Bill C-6: Senate stage

[marcher]

"I also know you have been sent here to dispatch your duties in a non-partisan fashion, and so it seems apropos to be discussing Bill C-6 so early upon your arrival here, for if there was ever a bill that existed purely for partisan purposes, it is this one, which is why I must urge you, as you consider your own positions on Bill C-6, to apply independence of mind towards this bill's ill-conceived measures"

I perceive this above para of Linda Frum's speech as not really as a threat but as a way of trying to get some IND senators to vote against C6 by pricking their conscience on security issues on the voting day as the CONS would be knowing that majority of IND's would be voting for it and they (the CONS) have lost the majority in the senate they enjoyed.

That is one way of looking at it. But to me it appears different. If you are newly hired by a company, and in a meeting you express your opinion about a subject, and someone with a different opinion brings up the fact you are new, I see that as an attempt to keep you quiet or force you to change your opinion by playing a condescending card. These new Senators might not have been there for long, but they did not just start thinking now. They are all there because of their experience. To be fair, you do not need any Senate experience to be able to form an opinion on any bill. You just need to study and understand bill, then form your opinion.

Having said this, Senator Frum's points focused on clauses that cannot really be defended; probably that is why Liberal's are looking the other way.Although on the argument of revoking terrorist citizenship; I am wondering why that would not be considered treason. My understanding is that treason does allow citizenship revoking, but then I am not a legal expert.

Besides Senator Frum's message towards the new Senators, I have to admit everything else she said is reasonable, and I totally agree with her despite being affected by C-24.

I think you said that Sen. Frum discussed amendments with someone over twitter, I cannot find it. Can you paste the discussion here please?

 

[admontreal]

You voted? Why are you on here then? Following C-6 just for fun? lol

If you look at my signature I have been Canadian for almost 2 years I am following C-6 because nobody around me cares (in real life) and I am looking forward to having the value of my Canadian citizenship reinstated.

 

[marcher]

If you look at my signature I have been Canadian for almost 2 years I am following C-6 because nobody around me cares (in real life) and I am looking forward to having the value of my Canadian citizenship reinstated.

I did not pay attention to your status, but i did to your valuable comments.

I could assure you that regardless what the results of C-6 are, or any future bill along the same lines, your citizenship will have the same value. These new rules are only targeted towards individuals with bad intentions from the start. I know some question whether the intention to reside will include those who move to work abroad; I highly doubt it. That would be a pandora box the government would never want to open because first they do not have the capacity nor will ever have it to handle it, and second, it would just create unlimited court cases against the government, that won't benefit anyone other than the lawyers. In addition, there is official interpretation clarifying the intention if only applicable to the period the application is processed; which is fair in my opinion.

 

[admontreal]

I did not pay attention to your status, but i did to your valuable comments.

I could assure you that regardless what the results of C-6 are, or any future bill along the same lines, your citizenship will have the same value. These new rules are only targeted towards individuals with bad intentions from the start. I know some question whether the intention to reside will include those who move to work abroad; I highly doubt it. That would be a pandora box the government would never want to open because first they do not have the capacity nor will ever have it to handle it, and second, it would just create unlimited court cases against the government, that won't benefit anyone other than the lawyers. In addition, there is official interpretation clarifying the intention if only applicable to the period the application is processed; which is fair in my opinion.

Thank you ! But it's not a question of practical value (I travel exclusively on a Canadian passport and never had a difference of treatment with other Canadians), but of intrinsec value. As long as, on the law, there's a possibiltiy, even infinitesimal, that my citizenship can be stripped while someone else's can't, just because of our origins, I see the value of my citizenship decreasing. I never had bad intentions and I will never do, but I can't stand this inequality under the law, it's wrong, it's vicious, it's disgusting.
Also, even if it would seem paranoid to others, the concept of 'bad intentions' can change overtime. It can be expanded. It can evolve. Even more serious, a Foreign government can decide for you what terrorism is or not. That's not compatible with Canada and it should never be.

