How true that Trudeau repeal the new citizenship ???

[torontosm]

I hope atleast they cancel the unfair ( intent to reside) as i feel its like imprisonment

It's only like imprisonment if you don't understand it.

 

[screech339]

I hope atleast they cancel the unfair ( intent to reside) as i feel its like imprisonment

Do you intend to apply for citizenship on way to airport and return only to do test and oath? This is what the "intent to reside" clause is for.
It only applies to the period when you submitted citizenship application to oath.

 

[mjh49783aa]

Given that people's situations may change, sometimes quite suddenly, how can anyone make a definition of intent (which is a pretty vague term) for legal purposes? Isn't 'intent' already implied when you apply for citizenship, anyway?

 

[dpenabill]

Given that people's situations may change, sometimes quite suddenly, how can anyone make a definition of intent (which is a pretty vague term) for legal purposes? Isn't 'intent' already implied when you apply for citizenship, anyway?

There are scores of examples in Western law regarding "intent." In fact, the overwhelming majority of criminal law based on the British Common-law requires an "intent" element to be proven. This is the "mens rea", or "state of mind" element. Most crimes require the prosecution to prove the particular act (called the actus reus) constituting the crime plus the fact that the accused committed that act with a guilty state of mind (again, the "mens rea").

There are literally thousands of cases in English, U.S., and Canadian law addressing what is necessary to prove intent in a wide, wide range of situations and circumstances. There is no big mystery about proving intent. And there are many examples in western immigration law as well. So it is not as if the inclusion of the so-called intent requirement in the qualifications for a grant of Canadian citizenship is at all unusual or difficult to understand.

Generally a person will be presumed to have the intent he or she expresses. But obviously, no more than a person who points a loaded gun at another person's head, and pulls the trigger, can reasonably claim he did not intend to kill, can the person who is living abroad while the citizenship application is pending claim he intends to continue residing in Canada. Decision-makers are almost always entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the circumstances, including inferences as to an individual's state of mind or "intent." Again, this is not about some mysterious soothsaying divination.

This intent requirement may be an element of the qualifications which the Liberals remove, if and when they amend the Citizenship Act (such as to restore credit for time in Canada prior to landing and becoming a PR). I have not seen any specific reference to this, but it may fall within the scope of the Liberal commitment to repeal "the unfair elements of Bill C-24 . . . that make it more difficult for hard-working immigrants to become Canadian citizens."

In any event, yes indeed, what a person intends is very much subject to change at any time and is indeed prone to change when circumstances in life change. In this regard, the requirement only mandates that the individual seeking a grant of citizenship have this intent when he or she makes the application for citizenship and continues to have this intent until actually granted citizenship. Thus, for the applicant whose circumstances change and thus whose intent changes before taking the oath, sure, that will render the applicant ineligible. The applicant is obligated to notify CIC of the material change in circumstances, which would ordinarily then result in the termination or denial of the application for citizenship.

Typical scenario might be the applicant who gets a job offer from abroad, while the application is still pending, and it is a job offer he or she cannot turn down. Obviously, that will mean no longer having the intent to continue to reside in Canada, rendering that applicant ineligible.

If a head-hunter comes knocking the day after that individual took the oath, and again it is a job that individual cannot turn down, no problem. He or she is already a citizen and free to move about the world as he or she desires (subject, of course, to the laws of other countries regarding who can live or work in those countries respectively).


It may be worth remembering that in the processing of citizenship applications, it was under a Liberal government that the operational bulletin was issued identifying extended absences during the processing of the application as a reason-to-question-residency (back in 2005). Under Conservative leadership, CIC has more aggressively pursued this issue, and the intent requirement is largely the enactment of a more or less firm rule giving CIC the power to reject applicants who move abroad while the application is pending. In any event, this was a concern to a Liberal government, which might mean this will not be part of what is rolled back. At this stage it is impossible to guess what the Liberals will specifically do. It is likely to be at least a year or two before a formal Bill is tabled and we see the details.

 

[dpenabill]

So if Trudeau revised C-24 to remove citizenship for terrorism, does this mean they have to remove "treason" and "citizenship fraud". After all, this law was in placed before terrorism was added to the list. Since "treason" was law long before terrorism was added, I suppose we already had a "two tier" citizenship all along.

I wouldn't be surprised that the lawyers will simply add charge of treason along with terrorism. That way the terrorists will still lose citizenship under "treason". Again only dual citizens will lose it.

