+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
Client Portal

Bill C-6: Senate stage

monalisa said:
I think if amendments are accepted by hoc, then it will not go back to senates
Click to expand...
The HoC will not simply accept the amendments, see the suggested motion in the order paper which is a government sponsored motion and therefore will be voted through by the house majority.
 
vancouverbc2013 said:
Personally I think at this stage it isn't when will C-6 gets approved, it is more about when the 3/5 will become official.
When C-24 passed, 4/6 was official after a year... I am wishing from the bottom of my heart that wouldn't be the case again (hopefully not even 2-6months) what you guys think?
Click to expand...

Lol man. It depends on individuals. For me, I hope it applies ASAP. It is all about luck so accept it and I will accept mine.
99% of the life is based on luck which is defined differently by religions and science. Only 1% depends on you and the rest is on the luck. So stay happy
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013
Whocares said:
Lol man. It depends on individuals. For me, I hope it applies ASAP. It is all about luck so accept it and I will accept mine.
99% of the life is based on luck which is defined differently by religions and science. Only 1% depends on you and the rest is on the luck. So stay happy
Click to expand...
Thank you my friend! I am 100% sure it will indeed be law by end of June and i wish for all of us we would be able to apply by July!
Then who knows this forum become abt our timelines <3
 
Last edited:
Time to start gathering supporting documents and draft filling the forms ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: lilen and vancouverbc2013
ipfreely said:
Your all acting like your sergeant just gave you a weekend pass.

Already forgotten how long you all waited in agony while commons made an effort in the last day. Not several weeks ago.
Someone somewhere in the capital city thought that if they don't give this soon, they'll lose votes.

Anyways, the same as a disappointed kid who just received a lollipop, like nothing ever happened.
Click to expand...
it's the weekend, relax bro am gonna be on crescent street 2night , ur welcome to have a beer with me maybe u need to chill a bit :d
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013 and sbag_in
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013 and lilen
Well done Redfield.

So what does this mean
“The Government is also rejecting the amendment that would have all individuals who committed fraud retain permanent resident status as an outcome, regardless of what stage in the citizenship process the fraud was committed at, thereby not rewarding the fraud with status that should not have been received in the first place.” I do not recall that was even an amendment in the first place!

Honestly, I am very glad the government did not reject the minor clause because conservatives would be very upset.

I am even more optimistic now that the bill will pass very easily in the senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013
Whocares said:
Well done Redfield.

So what does this mean
“The Government is also rejecting the amendment that would have all individuals who committed fraud retain permanent resident status as an outcome, regardless of what stage in the citizenship process the fraud was committed at, thereby not rewarding the fraud with status that should not have been received in the first place.” I do not recall that was even an amendment in the first place!

Honestly, I am very glad the government did not reject the minor clause because conservatives would be very upset.

I am even more optimistic now that the bill will pass very easily in the senate.
Click to expand...

That clause was part of Senator Omidvars amendment regarding due process. I wouldn't be surprised if this outcome wasn't even intended by the original author of the amendment (because if a court decided that you misrepresented yourself in a PR application as part of a citizenship review, of course you should lose PR), there was also no mention of this particular possibility. But the amendment was drafted over a very small number of days with minimal legal support. So it might just be that they didn't notice that the combination of clause soandso in combination with clause soandso would provide that outcome. Once the bill was back at the commons, all of the Minister's legal counsel, which is obviously larger, had a look at the amendment and noticed that "loophole" and now they want to correct it.

I really can't think of a reason why they would've wanted this exact regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancouverbc2013 and Whocares
lilen said:
it's the weekend, relax bro am gonna be on crescent street 2night , ur welcome to have a beer with me maybe u need to chill a bit :d
Click to expand...
Don't worry, he'll likely get banned again, is a sockpuppet of another account who is angry at Canada, moved to the US, yet wants to apply for Canadian citizenship, doesn't meet residency requirements, thus trolls and throws tantrums. I'd say block but given his posting style he's likely to get banned again anyways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sbag_in, vancouverbc2013, lilen and 1 other person
One simple question pls

Can the senates add more amendments to the bill once goes back to them , or they only committed to accept or reject or modify the 1 amendment which HOC going to reject ?

Because if they can propose new amendments with different subjects once goes back to them ( senates ) I think it will be a never end loop , back and forth ..... and keep waiting for ever ....
 
Last edited:
MWM said:
One simple question pls

Can the senates add more amendments to the bill once goes back to them , or they only committed to accept or reject or modify the 1 amendment which HOC going to reject ?

Because if they can propose new amendments with different subjects once goes back to them ( senates ) I think it will be a never end loop , back and forth ..... and keep waiting for ever ....
Click to expand...

No they can't add more amendments to the original bill
 
Bargeld said:
Don't worry, he'll likely get banned again, is a sockpuppet of another account who is angry at Canada, moved to the US, yet wants to apply for Canadian citizenship, doesn't meet residency requirements, thus trolls and throws tantrums. I'd say block but given his posting style he's likely to get banned again anyways.
Click to expand...
I have just reported and blocked him
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bargeld and lilen
You must log in or register to reply here.