 

[captain74]

Thank you ! But it's not a question of practical value (I travel exclusively on a Canadian passport and never had a difference of treatment with other Canadians), but of intrinsec value. As long as, on the law, there's a possibiltiy, even infinitesimal, that my citizenship can be stripped while someone else's can't, just because of our origins, I see the value of my citizenship decreasing. I never had bad intentions and I will never do, but I can't stand this inequality under the law, it's wrong, it's vicious, it's disgusting.
Also, even if it would seem paranoid to others, the concept of 'bad intentions' can change overtime. It can be expanded. It can evolve. Even more serious, a Foreign government can decide for you what terrorism is or not. That's not compatible with Canada and it should never be.

Hear, hear!

 

[marcher]

Thank you ! But it's not a question of practical value (I travel exclusively on a Canadian passport and never had a difference of treatment with other Canadians), but of intrinsec value. As long as, on the law, there's a possibiltiy, even infinitesimal, that my citizenship can be stripped while someone else's can't, just because of our origins, I see the value of my citizenship decreasing. I never had bad intentions and I will never do, but I can't stand this inequality under the law, it's wrong, it's vicious, it's disgusting.
Also, even if it would seem paranoid to others, the concept of 'bad intentions' can change overtime. It can be expanded. It can evolve. Even more serious, a Foreign government can decide for you what terrorism is or not. That's not compatible with Canada and it should never be.

I totally understand and agree with your worries. However, I will just play the devil's advocate here for the sake of a discussion. What if we do give Harper Cons the benefit of the doubt, and for a minute believe their reasons for C-24. Using their logic and arguments, all clauses make sense (at least to me); except for the 4/6 rule; unless they believe an extra year in Canada will put off Canadians of Convenience. Now using Harper Cons argument, C-24 is meant to protect Canada and Canadians at security and economic levels.

Security-wise, no Canadian wants someone with evil intentions to be allowed to keep his or her Canadian citizenship; and we must all agree with this. However, my issue with the clause is not the solution it provides nor the the issue it addresses; but with the choice of category it is listed under. How many of Canada's naturalized citizens actually got involved in terrorist acts? I am not knowledgeable about the stats, but I am guessing probably none. Those that were arrested or made it to the news seem to all be born here; although their parents might have been abroad. My understanding is C-24 only applies to those born abroad. The thing I do not understand is why isn't this subject listed under treason; it narrows down the law to the exact group it should be targeted towards, because terrorism is the pinnacle of treason. I tend to lean towards Cons in this argument, although I am not necessarily a party supporter nor any other party supporter so far, because they kind of did their job. Not the best job, but bill C-24 is how they believe things should run. Now it is the turn of Liberals to make a case, and I never heard of anyone winning any debate by remaining silent. I think the solution is not to completely remove C-24's provisions; instead, tailor them and redirect them to the right categories.

Economic-wise, the intention to reside is supposed to target Canadians of Convenience. Now that clause is so ambiguous that even IRCC are not sure what it means. They make official interpretations of it stating it only applies to the period of application; yet we know Harper Cons introduced it to avoid situations such as that of the Lebanese Canadians in 2006. Intention to reside for about 6 months while the application is processed does not solve any problem at all. I personally think that this problem of Canadians of Convenience is deeper than citizenship level. In other words, the problem comes from the previous stages in which the individuals were granted permanent residence. If any changes were to be made, they should be at permanent residency level, and the loopholes they went through should be closed at that level.

 

[meyakanor]

Thank you ! But it's not a question of practical value (I travel exclusively on a Canadian passport and never had a difference of treatment with other Canadians), but of intrinsec value. As long as, on the law, there's a possibiltiy, even infinitesimal, that my citizenship can be stripped while someone else's can't, just because of our origins, I see the value of my citizenship decreasing. I never had bad intentions and I will never do, but I can't stand this inequality under the law, it's wrong, it's vicious, it's disgusting.
Also, even if it would seem paranoid to others, the concept of 'bad intentions' can change overtime. It can be expanded. It can evolve. Even more serious, a Foreign government can decide for you what terrorism is or not. That's not compatible with Canada and it should never be.

