Sign petition: Citizenship Act Bill C-24 discrimination

[torontosm]

Could you please provide one example of a CIC official who has operated outside of the law?

If Physical presence is becoming a new proposed law then why CIC was already enforcing it, operating outside of existing law.

And you mean complaining to the same cons MPs and HON Minister who wants to eliminate the court system and bypass the judicial systems due process to acquire more authority to make decisions?

That is a weak argument. Do you want to try and explain the difference between residency and physical presence? It was a gray area that was undefined, and the new bill is merely clarifying all doubt rather than changing the law in this regard.

Yes, I mean the same MP's that represent you and that we, as Canadians, have elected. No one is trying to eliminate the court system or do anything as drastic as that. If you honestly feel that this is a power grab, then perhaps you should go back to your dark room, put on your foil helmet and continue reading your conspiracy theories.

 

[sashali78]

That is a weak argument. Do you want to try and explain the difference between residency and physical presence? It was a gray area that was undefined, and the new bill is merely clarifying all doubt rather than changing the law in this regard.

Yes, I mean the same MP's that represent you and that we, as Canadians, have elected. No one is trying to eliminate the court system or do anything as drastic as that. If you honestly feel that this is a power grab, then perhaps you should go back to your dark room, put on your foil helmet and continue reading your conspiracy theories.

I think we are veering off the subject here...The petition is only about counting the Pre-PR time and solidifying status quo - i.e. requirement of only 2 PR years for former students and workers.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

 

[keesio]

I don't know whether you pretend not to know this or don't really know this. It is MUCH HARDER to immigrate to the US than to Canada. There are thousands of people that lived in the US for more than 10 years and have NOT received a green card.
That's why many students come to Canada because it's fairly easy to immigrate here after their studies. This is a well known fact.

This is true. It is no secret that many immigrants first choice was the US but came to Canada instead because it was easier. Some then stay long enough to get Canadian citizenship and then use it to qualify for a TN visa to the US (I know a few people that did just this).

Still that does not make it ok for Canada to use it as an excuse to disregard prior non-PR residency.

 

[marcus66502]

What does it matter if you have to wait a little longer to get citizenship? The problem is, too many people abuse the system just to get a Canadian passport and they have no intention of making Canada their permanent home. You can thank them for the change.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk. You'll just be embarrassing yourself. It does matter quite a bit whether you have citizenship or not, in ways which you can't seem to imagine. Without citizenship, I won't be able to get a job with the federal government. And I'm not talking about the actual prospect of employment (as the federal government is not hiring a lot at this time). What I mean is that without citizenship, I won't even be able to apply at all for any of their jobs. Consider, for instance, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), one of the elite employers of all federal government agencies. This department, where I could use my skills, has citizenship as an explicit requirement for all their job candidates. So yes, not having citizenship is a bar to getting a job with an elite employer, starting a very stable lifetime career, and earning a very comfortable living.

Seriously, if you answer no to the question 'Are you a Canadian citizen?' which is asked on a lot of government job application forms (and on some private sector employment application forms) you might as well not even apply because your application goes straight in the trash. Contrary to what you might think, recruiters of top employers make no distinction between a permanent resident and a foreign national who is not a permanent resident. The only thing that counts to them is whether you're a Canadian citizen. Before you all get on my neck about how this is not true, I will say right off the bat that, yes, there are exceptions to this but they are rare. Most top employers will (at least in practice) look at whether you're a citizen before considering you for a position, especially a high level position, even if they don't say so on the forms.

For another example, let's say I worked very hard at saving a few dollars and I want to take a short vacation to Switzerland. With my passport from my old country (don't ask me what it is cause I'm not telling and it's not relevant to this discussion) I would need to get a visa the old-fashioned way, by going to the consulate and being interviewed by an officer. It's an expensive and time-consuming process. With a Canadian passport, well ... we all know we can just hop on the plane instead.

You could argue that it's only a one year delay and it's not a big deal but consider how much more I would earn in a year if I were employed with CSIS instead of my current employer. Could I sue the government for the difference?

