Bill C-6: Senate stage

[admontreal]

According to you a conservative would add the "traffic fines" to the list. I would safely say that I move out of canada if the conservative added it to list. Knowing the conservatives would not do something stupid like that. They use common sense and logic. Unlike the liberals, they could in theory add it to the list since those convicted with traffic fines didn't kill anyone.

That's not fair. None of them should have such a list. Both are very respectable parties that have different values, and which can be conflicting sometimes. I liked some of the work the Harper Government did until they started playing Fear politics. They lost my vote for a while after that. The smartest thing to do for them would be to focus on Economy (supposed to be their Strength) and forget about all that Niqab Politics, it won't take them anywhere.

 

[spiritsoul]

Why side discussion only in topics related to C-6 that might end up deleting the entire topic!!!

 

[admontreal]

Why side discussion only in topics related to C-6 that might end up deleting the entire topic!!!

Because C-6 is a highly symbolic Bill that aims to reestablish the equality between all citizens. So it generates a lot of discussions on very sensitive matters that may deviate. Neverthless, I apologize for that and I agree that we should stay focused on the progress of the bill itself in the Senate, and it's the third Bill in the order of discussions today.

 

[screech339]

That's not fair. None of them should have such a list. Both are very respectable parties that have different values, and which can be conflicting sometimes. I liked some of the work the Harper Government did until they started playing Fear politics. They lost my vote for a while after that. The smartest thing to do for them would be to focus on Economy (supposed to be their Strength) and forget about all that Niqab Politics, it won't take them anywhere.

Sorry for leading off topic but that what happens when someone posts nonsense about "traffic fines" to the list.

The Harper government did some pretty stupid things too. They shouldn't have expanded the TWP beyond agriculture / seasonal business for an example. The "barbaric cultural hotline" was another example. Reducing GST percentage down is another.

 

[admontreal]

Sorry for leading off topic but that what happens when someone posts nonsense about "traffic fines" to the list.

The Harper government did some pretty stupid things too. They shouldn't have expanded the TWP beyond agriculture / seasonal business for an example. The "barbaric cultural hotline" was another example.

The 'list' itself is the nonsense. Let's hope that the Senate moves ahead with ending it once in for all.

All the governments do stupid things. The bottom line to this side discussion is that I don't think C-6 is one of those stupid things, and if you don't agree, I understand and respect that.

 

[screech339]

The 'list' itself is the nonsense. Let's hope that the Senate moves ahead with ending it once in for all.

All the governments do stupid things. The bottom line to this side discussion is that I don't think C-6 is one of those stupid things, and if you don't agree, I understand and respect that.

I have no issues reducing the qualification time down to 3/5. In fact, the only issue with C-24 I had is that it applies to everyone regardless of when one lands as PR. I think those who landed before C-24 becomes royal accent should get pre-C-24 rules. Nothing to do with "government made a promise" or "made a contract" BS. This is just applying fairness.

I still think pre-PR credit should not apply to citizenship, much the same way as American citizenship. No pre-green card credit towards citizenship.

I think if this was originally applies, C-6 bill would not come about. I think the majority of PRs couldn't care less about the terrorist conviction added.

BTW: a PR can lose PR status if convicted of DUI. The PR would still lose PR status after serving sentence. How is this any difference from a terrorist losing citizenship after serving sentence. According to you, a PR should keep PR status after being convicted of DUI. Same principle applies to citizenship.

 

[admontreal]

I have no issues reducing the qualification time down to 3/5. In fact, the only issue with C-24 I had is that it applies to everyone regardless of when one lands as PR. I think those who landed before C-24 becomes royal accent should get pre-C-24 rules. Nothing to do with "government made a promise" or "made a contract" BS. This is just applying fairness.

I think if this was originally applies, C-6 bill would not come about. I think the majority of PRs couldn't care less about the terrorist conviction added.

BTW: a PR can lose PR status if convicted of DUI. The PR would still lose PR status after serving sentence. How is this any difference from a terrorist losing citizenship after serving sentence. According to you, a PR should keep PR status after being convicted of DUI. Same principle applies to citizenship.

I don't fundamentally agree with the DUI-to-Deportation path (see ? One step away from the traffic ticket). But here's the rationale: Simply because the PR is not Canadian. Canada gave them the right to live and work here under conditions, but they are not seen as an unremovable part of the Canadian society (even if the politicians say the opposite, I was a PR for a long time so I can speak about it).

I see the Canadian citizenship as a filiation relationship. If I have a biological kid or if I legally (no fraud or misrepresentation) adopt one, it will always legally be my kid, whatever the kid's acts are. You can't revoke an adoption that legally occured and you can't remove a legitimate parent's name from the birth certificate of his biological kid. Even if the kid becomes the Head of ISIL or the next Hitler. It's still gonna be YOUR kid.

