Effect of Rocco Galati's petition against Bill C-24

[CanadianCountry]

It seems like most people are confused what the petition is about. It is NOT about the 4/6 years or the intention to reside or the pre-PR time. It is about the revoking of citizenship from certain individuals. The argument is that the bill creates 2 classes of citizens where some could have their citizenship revoked and some couldn't. It also points out that CIC has given itself "too much" power by eliminating citizenship judges from the process.

So whoever got hopes up that it will delay when the 4/6 rule will come into effect, bring your hopes back down.

Was Bill C-36 Prostitution bill struck down by a certain clause or the whole bill was struck down? This happened in Dec 2013 based on legal challenge based on Charter rights.

 

[CanadianCountry]

I agree with CaV's assessment.
4
I don't think they will simply junk the whole bill. That doesn't make sense... The 4/6 rule which is part of a larger suite of reforms to BOTH improve and eliminate current backlogs and strengthen the future value of citizenship is most def. likely to remain.

The controversial STRIPPING citizenship clause which is being hotly contested in Galati's bill is the one that is the subject of the lawsuit.

4/6 is to do with efficiency and program admin/ and integrity. But Stripping is to do with constitutionality is a FAR SLIPPERIER SLOPE !

Again Bill C-36 question. In your knowledge was the prostitution bill struck down by clause or the whole bill?

 

[aed]

What about after oath? I heard they can revoke if you stay in other country and cut residence ties with Canada (passport of convenience).

Quotes from Minister Alexander:

"Henceforth, with the passage of this bill, residency will mean a physical presence in this country for four years out of six. We will require applicants to declare it over the period from the submission of their application to the day when they take the oath of citizenship.

Let me remind this House, nothing in those provisions constrains the mobility rights of either a permanent resident or a citizen. Someone can have the intent to reside, but then their plans change and they move elsewhere, not fulfilling the residency requirements for citizenship. They do not become a citizen, perhaps until later in their life. After they obtain citizenship, of course Canadians are free to do whatever they want as citizens."

and "We are confident that it is reasonable to insist that those who want to become Canadian citizens express their intention to do so. This will never undermine their right to free mobility or their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It makes complete sense, when requiring that permanent residents spend a certain number of years here, to ask the people if they intend to reside in Canada."

Anyone who would like to know more should read the bill c24 house debate. http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/?page=1

 

[BLT]

Quotes from Minister Alexander:

"Henceforth, with the passage of this bill, residency will mean a physical presence in this country for four years out of six. We will require applicants to declare it over the period from the submission of their application to the day when they take the oath of citizenship.

Let me remind this House, nothing in those provisions constrains the mobility rights of either a permanent resident or a citizen. Someone can have the intent to reside, but then their plans change and they move elsewhere, not fulfilling the residency requirements for citizenship. They do not become a citizen, perhaps until later in their life. After they obtain citizenship, of course Canadians are free to do whatever they want as citizens."

and "We are confident that it is reasonable to insist that those who want to become Canadian citizens express their intention to do so. This will never undermine their right to free mobility or their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It makes complete sense, when requiring that permanent residents spend a certain number of years here, to ask the people if they intend to reside in Canada."

Anyone who would like to know more should read the bill c24 house debate. http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/?page=1

Sounds fair.

 

[aed]

Sounds fair.

Now, the SC will probably kill the idea of revoking citizenship... In that form that is.

 

[Travel Dream]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power%20&%20Politics/ID/2464051095/

Rocco Galati's challenges specific point in the law and he said he does not have a problem with the rest of the law. But the question as other said if they consider this issue aganist the constitution does it affect the effective date of whole bill

 

[CanV]

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power%20&%20Politics/ID/2464051095/

Rocco Galati's challenges specific point in the law and he said he does not have a problem with the rest of the law. But the question as other said if they consider this issue aganist the constitution does it affect the effective date of whole bill

BIG NO

 

[pie_vancouver]

What about after oath? I heard they can revoke if you stay in other country and cut residence ties with Canada (passport of convenience).

I don't think they can revoke citizenship for that reason,
someone posted a video here before - interview with Minister Alexander about the intent to reside clause,
it is not after when the citizenship is granted
they can only revoke due to terrorism/criminal crimes

 

[Michels]

The Challenge is also only about Canadian born citizens and not Naturalized.. thus still it keeps Alienated Citizens at bay..

 

[MUFC]

On the meeting of the Liberal MP's which was held at Trinity Hall in Mississauga in the middle of August they were asked if the challenges can influence the allocation of the cut off date.
They have answered "Yes in can affect the cut of date, because there are some clauses which are not clear by the way they are written in the Bill. So the court doesn't know how to understand them if they need to follow them."

Here is the video that shows an example of potential misunderstanding between the idea of the Minister and the actual wording in the Bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&app=desktop

And so far we see that there is still no cut off date for the major changes.

 

[aed]

On the meeting of the Liberal MP's which was held at Trinity Hall in Mississauga in the middle of August they were asked if the challenges can influence the allocation of the cut off date.
They have answered "Yes in can affect the cut of date, because there are some clauses which are not clear by the way they are written in the Bill. So the court doesn't know how to understand them if they need to follow them."

Here is the video that shows an example of potential misunderstanding between the idea of the Minister and the actual wording in the Bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&app=desktop

And so far we see that there is still no cut off date for the major changes.

And a few paragraphs farther:

"(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."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6684615&File=24#1

 

[Travel Dream]

On the meeting of the Liberal MP's which was held at Trinity Hall in Mississauga in the middle of August they were asked if the challenges can influence the allocation of the cut off date.
They have answered "Yes in can affect the cut of date, because there are some clauses which are not clear by the way they are written in the Bill. So the court doesn't know how to understand them if they need to follow them."

Here is the video that shows an example of potential misunderstanding between the idea of the Minister and the actual wording in the Bill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&app=desktop

And so far we see that there is still no cut off date for the major changes.

you are right but no one challenge any of these points ( except for revoking ) in supreme court so nothing will change.

 

[MUFC]

There is no indication that the major changes will be implemented soon as well... It looks like they are on hold and nothing is happening.

 

[SinghLovCan]

what about the point regarding giving all the powers to the Minister?

 

[CanadianCountry]

what about the point regarding giving all the powers to the Minister?

That's where the crux of the issue is. There is a limit to ministerial responsibility and he cannot take over the courts turf.