Bill C-6: Senate stage

[mohd000]

I only care about post PR time count and 3/5 rule.Liberal should focus on these issues. I personally doesnot care for any clauses in C24

 

[screech339]

I think you are referring to the intent to reside clause? I did not say anything about that. Correct me if I am wrong please. If that is the case, I agree with intent to reside while the application is processed; but not to apply it to the rest of the individual's life. The clause is not very clear on this matter. There should never be a law threatening to revoke a citizenship of anyone who might decide moving later in his or her life to another country. Like 'old stock' Canadians, new Canadians seek the best opportunities for them and their families, and if they happen to be abroad, then they should be free to go seek them.
I know the clause is meant to deal with situations like that of the Lebanese Canadians that cost Canada millions; and many other Canadians of different origins that become Canadian for the sole purpose of getting a better job in the gulf countries. These are two groups of fraudulent deceptive individuals, and they should be dealt with on a case by case basis, not set a law that restricts the freedom of movement of any future citizen. I think probably there should be more tightening and filtering at PR application level for that matter. At citizenship level, we have to keep in mind that IRCC mixes all kinds of applicants in the same pot. Citizenship applicants come from different backgrounds, skilled immigrants, students, spouses of Canadian citizens ..etc. Many countries have different residency and other requirements based on the group one belongs to.

You do realize that UK has the similar law in their citizenship law for 20+ years as well. I don't hear Britons complaining about the "residency clause" either nor do I hear them (naturalized Briton) complaining about getting stripped of citizenship because they reside outside UK. I don't think they ever felt threaten by their clause in the law ever.

 

[marcher]

You do realize that UK has the similar law in their citizenship law as well. I don't hear Britons complaining about the "residency clause" either nor do I hear them (naturalized Briton) complaining about getting stripped of citizenship because they reside outside UK.

I cannot comment on that because I have no idea what UK immigration laws and their citizens incorporate. Sorry.
But @canadasucks mentioned previously that people were able to sue the UK immigration office for changing residency rules after they became residents; and were forced to apply old rules to those who entered under old rules. I wish that was the case here.

 

[screech339]

I cannot comment on that because I have no idea what UK immigration laws and their citizens incorporate. Sorry.
But @canadasucks mentioned previously that people were able to sue the UK immigration office for changing residency rules after they became residents; and were forced to apply old rules to those who entered under old rules. I wish that was the case here.

So what is the problem? Apparently the new law still applies to new Britons and still haven't heard of any complaints from them. It appears that the new law is still legal and constitutional.

This is no difference from new britons to new canadians.

 

[Richard11]

hey guys please keep contact senators ,phone them ,twits them ,send email and go their offices,just focus on Bill-c-6

 

[admontreal]

So what is the problem? Apparently the new law still applies to new Britons and still haven't heard of any complaints from them. It appears that the new law is still legal and constitutional.

This is no difference from new britons to new canadians.

We could take that argument and say that Bahrein keeps revoking citizenship from their citizens who dare to speak up for more rights, do you hear them complain ? It doesn't mean that it works, it just means that the context is different and you can't be heard when something so unfair happens to you.

There is a big difference between Canada and the UK in a lot of matters. We can't keep saying that a law can work here if it seems to work in a country at the other side of the Ocean. Look at how it's different between Canada and the US, while they do share the most extensive and powerful bilateral relationship in the World. A country from the inside VS from the outside can seem very different. I have never lived elsewhere than in Canada and France so I can't speak for other countries. The focus here is Canada.

To go back to the intent to reside, I agree with marcher, it could be fair (if done properly) to apply an obligation to reside for the duration of the application processing (and still you would put people like PR airline pilots, flight attendants or sailors in the virtual impossibility of applying), but not for after. It would be one of the most non-sensical and unfair rule we've ever seen.

