+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Bill C-6: Senate stage

Inlandoct2014

Star Member
Jan 13, 2016
68
1
Category........
Visa Office......
CPC Mississauga
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
AOR Received.
Oct 2, 2014
File Transfer...
SA, AIP : Jan 14, 2016
Med's Request
Jan 6, 2016
Med's Done....
Jan 9, 2016
Interview........
DM: FEB 4, 2016
LANDED..........
March 16, 2016
Is there any meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow?
 

torontosm

Champion Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,677
261
itsmyid said:
Where did you get that from? this is only April, and you are already claiming 'this year'? And more illegal crossing over border doesn't count as more immigrants
Well, the standard immigration streams are at the same levels as last year, while others such as refugees has been increased:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1145319

And yes, I'm claiming "this year" because quotas are established at the beginning of the year, not at the end.
 

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,356
Inlandoct2014 said:
Is there any meeting scheduled for today or tomorrow?
Bookmark these links:

SenCa Calendar
https://www.sencanada.ca/en/calendar/

Senate Sitting Live Audio
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/

Yes, there is a meeting today.
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
torontosm said:
Well, the standard immigration streams are at the same levels as last year, while others such as refugees has been increased:

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1145319

And yes, I'm claiming "this year" because quotas are established at the beginning of the year, not at the end.
yeah, as if the residency requirement would have any effect on refugees
and an established 'quota' ... that sounds more like a plan, not what actually already happened
 

torontosm

Champion Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,677
261
itsmyid said:
yeah, as if the residency requirement would have any effect on refugees
and an established 'quota' ... that sounds more like a plan, not what actually already happened
Fine, we can resume this conversation next year and in the event that immigration levels are less than the quota, I will apologize. But given this hasn't happened to date, and application numbers are typically higher than PR visas awarded, I don't understand why you are pointlessly arguing.
 

Confused in Montreal

Star Member
Oct 20, 2011
68
10
torontosm said:
10 years is a bit excessive. As I posted, these changes bring Canadian citizenship rules more in line with those of other Western countries.

As for making Canada less attractive as an immigration destination, the change from 3 to 4 years had zero impact on Canada's attractiveness. There are more immigrants coming in this year than ever before. So, obviously minor changes in citizenship qualification time do not deter those who are looking at Canada as a long term destination.
Hmmmm. As I earlier mentioned in one of the posts, how about making PRs at par with citizens for govt. jobs as many are more qualified than the citizens. By the time the citizenship comes, the recruiter says, Oh Gosh, you are amazing! You got tons of experience, but we are only hiring fresh passouts, wish you would have applied then. Well I did but it was returned back as I was not a citizen. Hmm, food for thought. Every person's story is different, hence strengthening blah blah, please. Look at US, they hire international graduates from their universities and give them green card and waive J1 home return rule etc etc if a govt agency shows interest in hiring that person. It's merit based. So any thoughts about following that system? Why do you think US is a powerhouse of R&D and innovation and takes in more immigrants, permanent and workers, than Canada. Well let's keep it to C6 and maybe write a blog or tweet to express personal opinions. Writing to con caucus and con senators is another way of expression.
 

Confused in Montreal

Star Member
Oct 20, 2011
68
10
torontosm said:
Fine, we can resume this conversation next year and in the event that immigration levels are less than the quota, I will apologize. But given this hasn't happened to date, and application numbers are typically higher than PR visas awarded, I don't understand why you are pointlessly arguing.
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B009CA92Q2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1


This book examines the value of a PhD in Canada from a broad perspective and is written in a format suitable for a wide audience: professionals, business executives, governments and policy makers. It is presented through self-explanatory charts.

The book dispels the conventional wisdom that the highest possible education is always rewarded. Earnings of PhDs in Canada are very close to those with a Masters; their unemployment rate is even higher, quite opposite of their counterparts in the United States and OECD countries. A government report shows that a good number of them are driving taxies.

There are three main reasons for the deplorable state of Canada's PhDs: declining academic positions due to continued budget cuts (universities being the main employer), antipathy of politicians who are decision makers in governments (the second major employer) toward facts and research, and the continuing risk-averse, traditional outlook of the Canadian business sector.

Canada's private sector is at the bottom among competing OECD countries when it comes to R&D activities. It hires only 4% PhDs compared to the 42% hired by the private sector in the United States. Canada's economy is still predominantly resource based, as it was in the last century. About 60% of Canada's manufacturing and 70% of its top ten exports are resource related -- areas of the economy where there is hardly a need for PhDs.

Future outlook for PhDs is not expected to be different. It is due to shrinking full time faculty positions, aversion of political masters towards science and research and mindset of private sector to be content with the continued traditional primary and resource based economic activities.
About the Author
Dr. Mahmood Iqbal is a visiting scholar at the department of Economics, Carleton University, Canada. His work experience includes nearly 20 years of service at the Conference Board of Canada. He specializes in inter-disciplinary areas of economic policy research, and is the author of more than 35 published reports and 25 articles.

