Bill C-6: Senate stage

[monalisa]

What is a crime is clearly defined by something we call law

quasar81 is has a point

What happened couple of weeks back in quebec they insisted to call it hate crime

but if the attack was on church will they call it hate crime or terrorist attack? ;D

C6 debate gonna be very hard in committee 8)

I suggest to delete this clause and make new bill for it

 

[Whocares]

Stupid question...

I have spent 40 days in Canada after I got the PR between 2012-2013. However, I now permanently live in Canada since 2014. Do I count the 40 days when I apply say in 2018? I know this is not the right place but this is also related to 3/5 or 4/6 rules

 

[deerestlovelybear]

Nobody here cares about anything other than the 4/6 and 3/5 part of C6, it seems like Canada is so bad place to live that all immigrants just want to get the passport and leave immediately, bill C6 should never be passed!

 

[adey786]

Nobody here cares about anything other than the 4/6 and 3/5 part of C6, it seems like Canada is so bad place to live that all immigrants just want to get the passport and leave immediately, bill C6 should never be passed!

And you are (would love to know more about your whereabouts)? .....If it is none of your concern then you better dont say anything?

 

[itsmyid]

Nobody here cares about anything other than the 4/6 and 3/5 part of C6, it seems like Canada is so bad place to live that all immigrants just want to get the passport and leave immediately, bill C6 should never be passed!

Then we are definitely counting on you , the next PM or MP, to make sure C6 is not passed, or repealed if passed - please remember to notify us by posting here when you are elected

 

[jsm0085]

Anyone with any sense would be more concerned about the potential of loosing their citizenship than the other changes. I'm all for it being revoked under serious but clearly specified reasons. Right now it's too vague.

 

[razerblade]

Anyone with any sense would be more concerned about the potential of loosing their citizenship than the other changes. I'm all for it being revoked under serious but clearly specified reasons. Right now it's too vague.

Under the Harper law, only dual citizens' citizenship can be revoked, correct?

 

[Saga]

Anyone with any sense would be more concerned about the potential of loosing their citizenship than the other changes. I'm all for it being revoked under serious but clearly specified reasons. Right now it's too vague.

That is the best comment I have read over here. The concern should not be about 4/6 or 3/5 since if someone is living in Canada and making Canada their home they should not care whether the government requests 3, 4 or 10 years of residency. The big concern should be the provisions to revoke citizenship.
To all people thinking they they can leave the country and live somewhere else when they become Canadian, think twice because the government is cracking down on fraudulent or "citizens of convenience" cases even 10 years after they become citizens by rejecting to renew their passports. I have been witnessing many cases of people who come back to Canada to renew their passports or having to do some government matters in Canada and they are caught up by endless investigations.
Not trying to push anyone against the limit but there are a lot of things in laws and charters that the government interpret differently from us.

 

[surya99]

So finally the meeting is fixed in Committee https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/SOCI/noticeofmeeting/445732/42-1

 

[Konan1982]

Let's hope it passes

 

[septimius]

That is the best comment I have read over here. The concern should not be about 4/6 or 3/5 since if someone is living in Canada and making Canada their home they should not care whether the government requests 3, 4 or 10 years of residency. The big concern should be the provisions to revoke citizenship.
To all people thinking they they can leave the country and live somewhere else when they become Canadian, think twice because the government is cracking down on fraudulent or "citizens of convenience" cases even 10 years after they become citizens by rejecting to renew their passports. I have been witnessing many cases of people who come back to Canada to renew their passports or having to do some government matters in Canada and they are caught up by endless investigations.
Not trying to push anyone against the limit but there are a lot of things in laws and charters that the government interpret differently from us.

See now, you are mixing stuff up. The crack down is on "Fraudulent". Freedom of movement is a right and if it becomes reason to revoke citizenship then it will definitely be defeated in the courts. It is true that at the time of the application, if it was found that arrangements were made to resettle somewhere else, then yes, this can be interpreted as a violation of the "intent to reside" clause. So the people you are talking about from 10 years are most likely being investigated for fraud since the intent to reside was only introduced in 2015. If a person, after becoming citizen decided to move somewhere else, then nothing should prevent that.

