Bill C-6: Senate stage

[captain74]

debate needs to occur and more amendments need to be tabled, discussed and voted On.

Of course!

Except that proposed amendments to the core proposition of C6 - after almost an year of "debate" in the senate - are just deliberate delaying tactics and political gamesmanship that the opposition (naturally) would like to engage in; and that the government and the senate sponsor of the bill must swiftly deal with (or better still - prevent from reaching the debate stage).

Politics demands that both sides do what they must

 

[Joshua1]

The Liberals have hell-bent on overturning anything the Cons did, even if they have no real reason for doing so (as evidenced by the fact that the Immigration Minister didn't have any answers on either occasion when he asked why he wanted to reduce the time to citizenship or change the language requirements).
[/quote]

This is what political parties do once they get in power. Nothing was wrong with the citizenship rules before C24 (except processing time). How has C24 made Canada safer??? Terrorism is the premise upon which it was rammed through both houses. Harper effectively created 2 classes of citizens; violated the constitutions which guarantees freedom of movement; and punished those who have been contributing to the economy i.e. graduated university students, temporary workers etc. C24 is based on fear, racism, unfairness and it's draconian.

I'm not sure which minister you are referring to... but John McCallum (the former minister) eloquently laid out the reasons back in 2016. In fact he ridiculed the cons for penalizing international students... by taking away time spent...

 

[artin2015]

Sen. Ratna Omidvar‏
Verified account
@ratnaomi Apr 9

More
Further amendments to C6 in the Senate next week

I believe this amendment about residency time

 

[sistemc]

Why don't you tweet her and ask her if she's meeting tomorrow if you don't believe me. Y'all seem to be experts on that.

Coffee1981, I asked you before, and I ask you again. Can you find some other forum to troll into?

 

[torontosm]

This is what political parties do once they get in power. Nothing was wrong with the citizenship rules before C24 (except processing time). How has C24 made Canada safer??? Terrorism is the premise upon which it was rammed through both houses. Harper effectively created 2 classes of citizens; violated the constitutions which guarantees freedom of movement; and punished those who have been contributing to the economy i.e. graduated university students, temporary workers etc. C24 is based on fear, racism, unfairness and it's draconian.

I'm not sure which minister you are referring to... but John McCallum (the former minister) eloquently laid out the reasons back in 2016. In fact he ridiculed the cons for penalizing international students... by taking away time spent...

No, good political parties look out for the interests of the country. Political parties on witch hunts try to undo whatever their predecessors did.

C24 was aimed at accomplishing multiple things that were all in Canada's best interests. Firstly, by increasing residency periods and clearly defining what residency means, they were eliminating ambiguity while ensuring that people who wanted to be citizens weer truly committed to Canada (vs. the previous system where people could qualify by spending a few vacations in Canada a year, etc.). Secondly, they ensured the safety of the country by inserting a clause allowing the government to strip citizenship from convicted terrorists. Both of these things also served to align Canadian citizenship laws with those of the Western and developed countries.

If you go back and listen to the audio of when McCallum was called before the Senate on C6, and was asked specifically about whether the government had conducted any research as to why or how the proposed citizenship qualification or language requirements would help the country, he replied "No" on both occasions. So, obviously, no research was done and there was no real basis for these amendments.

As for your statement about C24 being based on racism and fear, that is nonsense. There is nothing racist about C24, and the purported "two classes of citizens" are neither based on race nor nationality. This is just common fear mongering from people who either don't understand the law or willingly misrepresent it to further their own agendas.

 

[quasar81]

Fear Mongering.... reminds me of King Harper hotline on cultural practices and all. Look who is talking fear mongering.

 

[Joshua1]

No, good political parties look out for the interests of the country. Political parties on witch hunts try to undo whatever their predecessors did.

C24 was aimed at accomplishing multiple things that were all in Canada's best interests. Firstly, by increasing residency periods and clearly defining what residency means, they were eliminating ambiguity while ensuring that people who wanted to be citizens weer truly committed to Canada (vs. the previous system where people could qualify by spending a few vacations in Canada a year, etc.). Secondly, they ensured the safety of the country by inserting a clause allowing the government to strip citizenship from convicted terrorists. Both of these things also served to align Canadian citizenship laws with those of the Western and developed countries.

If you go back and listen to the audio of when McCallum was called before the Senate on C6, and was asked specifically about whether the government had conducted any research as to why or how the proposed citizenship qualification or language requirements would help the country, he replied "No" on both occasions. So, obviously, no research was done and there was no real basis for these amendments.

As for your statement about C24 being based on racism and fear, that is nonsense. There is nothing racist about C24, and the purported "two classes of citizens" are neither based on race nor nationality. This is just common fear mongering from people who either don't understand the law or willingly misrepresent it to further their own agendas.

