Bill C-6: Senate stage

[hangincanada]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-bill-senate-amendment-1.4154904

"The Senate has the choice of accepting the government’s decision, rejecting it, or proposing further amendments of its own, which could further delay the legislation."

Good luck bill C6!

 

[hangincanada]

i think senate should be very happy with the outcome as is. if the bill became law, the senate at least contributed two major new articles to this important legislation. also a big achievement for senators mccoy and oh.

 

[ABCD EFGH]

Hi guys. Regarding the change in bill C-6 related to counting 1year of time spent before PR. If someone spent like 7 months in Canada on a visitor temporary visa before getting a PR, would this be considered ? Or just time spent as a student or worker ? Thanks for your sharing.

 

[ABCD EFGH]

Hi guys. In the current application for citizenship, there are two conditions:

1- Intent to reside in Canada after getting the citizenship
2- Intent to stay in Canada during the application process.

Will these be removed from the new law? Any ideas.

 

[sbag_in]

2- Intent to stay in Canada during the application process.

there is nothing like that. it is advisable that you be in canada during the application process but "Intent to stay in Canada during the application process." clause does not exist. and yes, the intent to reside in canada clause after citizenship will be removed, once c6 comes into effect.

 

[sbag_in]

Hi guys. Regarding the change in bill C-6 related to counting 1year of time spent before PR. If someone spent like 7 months in Canada on a visitor temporary visa before getting a PR, would this be considered ? Or just time spent as a student or worker ? Thanks for your sharing.

any time spent in canada as a non PR, during the immediate preceding 5 yrs, irrespective of your visa status, visitor, student, foreign worker or otherwise.

 

[ABCD EFGH]

any time spent in canada as a non PR, during the immediate preceding 5 yrs, irrespective of your visa status, visitor, student, foreign worker or otherwise.

Thanks Sbag_in for your replies. All the best.

 

[MarceauBletard]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-bill-senate-amendment-1.4154904
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-citizenship-bill-to-proceed-with-some-senate-amendments/article35278832/
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/06/statement_by_ministerhussenonadvancingbillc-6anacttoamendtheciti.html
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-192/order-notice/page-13
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/projected-business

It looks like things are going well for C-6 and will end soon.
The only question that remains in my mind is concerning: "and section 5.1 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."
Who is the Governor in Council and how does he decide when it comes into force? Is he told a date by someone?
Does anyone have any fact to relay about how this process works?

 

[sansnom]

This is the first time I feel optimistic about C-6; although I'm about to become a victim for such a long delayed bill.

Okay, there are 3 amendments from the Senate, the government accepts 2 of them and rejects 1:
1. Appeal right when revoking citizenship: [Good news]
Changes from HoC is more-like a refined wording of Senate's amendments. The Senate will almost certain to accept with minimum or even no debate. Within the HoC, due to the Federal Court's decision, there should be little disagreements with the contents. The only point that the opposition may attack is to put this amendments into a separate bill and go through full legislation process; however, as Libs have the majority, should such motion occurs, it will not pass the vote.
2. Minor's application: [Good news]
Again, changes from HoC is purely a refined wording of Senate's amendments. In addition, this amendments were from a Cons senator. It will certainly pass both HoC and Senate without debate.
3. Language requirements for seniors: [Bad news]
HoC effectively rejected Senate's amendments. The opposition in HoC will definitely spend quite a time debating on this although their motion will most-likely be defected. In the Senate, there will be certainly lots of debates again even though they are not likely to insist the amendments. In short, lots of time will be wasted on debating what is the "proper" minimum age to require language proficiency. As the HoC did not notice triggering of time allocation, the debate may even be quite long inside HoC, not to mention at the Senate stage.

 

[spyfy]

The only question that remains in my mind is concerning: "and section 5.1 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council."
Who is the Governor in Council and how does he decide when it comes into force? Is he told a date by someone?
Does anyone have any fact to relay about how this process works?

Most of the provisions of C-6 have that "Governor in Council" clause who determines the date that the new regulations come into force (same for 3/5, language requirements and so on".

About your question "Who is the Governor in Council and how does the process work":

Short answer:
The responsible Minister (in this case: Ahmed Hussein) decides on a date, based on feedback by their staff. It then gets published in the Canada Gazette. That's the date.

Long answer for those of you who are interested in the Canadian Constitutional Framework:
The Governor General, as representative of Her Majesty the Queen, sets the date, because all executive power is vested in the Crown. However he does so "in council" which means that according to constituional convention, the Monarch or her representative doesn't decide alone but acts only on the formal advice of the "Queen's Privy Council for Canada" which consists of the current government as well as many other dignitaries (former Prime Ministers, some former MPs, other honoured people, even Prince Charles sits in that one). However, again by constitutional convention, the Monarch (and, by extension, the Governor General) is only advised by those privy councillors that are currently in the Cabinet. The Cabinet consists of the current government of Canada, that is the Prime Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown. Within the Cabinet, again by convention, every Minister is responsible for the laws concerning his subject area. In this case Ahmed Hussein, the Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is the responsible Minister.

