Bill C-6: Senate stage

[naturalca]

Hi naturalca, not too sure how you came up with 0.5 days. You may refer to the link below:
htts://eservices.cic.gc.ca/rescalc/redir.do?redir=faq#Q1

More specifically, "When calculating an absence, neither the day you leave Canada nor the day you return is considered an absence. Both are counted as days of physical presence. For example, an absence between July 1, 2013 and July 15, 2013 equals 13 days of absence. As another example, if you leave Canada on July 1, 2013 and return on July 2, 2013, this equals 0 days of absence. You must still declare this as an absence."

Before C-24, each non-PR day is counted as one-half, which means *.5 days situation could be possible. Thanks.

 

[addictive_mate]

Guys correct me if I am wrong, I studied the amendments and nowhere it says to remove the 3/5 clause. All it talks about is 183 days in 4/6 years.

Look at the C6 Text here : http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e

 

[naturalca]

Guys correct me if I am wrong, I studied the amendments and nowhere it says to remove the 3/5 clause. All it talks about is 183 days in 4/6 years.

Look at the C6 Text here : ttp://ww.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : ttps://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e

Agreed. I mentioned this in the previous page. I am wondering whether 182.5 days can be rounded up to 183 days or not.

 

[sincara]

Hey guys, if the above were true, does it mean there is no amendment to delete the 3/5 and retain 4/6? I am now confused. Pls enlighten me. What is the compromise that was brought up in the previous pages?

 

[sincara]

And what is the implication of the 183 days in 4/6 mentioned?

 

[knightofOrthodoxy]

Guys correct me if I am wrong, I studied the amendments and nowhere it says to remove the 3/5 clause. All it talks about is 183 days in 4/6 years.

The ammendments target two things only:
1. First Ammendment: (a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; This basically deletes C-6 text which says "(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed" which in the Citizenship act translates to:
(ii) been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application (This means reinstating the 183 days rule per year)

2. Second Ammendment: : by deleting clause 8, on page 4; This Clause in C-6 says "Paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following: (a) subparagraph 5(1)(c)(i), in the case of an application for citizenship under subsection 5(1);" Now subparagraph 5(1)(c)(i) in the current active act is the one about 4 /6 rule. C6 replaces that subpargraph by 3/5 yet the conservatives are deleting this repeal therefore keeping the original 4/6 paragraph as is. (Basically Keeping the 4/6 Rule)

NO ammendments to pre-PR credit or intent to reside, those are untouched still

 

[addictive_mate]

Guys,

I just studied the amendments proposed and nowhere it says to remove 3/5 rule or physical residence credit before PR!It does, however, talk about reinstating minimum reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. It doesn't say anything about intent to reside.

Look at the C6 Text here : www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/421/Government/C-6/C-6_3/C-6_3.PDF
Amendments proposed : sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/journals/112jr_2017-04-12-e
Current Citizenship Act Text : laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html

Let me break the amendments proposed one by one :

That Bill C-6, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended:
(a)in clause 1, on page 1, by deleting lines 17 and 18; -(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed. which means reinstating minimum 183 days/year residency for 4 years out of previous 6 years. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont
(b)by deleting clause 8, on page 4; - go to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-6.html#docCont(Basically the same as(a)(183 days/ year in 4 years)
(c)in clause 14, on page 6, by replacing lines 6 to 8 with the following:
“14 Paragraph 5(1)c) of the Citizenship Act, as it read immediately before the day on which subsection 1(1) comes into force, applies”; and -- Basically changing the text because of above modifications
(d) in clause 27, on page 9, by replacing line 1 with the following:
“27 (1) Subsections 1(1) and (7)”.- Basically changing the text because of above modifications

Kindly correct me if I am wrong but this looks like the correct FACT.

The only amendment I see is 183 days rule. Everything else stays i.e. :

• 3/5 stays
• pre-PR creadit stays
• intend to reside stays

 

[knightofOrthodoxy]

Hi,

I believe you are mistaken on point (b) which says: by deleting clause 8, on page 4
This concerns clause 8, page 4 of C-6 not the Citizenship Act. If you look closely at that clause, it is the one that replaces the 4/6 rule by 3/5 rule. By deleting that clause, this effectively means repealing the 3/5 and reinstating the 4/6

Plus, It would be contradictory in the text of the bill to have two clauses one with 3/5 rule and the other saying " been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application". As such, it makes more sense to do the two changes at the same time

Additionally, it was explicitely said in the senate that this amendment proposes to increase residency to 4 years as it was being proposed. So all pieces fall together

 

[naturalca]

Hi,

I believe you are mistaken on point (b) which says: by deleting clause 8, on page 4
This concerns clause 8, page 4 of C-6 not the Citizenship Act. If you look closely at that clause, it is the one that replaces the 4/6 rule by 3/5 rule. By deleting that clause, this effectively means repealing the 3/5 and reinstating the 4/6

Plus, It would be contradictory in the text of the bill to have two clauses one with 3/5 rule and the other saying " been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application". As such, it makes more sense to do the two changes at the same time

Additionally, it was explicitely said in the senate that this amendment proposes to increase residency to 4 years as it was being proposed. So all pieces fall together

Clause 8, page 4 of C-6 is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the
following:
(a) subparagraph 5(1)(c)(i), in the case of an applica- 20
tion for citizenship under subsection 5(1);
------------------------------------------------------------------------


While paragraph 14(1)(a) of the current Citizenship Act is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) subparagraphs 5(1)(c)(i) and (ii), in the case of an application for citizenship under subsection 5(1);
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's assume the amendments get passed and therefore the above remains the same. However, under C-6 (see 1(2), line 12 of page 1), which is NOT removed by the amendment, subparagraphs 5(1)(c)(i) of the Citizenship Act will be replaced by the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) been physically present in Canada for at least
1,095 days during the five years immediately before 15
the date of his or her application, and
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, should the senate pass the amendments, paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act means:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) been physically present in Canada for at least
1,095 days during the five years immediately before 15
the date of his or her application, and (I think they need to fix some grammar issues, i.e. delete "and" here, since (ii) is kept in the Act)

and

(ii) been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application,

in the case of an application for citizenship under subsection 5(1);
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion, the amendments proposed try to combine the 3/5 with 4/6 together, which seems to be a compromise between parties and much more acceptable than taking 3/5 away directly. The tricky part is how to fulfill the 183 days during an entire no-PR year. The best you can do is 182.5 except that year, like 2016, has 366 days. This issue has been mentioned by some senator during the debate.

