question about "intent to reside" in c-24

[Lux et Veritas]

Regarding C-24, plain and simple: the current government (and allegedly most Canadians) wished for a law enabling them to renounce the citizenship of those who get it and then leave Canada. However, such a law would be unconstitutional since it violates the Canadians' right to travel and live wherever they want.

So, bill/law C-24 was the best possible solution from the government's perspective for the perceived problem of the so called "Canadians of convenience". Now if someone chooses to leave Canada after getting its citizenship, the government can argue that he lied in his application about his intention to settle in Canada and hence it has a legal basis to question his citizenship status, possibly leading to renunciation.

Whether the government can actually prove that the applicant didn't have a genuine intention to stay in Canada at the time of his application or not is a different issue. The important thing here is that it can, using this argument, initiate a legal action and drag him into a lengthy and expensive legal process just to prove the contrary, or in other words: turn his life into HELL. No one knows for sure how the government will enact this clause, but it can be used in a very mean way against individuals. Just imagine that, while outside Canada, you receive a notice of citizenship renunciation because you "lied" in your application. You won't be even able to return to Canada to defend yourself in a court of law! Naturalized Canadians will remain under a constant threat of falling in this miserable situation whenever they travel outside Canada for a long period (e.g. for working abroad). This is exactly what the government wants.

Another benefit here is that the government can portray itself in the eye of the public as the defender of the Canadians' interests against those who "abuse" the rights granted by the Charter. Harper can always tell the public: Look, we did our best to act tough on the "Canadians of convenience", but our hands are tied by the Charter and the court verdicts.

All this would be irrelevant if someone hypothetically renounces his dual citizenship and keeps the Canadian (if they were dual citizens). In that case it's against Canadian and international law to revoke the citizenship, which shows just how silly this intent to reside clause in C-24 really is. Looking at old YouTube videos of Chris Alexander, his interpretation is that this refers to intent to reside in Canada until the citizenship is granted. I think it's a silly interpretation but truth is no democratic government could force its citizens, naturalised or otherwise, to stay or never to travel elsewhere. I think people panic about this clause over nothing it's kind of like the citizenship test: it is meant to see if you have some idea of the history and culture of this country, but once you pass it nobody cares if you know who Wilfried Laurier is or not. So relax everyone: you can leave Canada and enjoy your lives once you become citizens.

 

[dpenabill]

dpenabill, I didn't say that the government will be able to PROVE that he lied. All I'm saying is that the government can INITIATE a legal case based on this clause. This is all what they need to turn a person's life upside-down if they don't like what he does after becoming Canadian.

Once someone gets the citizenship, he/she doesn't want the government to be able to question it based on his future life profile. Citizenship ceremonies must be like wedding ceremnies: if you have an objection, speak now or forever hold your peace

They can also initiate such a case against a citizen who has not left Canada for a day.

My posts are about cases based on facts, having some grounding in reality.

Sure, there are malicious prosecutions. Indeed, the same thing can be said about your local Crown attorney, who can charge you with murder even if you were out of town the day the killing took place. And sure, more realistically there are indeed occasions when Crown prosecutors have targeted someone unfairly, without substantiation.

Few of us live our lives in fear of being wrongfully accused of a crime we did not commit.

There is no more reason to fear an effort to revoke one's citizenship due to living outside Canada than there is to fear the local Crown attorney is going to prosecute you for a crime you did not commit . . . well, frankly, there is probably a much higher statistical possibility of the later, of the unfounded prosecution for a crime, than there is of the Minister proceeding to revoke a citizen's citizenship because that citizen is living abroad.

All this would be irrelevant if someone hypothetically renounces his dual citizenship and keeps the Canadian (if they were dual citizens). In that case it's against Canadian and international law to revoke the citizenship, which shows just how silly this intent to reside clause in C-24 really is. Looking at old YouTube videos of Chris Alexander, his interpretation is that this refers to intent to reside in Canada until the citizenship is granted. I think it's a silly interpretation but truth is no democratic government could force its citizens, naturalised or otherwise, to stay or never to travel elsewhere. I think people panic about this clause over nothing it's kind of like the citizenship test: it is meant to see if you have some idea of the history and culture of this country, but once you pass it nobody cares if you know who Wilfried Laurier is or not. So relax everyone: you can leave Canada and enjoy your lives once you become citizens.

