Bill C-6: Senate stage

[admontreal]

I don't think there is an issue with the discussion screech and admontreal are having. It is quite interesting to read both sides of the coin. The reason the other thread was deleted is because certain users were using condescending and offensive language. As long as the users are respecting each other then there should be no issue. We should just agree to disagree No one is right nor wrong here, each individual has a different way of analyzing matters, and is free to express the opinions with a respectful manner; and this is the beauty of the country we all want to become citizens of.

Thank you marcher ! Very well said

 

[marcher]

100% Agreed ! They tried to do some kind of 'Omnibus' bill for citizenship but it doesn't seem to work. Moreover, when the NDP tried to add some amendments they were ruled 'Out of scope', where's the scope in the first place ?

You know these politician games are dirty, and that is why most of us prefer to read about them on the news, and only participate on voting days. Sadly all of us here are actively involved now because the actions of these politicians are affecting our daily life and plans. I know for a fact that I would never want to be a politician, even if I was given a Senate's salary and pension for practically doing nothing. I cannot live with the idea that the vast majority of the population looks at me with contempt and disdain!

 

[tyl92]

i'm just gathering some of your thoughts ..actually with 2 questions
if you were asked the reasons why bill c6 can't get through .. what would you say ? and what could be done in order to create some influence ?
we can't talk about , for instance , the existence of the senate because we all know that is not something we do have control on . Let's focus on what we have control on and we'll assess the results of such actions . Everyone out here has its own reasons and opinions ...
thanks for sharing

 

[deerestlovelybear]

i'm just gathering some of your thoughts ..actually with 2 questions
if you were asked the reasons why bill c6 can't get through .. what would you say ? and what could be done in order to create some influence ?
we can't talk about , for instance , the existence of the senate because we all know that is not something we do have control on . Let's focus on what we have control on and we'll assess the results of such actions . Everyone out here has its own reasons and opinions ...
thanks for sharing

Just one reason: MONSEF CASE

 

[admontreal]

I don't think a decision as big as abolishing the Senate would be done through a bill. They are the last group anyone would consider listening to when it comes to that subject . I think it would require the approval of provinces and territories (or a certain percentage of them); and probably a major referendum. It is a nice idea, but it will never happen.

That's what I thought. There was a very interesting debate on the question during Harper's era. It would be hilarious to see them discuss such bill though. They would adjourn the debate every minute.

By the way, speaking of the Senate, the Finance Committee and its Conservative majority amended the Tax Cuts bill last week. Let's see what happens to it.

 

[marcher]

the bill is skipped

This is expected, Senator Frum adjourned the discussion last night, she wouldn't have had enough time to prepare her speech for today. I'd give her a bit more time to prepare the same recycled Conservative speeches. This discussion is hitting a brick wall now; the only ones who can move on with this bill are its creators the Liberals, and they are obviously letting it die but not defending it at all. I bet Sen Omidvar must be frustrated with the lack of Liberal support for their own Bill.

 

[admontreal]

i'm just gathering some of your thoughts ..actually with 2 questions
if you were asked the reasons why bill c6 can't get through .. what would you say ? and what could be done in order to create some influence ?
we can't talk about , for instance , the existence of the senate because we all know that is not something we do have control on . Let's focus on what we have control on and we'll assess the results of such actions . Everyone out here has its own reasons and opinions ...
thanks for sharing

Sorry to be so cynical but we can't control anything except our vote in 2019. Or run for office in 2019 (to replace McCallum).

 

[tyl92]

was not talking about making a political move .. talking about something we do have control on .. for some it'll be patience .. for others it'll be concrete actions , for example contacting the press or writing to the senators

 

[admontreal]

was not talking about making a political move .. talking about something we do have control on .. for some it'll be patience .. for others it'll be concrete actions , for example contacting the press or writing to the senators

Unfortunately, the People of Canada don't have any interest in this Bill. For them it's always about Immigrants willing to jump the line or take advantage of Canadians generosity. So if it gets any media attention it would be one article or two on Postmedia with some heinous comments from bigots and people will move one.
I wrote to every possible senator and MP. I got only two responses (from Sen. Omidvar and MP Jenny Kwan) where the trend was 'we are doing our best, the legislative process can be lenghty.
In both cases, our intervention wouldn't change much. Again, unfortunately.

The last option I see is to contact BCCLA who took the government to court over the constitutionality of C-24. They stalled their procedures waiting for the bill to pass. They could give us some hints on the information they have regarding the timing of the bill's passing.

 

[tyl92]

for myself , i don't think that it will pass , at least anytime soon and as someone suggested they should have proposed 2 bills separately one dealing with basic citizenship requirements like the 3/5 rule or pre pr credit and the other one which would have been more detailed regarding citizenship revocation which is an important question that requires a lot of research and consultations . They created a generic bill , blocked somewhere and with a lot of questions unanswered for .
They're just stalling and avoiding it , until it'd die at a certain point . A lot of very relevant questions were raised during committee sessions and they never came with solutions .

