Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[doctorkb]

2) Canadians who advocate removing Charter rights from immigrants don't get a free pass, simply because they're Canadian.

Which Charter rights are those that I'm advocating removing?

Let's get things straight.

I don't think we should increase the waiting time.

I don't think we should eliminate due process (for the record, Ministerial-prerogative is very rarely expended without due process, but it can be)

I *DO* think we should have at least lip service to holding citizens accountable to their citizenship. I would prefer to not create the headache the US has with trying to collect taxes from overseas citizens, so the alternative is that we expect the citizenry to have some ties to Canada other than the front cover of their passport.

 

[chakrab]

Since I arrived here to live beneath the principals of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

can you mention which section of the charter is refused under the act?

 

[on-hold]

From the Charter:


6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

 

[chakrab]

so the law prohibits you from leaving canada or entering the country?

btw, here's something that was discussed in 1981 that may interest you

When the Charter was negotiated in 1981, there was general agreement that section 6 would not affect extradition. As one politician named Mr. Tassé explained,

"Perhaps I might mention that we do not see Clause 6 as being an absolute right: I will give you an example of a situation where a citizen would, in effect, lose his right to remain in the country: that would be by virtue of an order under the Extradition Act: if someone committed an offence in another country and he is sought in this country, he could be surrendered to the other country."

This interpretation was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 in Sriskandarajah v. United States of America.

 

[taleodor]

trust me, conservatives are not scared in federal elections at this point. the oppositions need much better leaders to make any difference. also most immigrants vote conservative. check the racial diversity in the HOC and you will realize that.

Huh, how's the racial diversity related to the immigrant votes?

+ how else would u explain a number of new 9to5er faces in this thread?

 

[Tolerance]

so the law prohibits you from leaving canada or entering the country?

Of course. What do you think the uproar is about ?

 

[chakrab]

Of course. What do you think the uproar is about ?

the uproar is about speculations.

 

[Tolerance]

trust me, conservatives are not scared in federal elections at this point. the oppositions need much better leaders to make any difference. also most immigrants vote conservative. check the racial diversity in the HOC and you will realize that.

Someone already asked for facts and data here. Like Lysane said to Alexander, it seems the Conservatives are hooked up to a system that lets them poll immigrants in real time and then present the info to us (how else would he be able to say that 'most immigrants support bill c-24?).

 

[on-hold]

Here, chakrab -- good to see that you're back to get things wrong, without reviewing any of the discussion or links poster earlier in this thread. This is from the Canadian Bar Association, regarding the Intent to Reside oath in C-24:

This proposal is one of the most troubling in Bill C-24 and is highly vulnerable to abuse. The
CBA Section strenuously opposes requiring applicants to demonstrate an intent to reside in
Canada if granted citizenship.

First, the proposed requirement is likely unconstitutional. It would distinguish between
naturalized and other Canadian citizens, and would violate mobility rights.

It would create two tiers of citizenship: natural born Canadian citizens, who could travel and live abroad
without restriction; and naturalized Canadians, who would risk losing their status if they were ever to leave Canada

 

[chakrab]

Here, chakrab -- good to see that you're back to get things wrong, without reviewing any of the discussion or links poster earlier in this thread. This is from the Canadian Bar Association, regarding the Intent to Reside oath in C-24:

This proposal is one of the most troubling in Bill C-24 and is highly vulnerable to abuse. The
CBA Section strenuously opposes requiring applicants to demonstrate an intent to reside in
Canada if granted citizenship.

First, the proposed requirement is likely unconstitutional. It would distinguish between
naturalized and other Canadian citizens, and would violate mobility rights.

It would create two tiers of citizenship: natural born Canadian citizens, who could travel and live abroad
without restriction; and naturalized Canadians, who would risk losing their status if they were ever to leave Canada

again, that's speculating what may happen. it's same as saying if you sponsor your spouse as PR, then the spouse may get their PR revoked if the spouse divorces after 10 years. there is no proof that that is what is going to happen.

simple question: if you don't intend to reside in canada, why would one need a canadian citizenship?

