BREAKING NEWS Bill C-6 finally passed in HoC, Now reading in Senate

[Richie888]

Bill C-6 does not propose a "residency requirement," but rather a "physical presence requirement." The difference is real and substantial.

I believe Bill C-24 has also a "physical presence requirement" and not a "residency requirement", ( but I might be mistaken).

 

[dpenabill]

I believe Bill C-24 has also a "physical presence requirement" and not a "residency requirement", ( but I might be mistaken).

Yes, the current requirement, as implemented in Bill C-24, is a physical presence requirement. Indeed, there are two physical present requirements currently applicable to applicants for grant citizenship (the 4/6 rule, and the 183 days in each of four calendar years rule), both of which were part of Bill C-24.

Obviously Bill C-6 will not revert to this; rather, it proposes a 3/5 presence rule, and proposes to remove the 183 days in each of four calendar years rule.

In any event, a physical presence rule is substantively different from the old residency requirement. Bill C-6 does not propose reverting to the residency requirements in place prior to Bill C-24.

 

[h3a3j6]

Yes, the current requirement, as implemented in Bill C-24, is a physical presence requirement. Indeed, there are two physical present requirements currently applicable to applicants for grant citizenship (the 4/6 rule, and the 183 days in each of four calendar years rule), both of which were part of Bill C-24.

Obviously Bill C-6 will not revert to this; rather, it proposes a 3/5 presence rule, and proposes to remove the 183 days in each of four calendar years rule.

In any event, a physical presence rule is substantively different from the old residency requirement. Bill C-6 does not propose reverting to the residency requirements in place prior to Bill C-24.

Personally, I don't believe this is a bad thing. Coupling this requirement with strong systems in place should make the process totally automatable. Once someone applies for citizenship, a CBSA report should come out delineating all entries and exits, computing total amount of time spent in Canada and automatically confirming eligibility...

 

[MarceauBletard]

I don't think anybody is concerned with the presence rule, which you anyway have to respect to keep your PR.
I think almost nobody cares about that except those who spent a lot of time away from Canada.

In my opinion, what matters to everyone is that they bring the temporary time back to a half-day per day completed and bring it back down to 3 years needed.

 

[emamabd]

Personally, I don't believe this is a bad thing. Coupling this requirement with strong systems in place should make the process totally automatable. Once someone applies for citizenship, a CBSA report should come out delineating all entries and exits, computing total amount of time spent in Canada and automatically confirming eligibility...

Very true, there's lots of room for improving the way citizenship applications are being processed today, there are other countries that complete processing in 3 months if not less.

If processing time was that short in Canada, i wouldn't really care if C-6 would get approved or not.

 

[keesio]

Personally, I don't believe this is a bad thing. Coupling this requirement with strong systems in place should make the process totally automatable. Once someone applies for citizenship, a CBSA report should come out delineating all entries and exits, computing total amount of time spent in Canada and automatically confirming eligibility...

Man I wish....

 

[Hamid khan]

Personally, I don't believe this is a bad thing. Coupling this requirement with strong systems in place should make the process totally automatable. Once someone applies for citizenship, a CBSA report should come out delineating all entries and exits, computing total amount of time spent in Canada and automatically confirming eligibility...

but it is possible only Australia UK NZ ect country
who uses very high computer data based system

 

[MarceauBletard]

Less than a month to go until the Senate starts working again! ;D

Reminder from the Senate's twitter account: "the Senate has adjourned until Tuesday September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m."

 

[esi123]

Less than a month to go until the Senate starts working again! ;D

Reminder from the Senate's twitter account: "the Senate has adjourned until Tuesday September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m."

Looking forward to it!

 

[girlfromindia]

The rule was suppose to go back to 3 out of 5 years by July 2016.

Does anyone have an idea if there is an inclination to pass this rule off and by which date?

 

[PMM]

Hi

Less than a month to go until the Senate starts working again! ;D

Reminder from the Senate's twitter account: "the Senate has adjourned until Tuesday September 27, 2016 at 2:00 p.m."