I guess that's why the Cons won the last election... oh wait...! Stop trolling!

 

[torontosm]

I guess that's why the Cons won the last election... oh wait...! Stop trolling!

I guess that's why the majority of Canadians voted for Liberals...oh wait.
I guess that's why the majority of Canadians support C6...oh wait.
I guess that's why Trudeau's popularity is so high...oh wait.


It can go both ways.

 

[MonzB]

No, good political parties look out for the interests of the country. Political parties on witch hunts try to undo whatever their predecessors did.

C24 was aimed at accomplishing multiple things that were all in Canada's best interests. Firstly, by increasing residency periods and clearly defining what residency means, they were eliminating ambiguity while ensuring that people who wanted to be citizens weer truly committed to Canada (vs. the previous system where people could qualify by spending a few vacations in Canada a year, etc.). Secondly, they ensured the safety of the country by inserting a clause allowing the government to strip citizenship from convicted terrorists. Both of these things also served to align Canadian citizenship laws with those of the Western and developed countries.

If you go back and listen to the audio of when McCallum was called before the Senate on C6, and was asked specifically about whether the government had conducted any research as to why or how the proposed citizenship qualification or language requirements would help the country, he replied "No" on both occasions. So, obviously, no research was done and there was no real basis for these amendments.

As for your statement about C24 being based on racism and fear, that is nonsense. There is nothing racist about C24, and the purported "two classes of citizens" are neither based on race nor nationality. This is just common fear mongering from people who either don't understand the law or willingly misrepresent it to further their own agendas.

Well said! As much as I would like C-6 to be pass since I am waiting to meet my physical presence within Canada. I cannot disagree with what you just said. +1

 

[hfinkel]

I heard on the news this morning about the current impasse in the Senate. There was mention of a 'nuclear option' called time allocation. Obviously, some kind of time limitation and cut to the chase. But how exactly does it work, in procedure?

 

[MarceauBletard]

Word coming out if IRCC is Sen. Omdivar and Sen. Harder have been summoned to a high-level briefing tomorrow morning to explain, how, exactly, they plan to fix this mess they've created. Further updates to follow, folks.

Oooooh... Pardon me. They were "invited to a friendly discussion" about, how, exactly, they planned to shut down these amendments as the department has signalled they are unable to operationalize their pipe dreams, and that the language and child application amendments have been deemed "no go" territory

I believe you because it makes perfect sense.
Because of Senator Omidvar's amendment, the anti-C6 Senators have started issuing other amendments (what I think they would normally not have done) that will be rejected by the HoC and Senator Omidvar has created a mess and new delays.
So, that's possible.

 

[emamabd]

No, good political parties look out for the interests of the country. Political parties on witch hunts try to undo whatever their predecessors did.

C24 was aimed at accomplishing multiple things that were all in Canada's best interests. Firstly, by increasing residency periods and clearly defining what residency means, they were eliminating ambiguity while ensuring that people who wanted to be citizens weer truly committed to Canada (vs. the previous system where people could qualify by spending a few vacations in Canada a year, etc.).

Well how about making it 10 years to qualify for citizenship? That way it would be clear that we are "truly committed" to canada :..will that serve Canada? Probably not, it would just make it less attractive as an "immigration" destination.

although i agree with some of what you've mentioned...but disagree that changing the 3 to 4 years would "solve" any of the "problems" related to commitment

 

[razerblade]

Coffee1981, I asked you before, and I ask you again. Can you find some other forum to troll into?

Let him post here. Even if it is fiction, it's good to hear. Just take it with a grain of salt.

 

[torontosm]

Well how about making it 10 years to qualify for citizenship? That way it would be clear that we are "truly committed" to canada :..will that serve Canada? Probably not, it would just make it less attractive as an "immigration" destination.

although i agree with some of what you've mentioned...but disagree that changing the 3 to 4 years would "solve" any of the "problems" related to commitment

10 years is a bit excessive. As I posted, these changes bring Canadian citizenship rules more in line with those of other Western countries.

As for making Canada less attractive as an immigration destination, the change from 3 to 4 years had zero impact on Canada's attractiveness. There are more immigrants coming in this year than ever before. So, obviously minor changes in citizenship qualification time do not deter those who are looking at Canada as a long term destination.

 

[itsmyid]

10 years is a bit excessive. As I posted, these changes bring Canadian citizenship rules more in line with those of other Western countries.

As for making Canada less attractive as an immigration destination, the change from 3 to 4 years had zero impact on Canada's attractiveness. There are more immigrants coming in this year than ever before. So, obviously minor changes in citizenship qualification time do not deter those who are looking at Canada as a long term destination.

Where did you get that from? this is only April, and you are already claiming 'this year'? And more illegal crossing over border doesn't count as more immigrants