Bill C-6: Senate stage

[Confused in Montreal]

Yes and plants and animals also have a common denominator: They are both alive. That doesn't mean that they have the same status. You said that the statuses are "no different" and that is incorrect.

Lol, dude (just guessing, else dudette), you cracked me up with the denominator thing. Well deserved laugh after pages and pages of " I am the best, I have tons of time, I have read all, let's have a three or four tiered PR system". Draining....... Soon time for fairy tales of someone who was incarcerated etc etc, oh wait, its Frum today, hmmm don't know what's coming our way.

 

[spyfy]

Lol, dude (just guessing, else dudette), you cracked me up with the denominator thing. Well deserved laugh after pages and pages of " I am the best, I have tons of time, I have read all, let's have a three or four tiered PR system". Draining....... Soon time for fairy tales of someone who was incarcerated etc etc, oh wait, its Frum today, hmmm don't know what's coming our way.

Haha, it's a Frum kind of day isn't it? Lol. Dying.

 

[RAZAAS]

Wait for more amendments and more lengthy discussions.

 

[quasar81]

.

Typical CON strategy of divide and rule.

Divide among those who came as PR and those who came students. Let them fight among themselves.

Reality, both above groups lost under C-24 by CONs...

 

[Confused in Montreal]

Haha, it's a Frum kind of day isn't it? Lol. Dying.

Man Linda Frum twitter handle is venomous against libs. Apparently JT didn't invite leaders of the three parties to Vimy 100 celebrations etc etc. Brace for impact!!!

 

[screech339]

Yes and plants and animals also have a common denominator: They are both alive. That doesn't mean that they have the same status. You said that the statuses are "no different" and that is incorrect.

Are you telling me that those who are in Canada on study visa, work visa or visitor visas are "NOT TEMPORARILY" in Canada? What is the different between those here on visas from PR or Canadians. Oh I know. Let me help you. PR and Canadian can stay in Canada PERMANENTLY whereas those on visas CANNOT. Hmmm, if visa holders cannot stay Permanently, logically that must mean they are here TEMPORARILY.

 

[spiritsoul]

Man Linda Frum twitter handle is venomous against libs. Apparently JT didn't invite leaders of the three parties to Vimy 100 celebrations etc etc. Brace for impact!!!

I was browsing the same a moment ago and was just about to mention that in here..... SHE IS FULL OF HATERED AGAINST LIBERALS !!!

 

[Joshua1]

Are you telling me that those who are in Canada on study visa, work visa or visitor visas are "NOT TEMPORARILY" in Canada? What is the different between those here on visas from PR or Canadians. Oh I know. Let me help you. PR and Canadian can stay in Canada PERMANENTLY whereas those on visas CANNOT. Hmmm, if visa holders cannot stay Permanently, logically that must mean they are here TEMPORARILY.

Give it up man! You have nothing to stand on. Don't be like Sean Spicer or the United airlines CEO.... You are losing more credibility with every new post.

 

[monalisa]

I was browsing the same a moment ago and was just about to mention that in here..... SHE IS FULL OF HATERED AGAINST LIBERALS !!!

she is cute lol you guys must like her

 

[davidken1]

Joshua you just said my mind. Screech339 should just bury his head in shame. Totally off point argument!!!!!

Give it up man! You have nothing to stand on. Don't be like Sean Spicer or the United airlines CEO.... You are losing more credibility with every new post.

 

[sia_kb8]

Are you telling me that those who are in Canada on study visa, work visa or visitor visas are "NOT TEMPORARILY" in Canada? What is the different between those here on visas from PR or Canadians. Oh I know. Let me help you. PR and Canadian can stay in Canada PERMANENTLY whereas those on visas CANNOT. Hmmm, if visa holders cannot stay Permanently, logically that must mean they are here TEMPORARILY.

This is not an opinion, you are wrong, and people have tried to show you why you are wrong. But yeah, keep on digging.

 

[spyfy]

Are you telling me that those who are in Canada on study visa, work visa or visitor visas are "NOT TEMPORARILY" in Canada? What is the different between those here on visas from PR or Canadians. Oh I know. Let me help you. PR and Canadian can stay in Canada PERMANENTLY whereas those on visas CANNOT. Hmmm, if visa holders cannot stay Permanently, logically that must mean they are here TEMPORARILY.

(1) Visitors are in Canada temporarily. They are not temporary residents.
(2) People on study permits and work permits are in Canada might or might not be in Canada temporarily, only time will tell. At the same time they are temporary residents.

