Bill C-6, Messages between the HoC and the Senate, FACTS ONLY

[spyfy]

They are talking about C-4, the did not like that the HOC ignored their amendments. They are taking 30 minutes to vote.

This is completely false. They are currently in the routine proceedings, C-4 is done.

 

[satanicodr]

This is completely false. They are currently in the routine proceedings, C-4 is done.

You are right. I am so sorry for my confusion, I opened the link from yesterday and I spend half an hour listening to it. My bad.

 

[oomuchi]

You are right. I am so sorry for my confusion, I opened the link from yesterday and I spend half an hour listening to it. My bad.

Do you know if somebody has the link for the session today?
Thanks in advance

 

[sistemc]

14:02 now they started with the question period. C-6 is next on the agenda.

So hopefully they will start to discuss the C-6 in 30 minutes.

 

[satanicodr]

Do you know if somebody has the link for the session today?
Thanks in advance

Go to
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca

And then click "Senate sitting no. 133", in my experience the website works better in edge than in chrome

 

[capermanet]

You are right. I am so sorry for my confusion, I opened the link from yesterday and I spend half an hour listening to it. My bad.

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20170615/-1/6900?useragent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; MAAR; InfoPath.3; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E; rv:11.0) like Gecko

 

[sistemc]

14:17 They skipped C-6, and proceed with C-16!

So much about tweeting. Have a nice day.

 

[MarceauBletard]

https://twitter.com/SenJaffer/status/875414769766998017

Sen. Mobina Jaffer‏ Verified account @SenJaffer 16 minutes ago
Replying to @AadrishmBaloch @Yellownotez
#C6 we will debate today and there might even be a vote. MIght #C6 #senCA

 

[spyfy]

To clarify something: I didn't have the chance to listen in for the last 30 minutes but based on what I read in the other threads, they decided to first deal with C-16 and then with C-6.

While C-6 is listed before C-16 in the order paper, there is rule 4-13(3) in the standing orders of the Senate saying:
"Government Business shall be called in such sequence as the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government shall determine."

That means that the Government Leader can order business differently if they want to.

Note that C-16 has been in the Senate pipeline for longer and it is on the brink of being passed. So it makes sense that the Senate first wants to deal with C-16 and then - based on how much time is left - see if they have time to also deal with C-6.

 

[surelip]

Silent follower here. Spyfy, I really appreciate all of the work you're doing on here. It's informative, insightful and concise, and I hope that you continue to be a resource for all of us going through the immigration process...including us Americans! I know this is a FACTS ONLY forum, but I'm curious if they skipped C-6 because it requires more time to debate, or just to stall (or both)?

 

[surelip]

Thanks for this perspective!

To clarify something: I didn't have the chance to listen in for the last 30 minutes but based on what I read in the other threads, they decided to first deal with C-16 and then with C-6.

While C-6 is listed before C-16 in the order paper, there is rule 4-13(3) in the standing orders of the Senate saying:
"Government Business shall be called in such sequence as the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government shall determine."

That means that the Government Leader can order business differently if they want to.

Note that C-16 has been in the Senate pipeline for longer and it is on the brink of being passed. So it makes sense that the Senate first wants to deal with C-16 and then - based on how much time is left - see if they have time to also deal with C-6.

 

[sistemc]

To clarify something: I didn't have the chance to listen in for the last 30 minutes but based on what I read in the other threads, they decided to first deal with C-16 and then with C-6.

While C-6 is listed before C-16 in the order paper, there is rule 4-13(3) in the standing orders of the Senate saying:
"Government Business shall be called in such sequence as the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government shall determine."

That means that the Government Leader can order business differently if they want to.

Note that C-16 has been in the Senate pipeline for longer and it is on the brink of being passed. So it makes sense that the Senate first wants to deal with C-16 and then - based on how much time is left - see if they have time to also deal with C-6.

Immediately after the Question period ended senator Bellemare (now non-affiliated, but appointed by Harper) asked to discuss the C-16 and speaker announced that. No one mentioned the C-6.

 

[dpenabill]

can someone please summarize which amendment was rejected by HOC ? Sorry, I haven't been following it too closely. Thanks

I am among those who follow this stuff rather diligently if not compulsively, and I sympathize with your frustration. References to the amendments and proposed amendments to the amendments, tend to be less than illuminating, more confusing than informative.

In particular, while the gist of the amendments have been fairly indicated, and here and there referenced including links, the actual substance of them has been somewhat elusive for anyone who is not diligently engaged or well-versed in navigating the legislative process in detail. And in some respects, somewhat confusing even for those who do follow this stuff even a bit obsessively.

