Bill C-6, current status, FACTS only

[_MK_]

As a summary of the senate sitting today on APRIL 12:

- Senator Frum on behalf of Senator Eaton proposed an amendment that has 3 effects.
-- 4 years out of 6. Going back to C24.
-- 183 day physical residence requirement in a year.
-- Intent to reside addition.
Basically she proposed to delete half of the bill.
- Senator Woo spoke against the amendment.
- Another senator raised Point of Order that the amendment is "out of order". There was debate on whether it is or not.
- Speaker adjourned the debate saying he will take the arguments under advisement and decide.

Next Steps:
- If speaker says Amendment is out of order, we are back to 3rd reading at which point it will be open for debate/vote/more amendments.
- If speaker says amendment is accepted, then there is vote on amendment, then we are back to debate/vote/more amendments amendments.

PS: Looks like there has been some internal verbal agreement between the different groups that there will be vote on May 3rd.

I will ask everyone to not ask questions in the thread. It is for facts only. No point in speculations. Please take your questions to the other thread.

 

[fenomenalb]

As a summary of the senate sitting today on APRIL 12:

- Senator Frum on behalf of Senator Eaton proposed an amendment that has 3 effects.
-- 4 years out of 6. Going back to C24.
-- 183 day physical residence requirement in a year.
-- Intent to reside addition.
Basically she proposed to delete half of the bill.
- Senator Woo spoke against the amendment.
- Another senator raised Point of Order that the amendment is "out of order". There was debate on whether it is or not.
- Speaker adjourned the debate saying he will take the arguments under advisement and decide.

Next Steps:
- If speaker says Amendment is out of order, we are back to 3rd reading at which point it will be open for debate/vote/more amendments.
- If speaker says amendment is accepted, then there is vote on amendment, then we are back to debate/vote/more amendments amendments.

PS: Looks like there has been some internal verbal agreement between the different groups that there will be vote on May 3rd.

I will ask everyone to not ask questions in the thread. It is for facts only. No point in speculations. Please take your questions to the other thread.

Thanks MK. What happened to the whole 'promise' to pass the bill in Early May....is that still on the table? Is this just politricks? If they goe on these wild goose chases, I can'e see them hitting the mark.

 

[_MK_]

Thanks MK. What happened to the whole 'promise' to pass the bill in Early May....is that still on the table? Is this just politricks? If they goe on these wild goose chases, I can'e see them hitting the mark.

Senator Omidvar reminded the chamber about that today. Whether they respect it or not, we will find out. I don't see the point in speculating. Government moves slow as usual.
It was a "verbal" agreement. So there is every chance for them to not hit the mark. Either ways it will get to a vote eventually. Lets wait for tomorrow's result and see what the speaker decides. It should set a precedent one way or another.

 

[spyfy]

Thanks to _MK_ for updating us. I was stuck in a meeting all afternoon so I didn't have time to tune in.

You summarized the possible outcomes of this very well, I have not much to add. Just to answer proudian's question:

@spyfy Any idea how long does speaker can take to provide his decision over the amendment?

With the usual disclaimer that this bill is nothing but normal a ruling can be expected at the next sitting. This is normally how long it takes. Again: Normally.

Also, note that Bill C-4 has been passed which means there will be more time to discuss C-6 from now on. That should not mean that you should expect it to pass tomorrow. It just means that the "early May" verbal agreement still seems reasonable.

 

[sbag_in]

@everyone.....

Calm Down.... We are talking about changing the Law of a Democracy.. that takes time... C6 is not the exception... C24 was... dont judge this bill's timeline by comparing it to C24... that was a freak bill/law. c6 has developed quite well in the last few weeks.. let it continue to develop and either tune in to the debates online or come here at the end of the day to get your updates.. you being upset, is not gonna speed up the process any further.. so please refrain from beating yourself up and may be stop making other people worry unnecessarily at the same time....

all the best...

 

[thejkhan]

@everyone.....

Calm Down.... We are talking about changing the Law of a Democracy.. that takes time... C6 is not the exception... C24 was... dont judge this bill's timeline by comparing it to C24... that was a freak bill/law. c6 has developed quite well in the last few weeks.. let it continue to develop and either tune in to the debates online or come here at the end of the day to get your updates.. you being upset, is not gonna speed up the process any further.. so please refrain from beating yourself up and may be stop making other people worry unnecessarily at the same time....

all the best...

This is FACTS ONLY thread!

 

[naturalca]

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.

 

[addictive_mate]

As a summary of the senate sitting today on APRIL 12:

- Senator Frum on behalf of Senator Eaton proposed an amendment that has 3 effects.
-- 4 years out of 6. Going back to C24.
-- 183 day physical residence requirement in a year.
-- Intent to reside addition.
Basically she proposed to delete half of the bill.
- Senator Woo spoke against the amendment.
- Another senator raised Point of Order that the amendment is "out of order". There was debate on whether it is or not.
- Speaker adjourned the debate saying he will take the arguments under advisement and decide.

