Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[sazamizi]

True!

The thing is if he meant so then why not amending the bill accordingly to tackle this confusion !!!!

 

[rayman_m]

did you look at his face when he said that , he didn't tell the truth .he was hiding some thing !!!

Yes, he is most incompetent minister in Harper regime does not even know what he wants to say to the media and public..Sad..

 

[rajmalhotra7]

Guys - We are not lawyers. I am not at least. I can rely on Canadian Bar Association interpretation of this bill on the below document:

www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

The site will be up on June 16. If Canadian Bar Association is raising concerns on something, that would be genuine.

Both of the following text is written in bill:
1. Intends to reside until Oath Ceremony
2. If granted citizenship, intends to reside in Canada.

Which further raises my concerns, so I am better off depending on what Canadian Bar Association has to say on this bill.

 

[taleodor]

Yes, this provision is written very vaguely. So the concern is it creates a loophole for someone inside the CIC who wants to abuse their power.

Adding up to this, the current Minister seems completely incompetent. Which is just another sad factor in the circumstances.

 

[us2yow]

Wow...Don Martin of CTV News tells it like it is..... well I guess one Canadian (and a respected journalist like Don Martin) is extremely well positioned to do that ! Alexander just walked into it with his behaviour !

Chris Alexander - Where has the Diplomat in you gone ?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin/blog-chris-alexander-where-has-the-diplomat-in-you-gone-1.1867283

 

[rayman_m]

I think the main reason for incompetency about Alexander new job is lack of knowledge and diversity of the Canada and immigration. He mostly spent his earlier time as diplomat. It is Harper who wasted this guy's ability given him a job for which he is not fit for...

 

[anon123]

Thanks a lot for your response. And let me try to heal your concerns.

Your concern

"Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship".

That's incorrect. IF you just scroll little bit down to the subsection 5.1 of the Bill the law clearly states that :

[size=10pt]1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.[/size]

Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:

1) What is the applicant's intent?
To reside in Canada from the day they are granted citizenship until they die.

2) When does the applicant have this intent?
From the day he/she signs the application until the Oath ceremony.

There is no requirement for you to remain in Canada while CIC is processing the application as long as you have evidence that your stay outside of Canada is temporary and will end once you are granted citizenship. The most the Minister can do is refuse to grant you citizenship, but you will still be a PR and can (hopefully) use the judicial system in Canada to prove your application was rejected unjustly.

But once you become a citizen, if you leave Canada for any reason other than the listed (to work for the government or to accompany a Canadian working for the government) the Minister may revoke your citizenship if he/she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that during that period between your application and the Oath ceremony you did not have the intent to reside in Canada after getting citizenship, even if you were residing in Canada at that time. If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.

 

[wuming]

Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:

1) What is the applicant's intent?
To reside in Canada from the day they are granted citizenship until they die.

2) When does the applicant have this intent?
From the day he/she signs the application until the Oath ceremony.

There is no requirement for you to remain in Canada while CIC is processing the application as long as you have evidence that your stay outside of Canada is temporary and will end once you are granted citizenship. The most the Minister can do is refuse to grant you citizenship, but you will still be a PR and can (hopefully) use the judicial system in Canada to prove your application was rejected unjustly.

But once you become a citizen, if you leave Canada for any reason other than the listed (to work for the government or to accompany a Canadian working for the government) the Minister may revoke your citizenship if he/she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that during that period between your application and the Oath ceremony you did not have the intent to reside in Canada after getting citizenship, even if you were residing in Canada at that time. If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.

Exactly! Alexander is trying to fool us!

 

[anon123]

Exactly! Alexander is trying to fool us!

And it is really scary. The only obligation of the Minister is to notify you by mail to your "last known address in Canada". It is just a notification that your citizenship is under review, not a hearing. Who will keep updating CIC after he/she gets citizenship whenever they move, just in case the Minister decides to revoke their citizenship? Nobody. In practice, a naturalized citizen will not know if his/her citizenship has been revoked until one shiny day when he/she leaves Canada an tries to reenter, just to be deported to where they were born.

It will be a life of fear for every naturalized citizen who dares cross the border. When going back to Canada you will always be thinking "am I still a citizen". This is not the feeling one should have when coming home.

 

[paw339]

If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.

The "intend to reside" clause is a popular change among Canadians from what I can tell. This obviously is a major problem for anyone who doesn't "intend to reside" because they are the actual target of the changes not some innocent victim. But is this change fair? For future immigrants obviously yes, as they will know the rules before they apply/arrive. But what about someone who has been in Canada for a number of years, who is following the rules and is planning to get Canadian Citizenship, then leave; perhaps only to return to Canada if there is a disaster at home or to use Canada as their retirement location? They've invested a lot of time and effort on their plan, but then suddenly the rules have been changed on them retroactively, is that fair? I suppose it depends on whether you take a rules based approach to immigration or an more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach. If you take a rules based approach, then retroactively applying the "intend to reside" clause to existing immigrants is definitely unfair, but if you take a more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach then you would probably say it is fair because Canadian Citizenship was never intended to be an insurance policy or a passport of convenience.

The lack of the right of appeal if your Citizenship is removed because the minister is convinced you never had the "intend to reside", is an issue that needs to be addressed and will probably be the subject of a constitutional appeal.

