Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
I posted this a few weeks ago, but seems that no one really read it. It talked about amendments long before the discussion here. I would read this article:
I found interesting updates about this bill in an article on the Calgary Herald:
Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/national/dramatic+increase+people+having+canadian+citizenship+revoked/12888212/story.html
Excerpts:
"The Senate is planning to patch a hole in the Liberals’ update to immigration legislation, Bill C-6, to make sure people whose citizenship is revoked can argue their case in court. A Senate committee begins its study Wednesday."
"Paterson said he has been talking to senators about amendments. So has NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who tried amending the bill in a House of Commons committee but had her amendments ruled out of scope.
“It was frankly astounding to me that (the Liberal government) neglected to fix that critical part in the bill,” she said. “Virtually all of the witnesses came forward to say that we need to restore due process.”
The Senate sponsor of Bill C-6, independent senator Ratna Omidvar, confirmed there are plans to table such amendments in the Senate, likely at third reading."
"Saying the bill’s passage is long overdue, Omidvar predicted things could wrap up in March. But its passage through the Senate will come with controversy, especially as Tory senators are expected to assert their belief that citizenship should still be revoked from convicted criminals."
I found interesting updates about this bill in an article on the Calgary Herald:
Source: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/national/dramatic+increase+people+having+canadian+citizenship+revoked/12888212/story.html
Excerpts:
"The Senate is planning to patch a hole in the Liberals’ update to immigration legislation, Bill C-6, to make sure people whose citizenship is revoked can argue their case in court. A Senate committee begins its study Wednesday."
"Paterson said he has been talking to senators about amendments. So has NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who tried amending the bill in a House of Commons committee but had her amendments ruled out of scope.
“It was frankly astounding to me that (the Liberal government) neglected to fix that critical part in the bill,” she said. “Virtually all of the witnesses came forward to say that we need to restore due process.”
The Senate sponsor of Bill C-6, independent senator Ratna Omidvar, confirmed there are plans to table such amendments in the Senate, likely at third reading."
"Saying the bill’s passage is long overdue, Omidvar predicted things could wrap up in March. But its passage through the Senate will come with controversy, especially as Tory senators are expected to assert their belief that citizenship should still be revoked from convicted criminals."
I think terminologies needs to be established. I find it confusing that people use the term bill passed to implementation. Isn't bill passed = royal assent = law and coming into force = implementation. Once it has become a law, there's a process/discussion to be made on when the law is to coming into force/to be implemented or in effect. The tweet of Senator is Jaffer is answering the question of passing the bill before May. So I think this shouldn't be the basis of making the law in effect/implemented. The bill will be passed eventually but the implementation is still to be discussed which I do not think will happen soon. I think don't be too hopeful on the implementation date of the 3/5 be happening this year (if this clause will not be amended and remain the same after consideration).subha_1962 said:
There is no rule in canadian law that bills take 1 year to be implemented.MMCanada2014 said:
It only takes 1 year to be implemented for sick people like you and negative people like you.
Find for us this rule 1 year to be implemented 8)
get a life ;D
As you like, but I didn't say 1 year because you don't have it as a law now in first place. Assuming that it will be implemented directly is a thing that you need to re-think aboutmonalisa said:
Seriously? "Fake news"? Please entertain me and show me a source ("search the web" isn't a source) that gives party leaders and/or the senate majority the power to oust a senator they don't like. And maybe you can give us one example where this has happened? Like a single name?Whocares said:
Here is my source: Constitution Act, 1867, Section IV, No. 23
So unless my English fails me there's no item saying "if the other senators don't like the senator anymore"
Interesting to see the never stopping speculations with regards to the effective date of that Bill ;D
Last spring people were sure that it will be effective before the summer break of 2016, then they were sure it will be effective after the summer.
Oh wait, then it was sure that it will be before the end of 2016.
Now I can see that the new speculations point as a deadline the beginning of 2018.
Keep on going with the speculations guys it is entertaining to read how sure the new deadlines are
Last spring people were sure that it will be effective before the summer break of 2016, then they were sure it will be effective after the summer.
