David

Visas now required for citizens of Malaysia

The minister of Citizenship and Immigration announced on September 23, 2002
that citizens of Malaysia would now require a Canadian temporary resident
visa to travel to Canada. The requirement comes into effect in September 24,
2002.

Since December 2001, the Minister has lifted visa exemptions for Dominica,
Grenada, Hungary, Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu, Vanuata, Zimbabwe and the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia.


New Citizenship Laws.

There is strong speculation that within the next few months the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration will table a new Citizenship Act.

Source:

http://www.visalaw.com/02sep4/10s-
ep402.html

Vladimir Menkov

In article ,
David wrote:
...
    >New Citizenship Laws.
    >There is strong speculation that within the next few months the Minister of
    >Citizenship and Immigration will table a new Citizenship Act.
    >Source:
    >http://www.visalaw.com/02sep4/10-
    >sep402.html

When I saw this at Siskind's site, I figured that the source of the
"strong speculations" may have been a "leak" from the government
offcials preparing the Throne Speech... and indeed, in her Throne
Speech on Monday 9/30, Governor General said quite clearly:

"[The government] will reform our citizenship legislation to reassert
the rights and reinforce the responsibilities that go with being
Canadian."

( http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-
-e/001db_2002-09-30-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=2#7 )

So this means that the government indeed wants to introduce a new
citizenship bill in Parliament -- maybe in a few days' time
(government usually likes to introduce quite a bunch of bills just
after parliament opens), maybe in a few months'... If the government
is indeed proposes the new bill this fall, then, considering that in
Canada the role of Parliament usually is merely to rubber-stamp
government bills, adding only fairly minor amendments, we well may
expect a new Citizenship Act to be in force by the next summer or fall
-- unless of course Chretien calls another "snap election" in the
meantime :-)

There were no further details in the Throne Speech as to how the
government wants to change the existing Citizenship Act; but, of
course, it is still almost the same government that twice tried to do
it in the previous Parliament. First, Bill C-63 was introduced in the
First Session of 36th Parliament (bill introduced in Dec 98, but died
in summer 1999 after the second reading, when the session ended and
Parliament went on vacation). Once MPs came back for the second
session of the 36th Parliament, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-16
in Nov 1999; that bill passed the House of Commons, but died in the
Senate when Parliament was dissolved in October 2000. The summaries of
the old bills can be found at the Parliament web site:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_H...S-<br /> es=1
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_H...S-<br /> es=2

The old bills' most important point was re-defining "residency" for
citizenship purposes as physical presence in Canada (with a few
strictly circumscribed exceptions); Bill C-63, for example, required
an applicant for citizenship to accumulate 3 years (1095 days) of
physical presence (as PR) during the 6 years preceding the
application, as opposed to 3 years of "residency" within the preceding
4 years in the 1977 Citizenship Act currently in force.

Well, let's start watching the Parliament web site, and see what, if
anything, the government will propose this time, and whether minister
Coderre will be any luckier with passing his bill trough Parliament
than his predecessors, minister Robillard and minister Caplan were.



Vladimir Meñkov, in Penticton, BC. (http-
://www.cs.indiana.edu/~vmenkov)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Anyone who is knowledgeable and skilled at butchering can be trained
in six months to perform many surgical operations, but only surgeons
know that, and they aren't telling".
(Gene Logsdon, "Organic Orcharding", 1981).

Rich Wales

Vladimir Menkov wrote:

> . . . Bill C-16 in Nov 1999; that bill passed the House
> of Commons, but died in the Senate when Parliament was
> dissolved in October 2000. . . . The old bills' most
> important point was re-defining "residency" for citi-
> zenship purposes as physical presence in Canada . . . .

It may be worth noting, though, that the main reason Bill C-16 got
bogged down in a Senate committee in the summer and fall of 2000
was because of provisions in the bill which would have given the
government wide-ranging powers to reject citizenship applications,
or even to revoke grants of citizenship (naturalizations), with
only limited options for appellate review by the courts.

An article which I posted on this topic in misc.immigration.canada
can be found at:



Rich Wales [email protected]
http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Bodza Bodza

(Vladimir Menkov) wrote:
    > http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_House_Government.asp?Language=E&parl=36&S-
    > es=2

Interesting. If you check out this link and go to bill c-16 it says
"as passed by house of commons".

Does this mean the bill "has been passed" and will be implemented in
the textual form written there?

Anyone?

Stephen C. Gallagher

"Bodza Bodza" wrote in message
news:355bc975.0210030145-
[email protected]...
    > (Vladimir Menkov) wrote:
    > >
-
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_House_Government.asp?Language=E&parl=36&S
es=2
    > Interesting. If you check out this link and go to bill c-16 it says
    > "as passed by house of commons".
    > Does this mean the bill "has been passed" and will be implemented in
    > the textual form written there?

It was passed by the House of Commons, but not by the
Senate.

If you look at some of the other bills listed on the above
link, you will see that they mention "Royal Assent".

"Royal Assent" is given by the crown after a bill has
passed both the Commons and the Senate, and it is
this action that makes it a law.

There is no Royal Assent listed for C-16, because the
bill never passed the Senate before Parliament was
dissolved.

When Parliament was dissolved, the bill died.

Stephen Gallagher

Stuart Brook

"Stephen C. Gallagher" wrote:
    > "Bodza Bodza" wrote in message
    > news:355bc975.02100301-
    > [email protected]    ...
    > > (Vladimir Menkov) wrote:
    > > >
    > [url="http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_House_Government.asp?Language=E&parl=36&S-[/q1]
[q1]> "]http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_House_Government.asp?Language=E&parl=36&S[/ur-
    > l]
    > es=2
    > >
    > > Interesting. If you check out this link and go to bill c-16 it says
    > > "as passed by house of commons".
    > >
    > > Does this mean the bill "has been passed" and will be implemented in
    > > the textual form written there?
    > It was passed by the House of Commons, but not by the
    > Senate.
    > If you look at some of the other bills listed on the above
    > link, you will see that they mention "Royal Assent".
    > "Royal Assent" is given by the crown after a bill has
    > passed both the Commons and the Senate, and it is
    > this action that makes it a law.
    > There is no Royal Assent listed for C-16, because the
    > bill never passed the Senate before Parliament was
    > dissolved.
    > When Parliament was dissolved, the bill died.
    > Stephen Gallagher

Known in the UK as "Died on the Order Paper".

Rich Wales

Stuart Brook wrote:

> Known in the UK as "Died on the Order Paper".

AFAIK, the same expression is used in Canada as well.

Even though the Liberals have a comfortable majority in the Senate,
Senators tend to be more independent-minded than their counterparts
in the House of Commons (who generally act like trained seals and
almost invariably vote with their party).

Still, it was rather unusual for the citizenship bill to have become
bogged down in the Senate the way it did.

Rich Wales [email protected]
http://www.richw.org
*NOTE: I've lived in both Canada and the US and have dual citizenship.
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.