To be clear, Section 10.(2)(a) in the current Citizenship Act was added to the Act by Bill C-24. This is the provision which prescribes treason to be a ground for revoking citizenship. That provision lists, as one of the grounds for revoking citizenship:
"(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;"

In fact, the inclusion of treason as a ground for revoking citizenship was specifically added by section 8 in Bill C-24, which entirely replaced Section 10 in the Citizenship Act as it was constituted prior to the amendments made by Bill C-24.

I do not know whether or not treason has previously, some time in Canada's history, been a ground for revoking citizenship. It was NOT a ground for revoking citizenship in the Citizenship Act as it was constituted at the time Bill C-24 was tabled in February 2014. See the Citizenship Act as of when Bill C-24 was tabled. Rather, again, this was added by Bill C-24.

So the premise of your query is erroneous.

In particular, the repeal of Section 10.(2) would simply remove grounds of revocation based on convictions for criminal offences committed while a citizen (including convictions for treason), which would be consistent with what the law has been, up to Bill C-24, since at least 2002 (I am not much familiar with Canadian citizenship law prior to that).

Otherwise, there is no suggestion that Section 10.(1) in the current Citizenship Act, or related provisions, is at all targeted for repeal. This is the provision which specifies "the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances."

While the language of this provision is somewhat different than the previous version of Section 10, it essentially does the same thing, giving the government the power to take away citizenship illegally obtained.

There is no issue about rendering individuals stateless in the process of revoking citizenship for fraud or misrepresentation. As oft discussed in this forum, status obtained by fraud never really was legal status to begin with, so revoking such citizenship does not constitute rendering the affected person stateless as nothing is taken away that the individual legally had. This is actually recognized in the international treaties regarding statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory. Those treaties specifically allow for member nations to revoke citizenship obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

There is no chance at all that the Liberals will eliminate this ground for revoking citizenship.

The Liberals might, and indeed should, however, amend the procedures for revoking citizenship obtained by fraud. The procedure prescribed currently in the Citizenship Act, which was implemented as part of Bill C-24, is deeply flawed. My sense is that these provisions will be addressed and amended, at the least to re-introduce the key role of the Federal Courts, but again only if and when the Liberals get to amending the Citizenship Act, and this could easily take years.

By the way, the Conservative campaign line about the NDP and Liberals wanting terrorists or traitors to keep Canadian citizenship is a red herring.

For one thing, there is a huge difference between nationality status and actually enjoying the rights and privileges of that status. No one among the NDP or the Liberals wants terrorists or traitors to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Canadian citizenship. They uniformly want such individuals deprived of the right to travel, for example, to the extent they support imprisoning these individuals in a very confined space for very, very long periods of time, for life if necessary. The difference of opinion, the differences in policy, are not really about coddling the truly bad guys; all parties are in full agreement about the need to protect Canada and Canadians from those who would cause them harm. The difference is in recognizing the fundamental nature of what it means to be a Canadian citizen, or as Trudeau has repeated many, many times, "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," and saying this in no way diminishes the need to prosecute and incarcerate those who commit crimes against Canada or Canadians.



Leading to this, at the risk of responding to trolling:

With Liberal's hug-a-thug policies, wouldn't be surprise if they want terrorists convicted of treason to keep their citizenship.

No leaders in Canadian politics embrace a hug-a-thug policy. Such characterizations may be, at their very best, over-the-top. But mostly such characterizations are not mere rhetoric or hyperbole, but rather low-brow defamation, typically the crude currency of trolls.

Which is not to ignore that some politicians have been overtly corrupt and all too cozy with particular individuals involved in criminal activities. The world's most famous crack-smoking former-mayor comes to mind. But those are isolated, personal failures, not at all about policy. As opprobrious as Rob Ford's personal behavior was, for example, his political agenda was undoubtedly rooted in his sincere beliefs about the best way to govern (not well founded beliefs, but undoubtedly sincere ones). That is, even though Rob Ford embraced actual thugs, engaged in criminal transactions with drug dealers, it would be unfair to conflate his personal failing with his political policies.

