Bill C-6, Messages between the HoC and the Senate, FACTS ONLY

[wolfpack27616]

Hi Spyfy- The other thread got locked before I could thank you and other members for posting updates and showing restraint from speculating.

I kept off the forums until yesterday evening, and that really helped in not getting too worked up.

I hope members continue to refrain from speculating and debating in this thread, since there's still a lot of uncertainty in terms of how fast things would proceed from here on.

 

[imran01]

spyfy.. thanks for the useful info.. +1

 

[monaf9]

Thanks A lot Sir

 

[civilengr]

Hi I have a question:

What are the amendments about?
- There are three amendments which were accepted. I won't talk about the ones that were voted down because, well, they don't matter anymore Smiley
- The first amendment allows people who get their citizenship taken away because of alleged fraud in the application to appeal to a court before their citizenship is actually revoked.
- The second amendment changes the age for language requirement to 18-60.
- The third amendment allows minors to apply for citizenship even if their parents are not Canadian citizens and even if they don't apply at the same time as their children (a typical case would be a refugee child whose parents aren't with them anymore)


Referring to above, the residency requirement 3-5 will not be accepted even if the bill will be passed by HoC? Sorry I am not very intelligent if this doesn't come across an appropriate question.

 

[spyfy]

Dear Spyfy,

+1 for you and a I'll buy you a coffee if you reside in Vancouver or visit in future
Very well explained. All doubts are cleared.

Thanks and God bless you.

Cheers.

I'll keep it in mind for my next visit to the West Coast, thanks!

 

[spyfy]

Hi I have a question:

What are the amendments about?
- There are three amendments which were accepted. I won't talk about the ones that were voted down because, well, they don't matter anymore Smiley
- The first amendment allows people who get their citizenship taken away because of alleged fraud in the application to appeal to a court before their citizenship is actually revoked.
- The second amendment changes the age for language requirement to 18-60.
- The third amendment allows minors to apply for citizenship even if their parents are not Canadian citizens and even if they don't apply at the same time as their children (a typical case would be a refugee child whose parents aren't with them anymore)


Referring to above, the residency requirement 3-5 will not be accepted even if the bill will be passed by HoC? Sorry I am not very intelligent if this doesn't come across an appropriate question.

No worries, this is a complicated business!

The bill consists of two parts, basically: The first part is the original version as passed by the house of commons. That part includes, among other things, the 3/5 rule. The second part is the amendments that are listed above.

If the HoC and Senate agree on a version of the bill, no matter if with or without amendments, the original content of the bill that includes 3/5 will still come into force. Maybe, depending on the outcome, some of the amendments ALSO come into force. But again, that doesn't change that all the original provisions are still there. In the Senate, they were discussing amendments that would have affected these original provisions, but they were all defeated. The only change that might happen is regarding 55 or 60 being the upper limit for language requirement.

If this bill passes, 3/5 will come. The only way 3/5 won't come is if this bill doesn't pass at all in any form from now on. The 3/5 is now an unchangeable part of the bill because it passed third reading in both chambers without being amended.

I hope that cleared things up.

 

[Chrome]

Excellent post!

Thank you, Spyfy!

 

[spyfy]

Thank you very much. This was the best info anyone could find.
Is it decided that when HoC will start discussing on it ?
Can we know before a day or something ? How will we know when they will be discussing about c6 ?

As usual, I recommend not to check and check the progress every single day. It's not good for your mental health

But if you want to, you can check the projected business of the HoC every single day and wait for C-6 to show up:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=projected&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

 

[naturalca]

As usual, I recommend not to check and check the progress every single day. It's not good for your mental health

But if you want to, you can check the projected business of the HoC every single day and wait for C-6 to show up:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=projected&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1

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

 

[mqadri]

What about adult application fees ? In last bill it was increase from $100 to $630.
Is there any clause in new bill to reduce it?

 

[spyfy]

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

Give it some time. Even the journal of the Senate was just published like two hours ago. It's not like they are working 24/7 on parliament hill to update all the documents online.

 

[Sa3Sa3]

+1

Thx

 

[links18]

What are the amendments about?
- There are three amendments which were accepted. I won't talk about the ones that were voted down because, well, they don't matter anymore
- The first amendment allows people who get their citizenship taken away because of alleged fraud in the application to appeal to a court before their citizenship is actually revoked.
- The second amendment changes the age for language requirement to 18-60.
- The third amendment allows minors to apply for citizenship even if their parents are not Canadian citizens and even if they don't apply at the same time as their children (a typical case would be a refugee child whose parents aren't with them anymore)

Which court? Which party would have the burden of proof and what is the standard? Beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud occurred? Preponderance of the evidence? IRCC has a reasonable basis to conclude fraud occurred? Etc.

 

[spyfy]

Which court? Which party would have the burden of proof and what is the standard? Beyond a reasonable doubt that fraud occurred? Preponderance of the evidence? IRCC has a reasonable basis to conclude fraud occurred? Etc.

If you scroll to "Government Business" on this page you can read the amendment
https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/104jr_2017-03-09-e

 

[vanmover]

Spyfy! You are the best!

Are they also scrapping the current 183 days out of each 'resident' year requirement? I believe that was the original plan, but I haven't heard that mentioned.