Bill C-6: Senate stage

[James Russo]

You mean the need to stay 6 months per year in Canada to keep your Permanent Residency ?

You need around 720 days in 5 years to keep your PR. But C-6 is only about Citizenship. To apply it actually you need stay 6 months in Canada before the application. C-6 will revoke this.

 

[screech339]

You need around 720 days in 5 years to keep your PR. But C-6 is only about Citizenship. To apply it actually you need stay 6 months in Canada before the application. C-6 will revoke this.

There is no having to stay 6 months in Canada prior to application to apply. You are referring meeting 6 months minimum requirement in any given 4 year. An applicant can apply for citizenship when he/she meets 4/6 years even in any of the first 5 months of the calendar year.

 

[CLAUDIO73]

ok. Don't know if i make confusion. Probably i do. What is the bill concerning the repeal of the conditional permanent residency? The same C6? I read bill c6 is An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. I heard they want to repeal the conditional permanent residency. Are these 2 things connected? Anyone knows something about it? thanks

 

[MarceauBletard]

Let's just see what the amendments entail.

- amendment for due process - I agree with
- amendment for age increase re language - I personally disagree with
- amendment re children in custody of state being able to apply for citizenship independently, I agree with.

These amendments are causing delays but some have merit. Now that we have a deadline, all we can do is wait and see how it goes in the HoC. If the cons try to change the 3/5 residency, I'd be very surprised if they get the vote.

My opinion is the following:
The merits are pointless because the Liberal government will never accept to have their Bill amended by conservative ideologies.
The same way the Quebec Liberals rejected this week the proposition by the PQ and the CAQ asking to limit the revenues of company CEO and administration like Bombardier.
The Quebec Liberals might have agreed, but because it didn't come from THEM, they rejected the proposition.
The only amendment the HoC might accept is for due process before citizenship revocation.
So, the more amendments they add, the more chances they will reject them and send it back to the Senate and create more delays and give more chances to the Tories in the Senate to use delay tactics again.

If someone thinks there's something I don't understand, feel free to enlighten me. This is just my current opinion.

 

[sivabalan]

My opinion is the following:
The merits are pointless because the Liberal government will never accept to have their Bill amended by conservative ideologies.
The same way the Quebec Liberals rejected this week the proposition by the PQ and the CAQ asking to limit the revenues of company CEO and administration like Bombardier.
The Quebec Liberals might have agreed, but because it didn't come from THEM, they rejected the proposition.
The only amendment the HoC might accept is for due process before citizenship revocation.
So, the more amendments they add, the more chances they will reject them and send it back to the Senate and create more delays and give more chances to the Tories in the Senate to use delay tactics again.

If someone thinks there's something I don't understand, feel free to enlighten me. This is just my current opinion.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Confused in Montreal]

OK i rephrase it. If it becomes law the bill c6 would repeal also the conditional permanent residency clause? 100% or in the amendments they are discussing or it would be left out the repealing?

By conditional PR if you mean the amount of time you have to be with your spousal sponsor until you get the full PR, then the answer is no. The conditions for that "conditional PR" won't be changed. So if one intends to commit immigration fraud, the rules are actually getting stricter day by day.

 

[tyl92]

My opinion is the following:
The merits are pointless because the Liberal government will never accept to have their Bill amended by conservative ideologies.
The same way the Quebec Liberals rejected this week the proposition by the PQ and the CAQ asking to limit the revenues of company CEO and administration like Bombardier.
The Quebec Liberals might have agreed, but because it didn't come from THEM, they rejected the proposition.
The only amendment the HoC might accept is for due process before citizenship revocation.
So, the more amendments they add, the more chances they will reject them and send it back to the Senate and create more delays and give more chances to the Tories in the Senate to use delay tactics again.

If someone thinks there's something I don't understand, feel free to enlighten me. This is just my current opinion.

Ok now I'm not the only one to think that
And then we would be flagged as pessimistic

 

[CLAUDIO73]

By conditional PR if you mean the amount of time you have to be with your spousal sponsor until you get the full PR, then the answer is no. The conditions for that "conditional PR" won't be changed. So if one intends to commit immigration fraud, the rules are actually getting stricter day by day.