But as I've said before, New Zealand introduced an "intend to reside" clause and the only individuals affected were those that were actively planning on leaving before they received their citizenship and they were the actual target of the changes. It never caused problems for Citizen's whose circumstances changed after they received citizenship and subsequently left New Zealand. Although if the "intend to reside" clause applies to you it would probably be risky to leave Canada permanently less than 12 months after getting your Citizenship unless there is an obvious and unexpected change to your circumstances.

 

[marcus66502]

The "intend to reside" clause is a popular change among Canadians from what I can tell. This obviously is a major problem for anyone who doesn't "intend to reside" because they are the actual target of the changes not some innocent victim. But is this change fair? For future immigrants obviously yes, as they will know the rules before they apply/arrive. But what about someone who has been in Canada for a number of years, who is following the rules and is planning to get Canadian Citizenship, then leave; perhaps only to return to Canada if there is a disaster at home or to use Canada as their retirement location? They've invested a lot of time and effort on their plan, but then suddenly the rules have been changed on them retroactively, is that fair? I suppose it depends on whether you take a rules based approach to immigration or an more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach. If you take a rules based approach, then retroactively applying the "intend to reside" clause to existing immigrants is definitely unfair, but if you take a more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach then you would probably say it is fair because Canadian Citizenship was never intended to be an insurance policy or a passport of convenience.

The lack of the right of appeal if your Citizenship is removed because the minister is convinced you never had the "intend to reside" is an issue that needs to be addressed and will probably be the subject of a constitutional appeal.

But as I've said before, New Zealand introduced an "intend to reside" clause and the only individuals affected were those that were actively planning on leaving before they received their citizenship and they were the actual target of the changes. It never caused problems for Citizen's whose circumstances changed after they received citizenship and subsequently left New Zealand. Although if the "intend to reside" clause applies to you it would probably be risky to leave Canada permanently less than 12 months after getting your Citizenship unless there is an obvious and unexpected change to your circumstances.

The intent-to-reside clause is popular with native Canadians because they feel that too many Canadian passports are being handed out like candy to naturalized citizens who leave Canada for years. So they feel as if these naturalized citizens aren't truly Canadian if they live abroad for long periods of time. The trouble with this is that it's a knife that cuts both ways. Native-born Canadians would certainly like that freedom for themselves: to be able to go live and work in the US for years or decades without losing their Canadian citizenship.

So why the double standard? Because this bill is about naturalized citizens, who once had a different country as their home, and so they're never really viewed as fully Canadian even after being granted citizenship. The law doesn't distinguish between a naturalized citizen and native-born one but human prejudices do and this is one area where we see those prejudices work their way into new law.

I don't think we can ever entirely eliminate that prejudice no matter what we do. I had a legal change of name in Ontario recently to a very typical Canadian name (both first and last) and I'm Caucasian, with almost no accent. They still ask me "what's your nationality?" everywhere I go, banks, stores, shopping malls, airports (and I mean I get asked by total strangers, how's that for rude?)

 

[CanV]

how do we promote this? Any ideas?

PUBLIC PROTEST WILL TAKE PLACE ON JUNE 30 2014 at 5 pm at :

5100 Yonge St, Toronto, Ontario M2N 5V7

Mel Lastman Square

https://www.facebook.com/events/329557137191849/

 

[S khan]

Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:

1) What is the applicant's intent?
To reside in Canada from the day they are granted citizenship until they die.

2) When does the applicant have this intent?
From the day he/she signs the application until the Oath ceremony.

There is no requirement for you to remain in Canada while CIC is processing the application as long as you have evidence that your stay outside of Canada is temporary and will end once you are granted citizenship. The most the Minister can do is refuse to grant you citizenship, but you will still be a PR and can (hopefully) use the judicial system in Canada to prove your application was rejected unjustly.

But once you become a citizen, if you leave Canada for any reason other than the listed (to work for the government or to accompany a Canadian working for the government) the Minister may revoke your citizenship if he/she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that during that period between your application and the Oath ceremony you did not have the intent to reside in Canada after getting citizenship, even if you were residing in Canada at that time. If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.

I guess you need to read my answer again and again. Everything is very clear there. But if some people don't wanna understand its there choice. In either way weather they like it or not this bill gonna pass.

And these lawyers always come in action to gain popularity. A supreme court cannot object on the law made by elected representatives of Canada.

Further, most resistance against this bill is from International Students who became PR. But I don't know why ...... What I know is neither USA nor Australia count the time people use to spend before the Green Card or Permanent Visa towards citizenship. So its just the right move.

"Be a green card holder for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing"

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization/path-us-citizenship


So I dont find anything super natural in the bill.

 

[zardoz]

While what happens in New Zealand is very interesting, it's completely irrelevant to Canada. You might just as well quote Japanese citizenship legislation. The Bill we have to face is the one presented by the Canadian Government and none other.

 

[paw339]

While what happens in New Zealand is very interesting, it's completely irrelevant to Canada. You might just as well quote Japanese citizenship legislation. The Bill we have to face is the one presented by the Canadian Government and none other.

A lot of the changes New Zealand made to their immigration system seem to be making there way to Canada, including the new expression of interest system.