Diplomatru said:
dpenabill,
An observation, if I may. I praise your efforts for going the extra mile with your analysis, but in terms of C-6 legislative timeline we should pay extra attention to official sources of information. As such the Bill's second reading will take place on March 9 when the MPs return to the Commons from their ridings. This is not an ombibus Bill like SCCA, it's just three pages of plain text with no room for long debates. Moreover, the recent 100 days ad campaign shows that Trudeau likes to boast LPC fast achievements since election. Look at C-4, it's also aimed at repealing two absurd laws. This was tabled in January and today it was debated at second reading stage already. This being said, the current data suggest that C-6 should become law in the coming months.
Good observations on a couple levels, including picking up that the Liberals plan to commence the Second Reading of Bill C-6 March 9 (which I was able to confirm but this appears to be information not readily accessed).
But the larger observation is significant. Not only is Bill C-6 significantly smaller in scope than was Bill C-24, but my observations were in large part dependent on
practices given the Conservative majority government. While my general understanding of the Canadian parliamentary process spans far more than merely the previous nine years, my familiarity with actual practice is indeed largely based on following particular legislation in the 41st Session of Parliament.
Nonetheless, my overall anticipation is that there is no reason to expect this Bill to be rushed through.
A prompt commencement of the Second Reading does not necessarily indicate to what extent this legislation will be rushed.
It is worth noting, however, that repealing section 10.(2) and related provisions in the
Citizenship Act (those provisions authorizing revocation of citizenship for crimes committed while a citizen, said to create two-tiered citizenship) appears to be a quite high priority for this government, and per Bill C-6 the other changes are being included in getting this campaign promise done. So there is some indication this legislation could proceed on a relative fast-track.
Actual date of adoption, Royal Assent, and in particular implementation of requirement changes for grant citizenship, nonetheless remains UNKNOWN. Best speculation appears to be late this year to late next year, with perhaps better odds leaning toward before summer 2017, but that is far from certain and within that time frame one can only guess, guess wildly.
benwong said:
3 year rule does not seem to require royal ascent, according to the bulletin. correct me, if i'm wrong.
As
Politren observed, yes Royal Assent is required. Current law imposing the 4/6 Rule cannot be changed without a legislative enactment being adopted and receiving Royal Assent. Bill C-6 is precisely the sort of legislative enactment which,
IF adopted and given Royal Assent, will change the requirements and implement the 3/5 rule (unless revised in the course of the legislative process, which is possible even though in the previous nine years revision of pending legislation was at most rarely done under Harper's Conservative governments).
While
Diplomatru may be correct regarding the
usual timing for Royal Assent, immediately preceding summer and winter recess, it is not limited to that. A brief scan of Parliamentary Bills adopted and given Royal Assent during the 41st Parliament (the last period when Harper was PM, October 2013 through July 2015) reveals several Bills receiving Royal Assent at other times, such as during February (Bill C-18, C-22); March (Bill C-15, C-27, C-28), April (Bill C-9, C-14, C-21); and November (Bill C-6, not to be confused with current session's Bill C-6, and Bill C-17); and so on. My
guess is that most Bills appear to receive Royal Assent just prior to the summer or winter recess due to the typical rush of Parliament to complete the process of adopting legislation before an impending recess, so that is incidentally when the majority of Bills tend to be adopted and delivered to the Governor General for Royal Assent.
Thus,
Politren said:
If that new proposed Bill doesn't get Royal Assent this summer that means it will have to wait until winter.
. . .
So I concur with itsmyid that right now it's too early for any serious plans regarding this new Bill.
Royal Assent will not have to wait per se. That said, again, there appears to be a common pattern indicating that Parliament tends to complete business (I'd say rushes to complete business) just before an impending recess, so oft times, typically and perhaps usually, legislation like this does not reach Third Reading and a final vote adopting it until just before the next recess, so does not receive Royal Assent to the around the second or third week of June and December respectively.
That said, indeed, way too early to make any concrete plans based on the proposals in Bill C-6. However, as I have noted elsewhere, it would be prudent for some to consider contingency plans, including in particular relative to gathering and storing records, such as those hoping to rely on pre-landing credit should be sure to retain records of authorized entry into Canada with temporary status.
links18 said:
There is mo mention of revising the rather unfair rules regarding how an applicant can appeal a refusal, which Dpenabill had identified as one of the really significant aspects of Bill C-24.
Yep. Disappointed. I realize I should compose a brief (which would be very difficult for me) explanation as to why it is important to restore the right of appeal and send it to my MP and to Minister McCallum. Time to do that is now. Perhaps I will not only do it, but do the work necessary to keep it brief (if that is possible for me).
Another issue which should, to my view, have been considered are the provisions governing abandonment, and especially so in conjunction with the lack of a right to appeal. See recent report in this forum by applicant who notified CIC in advance as to when he would be absent due to a trip abroad, and CIC nonetheless not only scheduled the oath during that time period but subsequently rejected his reason for not appearing as scheduled, and terminated the application. There is also a fairly recent Federal Court decision (see Justice Phelan's decision in the
TZU-TSEN LIM case) granting an appeal of CIC's termination, based on deemed abandonment, which illustrates just how draconian the current rules can be. It warrants noting that the breach of fair procedure was obvious and blatant and egregious in this case. Current process requiring leave to appeal means expensive legal fees and elevated burden for those whose case is not so obviously deserving.
