Bill C-6, current status, FACTS only

[_MK_]

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(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; -(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed.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

I did not look at the text of the amendment. However based on the other senator's speech, the three things I mentioned are part of the amendment. So perhaps you have some misunderstanding on the wording/text of the amendment or all the senators dont know how to read amendments.

 

[robw]

I did not look at the text of the amendment. However based on the other senator's speech, the three things I mentioned are part of the amendment. So perhaps you have some misunderstanding on the wording/text of the amendment or all the senators dont know how to read amendments.

The wording is pretty clear and senators won't argue for amendments that are a couple of lines long without knowing what they say. Are you sure they were speaking about this particular amendment? Perhaps 3/5 is part of a future amendment? Is there a transcript of the debate available?

 

[_MK_]

The wording is pretty clear and senators won't argue for amendments that are a couple of lines long without knowing what they say. Are you sure they were speaking about this particular amendment? Perhaps 3/5 is part of a future amendment? Is there a transcript of the debate available?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/421/Debates/112db_2017-04-12-e.htm?Language=E

 

[razerblade]

The wording is pretty clear and senators won't argue for amendments that are a couple of lines long without knowing what they say. Are you sure they were speaking about this particular amendment? Perhaps 3/5 is part of a future amendment? Is there a transcript of the debate available?

let's take this discussion to the other long C6 thread.

Based on Frum's tweet, I'm certain her intention is to amend 3/5 to 4/6.

Senator Linda Frum‏Verified account
@LindaFrum

Follow
More
In Canada Liberals want to drop residency requirement to only 3 years before being granted citizenship. Why? What is evidence-based reason?

https://twitter.com/LindaFrum/status/852243617011957761

 

[Montreal101]

The positive thing about yesterday's sitting is C-4 which is another controversial bill had passed 3rd reading in the senate to HOC (with amendments of course) as per the agreed schedule announced by Harder let's see if C-6 will meet the deadline which which is 1st week of May

 

[robw]

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/421/Debates/112db_2017-04-12-e.htm?Language=E

Thanks. Okay, so here are the relevant parts of her speech:


"Bill C-6 proposes to change the current law, which requires that a permanent resident be physically present in Canada four out of six years before the date of application. Bill C-6 proposes that this be reduced to only three out of five years. And the government further proposes to weaken residency rules by completely eliminating the current requirement of being physically present for 183 days in Canada during each of the four to six years." -> So here, she's railing about BOTH the 3/5 rule and the elimination of the 183 day rule


"Honourable senators, the amendment I am proposing focuses on residency requirements. Unfortunately, the proposals in Bill C-6 regarding residency requirements reduce the value placed on Canadian citizenship and serve to undermine the goals of learning, appreciating and building closer ties.

If Bill C-6 passes, Canada will have one of the shortest residency wait times in the world. And this is further compounded by eliminating the 183-days-per-year requirement under the current system for being physically present."

She concludes by saying "This motion today seeks to maintain the current residency requirements that a permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of the four years of six years before applying for citizenship." -> The keyword here is "today"

and then she lists the amendment bullet points.


Based on this, your assessment that this amendment was meant to roll back 3/5, intent to reside, and the 183 day requirement was wrong; it only addresses the last one...for now. I think we can conclude from this speech, however, that Frum and Eaton are rationing the amendments to maximize delay to the bill, starting with the most benign amendment and then moving on to the more aggressive ones. There can be little doubt that the 3/5 amendment is forthcoming, though perhaps from a different conservative senator.

Should the amendment get struck down by the speaker today (unlikely), this could be a catalyst for expedition to a third reading. Otherwise, we wait for the vote and further amendments as they come along.

 

[spyfy]

I suggest to everyone to simply wait on what will happen to this amendment in the Senate today before getting so involved in its details.

It is, as has been pointed out by Senators yesterday, in fact inconsistent regarding it's changes. So much even that C-6 would have some contradictory statements.

 

[sistemc]

Speaker is now discussing Linda's amendments.

Uhhh, long discussion.

 

[proudian]

i think point of order is accepted, can anyone confirm??

 

[sistemc]

Correct Linda's amendments are in order.

But speaker also said that her amendments does not touch 3/5, and do not introduce 4/6. Just enforce 183 days in 4/6.

 

[proudian]

No they have to vote whether amendment is acceptable or not

 

[spyfy]

The amendment has been ruled to be in order. This means they will now debate the amendment and maybe (!) also vote on the amendment today.

Just to clarify: It has only be ruled that is was ok to suggest the amendment. The amendment still needs to be voted in favour of to be actually part of the bill.

 

[proudian]

Can you clarify that does this amendment includes 4/6 years stay?

The amendment has been ruled to be in order. This means they will now debate the amendment and maybe (!) also vote on the amendment today.

Just to clarify: It has only be ruled that is was ok to suggest the amendment. The amendment still needs to be voted in favour of to be actually part of the bill.

 

[proudian]

What is the vote about?

 

[fenomenalb]

Fact: The gentleman who just spoke gave us a shout out. Apparently the government and senate have not forgotten about us.