For another example, Harper deserved a great deal of harsh criticism, and many aspects of his governing style deserved to be characterized as undemocratic (radical reduction in government transparency, muzzling public servants and scientists, and ramming through major legislation with minimal public or even stakeholder consultation and restricting debate, among many other examples), thus earning him and his government some rather pointed censuring. But he did not deserve to be demonized by low-brow defamation. For example, as much as I, and most Canadians, despised Harper, most of us also rebuffed the unwarranted characterizations of the government, under his reign, as a dictatorship (even if I would joke that perhaps having dictatorial power was Harper's fondest dream).

There is plenty of room even in more serious public discourse for the hyperbolic, and especially for satire. I love particularly biting political cartoons for example. But this realm of discourse is a lot like the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling which stated that even if obscenity could not be defined, one knows obscenity when they see it. It is easy to spot coarse and mean-spirited vilification for what it is, not satire, but bullying slander.

 

[screech339]

When you have policies that places criminal's rights over victim's right, they are hug-a-thug policies.

 

[mjh49783aa]

When you have policies that places criminal's rights over victim's right, they are hug-a-thug policies.

Do we really need our prisons full of harmless, non-violent offenders like they do in the United States? Somehow, a reasonable justice policy is 'hug-a-thug'? Oy vay!

 

[mjh49783aa]

There are scores of examples in Western law regarding "intent." In fact, the overwhelming majority of criminal law based on the British Common-law requires an "intent" element to be proven. This is the "mens rea", or "state of mind" element. Most crimes require the prosecution to prove the particular act (called the actus reus) constituting the crime plus the fact that the accused committed that act with a guilty state of mind (again, the "mens rea").

There are literally thousands of cases in English, U.S., and Canadian law addressing what is necessary to prove intent in a wide, wide range of situations and circumstances. There is no big mystery about proving intent. And there are many examples in western immigration law as well. So it is not as if the inclusion of the so-called intent requirement in the qualifications for a grant of Canadian citizenship is at all unusual or difficult to understand.

Generally a person will be presumed to have the intent he or she expresses. But obviously, no more than a person who points a loaded gun at another person's head, and pulls the trigger, can reasonably claim he did not intend to kill, can the person who is living abroad while the citizenship application is pending claim he intends to continue residing in Canada. Decision-makers are almost always entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the circumstances, including inferences as to an individual's state of mind or "intent." Again, this is not about some mysterious soothsaying divination.

This intent requirement may be an element of the qualifications which the Liberals remove, if and when they amend the Citizenship Act (such as to restore credit for time in Canada prior to landing and becoming a PR). I have not seen any specific reference to this, but it may fall within the scope of the Liberal commitment to repeal "the unfair elements of Bill C-24 . . . that make it more difficult for hard-working immigrants to become Canadian citizens."

In any event, yes indeed, what a person intends is very much subject to change at any time and is indeed prone to change when circumstances in life change. In this regard, the requirement only mandates that the individual seeking a grant of citizenship have this intent when he or she makes the application for citizenship and continues to have this intent until actually granted citizenship. Thus, for the applicant whose circumstances change and thus whose intent changes before taking the oath, sure, that will render the applicant ineligible. The applicant is obligated to notify CIC of the material change in circumstances, which would ordinarily then result in the termination or denial of the application for citizenship.

Typical scenario might be the applicant who gets a job offer from abroad, while the application is still pending, and it is a job offer he or she cannot turn down. Obviously, that will mean no longer having the intent to continue to reside in Canada, rendering that applicant ineligible.

If a head-hunter comes knocking the day after that individual took the oath, and again it is a job that individual cannot turn down, no problem. He or she is already a citizen and free to move about the world as he or she desires (subject, of course, to the laws of other countries regarding who can live or work in those countries respectively).


It may be worth remembering that in the processing of citizenship applications, it was under a Liberal government that the operational bulletin was issued identifying extended absences during the processing of the application as a reason-to-question-residency (back in 2005). Under Conservative leadership, CIC has more aggressively pursued this issue, and the intent requirement is largely the enactment of a more or less firm rule giving CIC the power to reject applicants who move abroad while the application is pending. In any event, this was a concern to a Liberal government, which might mean this will not be part of what is rolled back. At this stage it is impossible to guess what the Liberals will specifically do. It is likely to be at least a year or two before a formal Bill is tabled and we see the details.

Thanks. You've explained this to me in a clear, thorough, and concise matter.

