Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:
- Thread starter polarbear
- Start date
You are right we have to react. It seems that the opposition will vote against the bill. The difference between opposition and majority is around 30 members. We have to win the support of about 30 members of the majority. There are many of them who are already first and second generation. We have to do some efforts. I met a friend who in contact with some politicians and he lives here since 22 year. He told me he thinks that many of the CP may not attend the voting process,not only to escape from the embarassement he/she may face from the voters in his constituent, but also because the CP would like to do that too. The CP may put the opposition in a critical situation during voting if they bring an equal number of voter members (during voting) of majority and the opposition.He thinks that some members of the opposition would vote for the Bill. If some of CP members vote against,then nobody will be able to know who vote for what??But if equal numbers vote and the Bil pass ,it means that part of the opposition voted for the Bill,then everybody will be involved and the opposition can not take an advantage and say they voted against!!! it is a game that is all!! In addition,Many legal firms and lawyers are ready to struggle against this Bill as it gives unprecedental and unilateral power to the minister to revoke or withdraw the citizenship. This is a big problem for some lawyers who depends on these legal conflicts between some applicants and the federal government. This touches their daily bread!!us2yow said:
With respect, I think that this is a fantasy. First of all, you are not going to peel off 30 members of the Conservative majority, that is not how Harper's government works. I think you will actually get 0 -- but maybe, just maybe, there are a few conservatives in tenuous ridings in the GTA who get permission to vote against the bill. I doubt it. This bill is not central to the Conservative policy, but it is central to their world-view. Be glad it's 4/6 years, and not 4/5, or 6/7.surgi said:
Furthermore, any CP members who vote against the bill will be more than balanced by members of the NDP and Liberals who vote for the bill. Remember, the government doesn't actually need any opposition votes to pass this bill -- and, the government is associated with it, this is Harper's and Alexander's work. Do the Liberals and the NDP want to be criticized for being 'un-Canadian' in the new election? To be called the parties that support 'giving away' Canadian citizenship? They do not . . . They will vote for this bill, and the immigrants who hate it will still vote for them later on, because they know that it is Stephen Harper's law. This is like a free vote for the Opposition, supporting this bill has no downside at all for them. Opposing it does.
Finally, suppose that you did get some organization of immigrants who actually started to get some traction? Can you imagine the headlines? "Immigrants battle for cheap citizenship!" "Immigrants outraged at requirement to live in Canada!" Your success would breed its own counter-organization, and that counter-organization would be 100 times more effective. Once you get the first tiniest foothold, it would become impossible for politicians to support you. Basically, we immigrants don't have standing to oppose this bill (in the eyes of many Canadians).
Does this mean that there is nothing you can do? Not at all -- but instead of opposing the bill, you have to select what parts of it you oppose. Personally, I would suggest a few routes:
- taking away the pre-PR qualifying time (totally unfair)
- setting implementation time one year in the future (give CIC time to train and develop its procedures to avoid another ghastly RQ-type mess)
- clarifying the implications of the 'Intent to Reside' clause, and making it congruent with the Charter
And never get the idea that people support you -- they don't. There are two things that will slow this bill down: revisions, or other scandals elsewhere in the government. The person who wrote that 'no news is good news' was 100% wrong -- no news means the bill is trundling along towards being a law, any news at all means that the government might get tied up elsewhere.
Listen, I applied for PR in 2009, soon after they revised the process. Before that revision, I got an email from the lawyer who manages this site, warning me to apply quickly because the rules were going to change and I might find myself unable to qualify. I didn't apply then, I waited, and when I did apply, my application was processed much faster than the people who had applied before me. AFter I had been in Canada for 2-3 years, I would sometimes see them complaining on this forum, that their applications were frozen and unprocessed. If I had joined them, it would have cost me years of my life. Instead I got PR in 10 months, and it would have been faster if a couple of outside things hadn't slowed down my application.
Citizenship might be a similar situation. I'll become eligible in November of this year; but it's also possible that I'll get an RQ. What would be worse? Applying this year and getting an RQ under the current system? Or applying next year, when they've hopefully worked out a streamlined system to deal with these things much faster? I don't know, so I don't waste my time worrying about it. Sometimes the thing you think you want is not the thing you need, and since you've got no choice in the matter, why make your life stressful?
Citizenship might be a similar situation. I'll become eligible in November of this year; but it's also possible that I'll get an RQ. What would be worse? Applying this year and getting an RQ under the current system? Or applying next year, when they've hopefully worked out a streamlined system to deal with these things much faster? I don't know, so I don't waste my time worrying about it. Sometimes the thing you think you want is not the thing you need, and since you've got no choice in the matter, why make your life stressful?
Worrying too much about the new law will make everyone's life measurable. Let it go its own way and whoever whenever qualifies just apply. I agree with "on-hold ". If the new law comes to in effect it does not matter to the PR who already has over 2 years physical presence. New law intents to grant applications within 6-8 months whereas the present law is approx. 12-18 months. So, in terms of time factor when one will be citizen is not a huge difference..
i like what u said man, sometimes thing u want isnt things u need.on-hold said:
i talked to many ppl here, twitter, facebook and one thing is in common, that we should take a wait and see approach. i will not change my travel plan and live happily as i can.