 

[Canadian2007]

Thank you marcus66502,

I cannot agree with you more. Moreover the point is, if there is a rule of law in place that if you qualify after 1095 days(current rule) and fulfill all the other requirements in place for citizenship and then in turn government now has the duty to fulfill Its requirement to prospective citizens to grant citizenship as prescribed in the Citizenship Act. And of course government must ensure that proper mechanism is in place to do all necessary checks to deliver results within REASONABLE amount of time. So why does someone has to argue why they need citizenship? The issue is whether or not someone fulfilled requirements and granting citizenship within a fairly reasonable amount of time. NOT 36 months...
And while Canada is a democratic nation and the one the most important pillar of democracy is a right to vote in election. So withholding someones right to Vote in an election for indefinite period of time is undemocratic at its best.

 

[marcus66502]

I don't know whether you pretend not to know this or don't really know this. It is MUCH HARDER to immigrate to the US than to Canada.

This is an understatement. It's not just 'much harder' to immigrate to the US. It's actually not possible to do it on your own. You just don't have any option to petition for permanent residence all by yourself. You need to be sponsored by either an immediate relative or an employer who has to prove to the government that they cannot find American workers for the job they're offering you. I really can't imagine an employer not getting any local applicants for any properly advertised position. So what usually has to happen is that the employer has to bump the local applicants, finding excuses to claim they're not fit for the position, in order to help you get permanent residence. That is, somebody has to know what needs to be done and has to be willing to jump through the hoops to get it done just for you. I don't know any employer who will do that for me.

This is what it takes, special connections to an employer who will bump others and jump through the hoops just for you. I don't care what you say, you cannot convince me otherwise. Anyone who believes different will have to riddle me this: how come the government only hires citizens and will never sponsor anyone? Nope, you cannot tell me that you personally know people who have been sponsored by the government for permanent residence. I will not believe you. In fact, I'll sooner believe that money grows on trees.

I suppose you can say you have options to self-petition: the DV lottery or take your chances with an asylum application. I won't even get into how low the chances of success are with each of these, but I will wish you good luck!

 

[torontosm]

Without citizenship, I won't be able to get a job with the federal government. And I'm not talking about the actual prospect of employment (as the federal government is not hiring a lot at this time). What I mean is that without citizenship, I won't even be able to apply at all for any of their jobs. Consider, for instance, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), one of the elite employers of all federal government agencies. This department, where I could use my skills, has citizenship as an explicit requirement for all their job candidates. So yes, not having citizenship is a bar to getting a job with an elite employer, starting a very stable lifetime career, and earning a very comfortable living.

That is absolute nonsense. I know plenty of PR's working in Ottawa, and if you actually search this forum, I had posted an article in response to someone else making that claim where the reporter intereviewed a number of PR's working for government agencies, including the sensitive nuclear energy agency. It's true that you may not qualify for a job in CSIS for national security reasons, but last time I checked, CSIS wasn't exactly propping up the Canadian economy with its broad based hiring.

Seriously, if you answer no to the question 'Are you a Canadian citizen?' which is asked on a lot of government job application forms (and on some private sector employment application forms) you might as well not even apply because your application goes straight in the trash. Contrary to what you might think, recruiters of top employers make no distinction between a permanent resident and a foreign national who is not a permanent resident. The only thing that counts to them is whether you're a Canadian citizen. Before you all get on my neck about how this is not true, I will say right off the bat that, yes, there are exceptions to this but they are rare. Most top employers will (at least in practice) look at whether you're a citizen before considering you for a position, especially a high level position, even if they don't say so on the forms.

I work at a large organization that would be considered a "top employer" and I know for a fact that we don't even ask about the person's status in Canada until after the offer is extended when they are asked to provide their SIN number only. As a result, there is zero discrimination against PR's vs. citizens.

For another example, let's say I worked very hard at saving a few dollars and I want to take a short vacation to Switzerland. With my passport from my old country (don't ask me what it is cause I'm not telling and it's not relevant to this discussion) I would need to get a visa the old-fashioned way, by going to the consulate and being interviewed by an officer. It's an expensive and time-consuming process. With a Canadian passport, well ... we all know we can just hop on the plane instead.

