Thank you to all those who contributed in such a positive manner and even tolerated trolls and answering them. We were sort of a family here, Thank you for ppl like Spyfy, Dpenbill and all others whom I haven't specified who clarified things for us and I also want to thank Morgan who started the original C6 thread which was scrapped because of the fighting of the trolls. Let's keep this going till we know all details of bill and implementation times. Thanks and have a great night everyone
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
don't use it ur gonna freak outt loool :d spyfy just gave a good example how to calculate ur days
I'm so glad it passed. Next week, we will know exactly where we stand. I can finally start working 9-5 again 
Where is that man who always said that someone in the government told him that this bill is dead?I also just realized that there are some people who will have to call their "friends" they know in Ottawa and who told them many times that the bill is dead
I have a hypothetical question, if the law comes into effect September 1st. I am already eligible under C-6. Can I apply by mid- July, knowing that by the time my file gets to be allocated to an officer, the law is already effective. Will the application be rejected or anything illegal about it?
You can find your answer here:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/bill-c-6-coming-into-effect-facts-only.501042/page-4
#54
Guys please anybody who have a twitter account go to the account of this loser and tell him ( in a polite way of course that we new canadians know very well what the conservatives think of us and his policy and thoughts will only lead to more loss of votes for his party .
Let them know that they can not mess with us and threaten us because we are less canadian from them !!!!!!!!
A canadian is a canadian is a canadian
Experts,
As far as I know, before bill C-24 was implemented, if a permanent resident is working for a canadian company and had to leave the country on a business trip (work related for the Canadian company) the days he spent outside Canada used to be counted towards his physical presence for the citizenship application.
Now after bill C-24, this clause was removed from the cic website ( i'm not sure if it was because of C-24 or just a coincidence). Currently the days you spend outside the country will only be counted if you work for a government company.
Now when bill C-6 is going to be implemented, does it mention whether someone can count these days as physically present in Canada if he's working for a canadian company??
As far as I know, before bill C-24 was implemented, if a permanent resident is working for a canadian company and had to leave the country on a business trip (work related for the Canadian company) the days he spent outside Canada used to be counted towards his physical presence for the citizenship application.
Now after bill C-24, this clause was removed from the cic website ( i'm not sure if it was because of C-24 or just a coincidence). Currently the days you spend outside the country will only be counted if you work for a government company.
Now when bill C-6 is going to be implemented, does it mention whether someone can count these days as physically present in Canada if he's working for a canadian company??
He is a loser. Don't waste your time on him.
I know he is but we will let him and all his con friens on twitter know our power once they see many replying to his tweet so they would think twice before hurting us again
Whether or not to stay tuned for Royal Assent:
There are reasons to still closely follow when Royal Assent is given since that should be soon followed by the publishing of Bill C-6 as adopted. While most participants here are primarily focused on matters of self-interest, the adoption and eventual implementation of the 3/5 rule and related provisions (including credit for pre-PR time in Canada), which are fairly easy to figure out, there are other important aspects to this legislation not so easily figured out. Not the least of which are the amendments which restore a more fair procedure in the revocation of citizenship, which should be of keen interest to any who have concerns about fundamental justice in Canada.
I for one am keenly interested in seeing the precise language of the final version, especially those provisions affecting fair procedure in the revocation of citizenship.
As closely as I have been following this, I must have lost or overlooked a thread or two along the way, so I still have some open questions.
In particular, many have referred to three amendments proposed by the Senate. In contrast, the message in the motion adopted by the HoC and accepted by the Senate addresses the following Senate amendments:
-- Amendment 1 (includes language requirement);
-- Amendment 2 (procedure for revocation of citizenship on the grounds of fraud, amending Section 10 in the Citizenship Act);
-- Amendment 3 (an amendment of Section 10.1 which involves allegations related to more serious matters, like espionage, terrorism, war crimes or human rights violations)
-- Amendment 6 (appears to be about a transition provision)
-- Amendment 7 (I do not recall what Senate Amendment # 7 stated; HoC rejected this amendment)
-- Amendment 8 (apparently refers to provisions governing a coming into force provision)
For the HoC response to the Senate amendments, see http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-193/order-notice/page-13
Leaving me a little perplexed which of these six amendments are the three amendments oft referred to by others (I see at least four plus in play, the plus being about provisions governing transition and coming-into-force). And, more significantly, it is still not clear what the final version will prescribe, especially as to provisions affecting Sections 10 and 10.1 in the Citizenship Act.
