Effective date of Bill C24

[MUFC]

I don't blame you especially if the cost is equal or greater to travel within Canada than outside Canada. It is pretty pathetic that it cost us an arm and leg to explore your own country Canada. I would rather spend the same amount exploring outside Canada.

Take for example: I hear tons of stories of people travelling across Canada by car and only to stop at North Sydney, NS and turn around. What's happened? Because it would cost at least $500 to take your car across on the ferry to Nfld and back on the shortest route. I rather take that 500 and put it to better use.

Completely agree with you.

One of the main reasons I'm not so keen to spend my vacations here is because the nature here is pretty similar to that back home.
Many attractions and places are overpriced here.
Far too much money are spend only for a domestic traveling.
It is much better to travel abroad, you can see much more diversity.

 

[itguy78]

You do realized that we had a revoking of citizenship in law long before C-24 came into play. There was and still is a clause to revoke citizenship if convicted on charge of being a traitor. Why there wasn't any fuss over that? Why all of a sudden, now? The only difference is that the government had added terrorism to the list, nothing more. Since there was revoking clause in law before terrorism was added, was jaywalking added since? No slippery slope to worry about unless our government has turned into North Korea.

The "fuss" is that now your citizenship can be revoked if you're convicted of certain crimes even OUTSIDE Canada's court system (whereas you could only be convicted as a "traitor" in Canada to have your citizenship revoked).
I would be fine with the changes if the conviction had to be in Canada's court of law (a justice system as fair as they come). For all I know, someone may have never set foot and have no relations with some other country and be convicted of terrorism (in that country's own court system) based on some falsified/unfounded allegations and the Canadian gov now has legal rights to revoke that person's citizenship -- it's up to how fair/corrupt that other country's justice system is (and not up to Canada's justice system). Some of you doing some extensive travel abroad may choose to stay out of some countries known for corruption as it is not uncommon in some dirty companies and/or people to bribe the government to charge someone "inconvenient" to them with whatever crimes they want to come up with (including terrorism).
For all I know, someone could be shopping for "Tea cups" on the internet, then click on a page that redirects them to some terrorist-related site and the IP gets logged/flagged -- later that IP could be used ANYWHERE (Canada or outside) to link that person to terrorism charges and there goes your citizenship... so you might as well stop using the internet altogether if you care about your citizenship... hell, for all I know they may just need your name to charge you with a crime, so you may just as well move somewhere isolated in the Northern Territoires and live like a hermit if you really don't want to "risk" loosing your citizenship. Granted chances are slim-to-none this will happen to most people, but the fact that it COULD happen is what bothers me.

 

[screech339]

The "fuss" is that now your citizenship can be revoked if you're convicted of certain crimes even OUTSIDE Canada's court system (whereas you could only be convicted as a "traitor" in Canada to have your citizenship revoked).
I would be fine with the changes if the conviction had to be in Canada's court of law (a justice system as fair as they come). For all I know, someone may have never set foot and have no relations with some other country and be convicted of terrorism (in that country's own court system) based on some falsified/unfounded allegations and the Canadian gov now has legal rights to revoke that person's citizenship -- it's up to how fair/corrupt that other country's justice system is (and not up to Canada's justice system). Some of you doing some extensive travel abroad may choose to stay out of some countries known for corruption as it is not uncommon in some dirty companies and/or people to bribe the government to charge someone "inconvenient" to them with whatever crimes they want to come up with (including terrorism).
For all I know, someone could be shopping for "Tea cups" on the internet, then click on a page that redirects them to some terrorist-related site and the IP gets logged/flagged -- later that IP could be used ANYWHERE (Canada or outside) to link that person to terrorism charges and there goes your citizenship... so you might as well stop using the internet altogether if you care about your citizenship... hell, for all I know they may just need your name to charge you with a crime, so you may just as well move somewhere isolated in the Northern Territoires and live like a hermit if you really don't want to "risk" loosing your citizenship. Granted chances are slim-to-none this will happen to most people, but the fact that it COULD happen is what bothers me.

