Bill C-6: Senate stage

[spyfy]

How long does it usually take to Royal Assent after passing Senate? I noticed that C-4 and C-18 have been in the queue waiting for Royal Assent for almost a week.
Another question is that, say a bill passes Senate at the last seating day, can Royal Assent be obtained during the summer vacation?

I feel optimistic that C-6 will pass Senate before the summer, but pessimistic that there may not be enough time receiving Royal Assent.

Don't worry about Royal Assent. Really. It's a formal procedure. And it's not the first summer break they have. They talk to the Governor-General's office and if it's predictable that the Senate will pass a bill before the break, the GG or one of his deputies will make sure to be there.

Worry about something else, but don't worry about royal assent. Stop worrying over micromanagement.

 

[itsmyid]

First of all, it makes zero sense to look at the CIC website to understand the new rules that C-6 will implement. The whole point of C-6 is to change the rules explained on the CIC website.

Secondly, this is how it goes in the future:
- Either a minor applies with their parents/the minors parents are already citizens. In that case, the residency requirement does not apply. This is the current procedure.
- Or a minor applies independently like any other person. In that case, the minor has to fulfill all requirements, including the physical presence requirement. This is the new procedure the bill is introducing.

Of course you can't just cherrypick the best of both worlds and apply without your parents but still don't need to fulfil the residency requirement. That would mean every minor refugee could just apply tomorrow.

Source: I read through the test of bill C-6, the amendment and the current act from beginning to end. But to go through all the paragraphs here would take me hours.

Not to mention the obvious loophole: a minor landed with his parents as PR would be able to apply for citizenship from day one -- the government would have to be stupid or crazy to let that happen.

 

[pkin007]

First of all, it makes zero sense to look at the CIC website to understand the new rules that C-6 will implement. The whole point of C-6 is to change the rules explained on the CIC website.

Secondly, this is how it goes in the future:
- Either a minor applies with their parents/the minors parents are already citizens. In that case, the residency requirement does not apply. This is the current procedure.
- Or a minor applies independently like any other person. In that case, the minor has to fulfill all requirements, including the physical presence requirement. This is the new procedure the bill is introducing.

Of course you can't just cherrypick the best of both worlds and apply without your parents but still don't need to fulfil the residency requirement. That would mean every minor refugee could just apply tomorrow.

Source: I read through the test of bill C-6, the amendment and the current act from beginning to end. But to go through all the paragraphs here would take me hours.

And i think not every Minor can apply independently..i think certain situations have to pre-exist for it if i am not wrong

 

[Ashwani95]

First of all, it makes zero sense to look at the CIC website to understand the new rules that C-6 will implement. The whole point of C-6 is to change the rules explained on the CIC website.

Secondly, this is how it goes in the future:
- Either a minor applies with their parents/the minors parents are already citizens. In that case, the residency requirement does not apply. This is the current procedure.
- Or a minor applies independently like any other person. In that case, the minor has to fulfill all requirements, including the physical presence requirement. This is the new procedure the bill is introducing.

Of course you can't just cherrypick the best of both worlds and apply without your parents but still don't need to fulfil the residency requirement. That would mean every minor refugee could just apply tomorrow.

Source: I read through the test of bill C-6, the amendment and the current act from beginning to end. But to go through all the paragraphs here would take me hours.

I am in agreement with spyfy. +1

 

[spyfy]

And i think not every Minor can apply independently..i think certain situations have to pre-exist for it if i am not wrong

No there is no certain conditions. Any person under 18 who fulfills all requirements that an adult must fulfill can apply.

 

[rizmayo]

It is funny to watch how MP s and senators are discussing in length the parts of the bill which affect small percentage of citizenship applicants (terrorists, part of the older population, orphans, cheaters).

But I do not remember that anyone, nor position, nor opposition members, ever touched/attacked the part that affects all applicants - the 3/5 rule and pre PR credit.

Well, I think it is called democracy.

And also I think that the bill will get the assent before the Canada day only if there is a behind-the-scene deal between liberals and conservatives. Otherwise the conservatives in the senate will do everything to further delay it.

Unfortunately, what most people on this forum fail to realize is that the point of contention of this bill has never been the 3/5 rule or pre-PR credit.

Conservatives have done a pretty good job of painting this as a bill that gives citizenship to terrorists and for the most part the Liberals are not even fighting it, in-fact they can be quoted on multiple occasions, defending why dual-citizen terrorists should not loose their citizenship. I personally think a better defense was: all terrorists should loose their citizenship, since this cannot be implemented on certain citizens at the moment (UN resolution on statelessness), we cannot single out Dual Nationals. But I am not a Liberal MP yet.

Returning to the point: Due to the perception created by the Conservatives, there are a large number of citizens calling their MPs (Con, Lib, NDP) to oppose this bill (not my opinion, I know it to be true). This is the reason Liberals are being extra careful with this one point of a bill that has many other sub-sections.

As a social experiment, you can ask some of your dual-citizen friends who have been living in Canada over 10 years and ask them about the bill that effected dual-nationals (they probably won't know what C-24 is). I can bet you that majority of them think Trudeau already passed that bill ages ago, since it was part of his campaign promise and bill C-6 (for those who have heard about it) is only about the 3/5 rule.

If we (the members of this forum) collectively, had spent more time educating existing dual-citizens about the importance of this bill for their future, instead of arguing whether this bill was going to pass ASAP or it was DOA as soon at it reached HOC, we would have even had the support of registered Conservative voters that are Dual-Citizens.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I have condensed several conversations I have had with Conservatives into this little post, so hope it does not loose its intent.

