Search results

The problem is that no motion has been proposed regarding C-6 amendment by the senate. After C-4 was passed by senate with amendment and sent back to the house, the motion regarding the amendment is proposed and shown in the order paper several days, at least, before it is discussed in the house.

C-6 got skipped again

Good news! C-6 will be back after the break. It's mentioned during yesterday's debate: Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on...

Good news! From yesterday's debate: Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue the debate we began this morning on the Conservative opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we...

Just checked the order paper and no motions regarding C-6 are proposed....

In my opinion, we should check "Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills" in the latest order paper because, based on what happens to other three bills, the motions regarding the bill will be posted before it's scheduled for debate...

House of Commons has twitter accounts now, please follow to get latest news. https://twitter.com/SenateCA/status/864152169770999808

I think what matters the most is when 3/5 will be implemented. I wonder whether or not cic already has the plan the the bill was introduced in 2016. If that is the case, the time when the bill gets passed does not matter too much. Imagine when you apply for the citizenship you still have to wait...

C-4 is making progress now but C-6... http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&File=13

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=projected&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8905866&File=13 Latest news for C-4 found in "Order Paper and Notice Paper": the house disagrees with the amendment. We may find updates regarding C-6 in the same section, i.e. Motions...

C-6 is not there, unfortunately. It's not even shown in today's HoC journal.

Vote will happen at 15:53.

The 183 days requirement is meant for each calendar year of 4 out of 6. It has no direct connection to how long you spent in Canada in total.

For an entire non PR year, 365/2 = 182.5, 366/2=183. I don't know whether it can be rounded up or not. As far as I know, the answer is yes before C-24. If it can be rounded up and you never travel outside Canada before you become PR, you may be fine even if the amendments are passed.

Say you come to Canada in 2015 and get your PR in the mid of 2017, you can use 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 to satisfy the 183 days requirement because 2016 has 366 days. In such situation, you can still be eligible after two years PR time.

Three years would be enough if 182.5 can be rounded up as the way before C-24.

She emphasized the 183 days issue upon the introduction of the amendments in the senate. I cannot find anything regarding taking 3/5 away directly in the proposed amendments, though the 183 days rule might bring some potential negative effects to 3/5.

Clause 8, page 4 of C-6 is: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 Paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) subparagraph 5(1)(c)(i), in the case of an applica- 20 tion for citizenship under subsection 5(1)...

Agreed. I mentioned this in the previous page. I am wondering whether 182.5 days can be rounded up to 183 days or not.

Good news! I found that before C-24: "Total residence days ending in .5 are rounded up in your favour." I think even if they pass the amendments, 182.5 days may be rounded up to 183 days, which just meets the 183-day requirement as long as you spend the whole non-PR year in Canada.