First Canada has to agree that your trial was a fair ruling and must be an same in standard of law to Canada's court of law. If Canada believed that you were not given a fair trial and does not uphold to law's standard, then it won't strip your citizenship.

Take for example. Mohamed Fahmy in Egypt. If Fahmy get convicted of terrorism in Egypt's court, Canada must examine whether using the same evidence used in court would result in same conviction in Canada. If it doesn't, Fahmy would not lose his citizenship if he still had his dual citizenship.

 

[Bigudi]

You do realized that we had a revoking of citizenship in law long before C-24 came into play. There was and still is a clause to revoke citizenship if convicted on charge of being a traitor. Why wasn't there any fuss over that? Why now, all of a sudden? The only difference is that the government had added terrorism to the list, nothing more.

Again, good point. I can't answer for others, but from my part the "fuss" just now is because I decided to look into these laws just now that I am an applicant, that's all.
Yes, I would contest the law in general even before the C-24, but this is definitely not the subject here. And it is what it is.

Since there was revoking clause in law before terrorism was added, was jaywalking added since?

Nope. But also there was appeal, resources and federal court in the game, what would make the revocation based on "jaywalking" impossible. Well... not anymore.

No slippery slope to worry about unless our government has turned into North Korea.

I can see you have a lot of trust in the government. Don't get me wrong, in general I do too. I don't trust the conservative government, but I do trust (in general) in the Canadian system, parliament, etc. Although... I do think it is worth to discuss the possibility of this slippery slope, if any.

 

[itguy78]

First Canada has to agree that your trial was a fair ruling and must be an same in standard of law to Canada's court of law. If Canada believed that you were not given a fair trial and does not uphold to law's standard, then it won't strip your citizenship.

Take for example. Mohamed Fahmy in Egypt. If Fahmy get convicted of terrorism in Egypt's court, Canada must examine whether using the same evidence used in court would result in same conviction in Canada. If it doesn't, Fahmy would not lose his citizenship if he still had his dual citizenship.

That's the whole point: that's not "due process", that's more like "at discretion of whoever is examining the case". Do you truly believe that "made up evidence" that is convincing enough in some corrupt country can't be convincing enough in Canada (without due process) ? That's the whole point of HAVING due process, which is highly unlikely to be followed in those cases (or at least to Canadian standards).

 

[screech339]

That's the whole point: that's not "due process", that's more like "at discretion of whoever is examining the case". Do you truly believe that "made up evidence" that is convincing enough in some corrupt country can't be convincing enough in Canada (without due process) ? That's the whole point of HAVING due process, which is highly unlikely to be followed in those cases (or at least to Canadian standards).

You do realize that a judge will be the one that will be deciding whether the foreign conviction will uphold to Canadian standard of law. Not some CIC judge or CIC agent. A judge with international law would look it over and probably not just one judge, probably a group of judges.

And having a judge to look over your foreign conviction to be sure that it meets Canadian standard of law is "due process".

Having Canada accept a foreign conviction at face value without any further examination is an example of "NO DUE PROCESS".

 

[DND]

We all know this since Friday past. It is a little late posting it now.

How do you know that? Is this because you were following the messages on this forum each and every day?

Even now there is no significant mention of these changes in the media.
I'm sure that a few days from now we will still have people who were not aware of this change and this was the intention of such a short notice

 

[farooqacma]

Dear Adnan bhai

It is because of the rule - In each year you must have a physical presence of minimum 183 days (for 4 years). ......

Suppose you landed on 1st October 2012 (means 92 days in 2012) 2012 92 days (year not considered < 183 days)
You didn't go out of Canada in 2013 (means 365 days in 2013) 2013 365 days (1st year considered > 183 days)
You didn't go out of Canada in 2014 (means 365 days in 2014) 2014 365 days (2nd year considered > 183 days)
You didn't go out of Canada in 2015 (means 365 days in 2015) 2015 365 days (3rd year considered > 183 days)
You didn't go out of Canada till 30th Sept 2016 (means 273 days in 2016)* 2016 273 days (4th year considered > 183 days)
TOTAL - 1460 days (4 years with minimum 183 days)
Hope the example has eased your confusion ....
(I presume my calculations are correct ..... Didn't use R/calculator ...... ; * 2016 is a leap year, extra day NOT taken into account)
Cheers, Anil

Anil its correct and very well interpreted. Thanks buddy

 

[MUFC]

How do you know that? Is this because you were following the messages on this forum each and every day?

