Toward Understanding Bill C-6 to Amend Citizenship Act; new 3/5 rule plus

[screech339]

The Senate wont stand in the way. They don't want to lose their expense accounts.

How can the senators lose their expense accounts? What does that got to do with senators voting against the bill on its merits and best interest of Canada.

 

[zoya_99]

How can the senators lose their expense accounts? What does that got to do with senators voting against the bill on its merits and best interest of Canada.

Sorry, but what it means? You think senators will vote against this new bill?

 

[Diplomatru]

How can the senators lose their expense accounts? What does that got to do with senators voting against the bill on its merits and best interest of Canada.

Stop dreaming. There was only one instance of a bill defeated in Senate in 20 years.

 

[screech339]

Sorry, but what it means? You think senators will vote against this new bill?

Currently senate is majority controlled conservatives. So some will vote for and some will against. So what makes you think the senate will accept the new bill as is. They will likely debate and revise the bill and send it back to commons.

 

[screech339]

Stop dreaming. There was only one instance of a bill defeated in Senate in 20 years.

Yes the bill be eventually be passed with changes to the bill. The senate will not likely accept the bill as is. They will revise the bill as they see fit in Canada's best interests and send it back.

You are dreaming if you think the senate will pass the bill without any changes. It will get revised and sent back. Once it is sent back, the liberals would have no choice but to pass it otherwise it would not become law.

 

[guelphmm]

Don't worry too much guys, get your paper work ready so that we can send our application.

Liberals would like to pass this bill as soon as possible, i think we all know how they would benefit from it, they would like to consolidate from it.

As far pessimistic views are concerned, to begin with, they never believed that this change would be possible .

have a good weekend
M

 

[screech339]

Oh, really, I didn't know that lol. On a serious note, you clearly have no idea of the senate's legitimacy issue that makes it next to impossible for non-elected officials to vote down legislation from the lower chamber. The early Harper gov. was run with a Liberal majority in government. It's irrelevant and, frankly, the validity of your prognosis has been put to test recently, and failed. So kindly stop misguiding people on the legislative procedure.

Are you saying the bill doesn't need senate approval to become law? You are the one who needs to know how bills become law. All bills must get both senate and commons approval before becoming law. So if the senators want to revise the bill, it is in their right to do so. Once revised and approved by senate, the new revised bill must also get commons approval.

Not sure where you get that I give misguided procedure. That is the basic knowledge.

If the senate approves without any changes to bill, I would be very surprised.

 

[Diplomatru]

Are you saying the bill doesn't need senate approval to become law? You are the one who needs to know how bills become law. All bills must get both senate and commons approval before becoming law. So if the senators want to revise the bill, it is in their right to do so. Once revised and approved by senate, the new revised bill must also get commons approval.

Not sure where you get that I give misguided procedure. That is the basic knowledge.

Does your basic knowledge of Canada's political process come from elementary school or what? The senate is supposed to offer a "second sober opinion" on bills, but it has been dysfunctional right from the beginning because the senators are not elected, hence, they have no moral grounds to defeat bills by popularly elected MPs. There is also an issue of uneven provincial representation, partisanship and numerous other limitations. But we're not in a classroom. The senate has the power to defeat a bill but this happens once in decades. And it's not happening now when the senate is finally ongoing reform. End of story.

As for this, I will save it for future reference and congratulate you on Royal Ascent of C-6.

If the senate approves without any changes to bill, I would be very surprised.

 

[screech339]

Does your basic knowledge of Canada's political process come from elementary school or what? The senate is supposed to offer a "second sober opinion" on bills, but it has been dysfunctional right from the beginning because the senators are not elected, hence, they have no moral grounds to defeat bills by popularly elected MPs. There is also an issue of uneven provincial representation, partisanship and numerous other limitations. But we're not in a classroom. The senate has the power to defeat a bill but this happens once in decades. And it's not happening now when the senate is finally ongoing reform. End of story.

As for this, I will save it for future reference and congratulate you on Royal Ascent of C-6.

That is the purpose of the senate. It is their job to provide "second sober opinion" on the bills. So if the senate feels that the bills need improvements or revisions, it is in their rights to do so. Just because it is unelected senate doesn't make it any less important in provide second sober thought. Whether the senate was unelected or triple E senate (I prefer triple E, myself), their function remains the same, to provide "second sober opinion" and revise if necessary in the best interests of Canada.

 

[Diplomatru]

Bill C6 will be debated at second reading on March 9.

 

[Politren]

Bill C6 will be debated at second reading on March 9.

Looks like they want it done ASAP, just like the Conservatives back in 2014.

 

[MasterGeek]

Canada should make it harder to become a citizen, but only after I become a citizen myself 8)

If citizenship becomes too easy, other countries will start requiring Visas from Canadian travallers and revoke their Work-Holiday visa agreements

 

[HighFive]

June July this year is the most optimistic scenario.

Thanks Politren.

I wonder if Liberals ever mentioned that they will reduce IRCC's (CIC's) processing times in election campaign?

 

[rmorgan]

Thank you Dpenabill for starting this thread, and to all those who make fair comments (Diplomatru etc).

Gentlemen and Gentleladies, let us try to keep this thread on point, and not let it get side tracked by the rants and screeches of a small but vocal minority which is against Bill C-6.

Bill C-24 seems destined for the dustbin of history without any more help, but I started another thread all the same - (Thanking Liberal Government for C-6: Sample Letter/Email ).

Cheers

Rmorgan

 

[Rusty53]

It is time for as new voice. My wife received PR in May of 2013. Under the 3/4 rule and pre PR time included she should have qualified in November of 2015. The 4/6 rule moved that back to May of 2017. I for one am happy with the change back to 3/5, I am not concerned with the wait time once our application is in. I will feel better once we are in. I feel that the only thing that the 4/6 rule accomplished was to reduce wait times. If you really want to reduce wait times then hire the appropriate staff.

I have been a conservative supporter all my life and have always voted for them; and I have voted in many elections but I could not support them in the last election. When I first started the process of PR for my wife I went to our local office and sat with an immigration officer and they were very helpful in getting me started on this unending journey. When we went to that same office for my wife's landing there was a security guard at the door. If you could not produce a piece of paper that showed you had an appointment such as landing then you were sent away and told to go to the website. Also when we first applied for a visitor visa so that my wife could come and visit me in Canada she was able to plead her case to an immigration officer in Bangkok. Now you can no longer get into the embassy you are sent to another office where everything is handled by a 3rd party. Somehow Harper managed to take the personal side completely out of the immigration system. It is way easier to reject or ignore someone when they are just a piece of paper as opposed to a human being with feelings.

It was because of this that I voted for Trudeau and I applaud him for putting personality and people back into government. Who knows his plan to speed up the system may actually involve hiring people as opposed to making them wait before they can apply. I like his attitude, I like his personality and his exuberance, I am hoping that some of it will actually filter down through government and they may actually care about people again. I am closing in on retirement and I have actually wrote a letter to Trudeau telling him my thoughts on immigration and told him that I would like to come work for immigration and put caring for people back into it. I don't know if I will ever hear back from him or not.

That's my 2 cents worth.