Bill C-6, current status, FACTS only

[sbag_in]

Yup, I'll write a report. Give me five minutes.

take your time. no hurry.. and thank you once again

 

[spyfy]

This is what happened today, May 2, 2017 in the Senate

- The Senate discussed Senator Langs amendment which would have reintroduced citizenship revocation for terrorists.
- The Senate questioned the Minister (who was present today) on this motion, the bill in general, as well as on other Immigration affairs.
- After a long debate which got more and more into people repeating the same arguments again and again, they voted on the amendment by roll call.
- 28 voted in favour, 44 against, 4 abstained. The amendment was therefore defeated.
- The bill is now back at the third reading state. That means, unless (!) new amendments are introduced they will debate the bill as a whole and then vote on the third reading of the bill.
- As expected, after they spent about 3-4 hours on this bill by debating the amendment, around 6:40 they adjourned the debate on this bill and started debating other things from the orders of the day.

This is what you can expect tomorrow

- Ideally, the will debate the bill as a whole, then vote on the third reading of the bill and sent it back to the House of Commons.
- Two other possible outcomes are
-- that they will not debate C-6 at all. This is highly unlikely according to how things have been going recently. Bill C-6 was never skipped in the most recent sittings.
-- that more amendments will be introduced. However so far there are no tweets or other reports insinuating that more amendments are to come. But life is full of surprises.
- Even if there are no more amendments, it is hard to say if they will only need a single sitting day to debate and vote on third reading. Maybe they'll need another day.
- In any case, one might say that the finish line is now visible and this'll go back to the House of Commons soon.
- It is by now pretty clear that no matter how long this third reading debate will take that bill C-6 will pass the senate, i.e. will be voted in favour. One can see that by the fact that a majority of senators has over and over voted against amendments that would have affected the core of the bill.
- During Question period, the Minister indicated that he will "carefully consider" the amendments made by the Senate (these are: due process for revocation because of fraud, language requirement until age of 60 instead of 55, application by minors). This is politspeak for "we will see". So what happens with the bill in the House of Commons can't be said yet.

 

[subha_1962]

Thank you spyfy. Needless to say it was rather nail biting today as this amendment was the actual core of bill and as you say now finish line is somewhat visible. Only question is when they would implement all of it and it is speculation for now so won't bother this thread with that question....it's wait and see I suppose

 

[spyfy]

Thank you spyfy. Needless to say it was rather nail biting today as this amendment was the actual core of bill and as you say now finish line is somewhat visible. Only question is when they would implement all of it and it is speculation for now so won't bother this thread with that question....it's wait and see I suppose

Yup wait and see is the way to go. It is hard. I am exactly where you are emotionally

 

[AK171]

This is what happened today, May 2, 2017 in the Senate

- The Senate discussed Senator Langs amendment which would have reintroduced citizenship revocation for terrorists.
- The Senate questioned the Minister (who was present today) on this motion, the bill in general, as well as on other Immigration affairs.
- After a long debate which got more and more into people repeating the same arguments again and again, they voted on the amendment by roll call.
- 28 voted in favour, 44 against, 4 abstained. The amendment was therefore defeated.
- The bill is now back at the third reading state. That means, unless (!) new amendments are introduced they will debate the bill as a whole and then vote on the third reading of the bill.
- As expected, after they spent about 3-4 hours on this bill by debating the amendment, around 6:40 they adjourned the debate on this bill and started debating other things from the orders of the day.

This is what you can expect tomorrow

- Ideally, the will debate the bill as a whole, then vote on the third reading of the bill and sent it back to the House of Commons.
- Two other possible outcomes are
-- that they will not debate C-6 at all. This is highly unlikely according to how things have been going recently. Bill C-6 was never skipped in the most recent sittings.
-- that more amendments will be introduced. However so far there are no tweets or other reports insinuating that more amendments are to come. But life is full of surprises.
- Even if there are no more amendments, it is hard to say if they will only need a single sitting day to debate and vote on third reading. Maybe they'll need another day.
- In any case, one might say that the finish line is now visible and this'll go back to the House of Commons soon.
- It is by now pretty clear that no matter how long this third reading debate will take that bill C-6 will pass the senate, i.e. will be voted in favour. One can see that by the fact that a majority of senators has over and over voted against amendments that would have affected the core of the bill.
- During Question period, the Minister indicated that he will "carefully consider" the amendments made by the Senate (these are: due process for revocation because of fraud, language requirement until age of 60 instead of 55, application by minors). This is politspeak for "we will see". So what happens with the bill in the House of Commons can't be said yet.

