Effective date of Bill C24

[lemans207]

.

 

[Marlee]

If you renounce birth citizenship, they can't strip you of Canadian citizenship because that would make you stateless. They can't force you to re-apply for the birth citizenship. Also, several countries don't give the "right to get citizenship" to those who renunciated it.

Haha. Yes, they can. And they already did it. Didn't you hear about the case of this kid who committed a crime and was sent to India, even though he had never been there?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-cant-be-stateless-born-in-canada-criminal-fighting-deportation-after-ottawa-decides-citizenship-not-valid

 

[screech339]

Haha. Yes, they can. And they already did it. Didn't you hear about the case of this kid who committed a crime and was sent to India, even though he had never been there?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-cant-be-stateless-born-in-canada-criminal-fighting-deportation-after-ottawa-decides-citizenship-not-valid

The difference is that the person obtained his citizenship through fraud. His parents were diplomats of Indian government at the time of his birth. So he has Indian citizenship. All he had to do is call the Indian officials and tell them that he obtained Canadian citizenship through fraud and he can get his indian citizenship back. As long as he doesn't want to do that, he can stay in jail until he get India to recognize his Indian citizenship and give him his passport.

So in theory he is not stateless. He has Indian citizenship. He just need India to grant him his passport. If India doesn't want to give him his Indian Passport, that's fine. He is Indian until he get his passport. Once he gets his passport, he can leave.

 

[MiriamT]

Haha. Yes, they can. And they already did it. Didn't you hear about the case of this kid who committed a crime and was sent to India, even though he had never been there?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/i-cant-be-stateless-born-in-canada-criminal-fighting-deportation-after-ottawa-decides-citizenship-not-valid

This case is different, though. There's a dispute on whether he was entitled to citizenship at the time of his birth, this isn't related to Bill C-24, but with this here (from the Citizenship Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29)):

"PART I
THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP

Persons who are citizens

3. (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if

[Explanation on who's a citizen]

Not applicable to children of foreign diplomats, etc.

(2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person if, at the time of his birth, neither of his parents was a citizen or lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence and either of his parents was
(a) a diplomatic or consular officer or other representative or employee in Canada of a foreign government;
(b) an employee in the service of a person referred to in paragraph (a); or
(c) an officer or employee in Canada of a specialized agency of the United Nations or an officer or employee in Canada of any other international organization to whom there are granted, by or under any Act of Parliament, diplomatic privileges and immunities certified by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to be equivalent to those granted to a person or persons referred to in paragraph (a)."

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-29/page-2.html#h-3

The dispute, on this case, is what is stated on the article you provided the link for:

"At issue is the status of his parents, who are now citizens, but came to Canada as domestic staff of the High Commissioner of India. The children of foreign diplomatic staff are the only exception to the rule that anyone born in Canada is a Canadian citizen. There is dispute over when their employment ended — either a few months before Deepan’s birth, or a few months after."

 

[Marlee]

Yes, but this is the point. He is in principle eligible for Indian citizenship. Even if his parents wouldn't have been diplomats and he would have been a legitimate Canadian by birth - the mere fact that his parents are Indian citizens give him the potential right to apply for Indian citizenship. This means that under the new law, even if you only have the Canadian citizenship, Canada can and will renounce it in case of serious offences IF that person is eligible for another citizenship. This case is different, yes, but you have to consider that this happened before bill C-24 was even up to debate. And by this you can see that the government has no problems with leaving someone stateless. As you can see in my previous post, it clearly states that they will take the Canadian citizenship away from you even if it is currently the only citizenship you have (given you are eligible for another one). The only way you are safe is if neither your parents nor you yourself are eligible for another citizenship. Harsh but true.

 

[buddhaB]

therefore BillC24 gives the government almost infinite power to use on its citizens,especially on those who are not canada-born.That is why we are against the bill,not changing the law.A terrorist of course should be be a threat to Canada.But people who came here as immigrants,worked for years and years,waiting for the time to apply for citizenship,then with a flick of finger,the government might tell them to wait for another 2 years.it is for sure that getting that passport completes you emotionally in CIanada.you fully become part of this country.

people don`t even want to go abroad now in order to be able to apply for citizenship without delay.Considering PRs,who have been living here for years,paying taxes,involving in the workforce,and education,totally useless is not right.

People who became PRs in 2013 especially should be able to apply on the day the residence calculator indicating now.

When the bill is fully law,then new PRs should be considering staying 4 years as PRs

This is separating people,people who will have applied under the old rules will be more advantaged even though we all worked through the same process equally.

Why an immigrant who has been in canada for 5 years should be in the same sack with a new immigrant?