 

[itsmyid]

The movement of this bill is just like the movie 'Groundhog Day', in which a guy re-lives the same day over and over, every morning after he wakes up, what happens is exactly the same as the day before

 

[junyul1991]

The movement of this bill is just like the movie 'Groundhog Day', in which a guy re-lives the same day over and over, every morning after he wakes up, what happens is exactly the same as the day before

This one is similar:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2345567/

 

[hangincanada]

i have no idea what it is about. maybe someone knows:https://twitter.com/bccla/status/803662301765070848

 

[admontreal]

i have no idea what it is about. maybe someone knows:https://twitter.com/bccla/status/803662301765070848

They want to push to include the amendments to add due process to the misrepresentation procedures. So I guess it's a reminder to everyone to email senators.

 

[punk]

So I met with around 10 conservative senators today and I talked about this specific bills. They all told me that the bill will pass because the senate have liberal majority and this is a government bill. They however said that every senator is interested in speaking about this bill, so its taking time.

This senate overall is slightly slow since they have only passed 25 bills in this session since last year while in 2013 around 75 bills were passed. Don't think so that the bill will die, but its taking time more time. If you want to expedite it, reach out to senators on daily basis so they can all speak on it and then pass it

 

[cazrypr]

So I met with around 10 conservative senators today and I talked about this specific bills. They all told me that the bill will pass because the senate have liberal majority and this is a government bill. They however said that every senator is interested in speaking about this bill, so its taking time.

This senate overall is slightly slow since they have only passed 25 bills in this session since last year while in 2013 around 75 bills were passed. Don't think so that the bill will die, but its taking time more time. If you want to expedite it, reach out to senators on daily basis so they can all speak on it and then pass it

Thts good news. If I may ask how your met 10 of them the same day?

 

[rasmy]

I am new here and have been following the discussion about this Bill. I got this in my email today.


Dear friends,

After more than two years of work, we are getting so close to correcting the changes made by Bill C-24.

Can you send senators an email TODAY to let them know you want to see the end of second-class citizenship?

As a BCCLA supporter, you know that in 2015 the previous government passed Bill C-24, turning tens of thousands of Canadians into second-class citizens with fewer rights. Our community won a huge victory when the new government moved to repeal these changes with Bill C-6.

This is an important step, but the bill hasn’t been passed yet — and there's an important issue that it doesn't address.

Bill C-24 changed the process for citizenship revocations. A person at risk of being stripped of citizenship now has no right to an oral hearing, no right to be referred to a judge, and no right to even know all of the evidence against them.

Very soon the Senate Social Affairs Committee will be considering Bill C-6. These 11 people have the power to propose the amendment to fix the process, and to move the bill forward for a final vote. They need to hear from you today.

On Wednesday, BCCLA Executive Director Josh Paterson will be meeting with senators to discuss this bill. Before he gets there, we want senators to know how deeply Canadians care about restoring equal citizenship rights.

Can you use our quick tool to email senators TODAY and ask them to fix this crucial issue, then pass the bill?

Thank you for standing with us.

Warmly,

Josh Paterson, Executive Director,
and the BCCLA team

P.S. We are so close to restoring the equal citizenship rights that Bill C-24 destroyed. Help us cross the finish line by emailing senators today.

 

[spiritsoul]

So I met with around 10 conservative senators today and I talked about this specific bills. They all told me that the bill will pass because the senate have liberal majority and this is a government bill. They however said that every senator is interested in speaking about this bill, so its taking time.

This senate overall is slightly slow since they have only passed 25 bills in this session since last year while in 2013 around 75 bills were passed. Don't think so that the bill will die, but its taking time more time. If you want to expedite it, reach out to senators on daily basis so they can all speak on it and then pass it

If they're are interested, why don't get prepared a head of time so 3, 4, or 5 Senators can talk in the same sitting instead of them adjourn the debate and start preparing, it ridiculous M/s Conservatives........ You know what!! it's ridiculous from pro C-6 who agree to each and every adjournment!!!

 

[spiritsoul]

They want to push to include the amendments to add due process to the misrepresentation procedures. So I guess it's a reminder to everyone to email senators.

I wish it passes without amendment.

However, if the bill is to be amended, it has to pass the third reading (with amendment) before Dec. 14, 2016 as the HoC is off for the break on Dec. 16, 2016 (if they didn't decide to start the break a week earlier same as the summer i.e. Dec. 9, 2016) >>> which is impossible for the bill to be a law in 2016.