No reason to speculate or rush. I expect Royal Assent to come soon and the final version of adopted bill published. This is, however, something to watch for.
It appears you have a misunderstanding about the pre-Bill C-24 Residency requirement and how it was assessed.
I am not sure it is worth fully unraveling this. For those who applied prior to June 11, 2015, that is for those governed by the old 3/4 residency requirement rules, there are many topics in which the residency requirement, its assessment, the role of actual physical presence, and such, have been addressed in depth and at length. Time abroad employed by a Canadian business did NOT count toward actual physical presence, but might have counted as time still resident in Canada depending on which test was applied in assessing residency.
There are probably scores of applicants who applied prior to June 11, 2015 who still have cases pending, for whom the particulars of this are still relevant, but again there is already extensive and in depth coverage of this in many other topics (particularly those discussing RQ, since most applicants who fell short of the actual physical presence test threshold were likely to be issued RQ).
There are reasons to still closely follow when Royal Assent is given since that should be soon followed by the publishing of Bill C-6 as adopted. While most participants here are primarily focused on matters of self-interest, the adoption and eventual implementation of the 3/5 rule and related provisions (including credit for pre-PR time in Canada), which are fairly easy to figure out, there are other important aspects to this legislation not so easily figured out. Not the least of which are the amendments which restore a more fair procedure in the revocation of citizenship, which should be of keen interest to any who have concerns about fundamental justice in Canada.
I for one am keenly interested in seeing the precise language of the final version, especially those provisions affecting fair procedure in the revocation of citizenship.
As closely as I have been following this, I must have lost or overlooked a thread or two along the way, so I still have some open questions.
In particular, many have referred to three amendments proposed by the Senate. In contrast, the message in the motion adopted by the HoC and accepted by the Senate addresses the following Senate amendments:
-- Amendment 1 (includes language requirement);
-- Amendment 2 (procedure for revocation of citizenship on the grounds of fraud, amending Section 10 in the Citizenship Act);
-- Amendment 3 (an amendment of Section 10.1 which involves allegations related to more serious matters, like espionage, terrorism, war crimes or human rights violations)
-- Amendment 6 (appears to be about a transition provision)
-- Amendment 7 (I do not recall what Senate Amendment # 7 stated; HoC rejected this amendment)
-- Amendment 8 (apparently refers to provisions governing a coming into force provision)
For the HoC response to the Senate amendments, see http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-193/order-notice/page-13
Leaving me a little perplexed which of these six amendments are the three amendments oft referred to by others (I see at least four plus in play, the plus being about provisions governing transition and coming-into-force). And, more significantly, it is still not clear what the final version will prescribe, especially as to provisions affecting Sections 10 and 10.1 in the Citizenship Act.
No reason to speculate or rush. I expect Royal Assent to come soon and the final version of adopted bill published. This is, however, something to watch for.
No. The exceptions for counting any days abroad are very narrow. They always have been narrow in terms of what counted as days actually physically present in Canada. Being actually physically present being the key element.
It appears you have a misunderstanding about the pre-Bill C-24 Residency requirement and how it was assessed.
I am not sure it is worth fully unraveling this. For those who applied prior to June 11, 2015, that is for those governed by the old 3/4 residency requirement rules, there are many topics in which the residency requirement, its assessment, the role of actual physical presence, and such, have been addressed in depth and at length. Time abroad employed by a Canadian business did NOT count toward actual physical presence, but might have counted as time still resident in Canada depending on which test was applied in assessing residency.
There are probably scores of applicants who applied prior to June 11, 2015 who still have cases pending, for whom the particulars of this are still relevant, but again there is already extensive and in depth coverage of this in many other topics (particularly those discussing RQ, since most applicants who fell short of the actual physical presence test threshold were likely to be issued RQ).
I agree with Whocares, is not worth it to waste your energy on something what is gone.