 

[MiriamT]

Yes, but this is the point. He is in principle eligible for Indian citizenship. Even if his parents wouldn't have been diplomats and he would have been a legitimate Canadian by birth - the mere fact that his parents are Indian citizens give him the potential right to apply for Indian citizenship.

I just think that was a bad example, given that the legal dispute is whether he's actually Canadian by birth or not. If the parents were no longer foreign diplomatic staff, he would be Canadian, not Indian. As far as I know, unless he's registered as an Indian national within a certain time period after his birth, he can't be considered an Indian national, and he would have to apply for OCI (Overseas Citizen Of India) which is, apparently, different from regular nationality and comes with some restrictions. So, if the parents were no longer foreign diplomatic staff, this is what would happen.

But if the parents were still foreign diplomatic staff at the time of his birth, he's not Canadian. Being registered as such (Canadian) due to an error, doesn't mean that it won't come up whenever there's an issue. In this scenario, he would be Indian by birth. But I think there's also a timeframe which the child should be registered as an Indian national. In any case, he would still not be entitled to Canadian citizenship from birth. It wouldn't be someone being stripped off of his citizenship, but the fact that he wasn't considered a citizen, period.

This means that under the new law, even if you only have the Canadian citizenship, Canada can and will renounce it in case of serious offences IF that person is eligible for another citizenship. This case is different, yes, but you have to consider that this happened before bill C-24 was even up to debate.

It was under debate because of the Citizenship Act at the time which was very clear on who's a citizen and who's not, and his case might fall under that. To the courts, he was born while his parents were foreign diplomatic staff and therefore was NOT born a Canadian citizen. He and his defence have to prove that he IS Canadian, and this is what they failed to prove — they claimed, but didn't prove.

And by this you can see that the government has no problems with leaving someone stateless.

The court's interpretation was that he's Indian. Until his defence proves that he was born after his parents' contract ended and they were no longer foreign diplomatic staff, he's not Canadian, since it is very clearly outlined in the Citizenship Act and has been for decades.

As you can see in my previous post, it clearly states that they will take the Canadian citizenship away from you even if it is currently the only citizenship you have (given you are eligible for another one). The only way you are safe is if neither of your parents nor you yourself is eligible for another citizenship. Harsh but true.

Having said the above, I am taking a closer look into the dual-nationality component of the bill; I have the ability to apply for a nationality from a country which I was not born in, and also am holder of a nationality which does not in fact accept renouncing of citizenship. I can apply to renouce, but if I ever want to visit my family I wouldn't be able to apply for a visa (they require entry visas from Canadians) I must travel on that country's passport, and since I was born there and anyone born in that country can't travel on a foreign passport, so I'd have to apply for a passport from them, and that would "reactivate" my citizenship.

I sympathize with your sentiment. It's just that it's comparing apples and oranges; one case (related to an older piece of legislation) has nothing to do with the other (a recent piece of legislation).

 

[CanadianCountry]

NEWS Update: The citizenship revocation provisions are now in effect as of today according to recent release from CIC.

As sometime back the news release from CIC said the revocations provisions will come into effect before the other provisions. So the other remaining provisions can come into effect any hour now.

Thanks.

 

[MiriamT]

As sometime back the news release from CIC said the revocations provisions will come into effect before the other provisions. So the other remaining provisions can come into effect any hour now.

Thank you!

Would you be able to point out a source for the provisions taking place at different times?

 

[dpenabill]

As FR first noted above, there is news. Actual news.

Governor in Council issues Order fixing date as May 29, 2015, for certain provisions in the SCCA to come into force, but NO NOTICE of this yet issued in the Gazette, the Parliament site, or the Privy Council Orders in Council database

Actually, I am inferring that the Governor in Council has issued the Order which fixes today, May 29, 2015, as the date on which numerous key provisions in the SCCA come into force.

This inference is based on the "news release" posted today by CIC titled "Protecting Canadians."

As FR first noted above, this has to do with those provisions in the SCCA prescribing new grounds and procedures for the revocation of citizenship. And as Tapak promptly noted, sure, this does indeed indicate it is feasible (as in more than merely possible) that the remaining provisions in the SCCA, most notably those revising the grant citizenship requirements (the 4/6 rule for example), may come into force . . . not merely any day now, but without much if any advance notice.

As of very recently in the day, the Gazette has not yet published the Order by Governor in Council. It is not yet reported, either, at the Parliamentary Business web page for Bill C-24. And not in the Privy Council either. Additionally, the Justice Laws website is not updated to reflect the coming into force of these provisions either.

So we do not know when this Order by the Governor in Council was issued. Probably yesterday, I would guess, since at least the coming-into-force information at the Parliamentary Business site, for Bill C-24, says it is current as of two days ago, May 27th, and it does not reflect that these provisions have come into force.

