New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[txboyscout]

And obviously, they did not clarify exactly how they would enforce the 'intent to reside' clause, and to what extent can one work and live overseas after becoming a citizen before being deemed to have abandoned the 'intent to reside' in Canada. Maybe because it's just impossible?

I don't think that the Govt has any intention to (or any idea on how to) enfore the "intend ot reside" clause. It was just put in there to pacify the party's base. It will be left to future governments on to see if they want to enfore this clause or not

 

[u4g5]

I 'skimmed' through the transcript, and it seems to me that the NDP and Liberals raised a lot of points that have been raised by potential citizens here who will be affected by the proposed changes to the Act.

What I don't get though, despite several attempts to raise the issues on the ever-increasing processing times for citizenship applications, about the amendment not to count pre-PR days for citizenship residency purposes, they did not seem to have addressed them properly. Alexander only mentioned that, by the time Andreas, Ali and Abdul would qualify for citizenship, processing times would've been much faster, but how?

Regarding not counting pre-PR days, about the only thing he said on this matter was

And obviously, they did not clarify exactly how they would enforce the 'intent to reside' clause, and to what extent can one work and live overseas after becoming a citizen before being deemed to have abandoned the 'intent to reside' in Canada. Maybe because it's just impossible?

Not counting pre-PR time isnt fair, which australia still let their PR to count pre-PR time. But USA doesnt let future citizen to count Pre-PR time, which Minister can use for his defence. I have a friend taking oath soon and his interview Official had no problem of him leaving the country right after submitting citizenship application. N he has no intention to stay right he becomes a citizen. The "intend to stay" is just a joke. NOBODY can police a will.

 

[rg2012]

To be honest, and I may be a bit selfish here. This shouldn't retroactively apply to all current PR holders. If its a new law, it should probably affect new PR applicants submitted at a certain date in the future. Now I know that doesn't help all the Temp Residents on Visas, but like I said, I'm being a bit selfish.

 

[vic48912]

I don't think that the Govt has any intention to (or any idea on how to) enfore the "intend ot reside" clause. It was just put in there to pacify the party's base. It will be left to future governments on to see if they want to enfore this clause or not

Intent to reside clause is meant to be an albatross on the neck of naturalized Canadian. If that clause remain in the status book, be assured it's going to be use some day by a morally bankrupt politician.

 

[txboyscout]

Intent to reside clause is meant to be an albatross on the neck of naturalized Canadian. If that clause remain in the status book, be assured it's going to be use some day by a morally bankrupt politician.

Oh, I have no doubts about that

Its just this government that has no intention (or know how) of implementing this clause

I fully expect a future govt, to come up with some filmsy requirements to use this clause to take away citizenships for whatever group of people they want to take it away from

 

[u4g5]

2nd reading and debate, will move for a vote and refer to standing committee soon

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Hansard&Doc=53&Parl=41&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1#int-8250182

 

[gosia]

i just read the debate, 4 out of 6 years and not counting pre-pr days??this is not fair

 

[u4g5]

i just read the debate, 4 out of 6 years and not counting pre-pr days??this is not fair

4 out of 6 is fair, what is not fair is taking away Pre-PR credit!

 

[u4g5]

Parliament is not debating this bill today. And obviously the government has no rush to push the bill through so whoever is eligible to apply in 2014 can sit tight, prepare their application thoroughly and send out application as soon as their time is up.
i will go over parliament website everyday.
by the way, i found an odd thing in the CIC press release. They claimed they have 16000 new citizenship in Jan and 19200 in febuary. But in the Feb press release, they said since 2014, total of 41000 of PR has become citizens. How do they come up such number??? so weird. but of course i wish they process as much as application this yr to 1. clear backlog, 2. cut down processing time for new applicants.
Have a good week, everyone

 

[u4g5]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/CommitteeBusiness/CommitteeHome.aspx?Cmte=CIMM&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2

This is what i found on the committee website, that they did a study since 2.14.2014?