Next Steps:
- If speaker says Amendment is out of order, we are back to 3rd reading at which point it will be open for debate/vote/more amendments.
- If speaker says amendment is accepted, then there is vote on amendment, then we are back to debate/vote/more amendments amendments.

PS: Looks like there has been some internal verbal agreement between the different groups that there will be vote on May 3rd.

I will ask everyone to not ask questions in the thread. It is for facts only. No point in speculations. Please take your questions to the other thread.

Guys,

I just studied the amendments proposed and nowhere it says to remove 3/5 rule or physical residence credit before PR!It does, however, talk about reinstating minimum reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. It doesn't say anything about intent to reside.

Look at the C6 Text here : www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e
Current Citizenship Act Text : laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html

Let me break the amendments proposed one by one :

That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended:
(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; -(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed. which means reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
(b)by deleting clause 8, on page 4; - go to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-6.html#docCont(Basically the same as(a)(183 days/ year in 4 years)
(c)in clause 14, on page 6, by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
“14 Paragraph 5(1)c) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the day on which subsection 1(1) comes into force, applies”; and -- Basically changing the text because of above modifications
(d) in clause 27, on page 9, by replacing line 1 with the following:
“27 (1) Subsections 1(1) and (7)”.- Basically changing the text because of above modifications

Kindly correct me if I am wrong but this looks like the correct FACT.

The only amendment I see is 183 days rule. Everything else stays i.e. :

• 3/5 stays
• pre-PR creadit stays
• intend to reside stays

 

[jackhcd]

Guys,

I just studied the amendments proposed and nowhere it says to remove 3/5 rule or physical residence credit before PR!It does, however, talk about reinstating minimum 183 days residence in the 4/6 years.

Look at the C6 Text here : www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e
Current Citizenship Act Text : laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html

Let me break the amendments proposed one by one :

That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended:
(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; -(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed. which means reinstating 183 days out of previous 6 years. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
(b)by deleting clause 8, on page 4; - go to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-6.html#docCont(Its something to do with citizenship revocation)
(c)in clause 14, on page 6, by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
“14 Paragraph 5(1)c) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the day on which subsection 1(1) comes into force, applies”; and -- Basically changing the text because of above modifications
(d) in clause 27, on page 9, by replacing line 1 with the following:
“27 (1) Subsections 1(1) and (7)”.- Basically changing the text because of above modifications

Kindly correct me if I am wrong but this looks like the correct FACT.

Greatly appreciate your effort in summarizing the proposed amendments!

 

[monalisa]

Greatly appreciate your effort in summarizing the proposed amendments!

He amendment will be defeated today once they vote , i am sure of it

 

[thejkhan]

He amendment will be defeated today once they vote , i am sure of it

What part of "FACTS ONLY" do you not understand?

 

[thejkhan]

Guys,

I just studied the amendments proposed and nowhere it says to remove 3/5 rule or physical residence credit before PR!It does, however, talk about reinstating minimum reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. It doesn't say anything about intent to reside.

So you are saying Senator Linda Frum is wrong? Check this tweet -- https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/852240592289619969

It says Conservative Senators are proposing amendment to keep 4/6 vs Liberal's 3/5.

 

[naturalca]

So you are saying Senator Linda Frum is wrong? Check this tweet -- https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/852240592289619969

It says Conservative Senators are proposing amendment to keep 4/6 vs Liberal's 3/5.

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.

 

[sistemc]

The fact is that Linda is well known socialite who never achieved anything in her life, or contribute anything new or meaningful to the community.

So it is very possible that she mess with her ammendments.

 

[robw]

Guys,

I just studied the amendments proposed and nowhere it says to remove 3/5 rule or physical residence credit before PR!It does, however, talk about reinstating minimum reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. It doesn't say anything about intent to reside.

Look at the C6 Text here : www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e
Current Citizenship Act Text : laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html

Let me break the amendments proposed one by one :

That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended:
(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; -(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed. which means reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
(b)by deleting clause 8, on page 4; - go to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-6.html#docCont(Basically the same as(a)(183 days/ year in 4 years)
(c)in clause 14, on page 6, by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
“14 Paragraph 5(1)c) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the day on which subsection 1(1) comes into force, applies”; and -- Basically changing the text because of above modifications
(d) in clause 27, on page 9, by replacing line 1 with the following:
“27 (1) Subsections 1(1) and (7)”.- Basically changing the text because of above modifications

Kindly correct me if I am wrong but this looks like the correct FACT.

The only amendment I see is 183 days rule. Everything else stays i.e. :

• 3/5 stays
• pre-PR creadit stays
• intend to reside stays

Interesting...so what was _MK_ talking about then? Maybe the 3/5 amendment will be coming after this one (should it be allowed by the speaker and go for a vote)? Frum's twitter account indicates that she is in fact opposed to 3/5.

Anyway, this wouldn't be the first time she behaves inconsistently. I remember her tweeting back in October of last year:

"Liberal Bill C6 (which does not allow for appeals in cases of false citizenship declarations) introduced in Feb and passed in June 2016"

And yet she opposed McCoy's amendment which addressed exactly the issue she raised in her tweet.