Thanks for update ! Great !!!

 

[Pipeco]

This is what happened today, May 2, 2017 in the Senate


- During Question period, the Minister indicated that he will "carefully consider" the amendments made by the Senate (these are: due process for revocation because of fraud, language requirement until age of 60 instead of 55, application by minors). This is politspeak for "we will see". So what happens with the bill in the House of Commons can't be said yet.

Please I missed the amendment regarding application by minors what is it about because I have some

 

[paulvoyer]

Hello spyfy
thank you so much man ,,,, very much appreciated

 

[Seadog]

Spyfy excellent summary as usual

 

[MarceauBletard]

https://twitter.com/ratnaomi/status/859565261392838657
Sen. Ratna Omidvar @ratnaomi 25 minutes ago
Tomorrow C6 as amended will go to vote in the Senate. Tx to all who support the bill.

 

[spyfy]

Please I missed the amendment regarding application by minors what is it about because I have some

I doubt that it'll be relevant to you because the mere fact that you are a parent asking means the following probably isn't interesting for you:

So far, for a person under 18, an application can only be filed at the same time as the parents' application or in case their parents already are Canadian citizens.

However, there are children in Canada, particularly refugees, whose parents are not with them. These children currently have to wait until they are 18 because their parents are neither Canadian citizens nor are they applying together with them. The only exception was if a child applied for an exemption from the age requirement, which took years to be considered.

The amendment, if accepted by the HoC, changes that: Someone (like a legal guardian) can file an application for a child under 18 even if their parents are not at all involved in the application process.

But again, since I assume you are talking about your own kids here, these changes aren't relevant for you personally.

 

[Richard11]

Hi, over all what happen to these in senate stage?

1-People can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident towards the 3 years needed to apply for citizenship (currently they cannot)

2-People need to live in Canada for 3 out of past 5 years to qualify for citizenship (currently 4 out of 6 years).

3-Language and knowledge tests apply only to people aged 18 to 54 (instead of those aged 14-64 years, as currently).

4-People cannot lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism”

5-Applicants for citizenship do not need to show an “intent to reside in Canada”.

please explain what happen to these in Amendment what is change ? number 1 and 2 for me very important thank u for reply

 

[thejkhan]

Hi, over all what happen to these in senate stage?

1-People can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident towards the 3 years needed to apply for citizenship (currently they cannot)

2-People need to live in Canada for 3 out of past 5 years to qualify for citizenship (currently 4 out of 6 years).

3-Language and knowledge tests apply only to people aged 18 to 54 (instead of those aged 14-64 years, as currently).

4-People cannot lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism”

5-Applicants for citizenship do not need to show an “intent to reside in Canada”.

please explain what happen to these in Amendment what is change ? number 1 and 2 for me very important thank u for reply

1 - Still part of bill C-6.

2 - Still part of bill C-6.

3 - Amended. Upper limit on age is now 60.

4 - Still part of bill C-6.

5 - Still part of bill C-6.

 

[spyfy]

Hi, over all what happen to these in senate stage?

1-People can count time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident towards the 3 years needed to apply for citizenship (currently they cannot)

2-People need to live in Canada for 3 out of past 5 years to qualify for citizenship (currently 4 out of 6 years).

3-Language and knowledge tests apply only to people aged 18 to 54 (instead of those aged 14-64 years, as currently).

4-People cannot lose their citizenship in cases of “treason” or “terrorism”

5-Applicants for citizenship do not need to show an “intent to reside in Canada”.

please explain what happen to these in Amendment what is change ? number 1 and 2 for me very important thank u for reply

Just to clarify regarding the first point: even under C-6 you can only count up to two years of pre-PR residence which are worth one year (because pre-PR counts as half a day).

 

[sistemc]

Now they started C-6 discussion.

 

[_MK_]

Final Voting ar 3:53 pm for Bill C6 in the senate.