[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Last year, Immigration Minister Marc Miller was indirectly quoted by the CBC as indicating the three-year requirement is only a hard requirement going forward:

Miller said his department will offer "discretionary" citizenship grants for affected people who were born or adopted before Dec. 19, 2023 — the date of the original Ontario court ruling.

Potential "lost Canadians" born or adopted after that date who have a citizen parent who has spent at least three cumulative years in Canada are also eligible for citizenship under the interim rules.

The government's own backgrounder also makes a distinction between those born or adopted before and after the date of passage, only attaching the three-year requirement to the latter:

On June 5, 2025, the government introduced Bill C-3, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act (2025), to extend citizenship by descent beyond the first-generation in a way that is more inclusive and protects the value of Canadian citizenship. The bill received royal assent on November 20, 2025, and came into effect on December 15, 2025. This means that IRCC now recognizes new eligible citizens and is applying the new rules for passing citizenship on going forward. With the coming into effect of this bill

    people who automatically became Canadian citizens under the new law can apply to get proof of Canadian citizenship
    people adopted abroad before December 15, 2025, by a Canadian parent born or adopted abroad can apply for Canadian citizenship for an adopted child
    people born or adopted abroad on or after December 15, 2025, to a Canadian parent also born or adopted abroad must demonstrate that their Canadian parent has spent three years in Canada when applying for proof of Canadian citizenship, or applying for Canadian citizenship for an adopted child
    people born before December 15, 2025, who automatically became Canadian citizens under the new law and were not previously granted citizenship, and who now want to give up (renounce) Canadian citizenship can apply through a simplified renunciation process

The IRCC website also makes this distinction:

If you were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent

If you were born outside of Canada before December 15, 2025, you're likely a Canadian citizen if your parent was also a Canadian citizen when you were born.

If you were born outside of Canada on or after December 15, 2025, to a Canadian parent also born outside of Canada, you're likely a Canadian citizen if

    your parent was also a Canadian citizen when you were born, and
    your Canadian parent spent at least 1,095 days in Canada before you were born

If your parent became a citizen after you were born

You're not automatically a Canadian citizen if your parent was granted Canadian citizenship after you were born.

There is still the question of chaining, as that final bullet from the IRCC site implies there may be limits on that, but all sources are clear to me that the three-year requirement does not apply to those people who are applying that GF has been talking about, as they would (potentially) have qualified before the new bill, and it was the new bill that added the three-year requirement.

Is there something wrong with my interpretation of these statements?  When GF partially quoted this earlier, you said it was saying the same thing as you, but that's not how I read it.

[Barrister]

You know, I could come up with an alternate theory of the case that would run very counter to this.

Why don't we wait until the facts come out?

It's so great to have you back. 

Sophie, I'm curious why you respond to me saying

Why don't we wait until the facts come out?

With this emoji:



I offered no particular hypothesis about what happened.

Other than it is a tragedy.

[crazy canuck]

Well you did say you could come up with a completely different theory.  I  not sure how without making stuff up.

[Bauer]

When BB shows up here it's like a bunch of old married couples rehashing old grievances. 

[Barrister]

Garbon, Sophie's post was not about guns.

BB, there is actually quite a lot of information kniwn about the shooter now. If you go to the link, I posted from the glove and Mail you will see a lengthy article describing her history in great detail. Sophie posted it right after reading that post and that is what she based her observation on.

I'm not sure why you think it is improper to discuss what has been widely reported in a national newspaper. Perhaps you could explain that. Particularly since there will not be a trial, which was example you gave.

So here's the latest I information I can find:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shooter-tumbler-ridge-what-we-know-teenage-suspect-9.7085858

It's last updated 3 minutes ago - at this time.  And it's a CBC link - hardly some right-wing source.

The shooter killed her mother and half-brother before going to the school and killing more people (and herself).

The narrative (that Sophie suggested) that this was a story of a trans-girl who was bullied at school - seems unlikely to me, or incomplete at best. In particular since she hadn't attended that school in the last 4 years.

But the thing is - I don't know what her motive was.  We may never know.

Which is why my only suggestion was 'lets see what information will come out'.

I did give an example of a trial - but given that it was a YCJA trial it wasn't really ever publicized.  Since this is the biggest worst shooting in Canada in 30+ years I strongly suspect that a lot of information is going to come out even without a trial.  Marc Lepine never had a trial either.


So I don't like to be too cute.  After all CC just said (as I was typing this response):

Well you did say you could come up with a completely different theory.  I  not sure how without making stuff up.

Here's my educated guess.  Jesse Strang (formerly Jesse van Rootselaar)  had serious MH issues.  But MH issues are really hard to treat.  So 6 years ago when Jesse presented with MH issues, and said she was trans, practitioners felt like it was easier to treat the trans issue with hormones, which is what happened, rather than the other MH issues.  But to be clear - I have no idea if that's what actually happened.  But it fits with every fact listed in the CBC article I quoted above.

To be clear, there's another alternative explanation out there online - trans people are just mentally disturbed and are all a potential threat.  Every mass shooting for the last few years I see people online suggesting the shooter must be trans, with or without any justification.  And sadly it would also fit with the facts of the CBC story.  I do not think this is true.

I went to a "wrongful conviction" training together with "M" Division RCMP a bunch of years ago.  The huge takeaway was - follow the facts, not your assumptions.  I know I've been guilty of that in the past - someone was 'obviously' guilty because of who they were, only for the facts to show otherwise.

[Barrister]

When BB shows up here it's like a bunch of old married couples rehashing old grievances. 

Well there's one simple way to avoid this.