To be clear, and very much worth noting, the provisions revising grant citizenship requirements (mostly talking about section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, as revised by section 3 of the SCCA) are covered in the same coming into force provision, section 46(1) in the SCCA, as are those revising the grounds and procedure for revocation of citizenship (replacing section 10 in the Citizenship Act, which is section 8 in the SCCA).

Also, to be clear, assuming the "news release" posted today by CIC titled "Protecting Canadians" is accurate (a rather safe assumption), it is necessary that the Governor in Council has in fact issued an Order fixing May 29, 2015 as the date section 8 in the SCCA comes into force. Thus, in the coming days we will for sure this order published in the Gazette (could be any day, probably this coming Wednesday), as well as posted in both the Parliamentary Business web page for Bill C-24 as well as in the Privy Council database.

Just yesterday I posted:

. . . All that said: sure, one of the possibilities is that the coming into force of the revised requirements for grant citizenship will be held up until the security related provisions, particularly those related to revocation for terrorism et al, are ready to be fully implemented.

That's a done deal now. These provisions are in force. To the extent the government was waiting for these provisions to be implemented before implementing the revised requirements for grant citizenship, no more waiting on this. Done.


My horse is still in the race.

It was never more than a mere guess, and I have always acknowledged that those betting on July 1st have had the more favourable odds, all in the context of understanding we do not know what the actual date will be and the guessing is all speculation. But as many have noted, my office pool bet was that the date would be June 1, 2015.

Yesterday I said:

June 1st looks to be a losing bet now as well, although this is not quite certain until the end of business hours tomorrow.

As of end of business hours today, however, the book is not yet closed on bets for June 1, 2015. I was wrong to say we could rule out June 1st for certain as of today.

As we see with the coming into force of Section 8 of the SCCA, anyone who checked all the possible sources of news this morning still would not have seen that the Governor in Council has made this Order fixing today, May 29, 2015, as the date these provisions come into force. Given this, the total lack of publicizing this Order prior to it being issued or prior to the date fixed, with no publicizing of this change until during the day the change actually takes effect, suggests that Monday could be the day for the revised requirements (the 4/6 rule) . . . that is, a similar "news release" together with changes to the pages and forms for citizenship applications . . . could pop up at the CIC web site Monday, June 1st.

How likely is that? Not much I'd guess at this point. But quite feasible . . . significantly more than a mere possibility.

In the realm of speculation, I'd guess that July 1st still is the favourite, the date with the best odds of being THE DATE . . . but it could be this coming Monday . . . or not until August.

Stay tuned one might say . . .

 

[ari5323]

As FR first noted above, there is news. Actual news.

Governor in Council issues Order fixing date as May 29, 2015, for certain provisions in the SCCA to come into force, but NO NOTICE of this yet issued in the Gazette, the Parliament site, or the Privy Council Orders in Council database

Actually, I am inferring that the Governor in Council has issued the Order which fixes today, May 29, 2015, as the date on which numerous key provisions in the SCCA come into force.

This inference is based on the "news release" posted today by CIC titled "Protecting Canadians."

As FR first noted above, this has to do with those provisions in the SCCA prescribing new grounds and procedures for the revocation of citizenship. And as Tapak promptly noted, sure, this does indeed indicate it is feasible (as in more than merely possible) that the remaining provisions in the SCCA, most notably those revising the grant citizenship requirements (the 4/6 rule for example), may come into force . . . not merely any day now, but without much if any advance notice.

As of very recently in the day, the Gazette has not yet published the Order by Governor in Council. It is not yet reported, either, at the Parliamentary Business web page for Bill C-24. And not in the Privy Council either. Additionally, the Justice Laws website is not updated to reflect the coming into force of these provisions either.

So we do not know when this Order by the Governor in Council was issued. Probably yesterday, I would guess, since at least the coming-into-force information at the Parliamentary Business site, for Bill C-24, says it is current as of two days ago, May 27th, and it does not reflect that these provisions have come into force.

To be clear, and very much worth noting, the provisions revising grant citizenship requirements (mostly talking about section 5(1) in the Citizenship Act, as revised by section 3 of the SCCA) are covered in the same coming into force provision, section 46(1) in the SCCA, as are those revising the grounds and procedure for revocation of citizenship (replacing section 10 in the Citizenship Act, which is section 8 in the SCCA).

Also, to be clear, assuming the "news release" posted today by CIC titled "Protecting Canadians" is accurate (a rather safe assumption), it is necessary that the Governor in Council has in fact issued an Order fixing May 29, 2015 as the date section 8 in the SCCA comes into force. Thus, in the coming days we will for sure this order published in the Gazette (could be any day, probably this coming Wednesday), as well as posted in both the Parliamentary Business web page for Bill C-24 as well as in the Privy Council database.

