Search results

Changes expected to take effect in early 2018 https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/06/bill_c-6_receivesroyalassent0.html

Some of you might take this lightly, but I really think we made some difference with our tweets. These politicians don't have many followers, and you be sure most of them were reading our tweets (at least Sen. Jaffer and Sen. Omidvar did). Lots of people are on these forums and with some...

The 3/4 rule stays (the amendment was defeated). No one has a clear timeline.

This one was probably the most prominent campaign promise (Canadian is a Canadian). At this point it's just delay tactics I hope. Danger has passed!

Another example is the Marijuana legislation. It was a clear campaign promise made by the liberals, yet when they took power they said the issue is complex and they need to consult with the US and other countries because of some treaties they signed decades ago. Marijuana was already legal in...

I spent thousands of dollars on renewing study permits then work permits, visas, CAQs, CSQs, PR ... Very rigid process, while in many other countries, it's actually an application you fill out and submit once you met a certain number of years (regardless of whether you were a PR for that time or...

@canadasucks I completely agree with most of what you said. I came to Canada as a student 7 years ago with the plan to settle here and become a citizen. Most of the people I know who went to European countries around the same time became citizens a while back. You're right, the system here is...

Lots of pessimism. Even if the residency amendment was voted on, I believe there's a high chance it will be turned down. It's true Cons have the majority of the Senate but that goes for all bills and not just C6. If they could simply use this majority whenever they wanted, then what's the point...

@Whocares, your name says it all. It's amazing how selfish some people can be. You reached the conclusion that international students are not in Canada to be Canadians but only to get their degrees.. do you think in the same manner that PRs should be prevented from pursuing education because...

I'm not assuming. Repealing C-24 was a campaign promise and that means residency requirements going back to 3/5. Any amendment to that is a change to a campaign promise of the elected government.

Even if amendments to residency requirements were proposed, I don't see why you're assuming such amendments will surely pass. The amendments passed so far did not contradict with the essence of C-6, they were extensions to it. But an amendment to residency would be an effort against the core of...

Yes, the amendment passed.

People on this forum keep saying amendments won't pass HoC. Any actual reasons behind this aside from gut feelings?

@Coffee1981 can you explain why your contact at CIC said the amendments won't be accepted? You mention the age limit, but I far as I understand the age limit was increased from 55 to 60. So it became less severe for cons than it initially was in C6. All cons in HoC voted against C6 anyways. Now...

@canadasucks and why are you so happy that your "prediction" is correct so far? I thought people on this forum would wish that a bill such as C-6 passes, but I see many others like you making comments like: "See.. I was right when I said this will never pass" or "I stand by my prediction that...

Seems like Twitter is the only way we can make a difference. I already created an account. Here's a tweet I just posted: https://twitter.com/TheOneTicker211/status/850050486552059905 I suggest others do the same.

Any concrete reasons for why some people here think HoC will reject the amendment?

1st, without going into details, this suit wasn't challenging bill C-24. 2nd, even if it was challenge, then this is exactly my point! Bill C-24 would have passed and became a law and the 4/6 regulation has been applied for some time now even though it had unconstitutional sections! So let's...

I don't have friends at IRCC, but this is a faulty logic. Just compare this bill to bill C-24 which absolutely had unconstitutional elements and yet still became passed and been applied for 2.5 years now. So even if the bill was really unconstitutional, the only possibility it's revoked is if it...

Couldn't agree more!