Bill C-6, current status, FACTS only
- Thread starter spyfy
- Start date
- Status
This is a fact only thread. It is very rude to actually knowingly not follow the request to stay to facts. You even acknowledge that you are not sticking to facts. Seriously.Divine Favour said:so sorry I know this is FACT ONLY thread but I just want to say that if this amendment passes, then this bill was about sen monsef and not we immigrants. just my opinion. i'm out
Lets respect spyfy and his thread. I am well aware that games played in the senate by cons affect us all, and that we are totally helpless (except making noise on social networks). And being helpless is query frustrating.
They will vote on Linda's amendment at 14:48.
Voting on the bill as whole might be far away. No one knows how many amendments cons are planning to introduce.
14:51 voting now.
They will vote on Linda's amendment at 14:48.
Voting on the bill as whole might be far away. No one knows how many amendments cons are planning to introduce.
14:51 voting now.
Update: This is what happened so far in the Senate, today, April 13th
I know, normally I wait until the end of a day for an update but in this case, since the residency requirement is at many forum members' hearts, I wanted to update immediately.
As was reported, yesterday Senator Linda Frum suggested an amendment that would reintroduce the "183 days within each of four calendar years" requirement. Note that this amendment wasn't well-crafted in a sense that - if passed - would actually generate contradicting/unclear language in the Citizenship Act, particularly how this clause would interact with the half-day-before-PR-rule.
On Wednesday, Senators raised a point of order that the amendment is not admissible. That means that they think it "destructs the core of the bill" and therefore wouldn't be allowed to even be proposed.
A classic example of a non admissible amendment is if a bill reads "Red sweaters should be illegal" and then someone suggests an amendment "add the the word 'not' after the word 'should'". Clearly this amendment would destruct the core of the bill. Unfortunately, in real life, things aren't as black and white.
This is why the speaker had to rule on the point of order. He had to give an argument and decide if in this particular case the amendment was admissible or not.
He decided that the amendment is admissible, the core of the argument being that the general custom is to give the "benefit of a doubt" regarding admissibility of amendments.
That simply meant that it was OK to propose this amendment. It had nothing to do with the question if the Senate actually wants to pass this amendment. As usual, they need to vote on that.
Then, right after, there was one more speech on debate of the amendment. The Senators then proceeded to vote on the amendment. They did the usual "Aye" vs. "Nay" calling. The Speaker said he thinks the Nays have it. Unsurprisingly, two senators requested a roll call, i.e. a vote by names. The Senate then adjourned for 15 minutes. They then voted on the amendment
The amendment was defeated with a vote of 28 in favour, 51 against and 0 abstentions.
Even some Conservative Senators, like Senator Oh (who proposed the minor applicants thing), voted against the amendment.
This means the changes in residency requirements proposed in bill C-6 remain unaltered. It still contains the 3/5 rule and the half-day-pre-PR credit. And it still removes the "183 days in four years" requirement.
The bill is now back to the "third reading state" which means they can either vote on the whole bill or someone can propose another amendment. The next minutes should give us an idea which of the two is the case.
P.S.: Sorry to anyone wearing red sweaters.
I know, normally I wait until the end of a day for an update but in this case, since the residency requirement is at many forum members' hearts, I wanted to update immediately.
As was reported, yesterday Senator Linda Frum suggested an amendment that would reintroduce the "183 days within each of four calendar years" requirement. Note that this amendment wasn't well-crafted in a sense that - if passed - would actually generate contradicting/unclear language in the Citizenship Act, particularly how this clause would interact with the half-day-before-PR-rule.
On Wednesday, Senators raised a point of order that the amendment is not admissible. That means that they think it "destructs the core of the bill" and therefore wouldn't be allowed to even be proposed.
A classic example of a non admissible amendment is if a bill reads "Red sweaters should be illegal" and then someone suggests an amendment "add the the word 'not' after the word 'should'". Clearly this amendment would destruct the core of the bill. Unfortunately, in real life, things aren't as black and white.
This is why the speaker had to rule on the point of order. He had to give an argument and decide if in this particular case the amendment was admissible or not.
He decided that the amendment is admissible, the core of the argument being that the general custom is to give the "benefit of a doubt" regarding admissibility of amendments.
That simply meant that it was OK to propose this amendment. It had nothing to do with the question if the Senate actually wants to pass this amendment. As usual, they need to vote on that.
Then, right after, there was one more speech on debate of the amendment. The Senators then proceeded to vote on the amendment. They did the usual "Aye" vs. "Nay" calling. The Speaker said he thinks the Nays have it. Unsurprisingly, two senators requested a roll call, i.e. a vote by names. The Senate then adjourned for 15 minutes. They then voted on the amendment
The amendment was defeated with a vote of 28 in favour, 51 against and 0 abstentions.
Even some Conservative Senators, like Senator Oh (who proposed the minor applicants thing), voted against the amendment.
This means the changes in residency requirements proposed in bill C-6 remain unaltered. It still contains the 3/5 rule and the half-day-pre-PR credit. And it still removes the "183 days in four years" requirement.
The bill is now back to the "third reading state" which means they can either vote on the whole bill or someone can propose another amendment. The next minutes should give us an idea which of the two is the case.
P.S.: Sorry to anyone wearing red sweaters.
No guy. They are continuing the debate, only the amendement was defeated. The bill still has to be voted on, which will be in May (hopefully).proudian said:
New amendment incoming ... on *terrorism*.
Not the exact same amendment again. Theoretically, they could ask for another amendment regarding residency. But the last amendment was so clearly defeated that I think even the Conservatives got the message that they won't try another one in that area.proudian said:
Just to confirm this: As expected, there is now an amendment being proposed to keep the revocation of Citizenship from terrorists etc.sistemc said:
It is unlikely that they will vote on this today. It can therefore be expected that the agreed upon date, May 3rd, remains when we should expect more.
- Status