Donald Trump once tweeted (surprise surpise) that the US citizen who burned the US flag should have his citizenship revoked. Is it terrorism? Is it treason? Who gets to decide? Trump?

 

[admontreal]

I totally understand and agree with your worries. However, I will just play the devil's advocate here for the sake of a discussion. What if we do give Harper Cons the benefit of the doubt, and for a minute believe their reasons for C-24. Using their logic and arguments, all clauses make sense (at least to me); except for the 4/6 rule; unless they believe an extra year in Canada will put off Canadians of Convenience. Now using Harper Cons argument, C-24 is meant to protect Canada and Canadians at security and economic levels.

Security-wise, no Canadian wants someone with evil intentions to be allowed to keep his or her Canadian citizenship; and we must all agree with this. However, my issue with the clause is not the solution it provides nor the the issue it addresses; but with the choice of category it is listed under. How many of Canada's naturalized citizens actually got involved in terrorist acts? I am not knowledgeable about the stats, but I am guessing probably none. Those that were arrested or made it to the news seem to all be born here; although their parents might have been abroad. My understanding is C-24 only applies to those born abroad. The thing I do not understand is why isn't this subject listed under treason; it narrows down the law to the exact group it should be targeted towards, because terrorism is the pinnacle of treason. I tend to lean towards Cons in this argument, although I am not necessarily a party supporter nor any other party supporter so far, because they kind of did their job. Not the best job, but bill C-24 is how they believe things should run. Now it is the turn of Liberals to make a case, and I never heard of anyone winning any debate by remaining silent. I think the solution is not to completely remove C-24's provisions; instead, tailor them and redirect them to the right categories.

Economic-wise, the intention to reside is supposed to target Canadians of Convenience. Now that clause is so ambiguous that even IRCC are not sure what it means. They make official interpretations of it stating it only applies to the period of application; yet we know Harper Cons introduced it to avoid situations such as that of the Lebanese Canadians in 2006. Intention to reside for about 6 months while the application is processed does not solve any problem at all. I personally think that this problem of Canadians of Convenience is deeper than citizenship level. In other words, the problem comes from the previous stages in which the individuals were granted permanent residence. If any changes were to be made, they should be at permanent residency level, and the loopholes they went through should be closed at that level.

I understand your point of view. But citizenship is not a license that you can revoke after bad behaviour. Citizenship is a philosophical concept that defines a country and its people. It's like filiation, you can't revoke it, you can't stop being the son of your parents. Whatever you do.

I don't think Canadians should mix citizenship with security. It shouldn't be related and that's a mistake the Con government did on purpose to win votes and take advantage of the misinformation of the laymen.

Treason should be punished by jail as it is already the case.
Moreover, you want to apply that to some people and not to others ? The terrorism provisions of C-24 were applied to a Canadian-born terrorist who didn't even know he had a dual citizenship. So I don't agree with the claim that it was intended for the naturalized citizens.

In my country of origin, there were major terror attacks last year, the very talented (sarcasm) President suggeted to instaure citizenship revocation for dual citizen terrorists. This created a major debate that prompted the whole country to think on what it means to be a citizen. The conclusion was that it would be cruel and unusual to apply that rule unequally, forcing the President to abandon his project (and not even dare to run for reelection).
The question is not to revoke citizenship or not, but to do it for a certain category of citizens and not to others. That's what irks me and should irk any real Canadian.