You know a lot i see. Probably you should take a look better at this web site or make a little research before answering with this disarming sureness
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/2016-10-28.asp

 

[MUFC]

Ok now I'm not the only one to think that
And then we would be flagged as pessimistic

A lot of the people here compare how the Conservatives finished the Senate stage in 3 days, but in fact the current C24 was in preparation from 2011 so as you can see it took them several years to actually change the law.
It was clear from the beginning that this Bill C6 will also take a while since from the start the official position of the Liberals is that amendments are welcome.

So you are NOT pessimistic.

I have always laugh here when I see that this Bill will pass "soon" from the trolling optimism people, because it is obvious that they have no idea how the process here works. They just hope.

 

[Redfield]

A lot of the people here compare how the Conservatives finished the Senate stage in 3 days, but in fact the current C24 was in preparation from 2011 so as you can see it took them several years to actually change the law.
It was clear from the beginning that this Bill C6 will also take a while since from the start the official position of the Liberals is that amendments are welcome.

So you are NOT pessimistic.

I have always laugh here when I see that this Bill will pass "soon" from the trolling optimism people, because it is obvious that they have no idea how the process here works. They just hope.

Plus C-24 took one year before it applied, C-6 is supposed to apply immediatly after royal assent, so timeline before creation and application would be similar for the two bills

 

[Hey]

Download as PDF
Issue 111
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
2 p.m.
Orders Of The Day | Notice Paper | Written Questions


The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a document that guides the deliberations of the Senate and lists items of business currently before it. These items are listed in several different categories and in a priority according to an arrangement adopted by the Senate as stipulated in the rules. The majority of these items constitute the Orders of the Day which are called following Routine Proceedings. These items are themselves divided into two principal categories - government business and other business. Within each of these two categories are items for bills, motions, inquiries and reports of committees.
The Notice Paper contains the text of motions and inquiries not yet called for debate.
The Order Paper and Notice Paper is prepared every day in advance of the actual sitting.
ORDER OF BUSINESS

(The following is an outline of a typical sitting day in the Senate. Variations are possible subject to the Rules and to the decisions of the Senate.)
Senators' Statements (15 minutes)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS (30 MINUTES)
1. Tabling of Documents
2. Presenting or Tabling Reports from Committees
3. Government Notices of Motions
4. Government Notices of Inquiries
5. Introduction and First Reading of Government Bills
6. Introduction and First Reading of Senate Public Bills
7. First Reading of Commons Public Bills
8. Reading of Petitions for Private Bills
9. Introduction and First Reading of Private Bills
10. Tabling of Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations
11. Notices of Motions
12. Notices of Inquiries
13. Tabling of Petitions
Question Period (30 minutes)

Delayed Answers

ORDERS OF THE DAY
Government Business

• Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
• Bills — Third Reading
• Bills — Reports of Committees
• Bills — Second Reading
• Reports of Committees — Other
• Motions
• Inquiries
• Other
Other Business

• Bills — Messages from the House of Commons
• Senate Public Bills — Third Reading
• Commons Public Bills — Third Reading
• Private Bills — Third Reading
• Senate Public Bills — Reports of Committees
• Commons Public Bills — Reports of Committees
• Private Bills — Reports of Committees
• Senate Public Bills — Second Reading
• Commons Public Bills — Second Reading
• Private Bills — Second Reading
• Reports of Committees — Other
• Motions
• Inquiries
• Other
NOTICE PAPER
• Notices of Motions
• Notices of Inquiries
ORDERS OF THE DAY

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Bills – Messages from the House of Commons