 

[Joshua1]

And i think not every Minor can apply independently..i think certain situations have to pre-exist for it if i am not wrong

That's right.

 

[Joshua1]

Unfortunately, what most people on this forum fail to realize is that the point of contention of this bill has never been the 3/5 rule or pre-PR credit.

Conservatives have done a pretty good job of painting this as a bill that gives citizenship to terrorists and for the most part the Liberals are not even fighting it, in-fact they can be quoted on multiple occasions, defending why dual-citizen terrorists should not loose their citizenship. I personally think a better defense was: all terrorists should loose their citizenship, since this cannot be implemented on certain citizens at the moment (UN resolution on statelessness), we cannot single out Dual Nationals. But I am not a Liberal MP yet.

Returning to the point: Due to the perception created by the Conservatives, there are a large number of citizens calling their MPs (Con, Lib, NDP) to oppose this bill (not my opinion, I know it to be true). This is the reason Liberals are being extra careful with this one point of a bill that has many other sub-sections.

As a social experiment, you can ask some of your dual-citizen friends who have been living in Canada over 10 years and ask them about the bill that effected dual-nationals (they probably won't know what C-24 is). I can bet you that majority of them think Trudeau already passed that bill ages ago, since it was part of his campaign promise and bill C-6 (for those who have heard about it) is only about the 3/5 rule.

If we (the members of this forum) collectively, had spent more time educating existing dual-citizens about the importance of this bill for their future, instead of arguing whether this bill was going to pass ASAP or it was DOA as soon at it reached HOC, we would have even had the support of registered Conservative voters that are Dual-Citizens.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I have condensed several conversations I have had with Conservatives into this little post, so hope it does not loose its intent.

You are right on all points.

 

[Medhodes]

Suppose to start at 3pm

http://www.ourcommons.ca/webcast/id-9594439

thanks.. good luck all

 

[sansnom]

Unfortunately, what most people on this forum fail to realize is that the point of contention of this bill has never been the 3/5 rule or pre-PR credit.

Conservatives have done a pretty good job of painting this as a bill that gives citizenship to terrorists and for the most part the Liberals are not even fighting it, in-fact they can be quoted on multiple occasions, defending why dual-citizen terrorists should not loose their citizenship. I personally think a better defense was: all terrorists should loose their citizenship, since this cannot be implemented on certain citizens at the moment (UN resolution on statelessness), we cannot single out Dual Nationals. But I am not a Liberal MP yet.

Returning to the point: Due to the perception created by the Conservatives, there are a large number of citizens calling their MPs (Con, Lib, NDP) to oppose this bill (not my opinion, I know it to be true). This is the reason Liberals are being extra careful with this one point of a bill that has many other sub-sections.

As a social experiment, you can ask some of your dual-citizen friends who have been living in Canada over 10 years and ask them about the bill that effected dual-nationals (they probably won't know what C-24 is). I can bet you that majority of them think Trudeau already passed that bill ages ago, since it was part of his campaign promise and bill C-6 (for those who have heard about it) is only about the 3/5 rule.

If we (the members of this forum) collectively, had spent more time educating existing dual-citizens about the importance of this bill for their future, instead of arguing whether this bill was going to pass ASAP or it was DOA as soon at it reached HOC, we would have even had the support of registered Conservative voters that are Dual-Citizens.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, I have condensed several conversations I have had with Conservatives into this little post, so hope it does not loose its intent.

I personally hold a different point of view. I think Liberals did a good job letting Cons attacking the dual national part. The single clause attracted most attentions and hence minimum debates were on others including 3/5 rule. Should the bill include only 3/5 rule, Cons would pour all attention into objecting the single rule. Believe it or not, it is more difficult to defend 3/5 rule than the dual national part.

 

[ABCD EFGH]

I personally hold a different point of view. I think Liberals did a good job letting Cons attacking the dual national part. The single clause attracted most attentions and hence minimum debates were on others including 3/5 rule. Should the bill include only 3/5 rule, Cons would pour all attention into objecting the single rule. Believe it or not, it is more difficult to defend 3/5 rule than the dual national part.

Any news guys about Bill C-6 ? Sorry I didn,t follow up

 

[sistemc]

Well, like it or not: dual nationality citizen is not equal to the Canadian citizen.

Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Dual nationality is a dual nationality is a dual nationality.

 

[sansnom]

Any news guys about Bill C-6 ? Sorry I didn,t follow up

Debates in HoC finished, a final vote is scheduled some time after 3pm. It should pass.

 

[ABCD EFGH]

Debates in HoC finished, a final vote is scheduled some time after 3pm. It should pass.

Thanks. I hope so

 

[MarceauBletard]

How long does it usually take to Royal Assent after passing Senate? I noticed that C-4 and C-18 have been in the queue waiting for Royal Assent for almost a week.
Another question is that, say a bill passes Senate at the last seating day, can Royal Assent be obtained during the summer vacation?

I feel optimistic that C-6 will pass Senate before the summer, but pessimistic that there may not be enough time receiving Royal Assent.

Royal Assent is immediate after it passes the Senate.
The problem IS passing the Senate.
As you can see with this other Bill, Bill C-4, it's been amended like C-6 and has been waiting in the Senate since MAY 17TH and considered only once on MAY 30TH.
http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8073132
This scares me a little.