The difference is that a visitor has to show and declare intent that he will only come to Canada temporarily. A person on a study or work permit does not have to show or declare such intent. They only need to show that they will not overstay there visa and - if they want to stay longer - seek a new, longer legal status in time.

These are not my own words, that is the legal definition of "temporary resident". If you would bother to read the laws defining these terms you would find this definition. You are also making a false assumption of equivalence between "being in Canada temporarily" and "being a temporary resident". There are people to which both qualifiers apply, but, see item (1) and (2) above, they are not tantamount.

Let me repeat: Visitors are not temporary residents. People on study permits or work permits are temporary residents. The latter might be in Canada temporarily or they might turn out to stay in Canada permanently.

You claim that the status of visitors is "no different" from the status of people on work permits or study permits is incorrect. Assume that you are correct. Then the expression "no different" implies that there is no difference. As I deduced from the above legal definitions (see item (1) and (2)), there is a difference in status. This is a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption that you are correct with saying that they are "no different" must be an incorrect assumption.

You are therefore wrong. QED.

 

[screech339]

(1) Visitors are in Canada temporarily. They are not temporary residents.
(2) People on study permits and work permits are in Canada might or might not be in Canada temporarily, only time will tell. At the same time they are temporary residents.

The difference is that a visitor has to show and declare intent that he will only come to Canada temporarily. A person on a study or work permit does not have to show or declare such intent. They only need to show that they will not overstay there visa and - if they want to stay longer - seek a new, longer legal status in time.

These are not my own words, that is the legal definition of "temporary resident". If you would bother to read the laws defining these terms you would find this definition. You are also making a false assumption of equivalence between "being in Canada temporarily" and "being a temporary resident". There are people to which both qualifiers apply, but, see item (1) and (2) above, they are not tantamount.

Let me repeat: Visitors are not temporary residents. People on study permits or work permits are temporary residents. The latter might be in Canada temporarily or they might turn out to stay in Canada permanently.

You claim that the status of visitors is "no different" from the status of people on work permits or study permits is incorrect. Assume that you are correct. Then the expression "no different" implies that there is no difference. As I deduced from the above legal definitions (see item (1) and (2)), there is a difference in status. This is a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption that you are correct with saying that they are "no different" must be an incorrect assumption.

You are therefore wrong. QED.

Are you telling that my wife was not "temporary resident" as a visitor. She has gotten OHIP while awaiting PR sponsorship? I thought visitors are not entitled to provincial health plans since they are not "temporary resident". Your argument is flawed. Since my wife has "temporary resident" as a visitor, should you argue that my wife should have access to "pre-PR credit" since she is "temporary residents". If visitors in Canada are not temporary residing in Canada, what are they doing in Canada? Where are all they staying at? They all need a place to stay in Canada. It's called being a resident. Thus called "temporary residents", thus no different between all those who have visas.

 

[razerblade]

If you guys don't mind, could we please stop the debate on TR and PRs ?

Senate session 112 has begun. C6 discussion hasn't started yet.

Listen in
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/

 

[burnin]

(1) Visitors are in Canada temporarily. They are not temporary residents.
(2) People on study permits and work permits are in Canada might or might not be in Canada temporarily, only time will tell. At the same time they are temporary residents.

The difference is that a visitor has to show and declare intent that he will only come to Canada temporarily. A person on a study or work permit does not have to show or declare such intent. They only need to show that they will not overstay there visa and - if they want to stay longer - seek a new, longer legal status in time.

These are not my own words, that is the legal definition of "temporary resident". If you would bother to read the laws defining these terms you would find this definition. You are also making a false assumption of equivalence between "being in Canada temporarily" and "being a temporary resident". There are people to which both qualifiers apply, but, see item (1) and (2) above, they are not tantamount.

Let me repeat: Visitors are not temporary residents. People on study permits or work permits are temporary residents. The latter might be in Canada temporarily or they might turn out to stay in Canada permanently.

You claim that the status of visitors is "no different" from the status of people on work permits or study permits is incorrect. Assume that you are correct. Then the expression "no different" implies that there is no difference. As I deduced from the above legal definitions (see item (1) and (2)), there is a difference in status. This is a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption that you are correct with saying that they are "no different" must be an incorrect assumption.

You are therefore wrong. QED.

You don't even need to go that far. Students can go to school while visitors can not. Workers can work and get OHIP while visitors can not. So there is at the basic level, differences between visitors and students/workers