Bill C-6: Senate stage

[747-captain]

So next week at the third reading, Sen Omidvar is presenting the amendment.

http://www.hilltimes.com/2017/03/02/amending-govt-citizenship-bill-necessary-says-senate-sponsor-bill-c-6-omidvar/98340

AWESOME!!!!! Thank you for that link and the wonderful news! To say that I'm overjoyed is an understatement! I'm thrilled that this amendment has significant support among several liberals as well and most likely will be adopted!

Like some on here, I'm not as short-sighted when it comes to this bill. Yes, I'm all for the bill passing as quickly as possible, but more importantly, I don't want my citizenship (when I eventually do obtain it) to be a joke, that can be trampled upon at the will of one single immigration minister simply because he does not like my face or something :

I would much rather wait a few more months but have "bulletproof" protections if someone were to screw around with me for any reason that suits their fancy. Like, for instance, maybe an Immigration minister does not like the fact that I voted for the opposition party and simply makes trumped up (pardon the pun) charges against me, that I obtained my citizenship fraudulently!! : The amendment will provide due process protections against such blatant abuses!!

If I had my way, I would go much further and have it codified in the CONSTITUTION that anyone at risk of having their citizenship revoked would AUTOMATICALLY have the ability to have a hearing by the INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY and whatever they're being accused of has to be proven in a court of law!

 

[spyfy]

Guys, could you please stop all these guesses like "I think they will pass C-4 and C-6 together" or "I think they will need X sitting days". People who are joining this thread might read this and take it for serious. Truth is, we have no clue and these guesses just bring hopes up and down. This is turning into a "I think next week, the ITA points will be 457" situation here. And there's enough of these random guesses in the EE forum already.

Stick to the facts. Unless you've been following detailed Senate procedure for a decade (and I assume no one here has done that) your guess is simply that: a random number you like or a bet you want to make.

I'm not talking about the next steps. It definitely makes sense to inform people about these. But all these "X days until..." or "I think they'll pass it by Canada Day". I mean, come on.

 

[AmirATM]

Guys, could you please stop all these guesses like "I think they will pass C-4 and C-6 together" or "I think they will need X sitting days". People who are joining this thread might read this and take it for serious. Truth is, we have no clue and these guesses just bring hopes up and down. This is turning into a "I think next week, the ITA points will be 457" situation here. And there's enough of these random guesses in the EE forum already.

Stick to the facts. Unless you've been following detailed Senate procedure for a decade (and I assume no one here has done that) your guess is simply that: a random number you like or a bet you want to make.

I'm not talking about the next steps. It definitely makes sense to inform people about these. But all these "X days until..." or "I think they'll pass it by Canada Day". I mean, come on.

What about closing this thread completely then? since everyone here knows where to get official information, does that suits your understanding to what people should say and not say? easy man we just chatting and sharing ideas here and its all good and beneficial. if someone just take an information from a forum and based his decision upon i could say he is acting stupid.

 

[spyfy]

What about closing this thread completely then? since everyone here knows where to get official information, does that suits your understanding to what people should say and not say? easy man we just chatting and sharing ideas here and its all good and beneficial. if someone just take an information from a forum and based his decision upon i could say he is acting stupid.

There is some great posts in here, e.g. some posts by other members reporting about the committee meeting, explaining the legislation process. Of course you can post what you want, I'm just asking not to post these random guesses. I mostly don't like how people don't distinguish between their own guesses and source-based stuff that, for instance, is based on quotes by senators and therefore way more reliable.

But there is many post chains like this: "I think XXX" - "Where do you have that from did they say that in the meeting?" - "No but it's my guess".

For instance, yesterday I put a lot of effort into explaining what was said in the committee and what they ANNOUNCED in the committee what kind of things are going to happen. Then some other person just posts random guesses about timelines. So from the perspective of someone who comes here to get information, how are they supposed to distinguish? Like if they have to fact-check everything themselves then in fact you could close this thread.

I'm not saying that I'm the only one posting fact-based info here. In fact there are others who posted great summaries of the next steps or particular parts of Bill C-6. But it's just frustrating if you put that effort into an informative post and then it just gets lost between ten "me wanna guess some stuff" posts. Cause no one will read it and/or take it seriously.

Also I don't think that everyone here "knows where to get official information". The purpose of this whole forum is in fact that those who know where to get it (cause they've been through the whole thing) help those who don't know where to get it. I doubt that everyone in this thread knows about openparliament.ca, legisINFO, where to find the committee schedules, how to find the official twitter accounts of the relevant senators, ...

By all means, I'm not the moderator here. Post what you want. I merely asked to keep the guesses down a bit

Example (not that this exactly would happen): If someone asks in a Forum "How many years do I have to stay in Canada to meet RO?" and then I post "two out of five years" which I know from the CIC website, but someone else posts "I think it's three out of five" just because they guess it without being informed, it confuses the OP and my effort is for nothing. It's the job of the "guesser" not to post something.

 

[AmirATM]

There is some great posts in here, e.g. some posts by other members reporting about the committee meeting, explaining the legislation process. Of course you can post what you want, I'm just asking not to post these random guesses. I mostly don't like how people don't distinguish between their own guesses and source-based stuff that, for instance, is based on quotes by senators and therefore way more reliable.