[HVC]

I missed you BB, and I enjoy when you post, but you really should keep Einstein's definition of insanity in mind

[viper37]

In regards to the shooter, I'm betting her dropping out four years prior was probably at least in part connected to coming out as trans/bullying. Presumably she then sought out a new source of community and social contacts online and found... the worst possible influences which exacerbated her existing mental health issues and led to the awful outcome of yesterday. 

You know, I could come up with an alternate theory of the case that would run very counter to this.

Why don't we wait until the facts come out?

The shooter was playing video games.  Roblox.  Makes people go crazy.

That is a good example of how it is possible to come up with an alternative theory.  But that does not change the fact that Sophie's post was based on the facts the RCMP have told the public.

We don't yet exactly which guns were used, how they were procured other than they were illegal.
We do not know her exact motivations, we do not know if there was a manifest, a letter, other communications.
The RCMP asked for time at least about the guns.

Sophie's post is  I'm betting and Presumably.
If a judge hears this from a Crown Prosecutor, is this evidence or conjecture?

All we know for certain is that she currently had mental health issues.

Edit:
There's this for example.
Lots of misinfo spreading for now.

[viper37]

When BB shows up here it's like a bunch of old married couples rehashing old grievances. 

Well there's one simple way to avoid this.

We all missed you. 

[crazy canuck]

Garbon, Sophie's post was not about guns.

BB, there is actually quite a lot of information kniwn about the shooter now. If you go to the link, I posted from the glove and Mail you will see a lengthy article describing her history in great detail. Sophie posted it right after reading that post and that is what she based her observation on.

I'm not sure why you think it is improper to discuss what has been widely reported in a national newspaper. Perhaps you could explain that. Particularly since there will not be a trial, which was example you gave.

So here's the latest I information I can find:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shooter-tumbler-ridge-what-we-know-teenage-suspect-9.7085858

It's last updated 3 minutes ago - at this time.  And it's a CBC link - hardly some right-wing source.

The shooter killed her mother and half-brother before going to the school and killing more people (and herself).

The narrative (that Sophie suggested) that this was a story of a trans-girl who was bullied at school - seems unlikely to me, or incomplete at best. In particular since she hadn't attended that school in the last 4 years.

But the thing is - I don't know what her motive was.  We may never know.

Which is why my only suggestion was 'lets see what information will come out'.

I did give an example of a trial - but given that it was a YCJA trial it wasn't really ever publicized.  Since this is the biggest worst shooting in Canada in 30+ years I strongly suspect that a lot of information is going to come out even without a trial.  Marc Lepine never had a trial either.


So I don't like to be too cute.  After all CC just said (as I was typing this response):

Well you did say you could come up with a completely different theory.  I  not sure how without making stuff up.

Here's my educated guess.  Jesse Strang (formerly Jesse van Rootselaar)  had serious MH issues.  But MH issues are really hard to treat.  So 6 years ago when Jesse presented with MH issues, and said she was trans, practitioners felt like it was easier to treat the trans issue with hormones, which is what happened, rather than the other MH issues.  But to be clear - I have no idea if that's what actually happened.  But it fits with every fact listed in the CBC article I quoted above.

To be clear, there's another alternative explanation out there online - trans people are just mentally disturbed and are all a potential threat.  Every mass shooting for the last few years I see people online suggesting the shooter must be trans, with or without any justification.  And sadly it would also fit with the facts of the CBC story.  I do not think this is true.

I went to a "wrongful conviction" training together with "M" Division RCMP a bunch of years ago.  The huge takeaway was - follow the facts, not your assumptions.  I know I've been guilty of that in the past - someone was 'obviously' guilty because of who they were, only for the facts to show otherwise.

I suggest you read the Globe article I linked upthread.  It has significantly more detail than what you have read.  And importantly it is the information Sophie read before she made her post.  You will find that the article goes into detail about the difficulties the shooter had obtaining HRT in that small community, her mental health problems at that time, including her wanting to commit suicide because of the pain she was experiencing caused by her inability to obtain HRT, dropping out of school and the numerous police wellness checks during that period of time and after.

In relation to the inference about bullying at school - that is an inference that is can easily be made based on the background facts contained in the Globe article.

Thank you for suggestion your alternative view.  And it is as I suggested, based on facts that are simply not accurate based on what we know. I will highlight the stuff you have simply made up to support an alternative theory.

Here's my educated guess.  Jesse Strang (formerly Jesse van Rootselaar)  had serious MH issues.  But MH issues are really hard to treat.  So 6 years ago when Jesse presented with MH issues, and said she was trans, practitioners felt like it was easier to treat the trans issue with hormones, which is what happened, rather than the other MH issues.

The highlighted part is exactly what did not happen and what did cause much of the mental anguish she was going through.  She was not able to access HRT!

[Sophie Scholl]

Nothing we post here is in a vacuum. After over 20 years of posting and knowing one another online and sometimes in person, I think (hope?) we can all agree on that much at least. Prior incidents and issues exist, for better or worse. I found it frustrating, hence the use of the frustrated emoji, that within five posts of coming back, Beeb had decided to reply to me in a way that I felt was dismissive and more than a little passive aggressive. That might not have been his intent. I don't know. It is how I read the post given our history. If he feels that level of pushback from me warrants making veiled statements that he'll leave again, that is his prerogative. Neither of us is likely to change overly much at this point moving forward and we cannot change at all what has happened in the past.

[Barrister]

Clearly this was a mistake.

[Josephus]

I'm glad you're back BB

Not sure what caused you to leave but hope you stick around

[Grey Fox]

Clearly this was a mistake.

Sorry, I've been riling him up this week. 😆

[crazy canuck]

Clearly this was a mistake.

Yeah, you might consider not starting out by dismissing another person's considered view on a topic you know is important to them.