Bill C-6: Senate stage

[SufferInCan]

Lol you made me laugh ;D

As if you had voted for libs last year and next time youll not vote for them

If your already a citizen will you care about c6?

No I was not a citizen last year but I will be by next year, and I will not vote to a party that is playing with my life

 

[Whocares]

No I was not a citizen last year but I will be by next year, and I will not vote to a party that is playing with my life

Libs do not have the power in the senate, so don't blame them. The process was smooth in the HoC because of their power. The delay will affect me as well, but c6 is good for any immigrant...

 

[guddylover]

Libs do not have the power in the senate, so don't blame them. The process was smooth in the HoC because of their power. The delay will affect me as well, but c6 is good for any immigrant...

The process wasn't that smooth in the HOC, they spent 3 months passing the Bill to the Senste despite having a majority in the Commons. I strongly believe that Liberals have an agenda to repeal C-24, but they want to also delay the repeal somehow.

 

[Whocares]

The process wasn't that smooth in the HOC, they spent 3 months passing the Bill to the Senste despite having a majority in the Commons. I strongly believe that Liberals have an agenda to repeal C-24, but they want to also delay the repeal somehow.

If you check my previous comments, I have always said that this bill will never pass. I was not blaming the Libs but conservatives. So I do not totally disagree with you, this is politics and we will never understand it.

 

[captain74]

I strongly believe that Liberals have an agenda to repeal C-24, but they want to also delay the repeal somehow.

I suspect it is just plain incompetence on the part of Liberals - not a sinister motive - behind the delay!

 

[guddylover]

I suspect it is just plain incompetence on the part of Liberals - not a sinister motive - behind the delay!

I don't believe it's pure incompetence considering how they handled the assisted-dying Bill; it went all fast and smooth, they even stood their grounds when Senate tried to change/add some components.

 

[SufferInCan]

The process wasn't that smooth in the HOC, they spent 3 months passing the Bill to the Senste despite having a majority in the Commons. I strongly believe that Liberals have an agenda to repeal C-24, but they want to also delay the repeal somehow.

It is obvious that the delay is planned for, the proposed amendments were the last episode

 

[Joshua1]

I don't believe it's pure incompetence considering how they handled the assisted-dying Bill; it went all fast and smooth, they even stood their grounds when Senate tried to change/add some components.

Assisted - dying and bill c-6 are apples and oranges.
One is a politically correct bill that concerns Canadian citizens and the other has nothing to with "old-style" Canadians. So, quarreling with the gvt over bill c-6 is oxymoronic.

 

[_MK_]

Question for those in the know.

This bill repeals having to declare "intent to reside".
Currently if you apply for citizenship, you are required to stay in Canada for the duration of the application process. You can take vacations/business trips but if you have to make sure you do not do anything that can make the citizenship officer think you live somewhere else. Once you take the oath, it doesnt matter where you live.

Now, my question is before this rule was added by the previous government with C24, were people able to apply for citizenship and live somewhere else? I know you have to be present for the tests/interview/oath. Were you able to live/work out of Canada while your application was in process?

 

[screech339]

Question for those in the know.

This bill repeals having to declare "intent to reside".
Currently if you apply for citizenship, you are required to stay in Canada for the duration of the application process. You can take vacations/business trips but if you have to make sure you do not do anything that can make the citizenship officer think you live somewhere else. Once you take the oath, it doesnt matter where you live.

Now, my question is before this rule was added by the previous government with C24, were people able to apply for citizenship and live somewhere else? I know you have to be present for the tests/interview/oath. Were you able to live/work out of Canada while your application was in process?

As a Canadian, you are free to move out of Canada after you obtain citizenship. As you rightly pointed out, the "intend to reside" only applies to citizenship process only since the law only applies to PR. Once you are Canadian, the intend to reside clause no longer applies as you are no longer PR.

 

[screech339]

(f)in clause 27, on page 9, by adding after line 9 the following:

“(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”.

All the better that they delay the 3/5 rule implementation as close to 1 year after royal assent as possible. This way my wife's citizenship application won't get mixed in with the flood of applications after 3/5 kick in. My wife qualifies for citizenship this August 2017.

 

[itsmyid]

All the better that they delay the 3/5 rule implementation as close to 1 year after royal assent as possible. This way my wife's citizenship application won't get mixed in with the flood of applications after 3/5 kick in. My wife qualifies for citizenship this August 2017.

I remember someone repeatedly claiming in this thread " it doesn't matter how long my wife will have to wait to get the citizenship, since she will live here and when she gets the citizenship doesn't make any difference " that must be someone else, not you, right ?

 

[lithium002]

All the better that they delay the 3/5 rule implementation as close to 1 year after royal assent as possible. This way my wife's citizenship application won't get mixed in with the flood of applications after 3/5 kick in. My wife qualifies for citizenship this August 2017.

Self-serving, aren't we all?

Bill C-24 was basically designed to screw over folks who became PRs during or close to its royal assent, and Bill C-6 is ironically screwing over the same folks if it delays processing times once it reaches royal assent.

But hey, at least it's a step in the right directions for everyone. I'm focusing on the big picture in general at this point.

 

[_MK_]

As a Canadian, you are free to move out of Canada after you obtain citizenship. As you rightly pointed out, the "intend to reside" only applies to citizenship process only since the law only applies to PR. Once you are Canadian, the intend to reside clause no longer applies as you are no longer PR.

My question was regarding whether people were free to move during the application process before this "intent to reside" was introduced by the Harper government. I am quite familiar with current process.

 

[screech339]

I remember someone repeatedly claiming in this thread " it doesn't matter how long my wife will have to wait to get the citizenship, since she will live here and when she gets the citizenship doesn't make any difference " that must be someone else, not you, right ?

I have no issues with "when" a person qualifies. Some of the people seems to think the qualification period is the same as citizenship processing period. I happen to favour longer / tighter qualifications. The 4/6 rule seems to be a fair compromise. Citizenship processing timeline and Qualification timeline are two completely difference subject matter. If a person qualifies for citizenship whether it is 3 years, 4, years or even 10 years to qualify for citizenship, I do expect the citizenship process timeline to be reasonable and fair for everyone, regardless of when one "qualifies" for citizenship. So yes, I still stand by the following statement: "It is still true that it doesn't matter how long one person has to wait to "qualify" for citizenship when one person intends to make Canada his/her home." So it is not self serving or hypocritical as some may claim.

It is funny that those who wanted 3/5 rules to come into effect, now wants it delayed (to avoid the floodgate) since they would qualify under current rules and enjoy shorter processing time that the new rule brought in. Now that's ironic and perhaps hypocritical.