 

[Matt the Aussie]

so the law prohibits you from leaving canada or entering the country?

Who said that?


6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right (not privilege subject to the minister, the right) to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

So Intent to Reside, I think we can all agree, will never come into play for a Canadian citizen that never leaves Canada again after the oath, right? On the other hand, anyone who has left Canada and has signed this Intent is now subject to the Minister's interpretation of said Intent.

To date, no one (myself included) has been able to definitively answer how you prove or disprove an Intent? As the CIC would be the accusor, what "proof" of Intent would a person be able to use to defend themselves? Especially when so far removed from the date the Intent was signed? And even if you could, who adjudicates these disputes? Not a judge, but the Minister. Where is the separate impartial body here?

Also, I'm not sure how your example of Extradition can be used when no one here is talking about people who commit criminal offences?

 

[chakrab]

on-hold, would you even care about this law this much if you had to submit the application tomorrow and don't fall under the proposed regulation. most people who are fighting the law here are only trying to delay it till they file their application. then they dont care what happens to it. that's what pisses me off. for most, it is a citizenship of convenience. we want the citizenship for the perks.

 

[chakrab]

Who said that?


6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right (not privilege subject to the minister, the right) to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

So Intent to Reside, I think we can all agree, will never come into play for a Canadian citizen that never leaves Canada again after the oath, right? On the other hand, anyone who has left Canada and has signed this Intent is now subject to the Minister's interpretation of said Intent.

To date, no one (myself included) has been able to definitively answer how you prove or disprove an Intent? As the CIC would be the accusor, what "proof" of Intent would a person be able to use to defend themselves? Especially when so far removed from the date the Intent was signed? And even if you could, who adjudicates these disputes? Not a judge, but the Minister. Where is the separate impartial body here?

Also, I'm not sure how your example of Extradition can be used when no one here is talking about people who commit criminal offences?

well we dont know what is residing in canada. is it 2 out of 5 years like PRs. is it 10 ot of 30 years? we don't even know what the term "residing in canada" means? so it is useless to speculate unless the govt (who people are worried will be enforcing the law) can define the terms of residency.

 

[Tolerance]

the uproar is about speculations.

I would much rather get rid of the provision so that nobody has to speculate. As it is, it is no speculation that it might get naturalized citizens (and only them) in trouble.

Note here the Cons could easily have remedied this problem if they ONLY intend to apply the provision to those convicted of terrorism.

The green MP (the only green female) suggested the wording be changed to: "...EXPRESSED the desire to reside" and the Cons rejected it. That would have prevented any revocations based on misrepresenting one's intentions, and would still send a message to new immigrants (which is purportedly, the only thing the cons want to do).

So, the wording is as it is INTENTIONALLY, and it serves as a threat to new immigrants, to prevent them from ever leaving Canada.

 

[on-hold]

Speak for yourself, chakrab. I care about this law because I love Canada, I'm grateful and honoured to be a PR, and I'll be a proud Canadian when I become naturalized -- and as such, I hate dumb stupidity like C-24's Oath of Intent to reside. I hate it if it is just some symbolic thing that the CPC dreamed up to show their base that they do indeed like to kick immigrants in the face, and I hate it if they apply it; I'll hate it if they apply it to all Canadians, which they never would because they would be voted out of office for the next several generations.

Neither does your creepy 'if you're going to stay here, why care?' argument apply to me -- Canada is one of the best places in the world to work in my field, I'd be shooting myself in the foot to leave.

Finally, what you're doing here -- examining personal motivations -- it's what's called the 'ad hominem' fallacy, that it's OK to disregard someone's arguments if you can figure out a personal reason to ignore them.

As for 'wanting citizenship for the perks' what does that even mean? Of course everyone does -- the perks of living in Canada, the perks of becoming Canadian, the perks of travelling the world as a Canadian. People immigrate to Canada because it offers advantages to them. That's why everyone immigrates. I take it you would only respect someone who became naturalized in Albania or Laos, countries where there are no perks at all to being a citizen. (Apologies to Albanians and Laotians, no doubt torontosm will seize on this post as evidence of deep-seated racism).