Please do read
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
torontosm said:
Fine, we can resume this conversation next year and in the event that immigration levels are less than the quota, I will apologize. But given this hasn't happened to date, and application numbers are typically higher than PR visas awarded, I don't understand why you are pointlessly arguing.
the point is, you were using irrelevant information (refugee quota) as evidence to support your claim that the residency requirement did not affect immigration - I was just pointing out that your claim had no point to start with.
 

monalisa

Hero Member
Dec 6, 2016
267
21
itsmyid said:
the point is, you were using irrelevant information (refugee quota) as evidence to support your claim that the residency requirement did not affect immigration - I was just pointing out that your claim had no point to start with.
Guys 3/5 or 4/6 not important now, time passes quickly

Its important that the other clauses never change
 

IBIW

Newbie
Apr 5, 2017
3
0
No. 2.

March 8, 2017—Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, for the third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, as amended.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oh, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dagenais:

That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 1,

(a) on page 1, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:

“1 (0.1) Paragraph 5(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act is repealed.

(1) The portion of paragraph 5(1)(c) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced”;

(b)on page 2,

(i)by replacing line 4 with the following:

“(d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 60 years of age at the date of his or her ap-”,

(ii)by replacing line 7 with the following:

“(e) if 18 years of age or more but less than 60 years of age at the date of his or her ap-”, and

(iii)by adding after line 26 the following:

“(7.1) Section 5 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.03):

(1.04) When the application referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is in respect of a minor, it must be

(a) made by either parent, by a legal or de facto guardian or by any other person having custody of the minor, whether by virtue of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, a written agreement or the operation of law; and

(b) countersigned by the minor, if the minor has attained the age of 14 years on or before the day on which the application is made and is not prevented from understanding the significance of the application because of a mental disability.

(1.05) If the Minister waives the requirement set out in paragraph (1.04)(a) under subparagraph (3)(b)(v), the application referred to paragraph (1)(a) may be made by the minor.”;

(c)on page 3, by replacing lines 2 and 3 with the following:

“repealing subparagraphs (i) and (iii), by adding “or” at the end of subparagraph (iv), and by adding the following after subparagraph (iv):

(v) the requirement respecting who may make an application in respect of a minor set out in paragraph (1.04)(a).”; and

(d) on page 6, by adding the following after line 38:

“17.1 Until the day on which subsection 1(6) comes into force, paragraphs 5(1)(d) and (e) of the Citizenship Act are replaced by the following:

(d) if 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;

(e) if 18 years of age or more but less than 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, demonstrates in one of the official languages of Canada that he or she has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and”.
 

torontosm

Champion Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,677
261
itsmyid said:
the point is, you were using irrelevant information (refugee quota) as evidence to support your claim that the residency requirement did not affect immigration - I was just pointing out that your claim had no point to start with.
Firstly, you need to go back and re-read my post. I did not use the refugee quota at all, and while it may be convenient for you to further your pointless argument, it isn't true. What I said is that immigration levels haven't dropped since the citizenship changes were introduced, and that is a fact.

Instead of trying to find holes in my argument, if you are so confident that immigration levels have dropped since Canada introduced its new citizenship rules, why don't you offer some evidence? Or would you prefer to sit and try to baselessly nitpick to make yourself feel smarter?
 

Joshua1

Hero Member
Nov 18, 2013
946
473
Some people on this forum seem to have something to prove to others. They contend that they know everything and their opinion really matters in regards to the bill c6 or 24. This is not a pissing contest...
 

Inlandoct2014

Star Member
Jan 13, 2016
68
1
Category........
Visa Office......
CPC Mississauga
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
AOR Received.
Oct 2, 2014
File Transfer...
SA, AIP : Jan 14, 2016
Med's Request
Jan 6, 2016
Med's Done....
Jan 9, 2016
Interview........
DM: FEB 4, 2016
LANDED..........
March 16, 2016
It seems they are not gonna talk about the bill today !!!
 

vasyok

Star Member
Aug 14, 2013
133
8
Category........
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
Inlandoct2014 said:
It seems they are not gonna talk about the bill today !!!
Senator Jaffer adjourned the debate in her name - it's up to her now when to speak. Assuming that she supports C-6, this will happen sooner rather than later.
 

razerblade

VIP Member
Feb 21, 2014
4,197
1,356
vasyok said:
Senator Jaffer adjourned the debate in her name - it's up to her now when to speak. Assuming that she supports C-6, this will happen sooner rather than later.
Really ? Why did she say there will be a discussion on twitter

https://twitter.com/waqaarahmad/status/851865608656498688

I'm listening on and off. I don't think they discussed C-6 yet. They're still taking about C-4 I think.