Bill C-6: Senate stage

[nofrills]

Actually thanks for the wiki page but i knew what citizens of convenience meant .. what i just don't get is your point about people in this forum..

Feel free to re-read it - I meant that most people here *seem* like they live here and are keen to stay here.

 

[nofrills]

They are her clients 'thousands' - it would be good to get some stats.

 

[pk10]

Ms Taub is particularly not in favor of C-6.

But here is what it boils down to - who is in favor of it:

- Sen Omidvar
- Sen Meredith
- Sen Hartling
- Sen Peticlerc
- Sen Eggleton
- Sen Jaffer

Thats 6/15 confirmed. We need 2 more on board.

Am I missing someone who is positive on the bill?

 

[MarceauBletard]

Well her point is one-sided.
Why can a Canadian born in Canada go to work and live in the USA (let's say he's a Hollywood actor or a Baseball player or a regular joe who fell in love of an American) or go take care of his dying family abroad for a few years and keep his Canadian Citizenship, but one of us, because of the intent to reside clause, lose his Citizenship.
This makes us second class Citizens and I strongly disagree with that clause.

 

[tyl92]

Feel free to re-read it - I meant that most people here *seem* like they live here and are keen to stay here.
[/quote

Thanks for the lesson . For the record , get more accurate informations prior to putting some "seemingly" arrogance and teaching attitude...you agree with what's been discussed fine .. you don't agree that's fine ..but come with facts... because most of people active on this discussion are from countries where a canadian passport won't bring anything extra and their origin passport is more "powerful" than the canadian one . Citizens of convenience whether it's in canada or in europe or in other countries will always exist .. just like insurance fraud .. car theft .. or tax evasion ... what happens to those people committing those felonies , would you tag them citizens of convenience ? I won't bid any further at this level of discussion since the topic is bill c-6 related only .

 

[nofrills]

Well her point is one-sided.
Why can a Canadian born in Canada go to work and live in the USA (let's say he's a Hollywood actor or a Baseball player or a regular joe who fell in love of an American) or go take care of his dying family abroad for a few years and keep his Canadian Citizenship, but one of us, because of the intent to reside clause, lose his Citizenship.
This makes us second class Citizens and I strongly disagree with that clause.

I don't disagree with you - I think this is part of the mandate that the liberals have with this issue and what they campaigned on.

Similar to the cost argument, there needs to be some good faith on behalf of citizenship applicants - I think she is saying if you stay here longer, you are likely to be more attached and not leave. I'm not sure whether this can be qualified or not...

 

[AmirATM]

Can someone shed some light on what is next

 

[MarceauBletard]

Hi,

Does anybody know what is the next step in the process? I mean like after this session is done, does the committee meet again to vote or do they just send a recommendation after they have listened to all witnesses? I know if changes happen then it will go to the HoC and so on

Apologizes if this has been covered anywhere in the thread. I tried to look but couldn't find anything about particularly what happens next

Thanks!

Session is now done.
I'm like you, I don't know what's next.
Does anyone know?

 

[itsmyid]

Well her point is one-sided.
Why can a Canadian born in Canada go to work and live in the USA (let's say he's a Hollywood actor or a Baseball player or a regular joe who fell in love of an American) or go take care of his dying family abroad for a few years and keep his Canadian Citizenship, but one of us, because of the intent to reside clause, lose his Citizenship.
This makes us second class Citizens and I strongly disagree with that clause.

Not to mention those native-born Canadian moving to the US for work right after they graduate universities, having enjoyed all the free educations and healthcare benefits while giving nothing back to the system, while PRs would have at least contributed 4 years of taxes before receiving their Canadian citizenship without previously getting anything

 

[Montreal101]

There should be another session most likely next week but not tomorrow for sure

 

[nofrills]

Thanks for the lesson . For the record , get more accurate informations prior to putting some "seemingly" arrogance and teaching attitude...you agree with what's been discussed fine .. you don't agree that's fine ..but come with facts... because most of people active on this discussion are from countries where a canadian passport won't bring anything extra and their origin passport is more "powerful" than the canadian one . Citizens of convenience whether it's in canada or in europe or in other countries will always exist .. just like insurance fraud .. car theft .. or tax evasion ... what happens to those people committing those felonies , would you tag them citizens of convenience ? I won't bid any further at this level of discussion since the topic is bill c-6 related only .

Huh..I think you misinterpreted what I was saying - if anything it was a compliment and saying that people on the forum do not seem like citizens of convenience and therefore would be applying in good faith.

 

[subha_1962]

Every member of the committee by now would know how they are going to vote. The question now is how long would this "information collecting sessions" go on for delaying the whole process.

 

[tyl92]

Session is now done.
I'm like you, I don't know what's next.
Does anyone know?

There will be other meetings for this committee to review C6 . The last meeting is dedicated to the clause-by-clause study and then to vote.
Next week they are off like always. They will most likely meet again on march 1st and the 2nd .
After the committee is done , then a report( " a message ") is sent to the chamber and there you have two possibilities :

1) if c6 is amended , it goes all the way to the HoC == the house agrees or disagrees with the proposed amendment(s) . After that it is sent back to the senate for third reading . This scenario is very likely to happen , and that will cause delay , considering the pattern from october 2015 until now , and as we know bill c6 was not that popular in the senate . If you just take a look at the senate calendar , you'll notice that it will be very hard to pass it in march since they will only have 8 sessions(days of work) in the whole month of march and 6 sessions in April . It terms of how fast they will proceed , no one can't pronounce on that , they could wrap it up very quickly or very slowly ..

2) if it is not amended , then the message is sent and bill goes to reporting and 3rd reading stage which is very unlikely but who knows .Here in this scenario we may be looking at shorter delays .


monitoring c4 could be a good indicator as to how they will handle it at third reading . If i'm missing something , feel free to correct me .

 

[adey786]

Every member of the committee by now would know how they are going to vote. The question now is how long would this "information collecting sessions" go on for delaying the whole process.

Friends...so what's the summary from today's meeting. Meeting adjourned or they are voting now? Thank you.

 

[subha_1962]

Not to mention those native-born Canadian moving to the US for work right after they graduate universities, having enjoyed all the free educations and healthcare benefits while giving nothing back to the system, while PRs would have at least contributed 4 years of taxes before receiving their Canadian citizenship without previously getting anything

She seemed to be particularly targeting people working in the gulf for "high salaries" as she put it, while their families are living here in Canada, children going to school here, (and one day will become legitimate and economic citizens of Canada, and contributing to the economy of Canada - as I see it). She seemed to quite miss the point in this one more driven by jealousy.
She sort of contradicted herself when she said that the families of those who are working in the gulf are not on welfare because the husband's high salaries take of things at home here. So do they want them to come back and go on welfare and drain the Canadian economy? I do hope that someone from the other side picks this up when someone else talks about Canadians of convenience. According to some Canadians of convenience are only those husband working in the gulf ( while families are here) and not bothered about those who go on to the USA lock stock and barrel family and all to the US - are they not Canadians of convenience too?