 

[mjh49783aa]

While I can understand the sentiment regarding the rule on revoking citizenship for those that commit such heinous acts against Canada, I don't see how that rule can be remotely consistent with the meaning of the rule of law. Specifically, why should two different people, be subjected to two different forms of punishment, for the same offence, merely because one person may have a lingering nationality that he may, or may not want? Some countries don't even allow you to renounce your other citizenship, or make it such a frustrating hassle that it's not even feasible to do so.

See, in my situation, if I no longer want to be a US citizen, I may be waiting over a year, just to get an appointment with the US consulate in Toronto, plus have to pay $2350 USD in order for them to document a loss of citizenship. My wife has MS, and I have to take care of her, so obviously, I don't have the money to be rid of a passport to a place where I'm likely to not ever move back to, anyway. But because of this, I have to accept being a second class citizen? That's just not right. And no. I have nothing to hide, so I'm not even being targeted by that section of the law. But then, that really isn't the point, is it? Who's to say that the next government won't arbitrarily extend the rule to something like, having a peaceful protest, or having one too many puppies, or something even more absurd?

So yes, I have to admit that I was pleased to see Harper get defeated in the general direction two days ago.

To be clear, Section 10.(2)(a) in the current Citizenship Act was added to the Act by Bill C-24. This is the provision which prescribes treason to be a ground for revoking citizenship. That provision lists, as one of the grounds for revoking citizenship:
"(a) was convicted under section 47 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced to imprisonment for life or was convicted of high treason under that section;"

In fact, the inclusion of treason as a ground for revoking citizenship was specifically added by section 8 in Bill C-24, which entirely replaced Section 10 in the Citizenship Act as it was constituted prior to the amendments made by Bill C-24.

I do not know whether or not treason has previously, some time in Canada's history, been a ground for revoking citizenship. It was NOT a ground for revoking citizenship in the Citizenship Act as it was constituted at the time Bill C-24 was tabled in February 2014. See the Citizenship Act as of when Bill C-24 was tabled. Rather, again, this was added by Bill C-24.

So the premise of your query is erroneous.

In particular, the repeal of Section 10.(2) would simply remove grounds of revocation based on convictions for criminal offences committed while a citizen (including convictions for treason), which would be consistent with what the law has been, up to Bill C-24, since at least 2002 (I am not much familiar with Canadian citizenship law prior to that).

Otherwise, there is no suggestion that Section 10.(1) in the current Citizenship Act, or related provisions, is at all targeted for repeal. This is the provision which specifies "the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances."

While the language of this provision is somewhat different than the previous version of Section 10, it essentially does the same thing, giving the government the power to take away citizenship illegally obtained.

There is no issue about rendering individuals stateless in the process of revoking citizenship for fraud or misrepresentation. As oft discussed in this forum, status obtained by fraud never really was legal status to begin with, so revoking such citizenship does not constitute rendering the affected person stateless as nothing is taken away that the individual legally had. This is actually recognized in the international treaties regarding statelessness, to which Canada is a signatory. Those treaties specifically allow for member nations to revoke citizenship obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.

There is no chance at all that the Liberals will eliminate this ground for revoking citizenship.

The Liberals might, and indeed should, however, amend the procedures for revoking citizenship obtained by fraud. The procedure prescribed currently in the Citizenship Act, which was implemented as part of Bill C-24, is deeply flawed. My sense is that these provisions will be addressed and amended, at the least to re-introduce the key role of the Federal Courts, but again only if and when the Liberals get to amending the Citizenship Act, and this could easily take years.

By the way, the Conservative campaign line about the NDP and Liberals wanting terrorists or traitors to keep Canadian citizenship is a red herring.

For one thing, there is a huge difference between nationality status and actually enjoying the rights and privileges of that status. No one among the NDP or the Liberals wants terrorists or traitors to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Canadian citizenship. They uniformly want such individuals deprived of the right to travel, for example, to the extent they support imprisoning these individuals in a very confined space for very, very long periods of time, for life if necessary. The difference of opinion, the differences in policy, are not really about coddling the truly bad guys; all parties are in full agreement about the need to protect Canada and Canadians from those who would cause them harm. The difference is in recognizing the fundamental nature of what it means to be a Canadian citizen, or as Trudeau has repeated many, many times, "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," and saying this in no way diminishes the need to prosecute and incarcerate those who commit crimes against Canada or Canadians.