Immigration bill isnt making much noise in Canadian society bcuz it only affect, what, 5% of population, taking into account current PRs , foreign workers and International students? The country is governed under a MAJORITY government, which means no matter what the oppositions r trying to do, it wont stop any bills from passing .Yes, they can strategically delayed but eventually all government bills will become LAW. i am done worrying, but have to admit it was scary first. The thought of the bill will quickly pass in a few months and that i need to wait another year to apply for Citizenship throw me off a train. Especially the "intend to reside" clause, which opens door for government to limit person's wills and mobility, is troublesome. But i am sure we r well protected under the charter of right and the Conservative will hear it voters in the next election. There are still 18 months away from the election but i am predicting here that they will lose their majority.on-hold said:
The number of plaintiffs has nothing to do with the outcome of a court case. It's the strength of the arguments you present before the court (and whether the court buys your arguments). Filing a court case with no real arguments is like trying to start a car with no gasoline in its tank.u4g5 said:
What a bunch of self-delusion. I'm going put it plain and simple: immigrants are non-citizens and hence a non-voting block, i.e. without any voice in this government whatsoever. As such, they have no standing to demand anything. End of discussion.surgi said:
It is merely a delusion to think that a majority or even a significant part of the voting public is on the side of immigrants opposing the various provisions of this bill. The voting citizens who don't have relatives affected by this bill could not care less about the affected immigrants and are in fact happy that the bill makes it harder to qualify for citizenship. I realize it's pleasant to think that the remaining voters (those with relatives affected by this bill) are a significant part of the electorate but it's just not true.
In any case, it's time to just cut the crap and get real: no voter is going to base their vote on a just a single issue (a citizenship bill). I don't care if my own mother has to wait an extra year to apply for citizenship. My vote is not going to hinge on a single bill that has no effect on my take-home paycheck at the end of the day.
Simply put: I'm not going to vote for mere abstract principle. Like all other voters, I'm going to vote for the party that appears to best represent my economic interests (which for a simple person like me almost always means the party that lets me keep the most of my hard-earned money).
Where are you getting the 6-8 months processing time reference under the new law? That's not what the government claims. The Minister says processing times will be at most one year.rayman_m said:
And I have serious doubts about whether the CIC will live up to the Minister's promise. For one thing, former Minister Kenney made the same promise back in 2009 when he issued his first set of instructions and promised to clear the huge backlog of PR applications. One year max he said, and you don't need me to tell you how often they exceed that time frame, even now.
I seriously believe the promise of reduced processing times to one year for citizenship applications is just a fad promise designed to sell the bill quickly to the public (who is not interested in the technical details but only catches the sound bytes about it from the media). A little bit of thinking will convince anyone that it's not realistic to believe this promise. How do you go from 36 months processing time to 6-8 months with just a flick of a switch? Unless you believe they're going to start massive hiring and quadruple their staff, there is no way.
I'm going to paraphrase one of the House of Commons members here during the second reading debate of the bill. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe from Pierrefonds-Dollard, Quebec addressed this topic in her speech. She said she's glad that the government is promising reduced processing times; no one is opposed to that. The problem, she states, is that there's not a shred of evidence that this government will keep this promise judging from past experience with processing times.
I have to agree with her and it's not just from CIC's poor record of past processing times. After having lived here for almost two years, I find that slow processing is widespread in all departments of the federal government. Every department from Canada Post to Canada Revenue Agency to CIC takes forever to do anything, compared to similar departments in other countries. I'm convinced this is just part of the culture in the federal government and there is nothing much you can do about it. Statements of reduced processing times should be seen as marketing hype for the media outlets.
By the way, as far as CIC is concerned, I myself have spoken to a CIC officer working as an adjudicator of applications and she has told me that it takes at least 10 weeks to just begin processing a package at CIC (i.e. enter your application data in the system and officially acknowledge receipt of the application package).
Don't get wrong guys. I'll be glad to be wrong on this but processing times of 6-8 months at CIC are by and large pure fantasy.
As under the present law, people are applying now finding their application processing starts roughly within 2 month and test within 6-7 month time. Which makes us believe that routine applications may be finalized within 1 year including oath. This is what I am observing from Oct to Jan applicants thread.
I think you misudestand the word voting here. It is not voting for elections. It is for the bill in the parliament. There are calculations concerning votes . The problem here is not the BILL C24, it is the attitude of the government. Today it is for Bill C24 and tomorrow for other issues. You neglect and minorize as others in this topic the value of new citizens votes, most of the people whom I know and some of them are citizens since 20 years do not go to vote. This is a problem a real problem.marcus66502 said:
And, in all due respect, I think you don't really know what you're talking about. I'm not 'minorizing' the value of new citizens (if such a word does indeed exist). I'm putting it in its proper context. Once you are a citizen, it does not matter how you became one. New citizens will vote no different than other citizens. They will vote with their economic interests of lower income taxes in their head. To do otherwise, would be indeed foolishly irrational. And yes, I have to concede, there are always citizens who will act foolishly but I'll bet they are in the extreme fringes and hence a very tiny minority at best.surgi said:
More generally, I was addressing the pervasive impression people have in this forum that they are somehow entitled to demand alterations of the portions of bill C-24 that don't suit them just because they are PR's and can engage in protest. There's also the widespread attitude among these people that a huge part of the voting electorate supports them. And for icing on the cake, many believe that MPs are going to pay attention to them since they're going to be citizens tomorrow.
All of these notions are just delusional, self-serving fantasy that stokes the egos of those who hold them. You go ahead and believe MP's will bow to you if it makes you feel important, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, by believing it, you just show a blatant ignorance of the political establishment since on major policy issues MPs largely take their marching orders from their party headquarters. Letters from current citizens have almost no effect on them, let alone pleas from non-voting immigrants.