Bill C-6: Senate stage

[vivek901]

Seriously how does this matter...Just wait for 1 more year and apply.....Why everyone needs to beat their head around this????

 

[admontreal]

In all fairness, since when can a 31 year old be ready for a position of a Minister! JT wanted to have a colourful cabinet that paints a nice image of his Disney story; but there is a reason why people in such positions are usually in their later 40s or more; they have EXPERIENCE! I am not sure how her failure is any good for us as immigrants waiting for C-6 implementation. She is immune from the rules of C-24 and any other immigration law.

Agreed. Even if the report of the Electoral Reform Committee was really crappy (from my personnal perspective), her reaction was ridiculously immature and excessive. What she said was insulting and inappropriate.
She is the Minister responsible for the Senate Reform and the Electoral Reform, and from what I've seeing so far, it's a desperate mess in both fields.

 

[mubzali]

First of all we don't know if that bill will ever pass
Secondly, even if it passes, he's not a PR yet, and his time spent in Canada as student and worker 2005-2012 would be way out of the 5-year range and wouldn't matter anymore. He was a visitor from 2012-2014, but time as 'visitor' wouldn't count even before C-24

So, the simple answer is no, his pre-PR time won't count either way

I surmised as much. Thanks for the response.

 

[jordan1992]

I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship around February but I worried about the intent clause, whether it can be used to revoke citizenship if I move to US later in my life. Should I wait for Bill C6 to abolish this clause?

 

[emamabd]

I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship around February but I worried about the intent clause, whether it can be used to revoke citizenship if I move to US later in my life. Should I wait for Bill C6 to abolish this clause?

If it does become a law - the removal of intent to reside clause should apply retro-actively.. that's what they say, but i agree with you - one would be more comfortable to apply without the intent to reside clause in place, but again who knows if Bill C-6 will be approved...its been idle for 6 months already

 

[marcher]

I'll be eligible to apply for citizenship around February but I worried about the intent clause, whether it can be used to revoke citizenship if I move to US later in my life. Should I wait for Bill C6 to abolish this clause?

If you want to look at it from a pure legal perspective, if you sign a citizenship document with a clause suggesting that you intend to remain in Canada; then it is a legally binding contract between you and the government of Canada. However, there are three important points about this.

The clause is very vague, and I think the interpretation provided about it suggests that it is an intention to remain in Canada while the application is processed; i.e. you cannot apply for citizenship and move to live abroad while waiting for your citizenship.

The second point is this clause is supposed to be eliminated by C-6; and if not, another bill or Court ruling will eventually eliminate it eventually since it is unconstitutional (i.e. Mobility Rights state that " Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.").

The third point, if you dig for the purpose of this clause, it is an attempt to prevent another Canadians of convenience problem such as the Canadian-Lebanese scandal, when the government had to fork millions of dollars to fly Canadian Lebanese to Canada during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. What made matters worse, is the fact a big number of those flown to Canada on taxpayers' money moved back to Lebanon after the war. So the intention of Harper was that next time this happens, the government will have this clause to revoke the citizenship of any 'Canadian of convenience'. Is the clause going to solve the problem? Of course not. It is just a weak deterrent for potential Canadians of convenience. The government neither has the capacity nor interest in going around seeking new Canadians that moved to live abroad. However, should those Canadians require Canada’s help and support, then this clause could be triggered.

So in your case, if you will just be working in the states, and staying out of trouble, then this clause will not have any impact on you. This is just my opinion. Just make sure you declare your taxes properly, because Canada and the US share tax details.

 

[marcher]

The saga continues, the Senate have a sitting tonight. Senator Frum had enough time to draft some baloney about why C-6 is bad, and how a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Would she read it out tonight? Maybe. Or maybe she just enjoyed her weekend and didn't bother preparing anything.

Find out tonight starting at 6 pm EST at http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161205/-1/6403

 

[spiritsoul]

The saga continues, the Senate have a sitting tonight. Senator Frum had enough time to draft some baloney about why C-6 is bad, and how a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Would she read it out tonight? Maybe. Or maybe she just enjoyed her weekend and didn't bother preparing anything.

Find out tonight starting at 6 pm EST at http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161205/-1/6403

There was no enough time for her to prepare a speech, she needs a minimum of 28 day probably!!!

 

[Shmak2017]

Is she going to claim OT for today's work after 6 pm

The saga continues, the Senate have a sitting tonight. Senator Frum had enough time to draft some baloney about why C-6 is bad, and how a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

Would she read it out tonight? Maybe. Or maybe she just enjoyed her weekend and didn't bother preparing anything.