Leading to this, at the risk of responding to trolling:

No leaders in Canadian politics embrace a hug-a-thug policy. Such characterizations may be, at their very best, over-the-top. But mostly such characterizations are not mere rhetoric or hyperbole, but rather low-brow defamation, typically the crude currency of trolls.

Which is not to ignore that some politicians have been overtly corrupt and all too cozy with particular individuals involved in criminal activities. The world's most famous crack-smoking former-mayor comes to mind. But those are isolated, personal failures, not at all about policy. As opprobrious as Rob Ford's personal behavior was, for example, his political agenda was undoubtedly rooted in his sincere beliefs about the best way to govern (not well founded beliefs, but undoubtedly sincere ones). That is, even though Rob Ford embraced actual thugs, engaged in criminal transactions with drug dealers, it would be unfair to conflate his personal failing with his political policies.

For another example, Harper deserved a great deal of harsh criticism, and many aspects of his governing style deserved to be characterized as undemocratic (radical reduction in government transparency, muzzling public servants and scientists, and ramming through major legislation with minimal public or even stakeholder consultation and restricting debate, among many other examples), thus earning him and his government some rather pointed censuring. But he did not deserve to be demonized by low-brow defamation. For example, as much as I, and most Canadians, despised Harper, most of us also rebuffed the unwarranted characterizations of the government, under his reign, as a dictatorship (even if I would joke that perhaps having dictatorial power was Harper's fondest dream).

There is plenty of room even in more serious public discourse for the hyperbolic, and especially for satire. I love particularly biting political cartoons for example. But this realm of discourse is a lot like the infamous U.S. Supreme Court ruling which stated that even if obscenity could not be defined, one knows obscenity when they see it. It is easy to spot coarse and mean-spirited vilification for what it is, not satire, but bullying slander.

 

[screech339]

Do we really need our prisons full of harmless, non-violent offenders like they do in the United States? Somehow, a reasonable justice policy is 'hug-a-thug'? Oy vay!

You mean the harmless dopers? They do no harm to anyone except themselves. Yes the US has a lot of prisoners that got caught with personal use of weed. They are mostly harmless unless they start driving and kill someone. These people are no difference from those who drink. So there are no victims involved with dopers.

We are talking about people who actually harm/hurt/damage victims.

 

[mjh49783aa]

But herein lies another problem. Down in the States, they have all sorts of 'tough on crime' legislation, including zero tolerance policies. Despite their having the most people in the world in prison, it has done little to curb violent crime. Especially the mass shootings. But it has helped the profits of the private prison industry over there.

I think the last thing we want to do is to emulate their model for dispensing justice. It's just not working. Even they are beginning to see the light, when the states tally up their yearly fiscal budgets.

You mean the harmless dopers? They do no harm to anyone except themselves. Yes the US has a lot of prisoners that got caught with personal use of weed. They are mostly harmless unless they start driving and kill someone. These people are no difference from those who drink. So there are no victims involved with dopers.

We are talking about people who actually harm/hurt/damage victims.

 

[Natan]

Those accused of crimes have rights. They have the right to legal counsel, the right to a fair trial, and yes, the right to <i>every</i> legal opportunity to prove their innocence. The rights of the victim do not trump the rights of the accused. Once convicted, the convict continues to have rights, such as the right to appeal their verdict, and the right to be treated humanely. It does not matter that their crime may have denied victims their rights -- the accused/convicted continue to have rights regardless. (Two wrongs do not make a right: the loss of the victim's rights cannot be righted by the loss of the perpetrator's rights!)

Statistics have well established that a justice system that is rehabilitative in nature, with a strong focus on preventing recidivism, reduces crime; while retributive justice systems that focus on punishment, and maintain criminal records that cannot be erased, increase crime and recidivism. These are facts that have been demonstrated repeatedly. (I invite the curious to investigate and compare the experiences of two retributive judicial systems: USA & Jamaica; and two rehabilitative judicial systems: Norway & Portugal.)

Sound bytes like "hug-a-thug", "soft on crime", and "bleeding heart liberal" are all meant to shut down conversation and prevent the electorate from carefully considering nuanced policies that directly effect the kind of society we will live in. Those who employ such tactics are using free speech to subvert the democratic process by effectively denying the electorate crucial information needed for making well reasoned choices. It is, of course, their right to exercise their free speech, even if such speech is used to abuse the democratic process. This is me exercising <i>my</i> free speech in opposition to such tactics.