa.

That what I was talking about! so no need to freak out about the "intent to reside clause". Once you are Canadian Citizen just Relax!

 

[meyakanor]

What Alexander mentioned there made absolutely no sense.

It may be his intention that applicants are only required to be physically present in Canada during 4 out of the 6 years, but that should've been taken care of by the proposed bill anyway where 'residency' is made less ambiguous by requiring physical presence for 4 out of 6 six years preceding the application. The 'intent-to-reside' clause was for the applicants if they are granted citizenship (which means, AFTER, citizenship is granted).

Why bother with the redundant intent-to-reside, if the applicants are already required to physically be present in Canada for these four years anyway? In these four years, they need to absolutely be present in Canada, else they won't qualify for citizenship, how would it make any difference at all whether they state their intention to reside in Canada?

The intent-to-reside clause is for AFTER citizenship is granted, and no matter how much Alexander likes to twist it, he is not fooling anyone.

The Citizenship Act, after the bill becomes law, would read

5. (1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who

(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,

(i) to continue to reside in Canada,

(ii) to enter into, or continue in, employment outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, or

(iii) to reside with his or her spouse or common-law partner or parent, who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and is employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person;

The applicant needs to intend to continue residing in Canada after grant of citizenship, so saying that this would only apply for the four year period out of the six years before application would make no sense.

If later on, maybe 20 years after you become a citizen, the (then) minister decides that you never intended to continue residing in Canada after being granted citizenship (let's say you had a family business in your country of origin, which you never intended to continue at the time of oath, but you later changed your mind years later; or you sent job applications to several positions in the States before becoming citizen, even though you did not end up taking the offers; or you applied for US diversity lottery before you became a citizen, and despite not actually winning it, they came to know about it; etc), then technically they could proceed with an investigation for misrepresentation which would put your citizenship in jeopardy, even 20 years after you have become a citizen.

 

[on-hold]

What Alexander mentioned there made absolutely no sense.

It may be his intention that applicants are only required to be physically present in Canada during 4 out of the 6 years, but that should've been taken care of by the proposed bill anyway where 'residency' is made less ambiguous by requiring physical presence for 4 out of 6 six years preceding the application. The 'intent-to-reside' clause was for the applicants if they are granted citizenship (which means, AFTER, citizenship is granted).

Why bother with the redundant intent-to-reside, if the applicants are already required to physically be present in Canada for these four years anyway? In these four years, they need to absolutely be present in Canada, else they won't qualify for citizenship, how would it make any difference at all whether they state their intention to reside in Canada?

The intent-to-reside clause is for AFTER citizenship is granted, and no matter how much Alexander likes to twist it, he is not fooling anyone.

The Citizenship Act, after the bill becomes law, would read

The applicant needs to intend to continue residing in Canada after grant of citizenship, so saying that this would only apply for the four year period out of the six years before application would make no sense.

If later on, maybe 20 years after you become a citizen, the (then) minister decides that you never intended to continue residing in Canada after being granted citizenship (let's say you had a family business in your country of origin, which you never intended to continue at the time of oath, but you later changed your mind years later; or you sent job applications to several positions in the States before becoming citizen, even though you did not end up taking the offers; or you applied for US diversity lottery before you became a citizen, and despite not actually winning it, they came to know about it; etc), then technically they could proceed with an investigation for misrepresentation which would put your citizenship in jeopardy, even 20 years after you have become a citizen.

I agree with this completely -- the prospect of a misrepresentation investigation, based on things like FB posts, family illnesses, job applications, anything, that suggests the applicant did not intend to reside during those 4 years, can't be discounted. The minister's response is simply nonsense; and, his response also doesn't mean anything, it is the statute itself that matters, not some gibberish spouted during a parliamentary debate.

 

[us2yow]

Citizenship Legislative Reform for 2014-15
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/acts-regulations/forward-regulatory-plan/citreform.asp

These regulatory amendments are conditional to the passage of the Bill which is currently following the legislative process. Regulatory amendments could occur in 2014 or 2015 and would include amendments to support the legislative amendments relating to increased efficiencies in the citizenship program.

 

[meyakanor]

I agree with this completely -- the prospect of a misrepresentation investigation, based on things like FB posts, family illnesses, job applications, anything, that suggests the applicant did not intend to reside during those 4 years, can't be discounted. The minister's response is simply nonsense; and, his response also doesn't mean anything, it is the statute itself that matters, not some gibberish spouted during a parliamentary debate.

You know, I used to only care (ashamedly) about the not-counting pre-PR time, since it would directly affect me, and would make me wait for two extra years, but if this bill is passed as is, then waiting for two extra years seems to be the least of the problem, and a lot of potential (I say potential since it may or may not happen) issues may surface years down the line, and all it takes is an abusive minister and we'll see revocations after revocations.