Not really.

The international argeement/treaty, to which Canada is a party and is bound, does not cover revocation of citizenship for fraud. Renouncing other citizenship will not save a person who could have his Canadian citizenship revoked for fraud.

That is, revocation for fraud is for any citizen who obtained PR or citizenship by fraud . . . no dual citizenship necessary.

As neutral, it is comparable to other types of fraud which essentially voids whatever was obtained by fraud.

 

[asaif]

They can also initiate such a case against a citizen who has not left Canada for a day.

My posts are about cases based on facts, having some grounding in reality.

Sure, there are malicious prosecutions. Indeed, the same thing can be said about your local Crown attorney, who can charge you with murder even if you were out of town the day the killing took place. And sure, more realistically there are indeed occasions when Crown prosecutors have targeted someone unfairly, without substantiation.

Few of us live our lives in fear of being wrongfully accused of a crime we did not commit.

There is no more reason to fear an effort to revoke one's citizenship due to living outside Canada than there is to fear the local Crown attorney is going to prosecute you for a crime you did not commit . . . well, frankly, there is probably a much higher statistical possibility of the later, of the unfounded prosecution for a crime, than there is of the Minister proceeding to revoke a citizen's citizenship because that citizen is living abroad.

The difference is that, as we all know, a certain "class" of citizens is targeted by this clause, those who are deemed "abusers" of the Canadian citizenship by the government because they choose to leave Canada after getting its citizenship (AKA: "citizens of convenience") and does not relate to the general public. As I explained earlier, the government wished for a law that allows for the citizenship of "citizens of convenience" to be revoked OUTRIGHT, but opted for this law because the former is unconstitutional. The intentions of this government are very clear: this clause is added to tackle a specific problem, and hence it will be used against the people causing this problem (i.e., naturalized Canadians living abroad, which is not a crime by itself).

Anyway, just to eliminate the possibility of "red herring", let's have a small bet I say that if this government stays in power for another 4 years and if this clause is not removed, it will be used by the government to retrospectively question the citizenship status of some individuals. Any challenger?

 

[neutral]

Some individuals is too general... some individuals who are being accused of doing what?
It's clear that this law target criminals, that's nothing new so of course "some individuals" would be eventually targeted.

 

[CanadianCountry]

This law targets criminals and average joe people as well. Anybody who the CIC suspects is within the target range.

Some individuals is too general... some individuals who are being accused of doing what?
It's clear that this law target criminals, that's nothing new so of course "some individuals" would be eventually targeted.

 

[asaif]

Some individuals is too general... some individuals who are being accused of doing what?
It's clear that this law target criminals, that's nothing new so of course "some individuals" would be eventually targeted.

The whole topic is regarding the "intend to reside" clause in the new law, so by some individuals I mean specifically those who travel outside Canada after being granted its citizenship. I thought this is very clear from the context. We are not talking here about criminals (unless you consider this act a crime).

 

[neutral]

The law is clear that the intention applies only during the process and not after you were granted the citizenship. And that's logic as the intentions could change in 20 years so they only focus on the intentions you have at the moment you applies.

Now, if what worries you is the intention to reside issue as a whole, it'd apply also Canadians by birth who have another citizenship, why not?

So, you think it could happen that one day the Minister would be bored and would say to his colleges: "Look, just ask different Consulates to send us a list of 100,000 Canadians registered there because I woke up with the intention to revoke citizenships.....". :-\ ???

 

[asaif]

The law is clear that the intention applies only during the process and not after you were granted the citizenship. And that's logic as the intentions could change in 20 years so they only focus on the intentions you have at the moment you applies.

Now, if what worries you if the intention to reside issue as a whole, it'd apply also Canadians by birth who have another citizenship, why not?

So, you think it could happen that one day the Minister would be bored and would say to his colleges: "Look, just ask different Consulates to send us a list of 100,000 Canadians registered there because I woke up with the intention to revoke citizenships.....". :-\ ???

My point is clear. This clause is not put in the law redundantly, and hence it will be used as a basis for actions to be taken against some individuals who are deemed "problematic" by this government (AKA: Canadians of convenience), even if they are not technically breaking any law. As I reiterated earlier, the government may invoke legal actions based on this clause even if they lose the case in the court, just for the sake of "harassing" these "problematic" individuals and keeping the threat active for everyone else.

