Bill C-6: Senate stage

[itsmyid]

I wish it passes without amendment.

However, if the bill is to be amended, it has to pass the third reading (with amendment) before Dec. 14, 2016 as the HoC is off for the break on Dec. 16, 2016 (if they didn't decide to start the break a week earlier same as the summer i.e. Dec. 9, 2016) >>> which is impossible for the bill to be a law in 2016.

2016? It would be a miracle if it becomes law before the end of 2017

 

[tyl92]

Let's assume and believe for just a second that they ALL want talk about it since it appears to be the most
Important bill before the senate when they would all be concerned . How come they are always adjourning the debate as soon as it starts and have been skipping it for months , they must be preparing the speech of their careers
How many sittings for the second reading should we look at ? 50? With an interval of 2-3 weeks between them ?
I don't get to see the technicality of that ..usually you have one or two representatives per party that represent their thoughts and visions ...not everybody . It's technically impossible to me
C2 ( which was a campaign promise ) is about to pass so

I wish it passes without amendment.



However, if the bill is to be amended, it has to pass the third reading (with amendment) before Dec. 14, 2016 as the HoC is off for the break on Dec. 16, 2016 (if they didn't decide to start the break a week earlier same as the summer i.e. Dec. 9, 2016) >>> which is impossible for the bill to be a law in 2016.

a miracle can always happen while it is highly unlikely that this will happen before next year if we consider the current trend .

 

[sylvia27]

Following this post

 

[spiritsoul]

This is what I was made to believe/understand when I received my visa in May 2013:

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP: As a general rule, permanent residents may apply for citizenship after accumulating three years of residence in Canada during a four year period. To acquire Canadian citizenship, applicants must, among other things, demonstrate an ability in either English or French. Interested persons should contact the citizenship office in their area for complete details. Information is also available at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp

Isn't anything else is a lie?! I don't agree with dependable who always say: any one could've done research and knew that there was a change in the pipeline though!!

BTW, when it says "As a general rule", I interpret it as to include others with travel and sentence issues!!

So, the law must have not changed on me....

 

[marcher]

Thts good news. If I may ask how your met 10 of them the same day?

I have the same question. How can you meet 10 Conservative Senators in the same day unless you have some job in the Senate. As far as I know, as PRs we do not qualify for any job in that building.

 

[marcher]

This is what I was made to believe/understand when I received my visa in May 2013:

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP: As a general rule, permanent residents may apply for citizenship after accumulating three years of residence in Canada during a four year period. To acquire Canadian citizenship, applicants must, among other things, demonstrate an ability in either English or French. Interested persons should contact the citizenship office in their area for complete details. Information is also available at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.asp

Isn't anything else is a lie?! I don't agree with dependable who always say: any one could've done research and knew that there was a change in the pipeline though!!

BTW, when it says "As a general rule", I interpret it as to include others with travel and sentence issues!!

So, the law must have not changed on me....

I remember @canadasucks mentioned in a previous thread that a similar thing happened in the UK, and the applicants had a class action against the immigration office, and won it. The Court ruled that the laws in place when they became residents should apply to them; any new law should apply to those who become residents after the law was issued. I hope he comments further to clarify if I am right or not. This is an identical situation ...

 

[spiritsoul]

Please participate to this:

https://twitter.com/hajfarra/status/803979425012453376

you could mention as many Senators as you like.

 

[spiritsoul]

I remember @canadasucks mentioned in a previous thread that a similar thing happened in the UK, and the applicants had a class action against the immigration office, and won it. The Court ruled that the laws in place when they became residents should apply to them; any new law should apply to those who become residents after the law was issued. I hope he comments further to clarify if I am right or not. This is an identical situation ...

I wish he comments here:
https://twitter.com/hajfarra/status/803979425012453376

Let the Politicians know their fool!!!

 

[tyl92]

FYI in Australia ,another commonwealth country , changes on the citizenship act were made and still there was some sort of transition period .

Plus , if we look at the system they implemented , it is way more convenient and EFFICIENT . Fees are affordable for everybody , people can apply online and upload their documents online securely instead of increased processing times due to paper applications .

it takes 80 days for the government to make a decision on a complete application. Their intend to reside clause is : intend to live or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.

For residence requirements , it is way more flexible for people where you need to accumulate 4 years before applying , and must have been a pr for the 12 months preceding the time of the application.

https://www.border.gov.au/about/access-accountability/service-standards/citizenship-processing

And if one sees its application denied , they can appeal the decision .

 

[vsoftco]

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 won't lose your PR status after a DUI. Only if convicted and spend more than 6 month in prison, which is pretty uncommon for a simple DUI.

 

[badar14]

The movement of this bill is just like the movie 'Groundhog Day', in which a guy re-lives the same day over and over, every morning after he wakes up, what happens is exactly the same as the day before

Just Watch "ARC" @ Netflix same story- same time after every 15 mts

 

[admontreal]

You won't lose your PR status after a DUI. Only if convicted and spend more than 6 month in prison, which is pretty uncommon for a simple DUI.

But still - it can happen un theory right ?

A person convicted for any drinking and driving offence (which includes a refuse to comply offence) faces an automatic Canada-wide driving prohibition, and either a fine or jail sentence and the possibility of probation.

The minimum sentences are:[10][11]

For a first offence, a $1000 fine and a 12-month driving prohibition,
For a second offence, 30 days of jail and a 24-month driving prohibition, and
For a third or subsequent offence, 120 days of jail and a 36-month driving prohibition.
Drinking and driving offences are prior offences for refuse to comply offences, and vice versa.[10]

If no one is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by summary conviction, the maximum sentence is 18 months of jail. If no one is killed or hurt, and the prosecutor is proceeding by indictment, the maximum sentence is 5 years of jail.[10]

If another person suffers bodily harm because of the offence, the maximum sentence is 10 years in jail.[10]

If another person is killed because of the offence, the maximum sentence is a life sentence.[10]

 

[vsoftco]

Sure, and I totally agree that it is a very serious offence and people should think twice before drinking and driving. But as a PR you have a bit of protection, compared with a foreign worker.

 

[spiritsoul]

Action Date Days from previous Spoken by: Adjourned by:
First Reading 6/17/2016 - Omidvar Eaton
Chamber Sitting: 56 9/27/2016 102 Eaton Jaffar
Chamber Sitting: 65 10/25/2016 28 Jaffar Pratte
Chamber Sitting: 67 10/27/2016 2 Pratte Ringuette
Chamber Sitting: 76 11/24/2016 28 Ringuette Ngo
Chamber Sitting: 77 11/28/2016 4 Ngo Frum
Total as of: 11/28/2016 164

 

[canadasucks]

I remember @canadasucks mentioned in a previous thread that a similar thing happened in the UK, and the applicants had a class action against the immigration office, and won it. The Court ruled that the laws in place when they became residents should apply to them; any new law should apply to those who become residents after the law was issued. I hope he comments further to clarify if I am right or not. This is an identical situation ...

Yes, that was a classic "legitimate expectation" case. UK changed the law to increase the residency requirement for PR from 4 years to 5 years. There were two cases from two different groups, one from work permit holders and they lost, one from highly skilled migrants and they won. Because on work permit letter there was no mention but on highly skilled migrant letter there was mention of "you may apply PR after 4 years".

So if on any official letters from CIC related to PR mentioned about "you may apply citizenship after 3 years", then it would establish "legitimate expectation".