 

[marcher]

Unfortunately, the People of Canada don't have any interest in this Bill. For them it's always about Immigrants willing to jump the line or take advantage of Canadians generosity. So if it gets any media attention it would be one article or two on Postmedia with some heinous comments from bigots and people will move one.
I wrote to every possible senator and MP. I got only two responses (from Sen. Omidvar and MP Jenny Kwan) where the trend was 'we are doing our best, the legislative process can be lenghty.
In both cases, our intervention wouldn't change much. Again, unfortunately.

The last option I see is to contact BCCLA who took the government to court over the constitutionality of C-24. They stalled their procedures waiting for the bill to pass. They could give us some hints on the information they have regarding the timing of the bill's passing.

Very true, we can just sit and watch, none of the actions we make will really change much. Keep in mind, this government has a law in place (C-24) to discriminate among Canadian citizens; so imagine where we fall as PRs in the list? If you are guessing, way down the list is the answer. The public does not care so it would be difficult to get mainstream media coverage of the topic. If anything, the public would prefer tougher laws than C-24. Our voices are also very weak in politician ears because they only care about voters. We will eventually become voters one day, but their allegiance is to their present constituents; when it comes to us, it is more I will cross that bridge when I get to it kind of concept.It is all doom or gloom? Of course not, we are already Canadian PRs, and enjoy most of the rights and opportunities of other Canadians.

To be fair, we all applied before and went through the IRCC system, patience is the keyword. We will just have to wait longer, as eventually we will all become Canadian.

 

[Karioca]

I lost the meeting today, but just saw here in the group he didn't say anything, right? How many times can she keep skipping it?

 

[screech339]

You and admontreal both make interesting points, I agree with some and disagree with others. But regarding the traffic fines, I am assuming admontreal does not literally mean traffic fines. It could be other incidents that the government decides to classify as terrorist acts; for example obstruction of mining projects by demonstrations by pro-environment people. The point is with such a rule existing, a dual citizen's freedoms and rights are challenged and the dual citizenship status is used against him or her. You bring up treason, which is a different category of crime. My suggestion is to classify terrorist acts aimed at hurting Canadians and national security as a type of treason. That is for the Courts to decide though.There are good arguments for both sides of the debate; my major issue is why include the residency clause and other minor clauses in C-6. If there was a bill just for 3/5 rule, then it would have been implemented ages ago; I doubt anyone would have opposed it.

The clause was added to discourage people from applying for citizenship on their way to airport only to come back for test and oath. So unless you got a better way of stopping people from applying for citizenship on way to airport. Under the old rule, nothing is preventing them to getting citizenship. They will get it in the long run. With the residency clause added, they will not get citizenship as they cannot wait it out outside canada at all. They have to actually reside inside canada until citizenship.

 

[admontreal]

The clause was added to discourage people from applying for citizenship on their way to airport only to come back for test and oath. So unless you got a better way of stopping people from applying for citizenship on way to airport. Under the old rule, nothing is preventing them to getting citizenship. They will get it in the long run. With the residency clause added, they will not get citizenship as they cannot wait it out outside canada at all. They have to actually reside inside canada until citizenship.

The way it's written suggests more than 'residing in Canada until you get it' (which makes sense). It is broad and ambiguous and should be removed.

 

[marcher]

The clause was added to discourage people from applying for citizenship on their way to airport only to come back for test and oath. So unless you got a better way of stopping people from applying for citizenship on way to airport. Under the old rule, nothing is preventing them to getting citizenship. They will get it in the long run. With the residency clause added, they will not get citizenship as they cannot wait it out outside canada at all. They have to actually reside inside canada until citizenship.

I think you are referring to the intent to reside clause? I did not say anything about that. Correct me if I am wrong please. If that is the case, I agree with intent to reside while the application is processed; but not to apply it to the rest of the individual's life. The clause is not very clear on this matter. There should never be a law threatening to revoke a citizenship of anyone who might decide moving later in his or her life to another country. Like 'old stock' Canadians, new Canadians seek the best opportunities for them and their families, and if they happen to be abroad, then they should be free to go seek them.
I know the clause is meant to deal with situations like that of the Lebanese Canadians that cost Canada millions; and many other Canadians of different origins that become Canadian for the sole purpose of getting a better job in the gulf countries. These are two groups of fraudulent deceptive individuals, and they should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not set a law that restricts the freedom of movement of any future citizen. I think probably there should be more tightening and filtering at PR application level for that matter. At citizenship level, we have to keep in mind that IRCC mixes all kinds of applicants in the same pot. Citizenship applicants come from different backgrounds, skilled immigrants, students, spouses of Canadian citizens ..etc. Many countries have different residency and other requirements based on the group one belongs to.