So if you walk that chain backwards:

• IRCC employees will discuss with the Minister what a good date is
• It is possible that Justin Trudeau and/or his staff also has a say in this and joins the conversation
• The Minister will then advise the Governor-General of the intended date
• Since the Minister is the person responsible for this matter in the Cabinet which is the deciding body of the Privy Council which is the advising body of the Monarch, this is a binding advice that the Governor-General must follow
• The Governor General then proclaims the date in the Canada Gazette, starting with the following enactment clause "Whereas [insert references to law here] ... Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Refugees, Immigration and Citizenship, decides that..."

And if you wonder "Why is this so convoluted, why can't it just say the Minister decides": Welcome to a Commonwealth Realm which has to carry centuries of constitutional baggage originating in some random fight Kind so and so had with Lord so and so over whatever.

 

[pkin007]

Most of the provisions of C-6 have that "Governor in Council" clause who determines the date that the new regulations come into force (same for 3/5, language requirements and so on".

About your question "Who is the Governor in Council and how does the process work":

Short answer:
The responsible Minister (in this case: Ahmed Hussein) decides on a date, based on feedback by their staff. It then gets published in the Canada Gazette. That's the date.

Long answer for those of you who are interested in the Canadian Constitutional Framework:
The Governor General, as representative of Her Majesty the Queen, sets the date, because all executive power is vested in the Crown. However he does so "in council" which means that according to constituional convention, the Monarch or her representative doesn't decide alone but acts only on the formal advice of the "Queen's Privy Council for Canada" which consists of the current government as well as many other dignitaries (former Prime Ministers, some former MPs, other honoured people, even Prince Charles sits in that one). However, again by constitutional convention, the Monarch (and, by extension, the Governor General) is only advised by those privy councillors that are currently in the Cabinet. The Cabinet consists of the current government of Canada, that is the Prime Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown. Within the Cabinet, again by convention, every Minister is responsible for the laws concerning his subject area. In this case Ahmed Hussein, the Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is the responsible Minister.

So if you walk that chain backwards:

• IRCC employees will discuss with the Minister what a good date is
• It is possible that Justin Trudeau and/or his staff also has a say in this and joins the conversation
• The Minister will then advise the Governor-General of the intended date
• Since the Minister is the person responsible for this matter in the Cabinet which is the deciding body of the Privy Council which is the advising body of the Monarch, this is a binding advice that the Governor-General must follow
• The Governor General then proclaims the date in the Canada Gazette, starting with the following enactment clause "Whereas [insert references to law here] ... Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Refugees, Immigration and Citizenship, decides that..."

And if you wonder "Why is this so convoluted, why can't it just say the Minister decides": Welcome to a Commonwealth Realm which has to carry centuries of constitutional baggage originating in some random fight Kind so and so had with Lord so and so over whatever.

Am sure that IRCC as well all the people in the know already would be aware of the time lag between approval of the bill and implementation..just a matter of time now..be patient..catch Formula1 in Montreal or Game 5 NBA or cricket..whatever...enjoy the wknd

 

[spyfy]

This is the first time I feel optimistic about C-6; although I'm about to become a victim for such a long delayed bill.

Okay, there are 3 amendments from the Senate, the government accepts 2 of them and rejects 1:
1. Appeal right when revoking citizenship: [Good news]
Changes from HoC is more-like a refined wording of Senate's amendments. The Senate will almost certain to accept with minimum or even no debate. Within the HoC, due to the Federal Court's decision, there should be little disagreements with the contents. The only point that the opposition may attack is to put this amendments into a separate bill and go through full legislation process; however, as Libs have the majority, should such motion occurs, it will not pass the vote.
2. Minor's application: [Good news]
Again, changes from HoC is purely a refined wording of Senate's amendments. In addition, this amendments were from a Cons senator. It will certainly pass both HoC and Senate without debate.
3. Language requirements for seniors: [Bad news]
HoC effectively rejected Senate's amendments. The opposition in HoC will definitely spend quite a time debating on this although their motion will most-likely be defected. In the Senate, there will be certainly lots of debates again even though they are not likely to insist the amendments. In short, lots of time will be wasted on debating what is the "proper" minimum age to require language proficiency. As the HoC did not notice triggering of time allocation, the debate may even be quite long inside HoC, not to mention at the Senate stage.

Generally a good observation, but there's one thing that should be clarified: There will most likely be a time allocation motion in the HoC just like for all the other recent bills. But the notice of a time allocation motion cannot be given until the motion it refers to is on the order paper. During the Friday sitting, the motion wasn't even on the order paper yet. So B. Chagger could of course not give notice of a time allocation motion. It was literally impossible.
Even if it they could do it, it would be against every parliamentary convention to announce a time allocation motion before the debate on a bill even has started.
Instead, a time allocation motion will be announced after the first or second time the bill got debated. That's they way it worked for C-4, C-7, C-37. Each of these bills had two days of debate in the HoC.

 

[Bargeld]

If they're gonna do this, wish they'd just get it done with.

 

[asifmehmood]

This bill should go back to Senate next week, my only concern is Senate going on a week early break.

 

[Redfield]

Senate has to vote to be able to go early on vacation. I don't think they'd leave knowing there are Bills on the final stretch to consider