Bill C-6: Senate stage

[spyfy]

Hello spyfy
what is the name of the thing that we request at the court to follow up with an application within the federal parties ??? something begin with mag...... ,,,, I don't remember ,,, something like ATIP ,, help please

Sorry I don't know what you mean someone else would have to answer this

 

[marcher]

Instead of constantly losing sleep over how quickly the bill will pass, what you folks should be deathly scared of, is the fact that there are virtually ZERO protections for a naturalized citizen currently in Canada. Spend your energy and efforts, instead, to make absolutely sure that a future Leitch or Bernier administration will not be able to revoke citizenship right and left and try to do things that Trump has unsuccessfully attempted here in the US, thanks to the EXTREMELY STRONG protections that exist in the United States! Use your energy to advocate for the amendment sponsored by Sen. Omidvar!


To me, this is the most part of bill c-6. C-24 turned most immigrants into 2nd class citizen by using the "terrorism" cover-up and left people at the mercy of a minister (without appeal) to revoke citizenship. What is constituted as terrorism today may (most likely) mean something else tomorrow as times are changing. Once there is a precedent, anything is possible in case law.

I agree with you. I still think Libs made the wrong decision creating C-6. The right move would have been repealing C-24 through the Supreme Court due to its unconstitutionality to put this subject to end for good. Nothing will stop a future Conservative gov from bringing back C-24. Meanwhile, some genius here is just concerned about how fast he can apply for a passport!

 

[paulvoyer]

Sorry I don't know what you mean someone else would have to answer this

thanks anyways

 

[spyfy]

I agree with you. I still think Libs made the wrong decision creating C-6. The right move would have been repealing C-24 through the Supreme Court due to its unconstitutionality to put this subject to end for good. Nothing will stop a future Conservative gov from bringing back C-24. Meanwhile, some genius here is just concerned about how fast he can apply for a passport!

I agree with the sentiment regarding how important the amendment is.

But Supreme Court cases take much longer than laws and it wouldn't have been certain that it gets repealed. Also it is highly unusual for a government to challenge legislation at the supreme court that it can simply change itself.

 

[RanRan]

"Mr. Hussen’s office would not say how it intends to respond to the bill’s amendments or anticipated timelines for its passage in the House. After the House approves the bill, it will go back to the Senate for rubber-stamping and become law."
Globenmail

 

[cancalling]

"Thanks for the reply. Other than the total number or days there is a per year requirement also right. I am talking about that

"have, since becoming a permanent resident, been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during any four (4) calendar years that are fully or partially within the six (6) years immediately before you apply"

Any help will be much appretiated
Once the bill is passed that 4 years will change to 3 years but the 183 days will still remain right? so interested to know the counting of that 183 days based on the scenario I gave before"

Thats going away as well. So you just need to count the days.

Really. Can you or any one please provide me the new requirement which will be in effective after C-6 is approved that shows only total number of days is counted and not minimum number of days each year.

 

[kirtivsingh]

"Thanks for the reply. Other than the total number or days there is a per year requirement also right. I am talking about that

"have, since becoming a permanent resident, been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during any four (4) calendar years that are fully or partially within the six (6) years immediately before you apply"

Any help will be much appretiated
Once the bill is passed that 4 years will change to 3 years but the 183 days will still remain right? so interested to know the counting of that 183 days based on the scenario I gave before"
Really. Can you or any one please provide me the new requirement which will be in effective after C-6 is approved that shows only total number of days is counted and not minimum number of days each year.

Try this calculator:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/citizenship-calculator/article34574747/

 

[cancalling]

"Thanks for the reply. Other than the total number or days there is a per year requirement also right. I am talking about that

"have, since becoming a permanent resident, been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during any four (4) calendar years that are fully or partially within the six (6) years immediately before you apply"

Any help will be much appretiated
Once the bill is passed that 4 years will change to 3 years but the 183 days will still remain right? so interested to know the counting of that 183 days based on the scenario I gave before"
Really. Can you or any one please provide me the new requirement which will be in effective after C-6 is approved that shows only total number of days is counted and not minimum number of days each year.

Try this calculator:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/citizenship-calculator/article34574747/

This is the result
Results
The earliest you could apply for citizenship:

UNDER THE CURRENT ACT
Aug. 6, 2019
UNDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Aug. 6, 2018

Which means the minimum number of days clause is there in the new law also. So its not just total number of days

 

[spyfy]

I would very much suggest to look at the law instead of some globeandmail page made by people who skimmed through the law.

Let's make this legal:

Section 1(3) of Bill C-6 "An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act" says:

(3) Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Act is repealed.

Whereas "the Act" is referring to the Citizenship Act.

Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Citizenship Act reads:

...(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, and...

This is being repealed, see above. There is no more 183 day rule in the new version of the Act after Bill C-6 passed.

Note that this part of C-6 has not been amended by the senate.

 

[Indiacan]

Hi

Please advise...

Applied in December under 6/4 rule, still it's in the process, anybody can please advise what would be the implications for us as a family ? whether it's processed fast or takes more time ?

Thanks

 

[jsm0085]

I would very much suggest to look at the law instead of some globeandmail page made by people who skimmed through the law.

Let's make this legal:

Section 1(3) of Bill C-6 "An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act" says:
Whereas "the Act" is referring to the Citizenship Act.

Subparagraph 5(1)(c)(ii) of the Citizenship Act reads:
This is being repealed, see above. There is no more 183 day rule in the new version of the Act after Bill C-6 passed.

Note that this part of C-6 has not been amended by the senate.

It's been designer to show the time difference with the new rules. It's specific and good.

 

[Nlkko]

I'm just looking for that Coffee dude with "insider friend" at the CiC who claimed this bill was dead forever.

 

[Rigly68]

Hello spyfy
what is the name of the thing that we request at the court to follow up with an application within the federal parties ??? something begin with mag...... ,,,, I don't remember ,,, something like ATIP ,, help please

Do you mean "Mandamus" ?

 

[hfinkel]

Do you honestly think your calls make any difference?

You bring up a good point. Now "back in the olden days" before the internet, a phone call is exactly how one would communicate an urgent message expressing support for or against a bill. In fact, each member had a switchboard telephone operator or two custom tailored for the purpose. If it wasn't urgent and could wait a week then someone would sit down, type a paper letter out and send it in the post. Or even send a telegram.

So a phone call, while may be a dying practice isn't out of the question. If they still respond correctly to a call, the person taking the call will take the message and pass it upstream.

 

[Coffee1981]

I'm just looking for that Coffee dude with "insider friend" at the CiC who claimed this bill was dead forever.

I did not claim it was dead forever. I claimed that the Government is not going to support any of the 3 amendments.

The Privy Council Office doesn't want to jam the Federal Court with 200 extra + cases a year. Especially with the Jordan decision. They're going to move for McCoy's amendment to be abolished and create an appeal mechanism at the Immigration and Refugee Board instead, additional hearings, with a judicial review at the FC after.