I mean, I am also 100% in favaour of this bill...but i dont understand how it is playing with the lives of Canadian residents...I am also a Canadian Resident...They are far more pressing issues than Bill C-6...patience is virtue.sistemc said:
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
Perhaps a bit dramatically put...but the delay is keeping lots of people in a state of limbo - and in that sense - not helping people take decisions they could take if the bill was either passed or rejected (in either case there would be clarity). That has a big impact on people's lives.MonzB said:
The delay is frustrating, and that the delay seems to be due to incompetence of liberals and gamesmanship of conservatives is just unacceptable!
So far the 3rd reading has been delayed by two amendments - both of those amendments were proposed by independent senators appointed by Trudeau. Those amendments gave conservatives an opportunity to delay, and it would be stupid for them not to use such an opportunity. It's the 'job' of opposition to cause 'troubles' for the government (regardless of which party controls the government).sistemc said:
Each new amendment -> new debate -> each senator is allowed to speak again -> more delay from our (future citizens) perspective.
The only option (in my opinion) to fast-track the bill is to abandon all the amendments, and just focus on the bill itself. Let's be honest, Omidvar's amendment is a huge one, and it should have been a separate bill - it would have probably taken them another year to pass it, but I doubt that many people would be affected by it. Someone posted some revocation stats here a while ago - under 200 people faced citizenship revocation; compare this number to the number of people affected by C-24/C-6. I'm not saying that those people do not deserve an appeal process, but the amendment is not going to help them in any way because their cases are processed under the previous law.
Similarly, the language requirement amendment - it will not affect many people in the time frame one year (time needed to pass it as a separate bill).
Honestly, this is the argument I cannot understand at all. It looks like people trying to cover more 'selfish' reasons, such as convenience of Canadian passport. And there is nothing wrong about such 'selfish' reasons, but I think we need to stop painting C-24/C-6 as life defining bills.Joshua1 said:
"Many people have businesses outside of Canada" - first, 'many' is a very vague concept. How does this number compare to the # of PRs? Why are 'many' PRs have business outside of Canada; when we were immigrating, our intention had to be to reside IN Canada.
"They need to have the freedom of movement" - nothing stops those people from travelling. Residency obligation is not a restriction on your ability to travel, it's a part of the 'contract' between a person and Canada.
Anybody (or any group) who has the capability to get all amendments abandoned, should also have the capability to push through all the amendments (get them voted down) and get the overall bill voted upon.vasyok said:
The sad part is: there appears to be no one in charge of organization of effort! Harder needs to pull up his socks!
One of my friends did refugee claims in Canada so he cannot return to his country of origin (as he posses a refugee travel document). So getting a Canadian passport and visiting there or any 3rd country where his parents can join seem the only option.captain74 said:
He tried 2-3 times to get visa for his old parents who live back home in hope to meet them. Bill C-24 delayed his eligibility to apply by 2 years (Mid 2016 vs. in 2018).
His mom passed away last year... and now his dad and siblings are counting days to meet their only son. Also they dont have that much financial means to keep applying for super visa or visitor visa again and again...
Every person has his or her unique situation. So yes in a way it is playing with life of people.
Now his mother passed away, and his dad and siblings are counting days for family r
For "many" people it may well be life defining.vasyok said:
Those who have been unemployed or underemployed in Canada for four years before completing the physical residence requirement would say this is life defining - income levels after all do define the standard of living one can enjoy (not even getting into professional satisfaction that is often very important for the mental well being of highly qualified, but underemployed, individuals)
They may wish to pick up jobs elsewhere while still intending to live in Canada long term and perhaps even having their family continue to live in Canada while they work abroad from time to time. It is important to note that this is often because they are un/underemployed in Canada - not because they want to exploit Canada by being Canadians of Convenience or whatever.
The additional delay to passing of this bill is just keeping them in the un/underemployed state for longer. I can't see how this benefits anybody (including Canada).
Being new to parliamentary politics, I am curious....razerblade said:
Would the group of Liberal Senators who are attempting to stall bills in this manner need to hold a potential majority vote (or at least a majority by consensus with independents and Cons crossing the party line)? Was this the case during C-24 debate? If there was majority support for C-24 during the Senate debate, would it have made any sense to use this same tactic given the inevitable outcome?