Personally, I'm not planning to move anywhere abroad after getting the Canadian citizenship. I just don't like the idea of staying under a constant threat for the rest of my life of getting involved in legal problems every time I spend some time abroad because of this stupid clause. I want to live my life "carefree" like any other single-citizenship, "by-birth" Canadian citizen. Am I asking for too much?

 

[screech339]

NDP is much to centre than Tories. These right wingers are messing up Canada.

Nothing centre about $15/day for national day care. Look to Quebec national day care for example. Even they admitted it is too costly and now changing it.

Nothing centre about reviving door to door mailing delivery. All of these cost a lot of money, other people's money.

"Socialism works until it runs out of other people's money."

 

[ilkar]

While some people in this forum have been arguing about whether people have to reside while their application is being processed in order not to become citizens of convenience, there are also other people who might leave the country while their citizenship is being processed for good reasons. I am going to the UK for a year to do my master's degree and my citizenship application is still in process, therefore under the new law, my citizenship can be revoked without appeal. However, how can they separate people who leave because they have to from people who want citizenship as a convenience? I find this law absurd in that people who work in businesses or study to better themselves would benefit more Canada's economy than people who have to stop their ambition to stay. Why should people fear that they might be denied citizenship based on misunderstandings with no appeal based on a suspicion? While I understand the feeling behind lawmakers to discourage people who take advantage, making a law too broad could have consequences on people who are not taking advantage of the system.

 

[ZingyDNA]

The law is clear that the intention applies only during the process and not after you were granted the citizenship.

If you look at this webpage:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=985259&tp=1

It says:

"Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship."

English is not my first language, but it sure seems to me "ONCE they become citizens" means AFTER becoming citizens?

 

[screech339]

If you look at this webpage:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=985259&tp=1

It says:

"Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship."

English is not my first language, but it sure seems to me "ONCE they become citizens" means AFTER becoming citizens?

Note the AND.

Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship

 

[ZingyDNA]

Note the AND.

Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship

So? That just means you have to declare your intent to reside in Canada and pay taxes AFTER becoming a citizen. Paying taxes or not, they still require you to live in Canada after becoming a citizen, which is unconstitutional...

 

[crimesinister]

According to the Canadian Bar Association:

This proposal is one of the most troubling in Bill C-24 and is highly vulnerable to abuse. The
CBA Section strenuously opposes requiring applicants to demonstrate an intent to reside in
Canada if granted citizenship.

First, the proposed requirement is likely unconstitutional. It would distinguish between
naturalized and other Canadian citizens, and would violate mobility rights.4 It would create
two tiers of citizenship: natural born Canadian citizens, who could travel and live abroad
without restriction; and naturalized Canadians, who would risk losing their status if they were

4 There would also be an incidental impairment of mobility for natural born Canadian citizens
with naturalized children and spouses.
Naturalized citizens could find themselves in a situation where, despite
having an intent to reside in Canada at the time of application, need to go abroad temporarily
for employment or personal reasons. Under the Bill, a single officer would decide whether the
original intent to reside was a misrepresentation and potentially strip citizenship on this basis.

I plan to challenge this in court.

 

[neutral]

If you look at this webpage:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=985259&tp=1

It says:

"Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship."

English is not my first language, but it sure seems to me "ONCE they become citizens" means AFTER becoming citizens?

Look, there are 2 things here. One is that this is only for Permanent Residents and second, you have to declare TODAY, NOW that you intent to reside in Canada after you become Canadian, but the intention is made TODAY, at present.
Of course we're talking about the future when we become Canadian, they are not going to ask you to have intentions about your teen ages, is about the future but the intention, the compromise is made TODAY.

And in fact you have to read the whole sentence, not half of it.

"Adult applicants must declare NOW their intent the intent they have NOW to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship in order TO BE ELEGIBLE, so it's the future and it's talking about Permanent Residents only as Canadians are not eligible for citizenship, they already have the citizenship ."

Briefly, today that you're Permanent Resident and you apply for citizenship, today you have to have the intention to live in Canada IN ORDER to be eligible for citizenship. Once you are Canadian, it's too late because you can't be eligible for something you already are.