 

[subha_1962]

For Marcher

Yes I agree with your opinion too- can be perceived as a threat, but they should stand on their own ground after they do their own sober second thought

Below is the tweet by Linda Frum in a conversation with a person called @kady

In reply to kady o'malley
Senator Linda Frum Verified account ‏@LindaFrum Nov 17

@kady That depends. For example, Minister McCallum has requested an amendment to Bill C6.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

 

[tyl92]

excellent analysis . First of all , i strongly agree that anyone that wants to harm us can't belong here nor have the right to breathe among us . Revoking citizenship to terrorists , traitors , spies and all those people that do not wish any good to Canada , then those must be considered enemy of the State and should be banned in any state(s) allied with Canada. However , i tend to ask myself and raise those questions..what is the responsibility of our government or other governments in that matter ? We( Canada and its allies) invest billions of dollars in warfare , training and a lot of tools to prevent and ultimately fight terrorism here and overseas , this is our century's challenge . Do we ship automically those people to wherever they may be from/born where they may or may not be judged properly/at all ? Some countries including some European countries do not count you as their citizens anymore even though you are born there once you get another citizenship. What do we do with that ? make them stateless since they were not born here ? , Does that protect our interests or prevent those people from repeating those acts here or abroad against our interest /citizens or allies' interest ? I always believed to solve a problem , you have to fight it , and do your best to erase any discrepancies . The U.S will never send someone away while accused of terrorism , they judge them , sometime face death penalty or rot in horrible jails for the rest of their lives . For cases of spying , did we do our job properly when we granted them permanent residence without investigating thoroughly ? For cases of terrorism , did the appropriate authorities monitor those persons ?what can we do ? for example , can we judge them and use them to destroy any cell(s) that is existing ? A lot of questions through that subject can be raised ..what is our responsibility as a leading nation ? Should we take the lead and judge them harshly and make them pay for their acts ? Even naturalized , you are a canadian citizen and you should be canada's problem as well as the other nation . Will the other nation accept this citizen that may have never lived or known this country ?
In France , which faced several consecutive acts of terrors in the past two years , where the presumed actors of those acts were french citizens but parents born overseas and native of north africa . The french president said very recently, the biggest mistake he made was to propose that citizenship-revocation law . Revoking one's citizenship is complicated and a very very sensitive matter . Whether you are born in Canada and only hold one citizenship you can't be a little be more privileged to the one born overseas or a dual citizen ( born in canada but holds another passport through family) . You can't have the right to live among us even you and your family have always been canadian , you betrayed your country . You have to be judged impartially and face your penalty.
We live in a judicial system , justice has precedence on everything .

 

[canadasucks]

Thank you ! But it's not a question of practical value (I travel exclusively on a Canadian passport and never had a difference of treatment with other Canadians), but of intrinsec value. As long as, on the law, there's a possibiltiy, even infinitesimal, that my citizenship can be stripped while someone else's can't, just because of our origins, I see the value of my citizenship decreasing. I never had bad intentions and I will never do, but I can't stand this inequality under the law, it's wrong, it's vicious, it's disgusting.
Also, even if it would seem paranoid to others, the concept of 'bad intentions' can change overtime. It can be expanded. It can evolve. Even more serious, a Foreign government can decide for you what terrorism is or not. That's not compatible with Canada and it should never be.

Citizenship law, like many other laws in Canada, created many grey areas and leave government a lot of rooms to abuse power (so call "discretion"), this is not how a law-and-order society running. There is nothing wrong about either 1 tie or 2 tie citizenship. To be honest, expecting a naturalized citizen has total same rights as natural born citizen is just another POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. But people need certainty of laws, not laws that create uncertainty to people's life. Many countries don't have such political correctness, such as Netherlands or Ireland they all have clear laws to define how a naturalized citizen can lose citizenship after X years of living aboard but also have clear procedures to keep citizenship after living aboard. Citizenship is a life event and choice, people need certainty of all their rest of life!

I also noticed in Canada passport renewal procedure, it asks naturalization certificate and references again? Why? Is it necessary if citizenship is a life entitlement? Again this leaves rooms for power abuse. I'm naturalized citizen of another country and I'm only required to show naturalization certificate and references for first time to apply passport to let government decide my eligibility, but for rest of my life, I will just need to provide my expired passport and new photo to get passport renewed, I will never worry about government can take away my passport or if I can still find references if I have left the country for long time.