Oh wait, then it was sure that it will be before the end of 2016.
Now I can see that the new speculations point as a deadline the beginning of 2018.
Keep on going with the speculations guys it is entertaining to read how sure the new deadlines are
[sarcasm on]MUFC said:Interesting to see the never stopping speculations with regards to the effective date of that Bill ;D
Last spring people were sure that it will be effective before the summer break of 2016, then they were sure it will be effective after the summer.
Oh wait, then it was sure that it will be before the end of 2016.
Now I can see that the new speculations point as a deadline the beginning of 2018.
Keep on going with the speculations guys it is entertaining to read how sure the new deadlines are
That would be awesome . . . I would qualify under the 4/6 rule at that time! :'(
[sarcasm off]
LOL
I think all this speculation is kindled by a "generation of EE guinea pigs" in this thread. What I mean is that there is a decent amount of people in this thread (like myself) that became PRs in 2015 in the first Express Entry months. Back then we were the ones whoMUFC said:Interesting to see the never stopping speculations with regards to the effective date of that Bill ;D
Last spring people were sure that it will be effective before the summer break of 2016, then they were sure it will be effective after the summer.
Oh wait, then it was sure that it will be before the end of 2016.
Now I can see that the new speculations point as a deadline the beginning of 2018.
Keep on going with the speculations guys it is entertaining to read how sure the new deadlines are
1. on one hand didn't really know what to expect when to be invited, how EE works etc, if the points required for an invite are gonna drop soon, and
2. on the other hand we were blessed by historically unprecedented fast processing times for our PR applications (4-6 months).
Speculation was abound (and still is) in the EE section of this forum. People are bringing it over here now...
And then, when they announced C-6 in Spring 2016, it seemed like this bill would be in effect early/mid 2017. This is exactly two years after the first EE generation became PR and if you spent two years in Canada before PR they could've applied now.
So here we are, a demographic
- prone to speculation
- being used to things moving fast
- waiting for the 3/5 rule
- been the victims and benefactors of sudden rule changes.
A dangerous mix for a thread like this
Frankly you never know which one would be better for you in terms of faster or slower processing times.VFX_man said:
It is also interesting that the vast majority of that generation EE (spyfy said:I think all this speculation is kindled by a "generation of EE guinea pigs" in this thread. What I mean is that there is a decent amount of people in this thread (like myself) that became PRs in 2015 in the first Express Entry months. Back then we were the ones who
1. on one hand didn't really know what to expect when to be invited, how EE works etc, if the points required for an invite are gonna drop soon, and
2. on the other hand we were blessed by historically unprecedented fast processing times for our PR applications (4-6 months).
Speculation was abound (and still is) in the EE section of this forum. People are bringing it over here now...
And then, when they announced C-6 in Spring 2016, it seemed like this bill would be in effect early/mid 2017. This is exactly two years after the first EE generation became PR and if you spent two years in Canada before PR they could've applied now.
So here we are, a demographic
- prone to speculation
- being used to things moving fast
- waiting for the 3/5 rule
- been the victims and benefactors of sudden rule changes.
A dangerous mix for a thread like this
) is interested only about when they would apply. They even agree to have NO RIGHT TO APPEAL to defend their potential Canadian citizenship, they just want to apply ASAP.For almost all the participants here this Bill is ONLY the 3/5 rule, Sorry but that really makes me laugh.
By the way I expect the climax of the speculation to be when/if that Bill passes and the time GC announce the effective cut off date of the 3/5 rule. So the best is yet to come
Oh I totally agree: Although in the short term, the 3/5 rule is relevant for me, the other changes that C-6 brings, including the planned amendment, are way more important. I'll be an "aspiring citizen" for the next one/two years. But I would be a second-class citizen for the rest of my life.MUFC said:It is also interesting that the vast majority of that generation EE (
For almost all the participants here this Bill is ONLY the 3/5 rule, Sorry but that really makes me laugh.