 

[u4g5]

Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, February 26, 2014, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

1. That the Hon. Chris Alexander, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, appear before the Committee on Wednesday, March 5, 2014, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in relation to the Supplementary Estimates (C) 2013-14 and that the second hour be devoted to hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System.

2. That as soon as Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts is referred to the Committee:

• the Committee hold four (4) meetings to hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Bill C-24, and that the number of meetings be changed later if required;

• the Committee hear from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) officials for the first hour and hear from stakeholders for the remaining seven (7) hours; and

• the total number of witnesses for this study be divided among the recognized parties according to their standings in the House of Commons: eleven (11) for the Government (Conservative Party), seven (7) for the Official Opposition (New Democratic Party) and one (1) for the other opposition party (Liberal Party).

3. That the Committee members submit to the Clerk their prioritized witness list for the study on Bill C-24, with the witnesses’ complete contact information no later than Friday, March 14, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.

 

[us2yow]

These two phrases below from the minutes indicate that it is still not there yet in terms of process/procedure (phrase 1 ) and also makes allowance for the likelihood of there being more debate/discourse (Phrase 2)

PHRASE 1 ---------> as soon as Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts is referred to the Committee: (it's just had first debate in second reading and is not yet near referral if there is more debate to come, such as for example with Bill C-23 on the Elections Act when the second reading had a few debates)

PHRASE 2 ------------> the Committee hold four (4) meetings to hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Bill C-24, and that the number of meetings be changed later if required; (another very clear indication/ allowance for more debate ! )

 

[u4g5]

These two phrases below from the minutes indicate that it is still not there yet in terms of process/procedure (phrase 1 ) and also makes allowance for the likelihood of there being more debate/discourse (Phrase 2)

PHRASE 1 ---------> as soon as Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts is referred to the Committee: (it's just had first debate in second reading and is not yet near referral if there is more debate to come, such as for example with Bill C-23 on the Elections Act when the second reading had a few debates)

PHRASE 2 ------------> the Committee hold four (4) meetings to hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Bill C-24, and that the number of meetings be changed later if required; (another very clear indication/ allowance for more debate ! )


Good explanation!

 

[2_of_5]

To be honest, and I may be a bit selfish here. This shouldn't retroactively apply to all current PR holders. If its a new law, it should probably affect new PR applicants submitted at a certain date in the future. Now I know that doesn't help all the Temp Residents on Visas, but like I said, I'm being a bit selfish.

Same here. It should apply to those who do their landings after the effective date of C-24. I did my two years as a Temporary Resident, then over a year for PR processing. I'm hoping I can apply for citizenship in July 2015 instead of waiting until 2017.

My US citizenship is a millstone around my neck due to FATCA that I need to discard ASAP.

 

[surgi]

These two phrases below from the minutes indicate that it is still not there yet in terms of process/procedure (phrase 1 ) and also makes allowance for the likelihood of there being more debate/discourse (Phrase 2)

PHRASE 1 ---------> as soon as Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts is referred to the Committee: (it's just had first debate in second reading and is not yet near referral if there is more debate to come, such as for example with Bill C-23 on the Elections Act when the second reading had a few debates)

PHRASE 2 ------------> the Committee hold four (4) meetings to hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Bill C-24, and that the number of meetings be changed later if required; (another very clear indication/ allowance for more debate ! )

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]I read the whole minutes. It is clear that the NDP and liberal will vote against this bill. The problem is that they are minority of at least 30 members. So as it was clear that the minister was furious during disscusion even he attacked one member and the Liberal Party in the same time. He could not give reasonable technical answers to the questions and the figures about immigration under the conservative party. The [size=10pt][size=10pt][/size][/size]opposion accusd the conservatives about their responsibilities of the backlog. For this reason, I think we have all to write to the common chabre membres as per our residence members. We should explain to them the problem with this bill.Especially the members of the conservative party. They are careful about the local opinions in their areas. We can stop or at least make changes in this bill.[/size][/size][/size][/size]


Good explanation!