It is clear in the army recruitment checklist that you have to be a citizen to join. So I am not sure why this has now been advertised that PRs n the army will be processed faster for citizenship!! bunch of ...
Do you know if the sitting can be watched or read live on the internet ?sinpguy said:Yes its part of todays agenda....
i saw it is the first debate, so it is moving 1 step closer to the 1st vote and further, to committee. anyone think it will pass b4 MPs taking summer break which is at the end of june?us2yow said:Yeap...looks like it is on for this afternoon. Very odd that it was updated last minute
I think you need to post your message to other thread either RQ related or 2012 applicants..negmeg said:Have a look at this and share if you like..this is my case.
Oct 2007 landed
out land trips 69 days
Feb 2011 applied
Test and RQ handed July 2012
ECAS: In process since 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzlXP2v13Pg
1st debate is over, lets see when the house of common put a vote on it ( Very anxious) . After that it will be referred to standing committee for further review. Keep finger crossed to see when it is passed 3rd reading and refer to senate.dandash said:Guys any update on the debate ??!!
I am glad there were some MPs that were against the measure to not count time spent before being a permanent resident.http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Hansard&Doc=53&Parl=41&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
I 'skimmed' through the transcript, and it seems to me that the NDP and Liberals raised a lot of points that have been raised by potential citizens here who will be affected by the proposed changes to the Act.MasterGeek said:Transcription of the second reading in the parliament:
I am glad there were some MPs that were against the measure to not count time spent before being a permanent resident.
And obviously, they did not clarify exactly how they would enforce the 'intent to reside' clause, and to what extent can one work and live overseas after becoming a citizen before being deemed to have abandoned the 'intent to reside' in Canada. Maybe because it's just impossible?As well, citizenship applicants would no longer be able to use the time they spent in Canada as non-permanent residents to meet the citizenship residence requirements. Again, this would reinforce the value of citizenship by requiring applicants to demonstrate a commitment to Canada through permanent residence. We do this for most permanent residents, so why should we not do it for all in a country where equality is such a highly prized principle, and a defensible principle in this case? Any move to part ways with that principle would risk confusing a situation that in the past has been confused and has led to abuse on a significant scale.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Hansard&Doc=53&Parl=41&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1