The Republic of Ireland has two-tiered citizenships, and the UK has revoked citizenships due to mere suspicions (yes, suspicions, NOT conviction) of acts of terrorism, even from British-born citizens! These two countries are supposedly the countries that share the same democratic values as Canada, and supposedly respect due process and human rights. Whatever happens to presumption of innocence? Are we really strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship by passing this bill?

 

[on-hold]

Same here -- I feel like this bill is a mixture of things that make sense, things that are stupid, and then things that look like the first step in a long process. "Intent to reside" falls into the latter. It might be a purely symbolic gift to the CPC base ('Yes, immigrants ARE here to work for you . . .'), it might be gibberish, or it might be the first step to changing the nature of Canadian citizenship. To me, the value of those first two (imaginary) is not worth the risk of it turning out to be the 3rd as well. Citizenship should be absolute, inalienable, and not a matter of non-judicial revocation based upon 'misrepresentation' of an unmeasurable feeling.

I'm hoping that upon passage of the bill, lawsuits bloom across the land like a field of summer hollyhocks and the courts batter this garbage down with their polite, gloved fists.

 

[om saif]

sorry to go out of topic, i need to know from where can i get the medical records for all my medical visits before applying. i need to be ready just in case. i knew that there is on place in Ontario where i can get all of them printed in one paper.
thanks

 

[Hasher]

Hello folks, check out this:



Of course, we will continue to promote residing in Canada, as that is the objective of our immigration system and our citizenship program. However, we recognize the global nature of our economy and we know that a Canadian company could offer a new citizen a job in Berlin, Hong Kong or Kinshasa.

Why Canadian Company, why not citizen are free to take job from any company in the World. Did he use the Word Canadian Company purposely?

 

[zardoz]

I think that we need to be careful not to read too much into the spoken words. It's what's written down in the legislation that matters. People say stupid things when they are trying to think on their feet during questions.

 

[Tolerance]

Hi


1, "we selected Canada as a democratic " And that is exactly what you got. The governing party of the democratically elected parliament of Canada, introduced a Citizenship bill, which appears likely to pass. Do you consider it democracy only if the ruling government passes bills and enacts legislation that you like?

Whoever watched the CIMM session today can confirm the awesomeness of the democracy :
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/TimeBandit/PowerBrowser_SilverLight.aspx?ContentEntityId=11906&EssenceFormatID=528&date=20140602&lang=en

Not one word of the Bill has been changed so far, and no reason to think that any part of it will see any modifications tomorrow (3.30 - 11.30 PM). The cons met every proposed amendment with a disinterested 'No'. We can argue about the meaning of the word 'democracy' but I think the spirit of the word is what matters. A 'democracy' that ignores the opposition, which represents 46% of the population, is not something to brag about, is it? And, as someone else has pointed out, when the majority passes a new law just because it can (as in the case of the Native children and residential schools - 80,000 have been awarded reparations for the unjust acts of the government), it does not necessarily mean it is democratic. Can you vote in a genocidal law in democratic fashion ? It is an oxymoron .

I think everyone would agree that it is important that citizens of a country be equal under law. If nobody cares about immigrants and naturalised citizens' troubles, perhaps there is another way to make sure everyone is equal under the law.

Instead of focussing on naturalized citizens and PRs, we could focus on Canadian-born citizens. To make things equal, and in light of the provision that demands all citizens must reside in their home country, all Canadian citizens should be made to come back, from wherever they are in the world, and reside in Canada. This is the provision of the new citizenship law, so it must apply to all citizens without exception.

So every Canadian living abroad must come back or risk revocation of citizenship. Also, if they have dual citizenship, the law must apply pressure on them to renounce their other citizenship. This is all in the spirit of equal application of the new law .

This is only to show you how citizens would be made equal in terms of ONLY ONE of the main provisions of the bill. Feel free to go through the other scenarios.

So, when you try to explain the consequences of Bill C-24 to those who don't care, try using the above idea. Menegakis says citizens should live in their country (where do they get these antiquated ideas???), so all Canadians must come back ASAP to live here. Equal application of the law to all would require all citizens must immediately come back and live in Canada.

As far as I am concerned, any country (of which I were a citizen) that says that I cannot live my life in any other country (under penalty of revoking my citizenship) is out of bounds. Who wants to have anything to do with such a country? So far I have travelled and lived in many countries, and my original homeland should have revoked my citizenship a long time ago (especially during the last few years in which I have lived in Canada). If we were to believe Menegakis, it is the standard in every democratic country of the world .