You could argue that it's only a one year delay and it's not a big deal but consider how much more I would earn in a year if I were employed with CSIS instead of my current employer. Could I sue the government for the difference?

I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy with your argument that you require a Canadian passport because your current citizenship requires you to get visas. I'm not sure you will get the government to change their stance for your personal convenience.

And yes, you may earn more money with a job at CSIS. But what happens if you get your citizenship and CSIS still doesn't hire you? who will you blame then?

 

[zardoz]

And seriously, who, in their right mind, would want to work for CSIS? (and yes, I know something of the subject...)

 

[marcus66502]

I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy with your argument that you require a Canadian passport because your current citizenship requires you to get visas. I'm not sure you will get the government to change their stance for your personal convenience.

And yes, you may earn more money with a job at CSIS. But what happens if you get your citizenship and CSIS still doesn't hire you? who will you blame then?

I wasn't asking for your sympathy. Nor do I care for it.

I wasn't asking that the government change their stance for my personal convenience. That's something you made up. I was giving a list of things that I am not able to do without citizenship. It's true that you cannot apply for a position with CSIS without citizenship (and yes, I do want to work for them). Whether I get hired is not the issue here. I already said that. What's true is that you cannot even apply for a position with them without citizenship (it's stated on their website). This is one of their explicit requirements that must be satisfied before you even apply. It is separate from any background and national security checks. Not looking to blame anyone. Just stating a fact.

It's also true that many PR's would need expensive visas to make international trips without a Canadian passport.

Basically I was answering someone's question about what's the big deal if you have to wait longer to get citizenship. Well, these are among the things you're not able to do. I suppose you could keep on asking "what's the big deal?" after every answer but you only got one life to live and those years you wait aren't coming back. That's also a hard fact.

As for whether there is discrimination against PR's in government employment practices, I think we're going to agree that we have a disagreement and leave it at that. I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who makes claims that (conveniently) cannot be verified in a forum.

 

[torontosm]

I wasn't asking that the government change their stance for my personal convenience. That's something you made up. I was giving a list of things that I am not able to do without citizenship. It's true that you cannot apply for a position with CSIS without citizenship (and yes, I do want to work for them). Whether I get hired is not the issue here. I already said that. What's true is that you cannot even apply for a position with them without citizenship (it's stated on their website). This is one of their explicit requirements that must be satisfied before you even apply. It is separate from any background and national security checks. Not looking to blame anyone. Just stating a fact.

OK, so as a PR, you can not apply for a job at CSIS. I accept that. But then, you need to understand just how insignificant this purported disadvantage really is. CSIS employs a total of 3,100 people out of the total Canadian labor force of 16,500,000. That means that even with this handicap, you are still qualified for the other 99.98% of jobs in Canada.

 

[sashali78]

OK, so as a PR, you can not apply for a job at CSIS. I accept that. But then, you need to understand just how insignificant this purported disadvantage really is. CSIS employs a total of 3,100 people out of the total Canadian labor force of 16,500,000. That means that even with this handicap, you are still qualified for the other 99.98% of jobs in Canada.

Ok. so that's just CSIS. Ah and aeronautics companies such as Bombardier, ah and voting, that's all. Wait a minute, also the security of life for you and your children without being afraid of some future conservative laws stripping you out of PR if you drink Coca Cola instead of Pepsi on a sunny day, and a 1000 reasons more.
I can't believe the arguments of those who say delaying Citizenship is not important and not a big deal. Are you guys arguing just for the sake of the argument?
For those who care, please continue signing and spreading the word. We have a work group and clear action plan and we are pushing ahead, we need more votes though to reach 5000:
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

 

[marcus66502]

I can't believe the arguments of those who say delaying Citizenship is not important and not a big deal. Are you guys arguing just for the sake of the argument?

They HAVE TO be arguing just for the sake of the argument. Otherwise their arguments make no sense whatsoever.

