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

Bill C-6: Senate stage

marcher said:
Totally agree. I would also suggest moving all the minor clauses like the 3/5 rule and address them in a different bill. But I may be selfish there since that is the only clause that concerns me at this stage. I would also suggest keeping the language requirements as they are set now.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea (and not selfish at all), it seems to me like some of the clauses address WHAT citizenship is while other items address HOW citizenship is granted. It"s like having very symbolic and strategic items and very nitty gritty operational details on the same document. It looks messy.
 
admontreal said:
That's a good idea (and not selfish at all), it seems to me like some of the clauses address WHAT citizenship is while other items address HOW citizenship is granted. It"s like having very symbolic and strategic items and very nitty gritty operational details on the same document. It looks messy.
Click to expand...
True, I still cannot understand Harper's reason for increasing the residency period to 4/6.
 
admontreal said:
If I may ask, what would you redraft ?
In my case I just think that it lacks three things :

- Proper appeal procedures for misrepresentation cases
- Adjustments to the Second generation limit rule
- Last round of adjustments to address ALL the remaining Lost Canadians cases.


That would address most of the pending Citizenship problems in Canada for the next generation.
Click to expand...

I am curious as to what kind of adjustment do you have in mind to the 2nd generation limit that will still prevent unlimited generational passing of citizenship.
 
screech339 said:
I am curious as to what kind of adjustment do you have in mind to the 2nd generation limit that will still prevent unlimited generational passing of citizenship.
Click to expand...

Like other countries of the G7 and Commonwealth peers (including the UK, Australia, USA, Singapore,...), we could add an exception for citizens by descent who lived here for 3 years (or 4 depending on what is the naturalization cap) to pass their citizenship to their children.
In New Zealand, a citizen by descent can apply after 5 years of residence in the country to become a citizen by Grant and then be able to pass his citizenship to his eventual kids. I think it's more fair than limiting it radically and blindly (I tried to find a western country with such a radical rule that doesn't allow exceptions other than for diplomats and military but I was unsuccessful).

PS: I said earlier that copying other countries shouldn't be automatic. But this seems like the most logical thing to do.
If we want to be fair between citizens by descent and citizens by grant. Otherwise, a second generation citizen would have no right to transmit her citizenship to her kids should they be born abroad, even if she spent almost her whole life in Toronto or Halifax.
 
Can someone kindly explain the following, does it mean only amendments or does it also include a new bill. Thank you in advance

"The Senate has almost the same powers as the House of Commons. Bills are read three times in the Commons as well as in the Senate. The Senate can only delay constitutional amendments for 180 days. But no bill can become law without its consent, and it can veto any bill as often as it likes"
 
McCallum expresses hope to amend law that allows citizenship to be revoked with no hearing

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/04/mccallum-says-he-hopes-senate-will-help-canadians-stripped-of-citizenship-with-no-hearing.html
 
Shmak2017 said:
McCallum expresses hope to amend law that allows citizenship to be revoked with no hearing

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/04/mccallum-says-he-hopes-senate-will-help-canadians-stripped-of-citizenship-with-no-hearing.html
Click to expand...
That article is from October 4th.
 
marcher said:
They haven't reached Second Readings yet.
Click to expand...

Well, in fact they passed it I guess as they're discussing S-229 now!!!
 
subha_1962 said:
Can someone kindly explain the following, does it mean only amendments or does it also include a new bill. Thank you in advance

"The Senate has almost the same powers as the House of Commons. Bills are read three times in the Commons as well as in the Senate. The Senate can only delay constitutional amendments for 180 days. But no bill can become law without its consent, and it can veto any bill as often as it likes"
Click to expand...
According to this the max delay permitted is only for constitutional amendments. It does not address bills, at least not in this quotation.
 
spiritsoul said:
Well, in fact they passed it I guess as they're discussing S-229 now!!!
Click to expand...
you are right, they went pretty fast from questions to that. Another day with no news.
 
admontreal said:
Like other countries of the G7 and Commonwealth peers (including the UK, Australia, USA, Singapore,...), we could add an exception for citizens by descent who lived here for 3 years (or 4 depending on what is the naturalization cap) to pass their citizenship to their children.
In New Zealand, a citizen by descent can apply after 5 years of residence in the country to become a citizen by Grant and then be able to pass his citizenship to his eventual kids. I think it's more fair than limiting it radically and blindly (I tried to find a western country with such a radical rule that doesn't allow exceptions other than for diplomats and military but I was unsuccessful).

PS: I said earlier that copying other countries shouldn't be automatic. But this seems like the most logical thing to do.
If we want to be fair between citizens by descent and citizens by grant. Otherwise, a second generation citizen would have no right to transmit her citizenship to her kids should they be born abroad, even if she spent almost her whole life in Toronto or Halifax.
Click to expand...

So in other words, send their children by descent to Canada for schooling at taxpayer's expense and then leave Canada to pass on citizenship to their children. Repeat it over and over. This is no difference from the old retention rule. It doesn't stop citizenship from being passed on for generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.