 

[torontosm]

Still it's very unfair because the law is still differentiating with such individuals because there parents might have some other country's citizens and these individuals somehow ended with dual citizenship.Deal with them in the harshest possible way for the crime they committed(it can be life imprisonment as well),but that way should be the same as the ones are dealt who don't have dual citizenship.

Fair or not, I was correcting your earlier post. I'm tired of people trying to make C6 into a bill that differentiates those born in Canada and those who were naturalized citizens. This is clearly not the case, and people need to stop spreading misinformation.

As for the fairness of this law, many, many other Western countries have the exact same law in place, so it's not like Canada is unique in this regard. A terrorist attack aimed at massacring civilians it a terrible crime, and indeed deserves the harshest possible punishment. And to me, that punishment should be that the person should be stripped of citizenship, booted out of the country and never allowed back so that we can ensure that Canada and its citizens are not exposed to any threat from that person ever again.

 

[guddylover]

Fair or not, I was correcting your earlier post. I'm tired of people trying to make C6 into a bill that differentiates those born in Canada and those who were naturalized citizens. This is clearly not the case, and people need to stop spreading misinformation.

As for the fairness of this law, many, many other Western countries have the exact same law in place, so it's not like Canada is unique in this regard. A terrorist attack aimed at massacring civilians it a terrible crime, and indeed deserves the harshest possible punishment. And to me, that punishment should be that the person should be stripped of citizenship, booted out of the country and never allowed back so that we can ensure that Canada and its citizens are not exposed to any threat from that person ever again.

Well...I think deporting a dual national somewhere else because they committed a terrorist act absolutely defies logic.

1. What gives Canada the impression that the other country you want to deport a convicted terrorist to wants a terrorist in their country as a gift? When you commit a terrorist act as a Canadian citizen then he/she is a Canadian terrorist.

2. How come the dude that kill 5 or 6 at the Quebec mosque wasn't labelled a terrorist despite the Prime Minister and co calling it a terrorist act? I think the reason is that it won't fit their narrative that only dual nationals are capable of committing such crazy crime. It is just sad that terrorism has now been drawn to be parallel with Islam. If the dude that killed them at the mosque was a Muslim then it would have been labelled terrorism. The revocation law is so flawed tho I agree with you that a similar law exist in most western countries, doesn't make it right still.

 

[torontosm]

Well...I think deporting a dual national somewhere else because they committed a terrorist act absolutely defies logic.

1. What gives Canada the impression that the other country you want to deport a convicted terrorist to wants a terrorist in their country as a gift? When you commit a terrorist act as a Canadian citizen then he/she is a Canadian terrorist.

So you think it makes more sense to keep the terrorist here and use taxpayer dollars to "punish" him, and then once he has served his sentence, release him into the community to perhaps try and kill other innocent Canadians? Would you feel safe sending your kids to a school if such a person lived in your neighborhood? Would you feel good going to work in the morning if you worked in a building that had been targeted by such a person? I wouldn't.

As for the other country, it's not a choice that they have. Once a person is stripped of their Canadian citizenship, they have to go back to the country of their other citizenship, period. And, it's not a one way street either. if a dual Canadian-Australian citizen, for example, was convicted of terrorism in Australia, they would lose their citizenship and end up in Canada. And we would have no choice but to accept them. So why shouldn't we do the same?

 

[guddylover]

So you think it makes more sense to keep the terrorist here and use taxpayer dollars to "punish" him, and then once he has served his sentence, release him into the community to perhaps try and kill other innocent Canadians? Would you feel safe sending your kids to a school if such a person lived in your neighborhood? Would you feel good going to work in the morning if you worked in a building that had been targeted by such a person? I wouldn't.

As for the other country, it's not a choice that they have. Once a person is stripped of their Canadian citizenship, they have to go back to the country of their other citizenship, period. And, it's not a one way street either. if a dual Canadian-Australian citizen, for example, was convicted of terrorism in Australia, they would lose their citizenship and end up in Canada. And we would have no choice but to accept them. So why shouldn't we do the same?

Funny how you did not address my second point. Simple question. What if the terrorist is someone like the one in Quebec mosque shooting, should they keep their citizenship or get deported where? since you will likely claim that bill c-24 doesn't create a two-tier citizens