1. Also they are island so all exits and entrances are recorded. There are no "land" port of entries (other than ships)

 

[dpenabill]

The rule was suppose to go back to 3 out of 5 years by July 2016.

Not exactly. There is a 3 years out of 5 rule proposed in Bill C-6, which the Liberal government hoped to have adopted by July 2016. But of course Canada has a democratic form of government, so changes in law must go through the full legislative process.

Bill C-6 did make it through the House of Commons before July, but it has not been voted on yet by the Senate. Odds are it will eventually pass the Senate sometime this fall, before the December break at the least . . . except of course there is no guarantee, and there are some issues with the Bill (such as the repeal of provisions which allow the gov't to revoke citizenship for convictions of certain crimes) which the Senate may squabble over.

Apart from the legislative process itself, Minister McCallum had expressed hope the Bill itself would be adopted by July 2016, but had also said that the 3/5 rule would be implemented later. The provisions governing transition explicitly provide for many of the provisions, and those implementing the 3/5 rule in particular, to not take effect right away, but to take effect at a later time. This is standard practice. In any event, there was no promise the 3/5 rule would take effect by July, or even anytime this year.

Recent reporting in this forum suggests the Minister personally assured someone the Bill would be "in effect" this year. That is ambiguous at best, since again some parts of the Bill will take effect as soon as the Bill is formally adopted and given Royal Assent, but other parts will take effect at various times later. My sense is that it is unlikely the 3/5 rule will be in effect before sometime in 2017, but when in 2017 still a big unknown.

Finally, the 3/5 rule is not going back to any previous rule. The 3/5 rule is a brand new rule. While in some ways it is stricter than what was in place before the Conservative government implemented the 4/6 rule, since it is a strict presence rule (the old 3/4 rule could be met by residency for three years, meaning there was no strict physical presence requirement), but is also a significantly more flexible approach than the old 3/4 rule in that it allows for longer or more extensive absences relative to a physical presence test (despite the fact the old 3/4 rule was a residency requirement, under the Conservative government the trend was to impose a strict physical presence test).

Does anyone have an idea if there is an inclination to pass this rule off and by which date?

In any event, it is likely the 3/5 will be adopted. No guarantee but likely.

As noted, when it will take effect is still unknown. Not likely to take effect this year. Beyond that, guessing when is speculation.

 

[MarceauBletard]

Please note this information from Feb 18, 2016 though (CBC.ca) :

New immigrants to Canada may have an easier time qualifying for citizenship with changes coming in the next few weeks to the Citizenship Act, says Immigration Minister John McCallum.
...
As for when Canadians can expect an announcement from the government, McCallum said to be on watch "in the coming days and weeks, but not very many weeks."

So, my guess is that it will be one of the first bills the Senate starts working on end September/early October.
I don't think they'll delay this for much longer after September 27th.
But indeed, I'm speculating. No guarantee.

Reference: cbc . ca /news/politics/mccallum-immigrants-citizenship-act-language-requirement-1.3453658

 

[girlfromindia]

Oh yes, it was a 3/4 rule and not 3/5 rule.

But a lot of people were asked to list down their physical presence even under the old 3/4 rule and were not qualified if they did not reside in the country for those 3 years.

But anyways.. thanks for the info.. Its good to know the likely dates.. There is no guarantee for anything anyways !

 

[itsmyid]

Please note this information from Feb 18, 2016 though (CBC.ca) :

New immigrants to Canada may have an easier time qualifying for citizenship with changes coming in the next few weeks to the Citizenship Act, says Immigration Minister John McCallum.
...
As for when Canadians can expect an announcement from the government, McCallum said to be on watch "in the coming days and weeks, but not very many weeks."

So, my guess is that it will be one of the first bills the Senate starts working on end September/early October.
I don't think they'll delay this for much longer after September 27th.
But indeed, I'm speculating. No guarantee.

Reference: cbc . ca /news/politics/mccallum-immigrants-citizenship-act-language-requirement-1.3453658

'not very many weeks' from February .... already 20+ weeks now
with all the bad news about current economy and unemployment, I highly doubt this would be 'one of the first bills' they work on. I won't even be surprised if it is put on hold indefinitely