Effective date of Bill C24

[MUFC]

By the way it looks like the real practical implementation of this intend to reside clause is just to make sure that the applicant has been physically in Canada for the period which is required just to apply for the citizenship.

After the applicant apply for citizenship he is free to go wherever he likes without worry.

 

[greeki78]

You obviously don't understand the wording of what C-24 says, and obviously haven't read the Minister's clear statement on the Intent to Reside clause. It ONLY applies for the period between when you apply for citizenship and when you receive it.

All of these other nonsensical posts are just for the sake of fear-mongering, and are rife with baseless entitlement. Grow up. If you are really that upset about this law (or rather, about how this law affects you), then you are free to speak to your representatives and voice your concerns. But bashing an entire country (and one that provided you with the opportunity that was obviously attractive enough to make you leave your home and relocate) seems pointless to me.

It doesn't tell anywhere that it is the time period between when you apply for citizenship and when you receive it.Honestly this law was made for 10,000 lebanese people who are "already canadian citizens" but returned back to their homeland.

You misunderstood my point,I'm not bashing the entire country,but I have to concerns and questions with Bill C-24.I love Canada how it is today in the present day where everybody has equal rights.

In my entire posts I never criticized the country,but my emphasis was only Bill C 24.Certain points on the bill are not clear.

 

[MUFC]

This clause will not play anymore once the applicant has been physically here for the required time before he apply for citizenship.

Look like some of the clauses are just copy pasted in order to give the law good full look, but those clauses will not be practically enforced

 

[torontosm]

It doesn't tell anywhere that it is the time period between when you apply for citizenship and when you receive it.Honestly this law was made for 10,000 lebanese people who are "already canadian citizens" but returned back to their homeland.

Here you go:

http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/12/chris-alexander-14/only/

"First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:

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."

Now can you please stop spreading misinformation?

 

[MUFC]

This look just like the intend to reside in Quebec clause if the immigrant has come here through the Quebec skilled worker program.

This types of intention clauses have no practical impact over the applications outcome.

 

[MUFC]

Here is once again the video where the Minister clarifies couple of times that the intend to reside clause is for the period before the submission of the application for citizenship in order to make sure that the applicant has been here physically for the required time 3 out of 4 years according to the current rule and 4 out of 6 years according to the new rule.

If the applicant have been here enough time before the application is send for processing in CIC, that means he has nothing to worry about that clause anymore.

Here is the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

 

[Dave01]

Can we talk about Bill 24 way forward and stop all these political jargons???

 

[MUFC]

Yes we are talking about intend to reside which is part of that bill

 

[CanadianCountry]

With all due respect, It's not the lack of understanding of the bill, its about trust. If somebody can please answer the questions below:

Q) What is the recourse or where can a person appeal who is impacted by the intent to reside clause years after becoming a citizen?

Q) Written law is open to interpretations other than ministers interpretation. How can we be sure that all the CIC staff, judges will apply ministers interpretation? (Written law takes precedence over any other speech to the house or senate)

Q)What would stop the minister from backtracking on his words and simply say I lied to get this through, now deal with it?

Please answer above questions and clarify doubts. Many thanks!

Here you go:

http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/12/chris-alexander-14/only/

"First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:

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."

Now can you please stop spreading misinformation?

 

[ZingyDNA]

Then they should of written Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) as "the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada during the application process". That'll remove all the ambiguity.

Here you go:

http://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/6/12/chris-alexander-14/only/

"First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:

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."

Now can you please stop spreading misinformation?

 

[screech339]

Then they should of written Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) as "the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada during the application process". That'll remove all the ambiguity.

How is that any difference from this

"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."

Your quote could allow applicants to leave Canada after writing citizenship test and awaiting oath since you mentioned "application". The line above mentioned covers the time they submit application right up to the time they become Canadians after citing their oaths.

 

[ZingyDNA]

How is that any difference from this

"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."

Your quote could allow applicants to leave Canada after writing citizenship test and awaiting oath since you mentioned "application". The line above mentioned covers the time they submit application right up to the time they become Canadians after citing their oaths.

No difference. My way is simpler. But those people are law makers, so if they wanna write something ambiguous followed by an explanation while it could have been straight forward in the first place, I guess I don't know what they are doing.

PS didn't see you changed your post. You know, they can change the definition of citizenship application so that it doesn't end until, you know, the applicant becomes a citizen, which is when he/she takes oath?

 

[screech339]

No difference. My way is simpler. But those people are law makers, so if they wanna write something ambiguous followed by an explanation while it could have been straight forward in the first place, I guess I don't know what they are doing.

PS didn't see you changed your post. You know, they can change the definition of citizenship application so that it doesn't end until, you know, the applicant becomes a citizen, which is when he/she takes oath?

The way you have written it, could allow lawyers to claim intend to reside only apply to "application itself" processing and once the application forms are completed, the applicant can leave while awaiting oath letters.

The legal wordings needs to be very specific so that it doesn't allow lawyers to look for loopholes to allow applicants to game the system.

 

[torontosm]

With all due respect, It's not the lack of understanding of the bill, its about trust. If somebody can please answer the questions below:

Q) What is the recourse or where can a person appeal who is impacted by the intent to reside clause years after becoming a citizen?

Q) Written law is open to interpretations other than ministers interpretation. How can we be sure that all the CIC staff, judges will apply ministers interpretation? (Written law takes precedence over any other speech to the house or senate)

Q)What would stop the minister from backtracking on his words and simply say I lied to get this through, now deal with it?

Please answer above questions and clarify doubts. Many thanks!

Did you read the quote? the LAW says:

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.

This is not the Minister's or anyone else's interpretation.

 

[MUFC]

Nobody will deny a citizenship if the applicant has already fulfilled the physical days requirement before the submission of the application.

That is the practical idea of this clause... the minister emphasize that this intention is only for the period before the application is send to CIC for processing, just to make sure that the applicants have been here physically enough time before the submission of their application.

They will not deny citizenship just because the applicant left the country short after the application is submitted.