Find out tonight starting at 6 pm EST at http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161205/-1/6403

 

[admontreal]

If you want to look at it from a pure legal perspective, if you sign a citizenship document with a clause suggesting that you intend to remain in Canada; then it is a legally binding contract between you and the government of Canada. However, there are three important points about this.

The clause is very vague, and I think the interpretation provided about it suggests that it is an intention to remain in Canada while the application is processed; i.e. you cannot apply for citizenship and move to live abroad while waiting for your citizenship.

The second point is this clause is supposed to be eliminated by C-6; and if not, another bill or Court ruling will eventually eliminate it eventually since it is unconstitutional (i.e. Mobility Rights state that " Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.").

The third point, if you dig for the purpose of this clause, it is an attempt to prevent another Canadians of convenience problem such as the Canadian-Lebanese scandal, when the government had to fork millions of dollars to fly Canadian Lebanese to Canada during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. What made matters worse, is the fact a big number of those flown to Canada on taxpayers' money moved back to Lebanon after the war. So the intention of Harper was that next time this happens, the government will have this clause to revoke the citizenship of any 'Canadian of convenience'. Is the clause going to solve the problem? Of course not. It is just a weak deterrent for potential Canadians of convenience. The government neither has the capacity nor interest in going around seeking new Canadians that moved to live abroad. However, should those Canadians require Canada’s help and support, then this clause could be triggered.

So in your case, if you will just be working in the states, and staying out of trouble, then this clause will not have any impact on you. This is just my opinion. Just make sure you pay you declare your taxes properly, because Canada and the US share tax details.

Agreed. Very thorough analysis and response.

However, if I was in his/her shoes, I'd never be comfortable signing such a clause. Even if the Conservatives repeated many times that the main purpose was related to your point 1 and 3 (applicants-on-the-way-to-the-airport), it could be viciously used against anyone who signed at a time you can't expect.

If you have the clear intention to move to the US and concrete plans to do so after you become a citizen, I wouldn't advise to sign such a clause. There's 0.01% chances you could be in trouble, but it's not 0% like people who didn't sign it. In a matter like citizenship I personally prefer 0%.

 

[marcher]

Agreed. Very thorough analysis and response.

However, if I was in his/her shoes, I'd never be comfortable signing such a clause. Even if the Conservatives repeated many times that the main purpose was related to your point 1 and 3 (applicants-on-the-way-to-the-airport), it could be viciously used against anyone who signed at a time you can't expect.

If you have the clear intention to move to the US and concrete plans to do so after you become a citizen, I wouldn't advise to sign such a clause. There's 0.01% chances you could be in trouble, but it's not 0% like people who didn't sign it. In a matter like citizenship I personally prefer 0%.

True admontreal, it is a risk one would take depending on the circumstances. If by delaying the application he might be missing out on a lifetime opportunity job in the US; then it might be worth taking the risk. But if it is just a matter of convenience, then waiting an extra year should not be a reason to take such a risk.

 

[tyl92]

Once a citizen , you won't be prosecuted because you left Canada. That clause is to deter those people who are applying the same day they are leaving Canada or those who are already away and someone applying on their behalf . Marcher properly quoted the source of that clause which was when the government had to repatriate all those Canadian-lebanese back to Canada and some of them went back right after the war ended.
Even the conservatives said it , once you are Canadian , you have the right to enter and leave Canada as long as you want as you want , which is one of the most fundamental right you ever have as a citizen(whatever the country ) . However , if that kind of situation ends up being repeated , where the government finds out you are among a lot of people that canada has to extract from that specific zone , they'd start investigating and that WOULD end up being applied . That clause is just DETERRENCE oriented . That is the only way for the time being to kind of control that issue.The government had to show a response since tax payers paid for that and public opinion was rising .
Marcher said it as well that it is unconstitutional . My advice would remain the same , pay your taxes , make sure your application is flawless , get your citizenship and stay in Canada while in process , follow the line and do whatever you want to do with your life . There's no pratical way to enforce this sort of rule . Once again , DETERRENCE .

 

[Richard11]

hi guys any big update for Bill c-6?

 

[marcher]

hi guys any big update for Bill c-6?

Nothing as big as your font size!

 

[itsmyid]

hi guys any big update for Bill c-6?

Yes , it will be skipped