Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[ghatot201]

Many people I have spoken to capitalized on the Liberal's loose border policies and have only been to Canada twice (once for landing and once for the citizenship test) and yet gained citizenship.

Forgive me, but you sound like a person who travels the world, interviewing Canadians about their passports or citizenships (based on the 'countless' canadians you have met and spoken to abroad). And even if they were here for 3 years or less, or if they obtained their passports via fraudulent means, or if they were here 'twice' for landing and citizenship test, why would these 'countless' 'Canadians' degrade themselves by informing you this?

 

[daktrader]

Thus the CIC has statred a random check process on naturalized Citizens who have attained Canadian Citizenships.
Alot of people have attained the citizenship through fraudulant means and are being investigated randomly.

Be Honest and you have nothing to worry about!
All the Best!

Forgive me, but you sound like a person who travels the world, interviewing Canadians about their passports or citizenships (based on the 'countless' canadians you have met and spoken to abroad). And even if they were here for 3 years or less, or if they obtained their passports via fraudulent means, or if they were here 'twice' for landing and citizenship test, why would these 'countless' 'Canadians' degrade themselves by informing you this?

 

[torontosm]

Forgive me, but you sound like a person who travels the world, interviewing Canadians about their passports or citizenships (based on the 'countless' canadians you have met and spoken to abroad). And even if they were here for 3 years or less, or if they obtained their passports via fraudulent means, or if they were here 'twice' for landing and citizenship test, why would these 'countless' 'Canadians' degrade themselves by informing you this?

I am definitely someone who has traveled the world, but I haven't interviewed people. You probably wouldn't understand, but some of us have amiable personalities where we make friends and people enjoy speaking with us. As a result of these conversations, I have gleaned experience and heard stories which I related in my last post. As I mentioned right at the start, my views are based on my personal experience ONLY. Given your lack of global awareness, coupled with your unduly aggressive posturing, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

[ghatot201]

I am definitely someone who has traveled the world, but I haven't interviewed people. You probably wouldn't understand, but some of us have amiable personalities where we make friends and people enjoy speaking with us. As a result of these conversations, I have gleaned experience and heard stories which I related in my last post. As I mentioned right at the start, my views are based on my personal experience ONLY. Given your lack of global awareness, coupled with your unduly aggressive posturing, I wouldn't expect you to understand.

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. You are making assumptions without any evidence or proof. In the quoted example you make multiple assumptions.
1. you assume i am not amiable
2. I can neither make friends nor do I enjoy speaking to people.
3. I lack global awareness.
4. I am aggressive (when i started my line with 'forgive me'. How is that aggressive)

All your posts on this topic have been assumptions without hard facts.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

Your point is correct and is absolutely fair. Under the current system, both PR's and citizens who are residing in Canada must bear this burden. However, I am fairly certain that at some point in the future, Canada will be forced to go towards universal taxation on citizens as there is no way the cost of the aging population can be borne by resident taxpayers. If that does happen, the impact on citizens will be dramatic.

I'm not saying that the current bill closes all loopholes or solves all problems, and I agree that there are some areas that require modification. However, in my opinion, it is a step in the right direction and is better than anything we have had to date.

For me, the areas that "require modification" are actually creating new problems that did not exist before, hurting Canada rather than helping it.

Intent to Reside is bound to be challenged in the courts and my basic understanding of the Charter tells me it will be in for a hell of a fight. Even if it survives, does it not worry you that we will then have to divert Canadian resources (i.e. tax money) to CIC detectives who look into these cases? And as I said previously, how on earth are you going to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, someone's future "intent"? It's not like you're going to catch a whole whack of people "planning" their eventual move out of the country like some terrorist plot, with hard documented evidence.

And let's be clear, CIC is already looking closely at a wide range of Citizenship (and PR card renewal) applicants to try and catch out people who do not have good ties to Canada - i.e. the RQ process.

 

[torontosm]

The burden of proof should be on the accuser. You are making assumptions without any evidence or proof. In the quoted example you make multiple assumptions.
1. you assume i am not amiable
2. I can neither make friends nor do I enjoy speaking to people.
3. I lack global awareness.
4. I am aggressive (when i started my line with 'forgive me'. How is that aggressive)

All your posts on this topic have been assumptions without hard facts.

Who exactly am I accusing that I bear the burden of proof? Last I checked, this was a discussion forum where people chime in based on their knowledge and experience. My posts on this topic have been based on my experiences with people I have encountered.

As for your personality, I said what I did because you made a snide comment insinuating that I was fabricating stories to prove a point. that, in my opinion, was uncalled for and a bit immature. Of course I don't travel the world interviewing people about their passports. But surely you must have at least one or two friends, and sure they have opened up to you about a variety of things. Did you interview them about those subjects? Naturally not, but you now have some information that you can use to extrapolate ideas as and when appropriate.

Since you and on-hold seem determined to see hard figures, take a look at this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/estimated-2-8-million-canadians-live-abroad-1.790218

While dated, the article says that the emigration rate for naturalized Canadians was 3.4x that of born Canadians. It also says that 30% of immigrants from Taiwan return to their home country (after becoming citizens) and 24% of those from Hong Kong do the same.