 

[admontreal]

excellent analysis . First of all , i strongly agree that anyone that wants to harm us can't belong here nor have the right to breathe among us . Revoking citizenship to terrorists , traitors , spies and all those people that do not wish any good to Canada , then those must be considered enemy of the State and should be banned in any state(s) allied with Canada. However , i tend to ask myself and raise those questions..what is the responsibility of our government or other governments in that matter ? We( Canada and its allies) invest billions of dollars in warfare , training and a lot of tools to prevent and ultimately fight terrorism here and overseas , this is our century's challenge . Do we ship automically those people to wherever they may be from/born where they may or may not be judged properly/at all ? Some countries including some European countries do not count you as their citizens anymore even though you are born there once you get another citizenship. What do we do with that ? make them stateless since they were not born here ? , Does that protect our interests or prevent those people from repeating those acts here or abroad against our interest /citizens or allies' interest ? I always believed to solve a problem , you have to fight it , and do your best to erase any discrepancies . The U.S will never send someone away while accused of terrorism , they judge them , sometime face death penalty or rot in horrible jails for the rest of their lives . For cases of spying , did we do our job properly when we granted them permanent residence without investigating thoroughly ? For cases of terrorism , did the appropriate authorities were monitoring those persons ?what can we do ? for example , can we judge them and use them to destroy any cell(s) that is existing ? A lot of questions through that subject can be raised ..what is our responsibility as a leading nation ? Should we take the lead and judge them harshly and make them pay for their acts ? Even naturalized , you are a canadian citizen and you should be canada's problem as well as the other nation . Will the other nation accept this citizen that may have never lived or known this country ?
In France , which faced several consecutive acts of terrors in the past two years , where the presumed actors of those acts were french citizens but parents born overseas and native of north africa . The french president- said it was the biggest mistake he made was to propose that citizenship-revocation law . Revoking one's citizenship is complicated and a very very sensitive matter . Whether you are born in Canada and only hold one citizenship you can't be a little be more privileged to the one born overseas or a dual citizen ( born in canada but holds another passport through family) . You can't have the right to live among us even you and your family have always been canadian , you betrayed your country . You have to be judged impartially and face your penalty.
We live in a judicial system , justice has precedence on everything .

Agreed. You raise excellent questions. If you are Canadian, Canada should deal with you. And honestly I don't think that the 'other' country with nicely and quietly accept Canada's crap when we start deporting ex-citizens to their country of origin, they will start racing with Canada to revoke the citizenship on their side and it will be a ping pong game between Canada and the other countries on who should keep the terrorist... Good luck with that.

 

[admontreal]

Citizenship law, like many other laws in Canada, created many grey areas and leave government a lot of rooms to abuse power (so call "discretion"), this is not how a law-and-order society running. There is nothing wrong about either 1 tie or 2 tie citizenship. To be honest, expecting a naturalized citizen has total same rights as natural born citizen is just another POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. But people need certainty of laws, not laws that create uncertainty to people's life. Many countries don't have such political correctness, such as Netherlands or Ireland they all have clear laws to define how a naturalized citizen can lose citizenship after X years of living aboard but also have clear procedures to keep citizenship after living aboard. Citizenship is a life event and choice, people need certainty of all their rest of life!

I also noticed in Canada passport renewal procedure, it asks naturalization certificate and references again? Why? Is it necessary if citizenship is a life entitlement? Again this leaves rooms for power abuse. I'm naturalized citizen of another country and I'm only required to show naturalization certificate and references for first time to apply passport to let government decide my eligibility, but for rest of my life, I will just need to provide my expired passport and new photo to get passport renewed, I will never worry about government can take away my passport or if I can still find references if I have left the country for long time.

It's not Political correctness, it's Canada's Constitution

 

[disha_kaur]

bill has moved up to number 2 for 12 Dec

 

[akshatk]

Job offers are worth 600 points out of 1200 total points. Without job offers, you are hard pressed to get an express visa against someone who does have a job offer.

If you have LMA based Job Offers (not just any Job Offer), total point goes up beyond 900. Only 5 - 10 % of applications are above that score. 90% folks are those who have no Job Offers.