Just yesterday I posted:
That's a done deal now. These provisions are in force. To the extent the government was waiting for these provisions to be implemented before implementing the revised requirements for grant citizenship, no more waiting on this. Done.


My horse is still in the race.

It was never more than a mere guess, and I have always acknowledged that those betting on July 1st have had the more favourable odds, all in the context of understanding we do not know what the actual date will be and the guessing is all speculation. But as many have noted, my office pool bet was that the date would be June 1, 2015.

Yesterday I said:
As of end of business hours today, however, the book is not yet closed on bets for June 1, 2015. I was wrong to say we could rule out June 1st for certain as of today.

As we see with the coming into force of Section 8 of the SCCA, anyone who checked all the possible sources of news this morning still would not have seen that the Governor in Council has made this Order fixing today, May 29, 2015, as the date these provisions come into force. Given this, the total lack of publicizing this Order prior to it being issued or prior to the date fixed, with no publicizing of this change until during the day the change actually takes effect, suggests that Monday could be the day for the revised requirements (the 4/6 rule) . . . that is, a similar "news release" together with changes to the pages and forms for citizenship applications . . . could pop up at the CIC web site Monday, June 1st.
When it comes to revoke citizenship from the folks enemy you don't need a prior announcement.
But when you come to your dear PR's that have a bond with canada you let them know "please rush your applications because on ...........day I will implement the new rule.
Now there is s very simple reason why they rushed the revocation provisions for today, and this is because to have let May 2015 taking care on the "folks enemy" and after a few weeks later to implement the new 6/4 rule , and God forbade not to mix those two news release on the same day, because us- the PR are friends and chosen ones and you don't mix those two issues in one month.
This is my opinion. And bravo for a good speculation Mr dpenabill for a successful guess.

How likely is that? Not much I'd guess at this point. But quite feasible . . . significantly more than a mere possibility.

When it comes to revoke citizenship from the folks enemy you don't need a prior announcement.
But when you come to your dear PR's that have a bond with canada you let them know "please rush your applications because on ...........day I will implement the new rule.
Now there is s very simple reason why they rushed the revocation provisions for today, and this is because to have let May 2015 taking care on the "folks enemy" and after a few weeks later to implement the new 6/4 rule , and God forbade not to mix those two news release on the same day, because us- the PR are friends and chosen ones and you don't mix those two issues in one month.
This is my opinion. And bravo for a good speculation Mr dpenabill for a successful guess, that today in the end of the business day we might have news about bill c-24

 

[David_Parker]

Is there any chance for me. I am eligible on July 7,15

 

[transformer]

I think they are putting this rule in effect as political tool to be able to revoke Umar kadrs citizenship the canadian talban guntinmo terist guy

 

[dpenabill]

Correction: In my previous post I made reference to section 46(1) of the SCCA; that should have been to section 46(2) of the SCCA. The provisions encompassed in section 46(1) are those which came into force August 1, 2014.

Is there any chance for me. I am eligible on July 7,15

We still do NOT know what date the revised requirements for grant citizenship (such as the 4/6 rule) will take effect.

Odds are not good for anyone who becomes eligible after the 1st of July, but we really do not know if it will be before then or later. This could happen Monday. Or June 19th. July 1st still seems the odds-on favourite. August 1st is still in the running. So is July 17th and September 1st. We do not know.

I would note, however, I think there is a good chance we might find out the date within the next few days or within a week. In particular, it occurs to me, and this I think is more than feasible, perhaps fairly likely, that the Governor in Council has already issued the Order fixing the date for all the provisions set out in section 46(2) of the SCCA, but fixing different dates for different provisions.

I am speculating some, still, but the Order by the Governor in Council, which we still have not seen, could specifically specify that different provisions (among those grouped together in 46(2), including the revocation provisions as well as those implementing the 4/6 rule) come into force on different dates, as fixed in the Order.

We will not know until the Order itself is published in the Gazette or otherwise posted at the Parliamentary Business web page for Bill C-24 or posted in the Privy Council's database of Orders. This could happen any time now, but is quite certain to happen within a week. Alternatively, if the effective date for other provisions (such as the 4/6 rule) comes prior to the Order itself being published or posted, we would see it similarly pop up at the CIC website itself.

Even though the Order may have already been made (my guess, but with a low-to-medium level of confidence, is that the Order now made will include the date for the other provisions, including the 4/6 rule), the date fixed could still be weeks or months away, even longer, or it could be soon . . . emphasis, again, on we do not know.

 

[dpenabill]

I think they are putting this rule in effect as political tool to be able to revoke Umar kadrs citizenship the canadian talban guntinmo terist guy

This may indeed be an astute observation.