This is my last post about this subject and I'm gonna take a more selfish approach. Some people ask what's the big deal if you have to wait longer to get citizenship? Let me just answer it this way: It is no big deal if citizenship isn't all that important to you. Your circumstances are different from mine. Let's just say that some of us have different reasons for wanting citizenship as soon as possible - reasons which might not apply to others in here. I, for one, harbor a deep dislike for the country I was born in (if you can call it a country at all) and want to get rid of that nationality as soon as possible. That's one reason that would have never crossed the mind of most of you and there you have it.

Here's another reason: Let's just say I'm sick and tired of having to answer No to the question "Are you a Canadian citizen?" on the one million or so forms I've had to fill out so far for all sorts of things (job applications, government document application forms, everything). Good for you if you've never been asked that question on forms but I have. This has been my experience and that's not arguable. It's a fact. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that what I have experienced is not real but rather just my imagination. By contrast, I have never been asked if I'm a permanent resident. Only if I'm a citizen.

You want another reason? Here it comes: I'm sick and tired of having to apply for visas everywhere I want to go. Even though I'm a Canadian permanent, still foreign governments don't care. They only care what passport you hold. It's surreal. I had to decline an invitation by someone in the UK to go visit him in London because I told him I'm not going through the visa application process. I had to go to the US consulate and appear for a B1 tourist visa interview with a consular officer, just to be able to take a Sunday drive to Buffalo, New York (a 30 minute drive from my house). It's ridiculous, in the 21st century. But I bet there's still going to be some of you who are going to ask "what's the big deal?" With you, I'm done arguing.

I don't really care for the 99% of the jobs in Canada. 99% of the jobs in this country are a joke: part-time, minimum wage, unskilled, survival jobs what just lead to a dead end. It's the other 1% of the jobs that will get you a comfortable living and when you don't get selected for those jobs, you'll be staying up at night wondering if it's because of your qualifications or because your application got thrown in the trash after they saw you mentioned you're not a Canadian citizen. I say you'll be wondering because you'll never know for sure. It's not like they'll tell you. You're never gonna hear from them.

(I'm exaggerating a little when I say 1%. Maybe it's 5% but the point comes across).

 

[marcus66502]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the "intent to reside" amendment. First, I do believe that Citizenship should be granted only to those who do intent to reside in Canada. Secondly, I do not believe that this amendment is enforceable, which makes even less of a clause to object it.
On the other hand, the abolishment of pre-PR time credit for residency requirements is clearly a major slap in the face of many former foreign workers and students. Unlike most new immigrants, former foreign workers and students have spent the most time in Canada, have contributed the most in economic terms. Nevertheless it is the group which will be affected twice as hard as the others by the new bill. This amendment is totally contrary to Minister's proclamations of strengthening Canadian ties and value of Canadian citizenship.
That's why I believe we should fight it in full force:

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

I have read the bill and the part of it about "intent" to reside in Canada goes against the Charter and will not pass.The Charter says a citizen has the right to enter, remain, and LEAVE Canada. Anybody can make an argument that it would create two classes of citizens and this would violate the principle of equality between citizens.

Even if by some miracle it were to pass, it'll be hard for the government to seek to revoke someone's citizenship solely because they left Canada to live somewhere else after they were granted citizenship. The only grounds the government could use are those for misrepresentation at the time of application for citizenship. This will not wash in the courts either: the applicant is not promising to actually reside in Canada as a condition for the grant of citizenship -- only "intending" to reside in Canada. Intents can change any time after the grant of citizenship, for a variety of reasons including unforeseen changes in personal circumstances, that could elicit anyone's sympathy, such as caring for your dying mother.

Indeed, this clause is so absurd, I can only assume it's a symbolic gesture with no real teeth behind it. I really can't see the government wasting its precious scarce resources pursuing revocations for citizens who leave Canada. It's unenforceable. There are no exit controls and they have no way of tracking movements out of Canada, nor the staff resources for it. There is no precise definition in the law as to what constitutes a move. How long do you have to be away before you can be presumed to have made your home elsewhere? The new law doesn't say. The whole thing is vague to the point of being useless.