Then, take a look at this article which offers figures on the exactly number of immigrants from Hong Kong who obtain a Canadian passport and return immediately to Hong Kong, while "harbouring hopes of eventually retiring here."

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/05/18/hong-kong-immigrants-streaming-out-of-canada/

The article goes on to say that any instability in China could:
" cause hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents with Canadian passports to suddenly flood back to this country – where they would be immediately eligible for health care, education and other taxpayer-funded benefits."

Now again, I ask you, where are your numbers?

 

[torontosm]

For me, the areas that "require modification" are actually creating new problems that did not exist before, hurting Canada rather than helping it.

Intent to Reside is bound to be challenged in the courts and my basic understanding of the Charter tells me it will be in for a hell of a fight. Even if it survives, does it not worry you that we will then have to divert Canadian resources (i.e. tax money) to CIC detectives who look into these cases? And as I said previously, how on earth are you going to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, someone's future "intent"? It's not like you're going to catch a whole whack of people "planning" their eventual move out of the country like some terrorist plot, with hard documented evidence.

And let's be clear, CIC is already looking closely at a wide range of Citizenship (and PR card renewal) applicants to try and catch out people who do not have good ties to Canada - i.e. the RQ process.

I appreciate your point and agree that the "intent to reside" clause will be very difficult to enforce. However, I support it as it will at least force someone who has no intention of living in Canada to reconsider signing the application, as it would otherwise be deliberate misrepresentation. If someone does leave the day after obtaining citizenship, the government would have a clear case about how they never had an intention of staying in Canada. A month or year later and the line becomes blurred and the case becomes weakened.

Again, I think that this is a step in the right direction and not the ideal solution.

 

[kevikennedy]

The "many people tell me" statement has no factual or statistical basis - it's just anecdotal and nothing more (this is true for whichever viewpoint is held).

The position of "just stay out of trouble" or "then don't do anything wrong" presumes that every time someone is accused of something they are guilty. Scary.

Now that I've got that out of my system, I'm going to try and follow Observer's approach of sticking to the matter of C-24's status. That's what matters most, and funny enough, matters to whichever side you're on.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

I appreciate your point and agree that the "intent to reside" clause will be very difficult to enforce. However, I support it as it will at least force someone who has no intention of living in Canada to reconsider signing the application, as it would otherwise be deliberate misrepresentation. If someone does leave the day after obtaining citizenship, the government would have a clear case about how they never had an intention of staying in Canada. A month or year later and the line becomes blurred and the case becomes weakened.

Again, I think that this is a step in the right direction and not the ideal solution.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree it would be a clear case. Surely the burden of proof AFTER the Citizenship has been issued belongs to the prosecutor - in this case CIC. What documentary evidence could they possibly use in this case? Simply that it looks fishy? While I agree that scenario would look bad, it's not proof of anything.

All the applicant has to do is say that his intent at the time of signing was to stay, and then he changed his mind.

 

[Hasher]

Who exactly am I accusing that I bear the burden of proof? Last I checked, this was a discussion forum where people chime in based on their knowledge and experience. My posts on this topic have been based on my experiences with people I have encountered.

As for your personality, I said what I did because you made a snide comment insinuating that I was fabricating stories to prove a point. that, in my opinion, was uncalled for and a bit immature. Of course I don't travel the world interviewing people about their passports. But surely you must have at least one or two friends, and sure they have opened up to you about a variety of things. Did you interview them about those subjects? Naturally not, but you now have some information that you can use to extrapolate ideas as and when appropriate.

Since you and on-hold seem determined to see hard figures, take a look at this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/estimated-2-8-million-canadians-live-abroad-1.790218

While dated, the article says that the emigration rate for naturalized Canadians was 3.4x that of born Canadians. It also says that 30% of immigrants from Taiwan return to their home country (after becoming citizens) and 24% of those from Hong Kong do the same.

Then, take a look at this article which offers figures on the exactly number of immigrants from Hong Kong who obtain a Canadian passport and return immediately to Hong Kong, while "harbouring hopes of eventually retiring here."

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/05/18/hong-kong-immigrants-streaming-out-of-canada/

The article goes on to say that any instability in China could:
" cause hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents with Canadian passports to suddenly flood back to this country – where they would be immediately eligible for health care, education and other taxpayer-funded benefits."

Now again, I ask you, where are your numbers?

The only things that immigrants wants to know that "Why the clause intent to stay applied only to new immigrant, as a matter of equality it should also applied to born Canadians working in Middle east and Saudi Arabia.

Since you have been moving so much globally and met with so many people why you have one sided story, the other side of the story is;

For over 20 years, around 17000 Canadian (approx. 65% born Canadian) working in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Middle east has taken residency of Bahrain, Dubai and Cyprus. I worked almost all over middle east and believe me immigrants are more willing to pay tax to Canadian government than born Canadian. Do you think anything happened in Middle East these Canadians would not come back to enjoy the health care and benefits, or they do not have plans to spend retired life after not contributing CRA a single penny of Tax free earning of Middle east. If Yes, than why they are entitle and not the new immigrants, because new immigrants are second class Citizen.