Nil
Bills – Third Reading

No. 1.
February 14, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bellemare, seconded by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Tannas, seconded by the Honourable Senator Unger:
That Bill C-4 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended:
(a)by deleting clause 1, on page 1;
(b)by deleting clause 2, on pages 1 and 2;
(c)by deleting clause 3, on page 2;
(d)in clause 4,
(i)on page 2, by replacing lines 30 to 36 with the following:
“4 Section 39 of the Canada Labour Code is replaced by the following:
39 (1) If, on receipt of an application for an order made under subsection 38(1) or (3) in respect of a bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, the Board is”, and
(ii)on page 3, by replacing line 1 with the following:
“satisfied, on the basis of the results of a secret ballot representation vote, that a majority of the employees in the bargain-”;
(e)by deleting clause 5, on page 3;
(f)by deleting clause 6, on page 4;
(g)by deleting clause 7, on pages 4 and 5;
(h)on page 5, by adding after the heading “Public Service Labour Relations Act” after clause 7, the following:
“7.1 Paragraph 39(d) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act is replaced by the following:
(d) the authority vested in a council of employee organizations that is to be considered the appropriate authority within the meaning of paragraph 64(1.1)(c);”;
(i)by deleting clause 8, on pages 5 and 6;
(j)by deleting clauses 9 to 11, on page 6;
(k)on page 6, by adding after line 35 the following:
“11.1 Subsection 100(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
100 (1) The Board must revoke the certification of a council of employee organizations that has been certified as a bargaining agent if the Board is satisfied, on application by the employer or an employee organization that forms or has formed part of the council, that the council no longer meets the condition for certification set out in paragraph 64(1.1)(c) for a council of employee organizations.”;
(l)by deleting clauses 14 and 15, on page 7; and
(m)by deleting clause 16, on pages 7and 8.
No. 2.
March 8, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as amended.
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oh, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais:
That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 1,
(a) on page 1, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:
“1 (0.1) Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act is repealed.
(1) The portion of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced”;
(b)on page 2,
(i)by replacing line 4 with the following:
“(d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 60 years of age at the date of his or her ap-”,
(ii)by replacing line 7 with the following:
“(e) if 18 years of age or more but less than 60 years of age at the date of his or her ap-”, and
(iii)by adding after line 26 the following:
“(7.1) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.03):
(1.04) When the application referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is in respect of a minor, it must be
(a) made by either parent, by a legal or de facto guardian or by any other person having custody of the minor, whether by virtue of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, a written agreement or the operation of law; and
(b) countersigned by the minor, if the minor has attained the age of 14 years on or before the day on which the application is made and is not prevented from understanding the significance of the application because of a mental disability.
(1.05) If the Minister waives the requirement set out in paragraph (1.04)(a) under subparagraph (3)(b)(v), the application referred to paragraph (1)(a) may be made by the minor.”;
(c)on page 3, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following:
“repealing subparagraphs (i) and (iii), by adding “or” at the end of subparagraph (iv), and by adding the following after subparagraph (iv):
(v) the requirement respecting who may make an application in respect of a minor set out in paragraph (1.04)(a).”; and
(d) on page 6, by adding the following after line 38:
“17.1 Until the day on which subsection 1(6) comes into force, paragraphs 5(1)(d) and (e) of the Citizenship Act are replaced by the following:
(d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;
(e) if 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, demonstrates in one of the official languages of Canada that he or she has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and”.

 

[Hey]

Idi**** they still have 65 in the last paragraph
Punch of idi****

 

[Coffee1981]

News coming out of IRCC HQ today is that the bill is expected to fail. Management has been warned during a series of meetings all day today. The amendments were a no-go for the minister and the department, and they've been briefed that more are on the way apparently from the Cons.

 

[hfinkel]

ok. Don't know if i make confusion. Probably i do. What is the bill concerning the repeal of the conditional permanent residency? The same C6? I read bill c6 is An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. I heard they want to repeal the conditional permanent residency. Are these 2 things connected? Anyone knows something about it? thanks

What is conditional permanent residency? I have never seen this term on any web page at the CIC or on their forms.
These words are new to me.

 

[quasar81]

This bill is doomed until Trudeau and Minister put pressure, and negotiate in Senate. Dead.

Call and email Trudeau. People here were saying why? Well now they know.