Besides, any lawyer worth his salt will make the argument in the courts that if the government can pursue revocation of citizenship for a naturalized citizen just because he left Canada, why stop there? Why not pursue revocation for all Canadian-born citizens who left Canada for better opportunities in the United States? What makes these cases different? The fact that they were born here? There's nothing sacred about that fact. It's just something that happens to you by chance and no-one should be allowed to take advantage of it to the point of abuse. If you leave Canada to settle in the US then you clearly don't have any commitment to Canada. There are millions of such Canadians in the US.

It's sad that instead of addressing the real cause of the problem of emigration from Canada, they seek empty commitments from people. This "intent to reside" statement should really be called what it is: "promise that you won't the leave for the US" statement. If Canadian citizens are leaving for the US, the government should be asking why? You don't force people to stay in a place where the opportunities don't exist. If Canadians want to leave, they will leave even if it means they have to lose their Canadian citizenship. If the government wants to keep its citizens in Canada, it should start looking for ways to increase career opportunities in Canada.

 

[torontosm]

I have read the bill and the part of it about "intent" to reside in Canada goes against the Charter and will not pass.The Charter says a citizen has the right to enter, remain, and LEAVE Canada. Anybody can make an argument that it would create two classes of citizens and this would violate the principle of equality between citizens.

As has been discussed on other threads on this topic, there are already precedents of similar provisions whereby Citizens and PR's must demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada, or a specific province within Canada (i.e., overseas spousal sponsorship, PNP, etc.). None of these have been successfully challenged in court as violations of the Charter.

 

[marcus66502]

As has been discussed on other threads on this topic, there are already precedents of similar provisions whereby Citizens and PR's must demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada, or a specific province within Canada (i.e., overseas spousal sponsorship, PNP, etc.). None of these have been successfully challenged in court as violations of the Charter.

I don't think so. There are precedents where PR's must demonstrate intent, but not citizens. I'd like to see a requirement that citizens demonstrate intent to reside in Canada as a condition for their retention of citizenship, which has not been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the Charter.

The Charter does not apply to PR's, only to citizens. Its clauses start with "Every citizen of Canada ... " rather than "Every person in Canada ...". This is why intent requirements placed on PR's cannot be challenged as violations of the Charter. The Charter has nothing to say about PR's. On the other hand, Section 6 on Mobility rights of the Charter (do you need a link?) states

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

How would you get around a court challenge based on this? How much more clear could this be? This is one of the golden benefits of citizenship: the guaranteed protection of your rights by the Charter as 'sacred' , if you will.

There are a number of other legal provisions that apply to PR's that don't apply to citizens. One of them for example is inadmissibility. According to Section 36 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a PR can be made inadmissible to Canada upon committing criminal offenses abroad, essentially resulting in the loss of the PR status. Not so for citizens. Inadmissibility provisions don't apply to citizens. They cannot make a citizen inadmissible for crimes committed anywhere in the world while he is a citizen.

The Charter guaranteed right of a citizen to enter has deep implications at the border port of entry. I've stood in line behind Canadian citizens who get grilled by CBSA officers about the purpose of their trip abroad, how long they've been gone and their activities overseas. I am stunned that these people answer all the questions like sheep, when in reality the only questions they really have to answer are those related to confirming their identity and citizenship. If I were a citizen being grilled in that way I would say "I don't know why you're asking personal questions. They don't affect the outcome of this examination. I'm a citizen and have a right to enter. I don't have to answer to you about how long I've been away or what I've been doing. My personal details are really none of your business."

Indeed as soon as they've confirmed citizenship through the passport, their operational manuals say the examination MUST end and the citizen must be allowed to proceed to enter. Other personal questions are not necessary, ... just snooping around by CBSA officers.
For a PR, on the other hand, it's a totally different story. As a PR, I don't have a Charter right to enter Canada. That changes the whole ball game at the border because it means that they could deny me entry for refusing to answer their personal questions.

It's really hard to fully appreciate the benefits of citizenship until you're actually put in situations where your rights and freedoms are being reduced. Simple minds don't think about this. Instead, they find it easier to just ask "what's the big deal if you're not yet a citizen?"