Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
rizmayo
Hero Member
- Aug 17, 2013
- 42
- Visa Office......
- LVO
- NOC Code......
- 0213
- IELTS Request
- With Application
- Med's Request
- 16-07-2013
- Med's Done....
- 26-08-2013
- Interview........
- Waived
- Passport Req..
- 03-09-2013, sent 17-09-2013, DM 06-10-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 30-09-2013
I agree with you, historically they only discuss the first bill on the order of the day and skip the rest. Every time C-6 was actually discussed it was number 1 on the list that day. It is at number 5 tomorrow. However let's give the senator the benefit of the doubt.itsmyid said:
For refugee claim, country of origin and residency is most decisive factor. It's different from regular PR applications which place of birth is not that important.Coffee1981 said:
Monsef really cannot explain a lot of things about her relationship with Iran and there were a lot of conflicts in her statements. Her mother lied about her birthplace to cover the fact they were living in Iran sound and safely as this would invalid their refugee claim in Canada. Because refugee claim must do so in the first safe country of arrival. Without lying it would invalid their reason for protection but show more of economic migration intention.
So lying about birth place is just a tip of iceberg of potential bigger fraud. For Monsef's case, since her family had already escaped Afghanistan and been residing in Iran many years before flying to Canada and claiming refugee, without lying it should have not be granted because of first safe country principle.
There are also some other flaws in her claim.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/04/trudeaus-defence-of-monsef-gets-the-facts-wrong
C-6 stopped progressing exactly same time as the file was opened. Hard to say it's just coincidence.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/30/a-files-been-opened-on-monsef-sources-say
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/30/a-files-been-opened-on-monsef-sources-say
Place of birth can be a fact relevant to establishing identity. There was never any question about Monsef's identity. So the precise location of the birth is not a material fact for this purpose.
In refugee cases place of birth can be a fact relevant to nationality, and nationality is relevant to whether there is a state which will provide the individual protection. But in the Monsef situation, given the circumstances in that part of the world at the time, her place of birth had NO relevance to her nationality. She was Afghan, not Iranian, and not entitled to Iranian status, despite which side of the mountains on that border she was born.
Thus, while in many refugee cases, place of birth can be relevant, where nationality is in issue or where the individual's identity is in issue, it is NOT always relevant and in particular is not if neither nationality nor identity is in issue.
But again, there is nothing in Bill C-6 which would improve or worsen Monsef's situation. The proposed changes to Bill C-6 have no impact on revocation of citizenship for fraud.
The provisions in Bill C-24 regarding revocation which Bill C-6 addresses are about revoking citizenship based on convictions for certain specified crimes, nothing to do with fraud or misrepresentation made in the course of obtaining citizenship. Bill C-6 proposes to repeal those provisions. Whether this happens, or does not happen, has no impact on what is even wildly arguable related to Monsef.
Bill C-6 is likely to pass, probably before the end of the year, most likely before the current session of Parliament is closed. But sure, unless and until any Bill is formally adopted and given Royal Assent, there is no guarantee it will become law, no guarantee it will not die when the session of Parliament ends.
Following what happens in the Senate day-to-day is excessive, if not obsessive-compulsive. After all, for most of what those interested in Bill C-6 care about, what is important is not the date the Bill is adopted and becomes law, but the date that certain provisions come into force, like the provision to restore half-day credits for time in Canada prior to landing, and the provisions revising the presence requirement to a 3/5 rule. That will not happen for quite some time until after the Bill becomes law, probably many months later at the least, perhaps nearly a year. And how that goes can be with either little notice or with a fair amount of notice. No one knew the date when the Conservative government would put the 4/6 rule into effect until less than two weeks before it took effect, nearly a year after Bill C-24 became law. I hope the Liberal government is more considerate and will provide more notice than that before making such a major change.
In refugee cases place of birth can be a fact relevant to nationality, and nationality is relevant to whether there is a state which will provide the individual protection. But in the Monsef situation, given the circumstances in that part of the world at the time, her place of birth had NO relevance to her nationality. She was Afghan, not Iranian, and not entitled to Iranian status, despite which side of the mountains on that border she was born.
Thus, while in many refugee cases, place of birth can be relevant, where nationality is in issue or where the individual's identity is in issue, it is NOT always relevant and in particular is not if neither nationality nor identity is in issue.
But again, there is nothing in Bill C-6 which would improve or worsen Monsef's situation. The proposed changes to Bill C-6 have no impact on revocation of citizenship for fraud.
The provisions in Bill C-24 regarding revocation which Bill C-6 addresses are about revoking citizenship based on convictions for certain specified crimes, nothing to do with fraud or misrepresentation made in the course of obtaining citizenship. Bill C-6 proposes to repeal those provisions. Whether this happens, or does not happen, has no impact on what is even wildly arguable related to Monsef.
Bill C-6 is likely to pass, probably before the end of the year, most likely before the current session of Parliament is closed. But sure, unless and until any Bill is formally adopted and given Royal Assent, there is no guarantee it will become law, no guarantee it will not die when the session of Parliament ends.
Following what happens in the Senate day-to-day is excessive, if not obsessive-compulsive. After all, for most of what those interested in Bill C-6 care about, what is important is not the date the Bill is adopted and becomes law, but the date that certain provisions come into force, like the provision to restore half-day credits for time in Canada prior to landing, and the provisions revising the presence requirement to a 3/5 rule. That will not happen for quite some time until after the Bill becomes law, probably many months later at the least, perhaps nearly a year. And how that goes can be with either little notice or with a fair amount of notice. No one knew the date when the Conservative government would put the 4/6 rule into effect until less than two weeks before it took effect, nearly a year after Bill C-24 became law. I hope the Liberal government is more considerate and will provide more notice than that before making such a major change.