Here is a link to the contents of the message which has been sent to the Senate concerning Bill C-6, which states the position the HoC takes regarding the various amendments proposed by the Senate. See:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-193/order-notice/page-13

To understand what the HoC is proposing, regarding the Senate proposed amendments, requires carefully reading this in conjunction with the message sent to the HoC by the Senate, and both in conjunction with the version of Bill C-6 passed by the HoC.

To see the version of Bill C-6 passed by the HoC, see
http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-6/third-reading

To understand that, one also needs to read and compare the current provisions in the Citizenship Act itself; for grant of citizenship provisions (Section 5) see
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-2.html#docCont

I do not have a handy link to the actual amendments proposed by the Senate. The news piece (this should link) referred to above barely skims the surface.

And without the the actual amendments proposed by the Senate, one is left with putting together a complex puzzle that has more than a few important pieces missing.

That said, the overall picture comes into focus and relative to most, other than one of the three main issues, that picture is fairly clear: the HoC is insisting on exempting those 55 or older from the language requirement and otherwise proposing relatively technical revisions.

The part which is more complicated has to do with provisions which govern the revocation of citizenship on the grounds of misrepresentation or fraud.

The gist of it is that the Senate proposed to include provisions in Bill C-6 which will revise these provisions, those prescribing the procedure for revoking citizenship on the grounds of fraud. The version tabled and passed in the HoC did not address this part of the Citizenship Act, essentially leaving intact the rather draconian process adopted in Bill C-24 under PM Harper. In the meantime, that is since the Senate sent this Bill back to the HoC, a Federal Court has also ruled that some of these key provisions (Subsections 10(1), 10(3), and 10(4) in particular) are inoperative because the procedure violates the Canadian Bill of Rights.

Thus the newspaper piece referenced above reference to "Hussen's hand was partially forced by a recent Federal Court decision." Meaning that the Liberals were, in part, compelled to include amendments to the revocation procedure.

Thus, a large part of what is included in the HoC message back to the Senate deals with this particular issue, revising the procedures for revoking citizenship on the grounds of misrepresentation or fraud.

The details are important. For example, it appears there are hundreds if not more who have been sent the letter informing them that the Minister is proceeding to revoke their citizenship. These cases are essentially in limbo at the moment. Moreover, scores of those affected have undoubtedly moved, perhaps multiple times, and thus the address to which the letter was sent is not valid, and thus they have not actually received this letter. As proposed by the HoC, these persons will only have thirty days from the date these revised procedures come into force to make a request that their case be governed by the new procedures. The date these new procedures will come into force will not be prescribed, but will rather be subject to an order by the Governor in Council sometime in the future, at some undetermined date. Meaning, scores of Canadian citizens who have no actual notice yet of the government's intent to revoke their citizenship, and those hundreds who have received the letter, will have this narrow yet to-be-determined thirty day window in which to, in essence, opt for the new procedure, and otherwise will be subject to a procedure which the Federal Court has ruled to be in violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights and inoperative.

While I have been among those who, from the day it was tabled, criticized Bill C-6 for failing to address the unfairness and injustice in revocation procedure as adopted by the Harper government, I otherwise opined that once the HoC passed its version of Bill C-6 it would have been better to address this problem in separate legislation. Revising procedures of this sort is complicated. And this is evident in the amendments proposed by the Senate and now subject to further proposals by the HoC. Since the government failed to table separate legislation addressing this serious problem, the issue is on the table, something which needs to be addressed and resolved in this legislation. I have not had a chance to fully examine let alone engage in an analysis of what is now proposed. Again, to see what the HoC has proposed now, see:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-193/order-notice/page-13

And, again, the latter is difficult to grasp without referencing the actual text of the Senate's proposed amendments, for which again I do not have a link readily available . . . while undoubtedly someone has probably linked the actual text of the Senate's message to the HoC, it would perhaps be helpful if someone who can readily provide the link does so again (at the risk of it becoming buried in the flood of largely trivial detail about what is happening from moment to moment).

That said, perhaps there will be a final outcome soon and a complete version of the Bill, as adopted and getting Royal Assent, will become available, leaving no need to puzzle over what the respective proposals are actually say and mean (well, subject to interpretation and application).

 

[sistemc]

15:26 they voted on the third reading of C-16. Yay, nay stuff. They will come back and have a normal vote at 15:55.

We will see what will follow next.

 

[oomuchi]

Go to
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca

And then click "Senate sitting no. 133", in my experience the website works better in edge than in chrome

thank you!
but it is suspended...

Senate sitting no. 133 (Senate Chamber, Centre Block)
Suspended >>>>>>>>>>>

Senate sitting no. 133
1:30 PM-5:30 PM
Thu, Jun 15, 2017


NFFN meeting no. 92 (Room 160-S, Centre Block)
In Progress


Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
2:00 PM-4:00 PM
Thu, Jun 15, 2017