Even now there is no significant mention of these changes in the media.
I'm sure that a few days from now we will still have people who were not aware of this change and this was the intention of such a short notice

As far as I know (Because not every month I have been in Canada since June last year) this new modernized Law has never been a huge headline story among the Canadian society.

I still believe that the date was puled up earlier in the last moment due to the huge volume of scared for no reason people.

 

[itguy78]

How do you know that? Is this because you were following the messages on this forum each and every day?

Even now there is no significant mention of these changes in the media.
I'm sure that a few days from now we will still have people who were not aware of this change and this was the intention of such a short notice

If they publish in writing that they'll have a panel of judges review each case before citizenship is revoked, then I'll rest my case -- right now it all seems like guesses.

 

[screech339]

If they publish in writing that they'll have a panel of judges review each case before citizenship is revoked, then I'll rest my case -- right now it all seems like guesses.

If you are convicted of terrorism in the court of law in Canada, you don't need a panel of judge to determine whether to keep your citizenship or not.

You only need a panel of judges to determine whether your foreign terrorist conviction meets Canadian Law. Once they do, then you can lose citizenship.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Where is the "Due process"?

http://www.carl-acaadr.ca/challenging-misinformation


6. The New Law Greatly Reduces Due-Process Rights, Replacing Fair Judicial Process With Ministerial Discretion

"Under Canada’s current laws, citizenship can only be removed after a hearing before a judge. Under the new law, the Minister will, in most cases, make this decision without a hearing. Bill C-24 intends to remove the right of citizens to appeal to the courts. Instead, a person whose citizenship is revoked will have to apply to the Federal Court for permission to start an appeal. It is likely that in many cases, the Federal Court will be reluctant to disagree with the Minister’s assessment of the evidence so the scope of any review by the Courts will be very limited."

If you are convicted of terrorism in the court of law in Canada, you don't need a panel of judge to determine whether to keep your citizenship or not.

You only need a panel of judges to determine whether your foreign terrorist conviction meets Canadian Law. Once they do, then you can lose citizenship.

 

[screech339]

Where is the "Due process"?

http://www.carl-acaadr.ca/challenging-misinformation


6. The New Law Greatly Reduces Due-Process Rights, Replacing Fair Judicial Process With Ministerial Discretion

"Under Canada's current laws, citizenship can only be removed after a hearing before a judge. Under the new law, the Minister will, in most cases, make this decision without a hearing. Bill C-24 intends to remove the right of citizens to appeal to the courts. Instead, a person whose citizenship is revoked will have to apply to the Federal Court for permission to start an appeal. It is likely that in many cases, the Federal Court will be reluctant to disagree with the Minister's assessment of the evidence so the scope of any review by the Courts will be very limited."

The accused or I should say "convicted" applicant had his/her due process when he/she was found guilty in Canada's court system. So he/she doesn't need due process to get his/her citizenship revoked.

That is equivalent of being found guilty of 1st degree murder and the "convicted" need due process for the the punishment of life sentence?

 

[MUFC]

I really don't understand why so many people are digging into a problem that doesn't exist in practise.

It seems the heads of the newcomers are full with unrealistic Paranoia.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Revocations:
1. Based on criminal activity: Agreed if convicted, that is evidence in itself for revocation, so there will a judicial process
2. Based on fraud: No due process. The person affected will have to file a federal appeal on his/her own expense, moreover the Federal court is not bound to listen
3. Based on Intent to Reside: I know, the law as it is, does not impact the naturalized Canadians. But sooner or later, there is scope for new provisions to be added. Revocations then under this will also be without due process.

The accused or I should say "convicted" applicant had his/her due process when he/she was found guilty in Canada's court system. So he/she doesn't need due process to get his/her citizenship revoked.

That is equivalent of being found guilty of 1st degree murder and the "convicted" need due process for the the punishment of life sentence?