In Monsef's case, it's not simply about fraud of her identity, but her family's circumstance in Iran. As she was born in a high end hospital in Iran, not refugee camp, so her family's life in Iran actually was very safe and good. Also Iranian laws recognize Afghans who were born in Iran full refugee status so she had no issues about legal status in Iran. That's why she could still visit Iran in 2014 with her Afghan passport. So they didn't meet the first safe country principle for refugee claim in Canada. She herself even admitted her family was very safe in Iran but didn't enjoy full privileges and rights as Iranian citizens. This is absolutely not the reason that they could claim refugee in Canada. Foreigners living in UAE or other gulf countries also never enjoy full privileges and rights as local citizens (such as guaranteed government jobs, free houses and etc.), that's just these countries' laws which don't give citizenship and certain privileges to foreigners, same as Iran. But their civil rights and safety are all protected as legal residents. Can these people living in gulf countries use this reason to claim refugee in Canada?dpenabill said:
Her family could legally claim refugee in Canada if they escaped to Canada from Afghanistan without living in other safe countries such as Iran first, or if they could prove that they were not safe in Iran which she already admitted it's not the case. Otherwise they should not have been granted refugee unless they lied or even hid about their life in Iran. Remember the core of refugee claim is to prove your civil rights were violated and you were not safe before coming to Canada. Monsef's family didn't meet any of these conditions.
If the government is much smarter, her "illegal" citizenship should be stripped ASAP. But since it's not her fault, Minister could use his ministerial discretion power to grant her "legal" citizenship immediately. If they don't solve this issue ASAP, not only C-6 is ruined, this can be escalated to a much bigger scandal comparable to Hilary Clinton if more facts are discovered later.
OMG she should step down immediately! This is FRAUD! The refugee system in Canada is totally broken, we are giving fast track to the most priviledged, most wealthy and safer people from dictator countries. They can be the elite classes from those countries like Monsef who was born in a high end luxury hospital in Iran (if that is true) but those who need the protection the most waits for years and years. The fact that she can visit Iran and look for job there before being Minister without experience is alarming!canadasucks said:
So I got updates from my contact. They basically said that Liberal isn't very keen on pushing this bill forward else they have the majority to get it passed in no time. Only way to push is it by writing to your senator so they can discuss it. Whining here wont help but making a call per day to your senator along with Email will help the cause. Give your senator a call + email on regular basis to bring them to their attention and they can act on it.
All the Senators contacted say that it is in the hands of Senator Omidvar who is sponsoring the Bill and introducing amendments. The only response from her through twitter said that she is trying hard. Other Senators have their hands tied in this situation at the moment.punk said:
What I find strange in the whole situation is that the opposition is not making a big deal from this situation. It makes me wonder whether the MPs care about each other first (regardless of what party they belong to) before the public that actually gave them the job they have.canadasucks said:
Getting to a point where we'd end up begging those people paid with taxpayers money is flirting with one's dignity . People have been writing to those people most of them never replied or were very evasive about it
If it's meant to pass it'll pass if not our lives continue . But I don't see how this could change the course of the way things have been going and plus people are already fed up so if they end using their extra time to make calls and send emails and all that without a small hint of guarantee in return
If it's meant to pass it'll pass if not our lives continue . But I don't see how this could change the course of the way things have been going and plus people are already fed up so if they end using their extra time to make calls and send emails and all that without a small hint of guarantee in return
mohd000
Hero Member
- May 21, 2013
- 6
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- cpp ottawa
- NOC Code......
- 5242
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 20-06-2013
- Doc's Request.
- 29-11-2013 RCMP;3-03-2014 MARRIAGE QUESTIONARE
- AOR Received.
- 15-08-2013
- File Transfer...
- 15-08-2013
- Med's Request
- 22-05-2014
- Med's Done....
- 28-05-2014
- Interview........
- exempted
- Passport Req..
- 20-06-2014
- VISA ISSUED...
- request to change vo for spouse
- LANDED..........
- 11-08-2014
Sen. Omidwar said on Twitter that it will
be discussed today and she hope it goes quickly to committee
be discussed today and she hope it goes quickly to committee
A glimpse of good news at last? Thanks mohd000mohd000 said:
Here is Senator Omidvar's tweet:
Sen. Ratna Omidvar
@ratnaomi
@Md_Baig it is all about parliamentary procedure. But listen to the debates today!
6:31 AM - 24 Nov 2016
and also:
Sen. Ratna Omidvar
@ratnaomi
@Richshah234 trying my best. Watch the senate debates tomorrow.
8:05 PM - 23 Nov 2016
Well friends based on Omidvar's tweets, C-6 will be discussed today. Here are the details of today's sitting:
Senate sitting no. 76
Location: Senate Chamber, Centre Block
Scheduled: Thursday, Nov 24, 2016
1:30 PM - 5:30 PM EST
Link: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161124/-1/6334
Senate sitting no. 76
Location: Senate Chamber, Centre Block
Scheduled: Thursday, Nov 24, 2016
1:30 PM - 5:30 PM EST
Link: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161124/-1/6334