I met with a Canadian born citizen group working in Saudi Arabia cursing to Canadian Taxing system, Canadian weather and even Canadian people living in east of Canada, I was the only one defending & praising Canada and its beauty (as just new immigrant at that time).

Regarding Immigrant coming to Canada and bleeding tax payers money, my friend Canadian Looney (Economy) only able to Kiss the USD after Canada opens immigration, these Canadian contributed not millions, Billions and Billions of Dollars to Canadian economy, they brought banks flourishing and real estate stability to Canada, commodity market gone 10 fold what it was in 1993 as compare to US development, Canadian are paying more tax, because they are making more money in Canada and that becoz of immigrant brought opportunity, investment and cheap manpower to Canada, do not look them so down.

 

[Tolerance]

The "many people tell me" statement has no factual or statistical basis - it's just anecdotal and nothing more (this is true for whichever viewpoint is held).

The position of "just stay out of trouble" or "then don't do anything wrong" presumes that every time someone is accused of something they are guilty. Scary.

Now that I've got that out of my system, I'm going to try and follow Observer's approach of sticking to the matter of C-24's status. That's what matters most, and funny enough, matters to whichever side you're on.

I second that. I would also suggest everyone ignore torontosm.

On a different note, I have been wondering who the new law would be applicable to. Does anybody have anything to offer on that?

I posted in another thread, but it does not seem to be getting a lot of traffic, so here it is here again:

I actually think this is one of the most important issues (who the new law would be applicable to), and it might make some other hot issues in the bill irrelevant - for some people at least. If the new law (whatever its final form might be), especially its residency requirements (increased from 3 years to 4), were to be applied only to those who become PRs AFTER the new law comes into force, that would satisfy an important concern for a lot of people who are protesting the bill. This would mean that if you became PR before the new law comes into force - you would be able to apply for citizenship based on the current regulations (3 years' residency). The argument about fairness is there because it hardly seems fair to shake hands with the Canadian Government in 2011 and both parties promise to hold their end of the bargain, and then they just change the details of the 'contract' (like surgi suggested). If they want to change the details, then the new immigrants should have a chance to accept or go somewhere else where their and their families' interests might perhaps be better served, and where their contribution might be better appreciated. Those who have already been living here for years should not be affected.

I actually just emailed two MPs and asked for clarification on who the new law should apply to. Will share if I hear back from them.

Other than the actual application of the law, I am very much for counting the pre-PR days for students and refugees. For some other hot issues, I think some parts of the bill will just have to be axed because they are unconstitutional (such as creating two tiers of citizens). Legal experts have pretty much all raised their voices about the unconstitutionality of some of the provisions. But I am sure conservatives are intentionally asking for the moon to leave some room for 'negotiation' and 'concessions,' to make the opposition feel like they achieved something, while the conservatives get just what they want Smiley. It is all a charade.

On a lighter note, I don't know why the conservatives won't just take the broomstick ouf of their rear end, relax a little, and enjoy the wonderful diversity this country can be proud of Grin. I sound like McCallum Smiley.

 

[torontosm]

I second that. I would also suggest everyone ignore torontosm.

On a different note, I have been wondering who the new law would be applicable to. Does anybody have anything to offer on that?
I posted in another thread, but it does not seem to be getting a lot of traffic, so here it is here again:
I actually just emailed two MPs and asked for clarification on who the new law should apply to. Will share if I hear back from them.

Perhaps if you spent your time using google or the search feature on this site instead of making inane comments about ignoring people, you would have your answer. As Chris Alexnander said in Parliament:
"I would like to add, before we get too far into this, that the rules would only apply after this law comes into force and after the necessary orders in council have been gazetted, changing the regulations in this respect. So anyone who is making an application to become a Canadian citizen now or for the foreseeable future as this bill moves through this House and the other place, will be treated under the current rules. I want to be absolutely explicit on that point."

That means that if the bill passes in its current form, everyone who applies after the bill becomes law will be subject to the new rules. Whether the bill will pass in its current form or not, and whether exceptions will be made for existing PR's vs. new PR's or not, is yet to be seen.

Still feel like ignoring me?

 

[Observer]

Guys, I have just checked the House of Senate site and nothing is scheduled yet for bill 24.
I wish you happy long weekend and relaxed mode next week as there will be no sitting at the Parliament.

 

[Skakeholder]

I'm among those hoping nothing going to happen before MPs go to summer break, i.e. June 20, 2014.
I will file my docs in the mid of Sep. 2014.

 

[on-hold]

Look at this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/homecoming-program-lures-expats-back/article18737434/

Canadian-born Canadians going abroad to work! Let's see if the comments section fills up with frothing screeds raging against 'passports of convenience' and calling for citizenships to be revoked.