 

[knightofOrthodoxy]

Indeed, you are both right. I made a mistake in interpreting the ammendment. And I just listened to the recording of the senate again and the senator does indeed say it is about maintaining the 183 residency requirments.

However, It could indirectly mean that many immigrants have to wait and stay 3.5 years (those who has never been in canada before and landed immediately as PRs). For even if they became PRs, and became elligible by the third year, the requirment that they have at least 183 days in the past four years means they have to stay an extra half year

However, those who have pre-PR credit would not be affected as much, or are they?

So indirectly, this means that many will only be elligible after 3 years and 183 days, am I right?

 

[Confused in Montreal]

Indeed, you are both right. I made a mistake in interpreting the ammendment. And I just listened to the recording of the senate again and the senator does indeed say it is about maintaining the 183 residency requirments.

However, It could indirectly mean that many immigrants have to wait and stay 3.5 years (those who has never been in canada before and landed immediately as PRs). For even if they became PRs, and became elligible by the third year, the requirment that they have at least 183 days in the past four years means they have to stay an extra half year

However, those who have pre-PR credit would not be affected as much, or are they?

So indirectly, this means that many will only be elligible after 3 years and 183 days, am I right?

However much I am hating the process of C6, I am impressed with the cons!! The whip and the caucus as a whole is amazing. They have gotton almost 45% of the C6 reverted to C24 by wording and rewording. You are right if 183 days stays, then new PRs are still in the same boat!! Even Sen. Oh has become a champion of kids and minors rights now contrary to when C24 was in question. JT is gonna drown the economy and the senate, no one is gonna vote for him in the next election. He has proven to be a weak leader, cons still getting their way.

I am debating whether to vote lib when I become a citizen or not, atleast cons have the hawkish attitude to get things done rather than being stuck in the quagmire of political correctness like libs. And libs intend to introduce senate reforms! Keep trying.

 

[quasar81]

However much I am hating the process of C6, I am impressed with the cons!! The whip and the caucus as a whole is amazing. They have gotton almost 45% of the C6 reverted to C24 by wording and rewording. You are right if 183 days stays, then new PRs are still in the same boat!! Even Sen. Oh has become a champion of kids and minors rights now contrary to when C24 was in question. JT is gonna drown the economy and the senate, no one is gonna vote for him in the next election. He has proven to be a weak leader, cons still getting their way.

I am debating whether to vote lib when I become a citizen or not, atleast cons have the hawkish attitude to get things done rather than being stuck in the quagmire of political correctness like libs. And libs intend to introduce senate reforms! Keep trying.

Make sure u email JT those feelings. Maybe he wakes up.

 

[quasar81]

Hi,

I believe you are mistaken on point (b) which says: by deleting clause 8, on page 4
This concerns clause 8, page 4 of C-6 not the Citizenship Act. If you look closely at that clause, it is the one that replaces the 4/6 rule by 3/5 rule. By deleting that clause, this effectively means repealing the 3/5 and reinstating the 4/6

Plus, It would be contradictory in the text of the bill to have two clauses one with 3/5 rule and the other saying " been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application". As such, it makes more sense to do the two changes at the same time

Additionally, it was explicitely said in the senate that this amendment proposes to increase residency to 4 years as it was being proposed. So all pieces fall together

Frum is spewing hate against 3/5 on her twitter

That means amendments take 3/5 out of C6 and keeps original 4/6

 

[knightofOrthodoxy]

Despite her tweets and that it is logical to expect to throw away the 3/5 rule and retain the 4/6. however, the evidence is that the proposed residency ammendments are to only retain the 183 days per year residency.

Check the link https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/421/debates/112db_2017-04-12-e

She says "This motion today seeks to maintain the current residency requirements that a permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of the four years of six years before applying for citizenship."

Whether it is a mistake on her part that she forgot also to amend the clause of retaining 1460 days instead of 1095 to explictely ensure that it is 4/6 rather than 3/5 or whether it is intentional as a compromise, I don't know.

But with this proposition, it means for anyone with no Pre-PR credit, they have to wait 3.5 years since they land to be elligible to apply

 

[robw]

Despite her tweets and that it is logical to expect to throw away the 3/5 rule and retain the 4/6. however, the evidence is that the proposed residency ammendments are to only retain the 183 days per year residency.

Check the link https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/421/debates/112db_2017-04-12-e

She says "This motion today seeks to maintain the current residency requirements that a permanent resident must be physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of the four years of six years before applying for citizenship."

Whether it is a mistake on her part that she forgot also to amend the clause of retaining 1460 days instead of 1095 to explictely ensure that it is 4/6 rather than 3/5 or whether it is intentional as a compromise, I don't know.

But with this proposition, it means for anyone with no Pre-PR credit, they have to wait 3.5 years since they land to be elligible to apply

I don't think she can forget something like that. My guess is that this is part of the delay tactic. The 3/5 amendment will come later if this amendment passes.