 

[dandash]

Whoever watched the CIMM session today can confirm the awesomeness of the democracy :
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/TimeBandit/PowerBrowser_SilverLight.aspx?ContentEntityId=11906&EssenceFormatID=528&date=20140602&lang=en

Not one word of the Bill has been changed so far, and no reason to think that any part of it will see any modifications tomorrow (3.30 - 11.30 PM). The cons met every proposed amendment with a disinterested 'No'. We can argue about the meaning of the word 'democracy' but I think the spirit of the word is what matters. A 'democracy' that ignores the opposition, which represents 46% of the population, is not something to brag about, is it? And, as someone else has pointed out, when the majority passes a new law just because it can (as in the case of the Native children and residential schools - 80,000 have been awarded reparations for the unjust acts of the government), it does not necessarily mean it is democratic. Can you vote in a genocidal law in democratic fashion ? It is an oxymoron .

I think everyone would agree that it is important that citizens of a country be equal under law. If nobody cares about immigrants and naturalised citizens' troubles, perhaps there is another way to make sure everyone is equal under the law.

Instead of focussing on naturalized citizens and PRs, we could focus on Canadian-born citizens. To make things equal, and in light of the provision that demands all citizens must reside in their home country, all Canadian citizens should be made to come back, from wherever they are in the world, and reside in Canada. This is the provision of the new citizenship law, so it must apply to all citizens without exception.

So every Canadian living abroad must come back or risk revocation of citizenship. Also, if they have dual citizenship, the law must apply pressure on them to renounce their other citizenship. This is all in the spirit of equal application of the new law .

This is only to show you how citizens would be made equal in terms of ONLY ONE of the main provisions of the bill. Feel free to go through the other scenarios.

So, when you try to explain the consequences of Bill C-24 to those who don't care, try using the above idea. Menegakis says citizens should live in their country (where do they get these antiquated ideas???), so all Canadians must come back ASAP to live here. Equal application of the law to all would require all citizens must immediately come back and live in Canada.

As far as I am concerned, any country (of which I were a citizen) that says that I cannot live my life in any other country (under penalty of revoking my citizenship) is out of bounds. Who wants to have anything to do with such a country? So far I have travelled and lived in many countries, and my original homeland should have revoked my citizenship a long time ago (especially during the last few years in which I have lived in Canada). If we were to believe Menegakis, it is the standard in every democratic country of the world .

This is so sad .. I cant believe this is happening !!!!!!!!!!!!! I just feel sorry for all the time I've spent here . I just wasted my time here.

 

[shaazdeh]

Tomorrow meeting starts at 3:30 pm ,, don't know when it ends :'(

 

[RAY2112]

Could you explain again

Whoever watched the CIMM session today can confirm the awesomeness of the democracy :
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/Parlvu/TimeBandit/PowerBrowser_SilverLight.aspx?ContentEntityId=11906&EssenceFormatID=528&date=20140602&lang=en

Not one word of the Bill has been changed so far, and no reason to think that any part of it will see any modifications tomorrow (3.30 - 11.30 PM). The cons met every proposed amendment with a disinterested 'No'. We can argue about the meaning of the word 'democracy' but I think the spirit of the word is what matters. A 'democracy' that ignores the opposition, which represents 46% of the population, is not something to brag about, is it? And, as someone else has pointed out, when the majority passes a new law just because it can (as in the case of the Native children and residential schools - 80,000 have been awarded reparations for the unjust acts of the government), it does not necessarily mean it is democratic. Can you vote in a genocidal law in democratic fashion ? It is an oxymoron .

I think everyone would agree that it is important that citizens of a country be equal under law. If nobody cares about immigrants and naturalised citizens' troubles, perhaps there is another way to make sure everyone is equal under the law.

Instead of focussing on naturalized citizens and PRs, we could focus on Canadian-born citizens. To make things equal, and in light of the provision that demands all citizens must reside in their home country, all Canadian citizens should be made to come back, from wherever they are in the world, and reside in Canada. This is the provision of the new citizenship law, so it must apply to all citizens without exception.

So every Canadian living abroad must come back or risk revocation of citizenship. Also, if they have dual citizenship, the law must apply pressure on them to renounce their other citizenship. This is all in the spirit of equal application of the new law .

This is only to show you how citizens would be made equal in terms of ONLY ONE of the main provisions of the bill. Feel free to go through the other scenarios.

So, when you try to explain the consequences of Bill C-24 to those who don't care, try using the above idea. Menegakis says citizens should live in their country (where do they get these antiquated ideas???), so all Canadians must come back ASAP to live here. Equal application of the law to all would require all citizens must immediately come back and live in Canada.

As far as I am concerned, any country (of which I were a citizen) that says that I cannot live my life in any other country (under penalty of revoking my citizenship) is out of bounds. Who wants to have anything to do with such a country? So far I have travelled and lived in many countries, and my original homeland should have revoked my citizenship a long time ago (especially during the last few years in which I have lived in Canada). If we were to believe Menegakis, it is the standard in every democratic country of the world .

 

[Tolerance]

Could you explain again

What is not clear exactly?

 

[civic]

I will be qualified to apply on June 16 - 2 weeks from today. You guys think I have a chance ???