But there is many post chains like this: "I think XXX" - "Where do you have that from did they say that in the meeting?" - "No but it's my guess".

For instance, yesterday I put a lot of effort into explaining what was said in the committee and what they ANNOUNCED in the committee what kind of things are going to happen. Then some other person just posts random guesses about timelines. So from the perspective of someone who comes here to get information, how are they supposed to distinguish? Like if they have to fact-check everything themselves then in fact you could close this thread.

I'm not saying that I'm the only one posting fact-based info here. In fact there are others who posted great summaries of the next steps or particular parts of Bill C-6. But it's just frustrating if you put that effort into an informative post and then it just gets lost between ten "me wanna guess some stuff" posts. Cause no one will read it and/or take it seriously.

Also I don't think that everyone here "knows where to get official information". The purpose of this whole forum is in fact that those who know where to get it (cause they've been through the whole thing) help those who don't know where to get it. I doubt that everyone in this thread knows about openparliament.ca, legisINFO, where to find the committee schedules, how to find the official twitter accounts of the relevant senators, ...

By all means, I'm not the moderator here. Post what you want. I merely asked to keep the guesses down a bit

I agree that the quality of posts varies tremendously - there are hopes, guesses, and analytical evaluations which is not given to everyone, I personally can only guess but i also can distinguish between a wishful thinking, and proper information as you posted - anyway keep us posted, and i am very optimistic about this bill as I always said .

 

[AmirATM]

I know this question should not be posted here but I do apologize and i hope i could get an answer

I am renewing my PR card soon and I reckoned that i shall fill travel history in the application, however, is it required the travel history only from or to Canada or ALL travel history within other countries? As I stayed most of 2 years and half after becoming a PR outside Canada, I have all travel history in and out of Canada within these 2 and half years, do i have to fill travels between other countries within the two and half years or I will just give the travel from Canada to my old country of residence and from my old country of residence to Canada?
Thanks you in advance

 

[Halameh]

For every day during which the applicant was physically present in Canada as a temporary resident (worker, student, visitor, protected person) before becoming a permanent resident, the applicant accumulates half of a day of physical presence, up to a maximum of 365 days of credited time.

Is there a time limit for this requirement?? For example if I was an international student from 2002 to 2007.... i left Canada in 2008 and came back as PR in 2015. Do I still count a maximum of 365 days of physical presence?

 

[MarceauBletard]

Guys, be very careful.
Senator Jaffer tweets A LOT about C6 AND C16! IT'S VERY CONFUSING!
For example, when talking about next Tuesday, she was talking about C16, NOT C6!
I just realized this!

Bill C-16: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8269852
Her tweets about C-16:
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837387121409343492
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837389961779372032
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837389961779372032

As you can see, C-16 was on 2nd reading on March 2nd, some of us got confused on twitter!

 

[Konan1982]

Guys, could you please stop all these guesses like "I think they will pass C-4 and C-6 together" or "I think they will need X sitting days". People who are joining this thread might read this and take it for serious. Truth is, we have no clue and these guesses just bring hopes up and down. This is turning into a "I think next week, the ITA points will be 457" situation here. And there's enough of these random guesses in the EE forum already.

Stick to the facts. Unless you've been following detailed Senate procedure for a decade (and I assume no one here has done that) your guess is simply that: a random number you like or a bet you want to make.

I'm not talking about the next steps. It definitely makes sense to inform people about these. But all these "X days until..." or "I think they'll pass it by Canada Day". I mean, come on.

Man, can you do me a favor bitte?
Just DM when law will pass 3/5..
I will owe you a coffee
Machst gut

 

[subha_1962]

Senator Jaffer definitely thinks that C 6 will be in Senate on Tuesday. This is from her twitter account

Tobi Dreher‏ @Tobi_ICE
@SenJaffer I checked the notice paper for the 7th and Bill #C6 is not on it. Do you have any updates?
Sen. Mobina Jaffer‏Verified account @SenJaffer 4h4 hours ago
@Tobi_ICE On Tuesday it will be on the order paper. The chair will report on Tuesday #C6 #senCa

 

[tyl92]

Guys, be very careful.
Senator Jaffer tweets A LOT about C6 AND C16! IT'S VERY CONFUSING!
For example, when talking about next Tuesday, she was talking about C16, NOT C6!
I just realized this!

Bill C-16: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8269852
Her tweets about C-16:
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837387121409343492
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837389961779372032
https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/837389961779372032

As you can see, C-16 was on 2nd reading on March 2nd, some of us got confused on twitter!

no she just got it wrong with the numbers since on one of her posts she said the committee is done with the bill and is back to the chamber and c16 is not even dealt with at the committee yet

 

[Richard11]

hi guys is pre-PR credit come to affect right way after Bill c-6 come to Law? who knows exactly please answer?

 

[punk]

hi guys is pre-PR credit come to affect right way after Bill c-6 come to Law? who knows exactly please answer?

Yes, it will

 

[molotoff1984]

Yes, it will

That's interesting. Could you elaborate on why?

 

[noba el king]

Anyone knows the next meeting for Senate?