You see the Canadian citizenship as a Club membership. Which could be fine. But the unfair part is that some members are less 'equal' than others just because they have another (sometimes forced or unknown) membership elsewhere.

It's a difference of opinion. The majority of PRs could not care about it, it's still an important issue that has to be solved. And the Bill C-6 will go through as is or with additional clauses, not less.

 

[marcher]

And again and again and again, you are treating Naturalized Citizens differently from Natural Born Citizens. Which is against the Charter. You can't subject citizenship to good behavior. Once a Canadian, you will always stay Canadian unless you make an application by yourself to renounce it (and please don't serve me that nonsense speech of 'when-you-commit-terrorism-you-factually-renounce-your-citizenship').
I understand you suggestion but it's not fair. Today it can be for terrorism, tomorrow it's gonna be for traffic fines.

I agree with every word you said. Don't get me wrong, I am by no means defending this whole revoking concept. It was just a suggestion on how to tackle this issue differently to target the specific group they want to, rather than affecting a wider range of applicants. C-24 had negative impact on every applicant/immigrant and now C-6 is doing the same because they consist of so many clauses. But if they were to do the right thing, I agree with you, this whole discrimination among Canadians is unconstitutional.

 

[spiritsoul]

the bill is skipped

 

[marcher]

I have no issues reducing the qualification time down to 3/5. In fact, the only issue with C-24 I had is that it applies to everyone regardless of when one lands as PR. I think those who landed before C-24 becomes royal accent should get pre-C-24 rules. Nothing to do with "government made a promise" or "made a contract" BS. This is just applying fairness.

I still think pre-PR credit should not apply to citizenship, much the same way as American citizenship. No pre-green card credit towards citizenship.

I think if this was originally applies, C-6 bill would not come about. I think the majority of PRs couldn't care less about the terrorist conviction added.

BTW: a PR can lose PR status if convicted of DUI. The PR would still lose PR status after serving sentence. How is this any difference from a terrorist losing citizenship after serving sentence. According to you, a PR should keep PR status after being convicted of DUI. Same principle applies to citizenship.

You and admontreal both make interesting points, I agree with some and disagree with others. But regarding the traffic fines, I am assuming admontreal does not literally mean traffic fines. It could be other incidents that the government decides to classify as terrorist acts; for example obstruction of mining projects by demonstrations by pro-environment people. The point is with such a rule existing, a dual citizen's freedoms and rights are challenged and the dual citizenship status is used against him or her. You bring up treason, which is a different category of crime. My suggestion is to classify terrorist acts aimed at hurting Canadians and national security as a type of treason. That is for the Courts to decide though.There are good arguments for both sides of the debate; my major issue is why include the residency clause and other minor clauses in C-6. If there was a bill just for 3/5 rule, then it would have been implemented ages ago; I doubt anyone would have opposed it.

 

[itsmyid]

the bill is skipped

shocking！

 

[admontreal]

the bill is skipped

Discouraging ...
I was wondering, if a Bill to Abolish the Senate was submitted to the Senate, would they have the right to skip it forever like this ?

 

[marcher]

Why side discussion only in topics related to C-6 that might end up deleting the entire topic!!!

I don't think there is an issue with the discussion screech and admontreal are having. It is quite interesting to read both sides of the coin. The reason the other thread was deleted is because certain users were using condescending and offensive language. As long as the users are respecting each other then there should be no issue. We should just agree to disagree No one is right nor wrong here, each individual has a different way of analyzing matters, and is free to express the opinions with a respectful manner; and this is the beauty of the country we all want to become citizens of.

 

[admontreal]

You and admontreal both make interesting points, I agree with some and disagree with others. But regarding the traffic fines, I am assuming admontreal does not literally mean traffic fines. It could be other incidents that the government decides to classify as terrorist acts; for example obstruction of mining projects by demonstrations by pro-environment people. The point is with such a rule existing, a dual citizen's freedoms and rights are challenged and the dual citizenship status is used against him or her. You bring up treason, which is a different category of crime. My suggestion is to classify terrorist acts aimed at hurting Canadians and national security as a type of treason. That is for the Courts to decide though.There are good arguments for both sides of the debate; my major issue is why include the residency clause and other minor clauses in C-6. If there was a bill just for 3/5 rule, then it would have been implemented ages ago; I doubt anyone would have opposed it.

100% Agreed ! They tried to do some kind of 'Omnibus' bill for citizenship but it doesn't seem to work. Moreover, when the NDP tried to add some amendments they were ruled 'Out of scope', where's the scope in the first place ?

 

[marcher]

Discouraging ...
I was wondering, if a Bill to Abolish the Senate was submitted to the Senate, would they have the right to skip it forever like this ?

I don't think a decision as big as abolishing the Senate would be done through a bill. They are the last group anyone would consider listening to when it comes to that subject . I think it would require the approval of provinces and territories (or a certain percentage of them); and probably a major referendum. It is a nice idea, but it will never happen.