Bill C-6: Senate stage

[coloneldent84]

What about the "intent to reside"" provision in C24? Did the committee discuss it?

 

[tyl92]

Summary of meeting - depositions by:

- Members of the Canadian BAR
- A law prof from UofT
- A member of the Canadian Jewish and Isreal Congress

Looks to me like this bill is gonna move forward BUT we will have an amendment to allow for citizenship revocation hearings.

This is probably to cover Minister Monsef - but it means more delays for us - but the senate proceedings should get over with soon by the looks of things.

i believe so too , very likely to have an amendment at this stage and this is what the discussion apparently has been focused on. And i think , this is what caused huge delays for bill c6 from the very beginning . If the government had introduced a separate bill addressing citizenship revocation , bill c6 would have been law already. Now there is one committee sitting scheduled for tomorrow , and probably another one on march 1st .
If it does go to the HoC , the probability to pass in march is very low . Another question that can be raised , will they do the same thing for c6 as they did for c2 ( amendment proposed then withdrawn , ended up in 7 sittings for the 3rd reading )

 

[pk10]

So here's my 2 cents:

- Fwiw tommorow's meeting will be really interesting. Today was very favorable for us - as in the arguments of the Conservatives were in tatters. The law proferssor in particular tore into the CON arguments.

- I think the amendment the Lib senators want to bring in is the revocation of citizenship removal hearings. I believe the CONs dont have a problem with that either. This should not be a problem with the House of Commons though - in a lot of way it appears that the House of Commons actually wanted this to be part of the bill. I dont expect rejections from the House of Commons here. Delays possibly though.

- The intend to reside clause too looks like its going to get canned.

- I think the bill may get Royal Ascent by Canada Day if the next committe meetings go well.

I just cant see how the reduction of time from 4 years to 3 will go into effect in the same time frame though. It has been made clear that clause wont go into effect until the government has done appropriate planning. Dont put your hopes on Canada Day for that clause.

But overall still big positives on the bill today.

 

[badar14]

Hi

When they are meeting next ?

Thanks
Syed B.

 

[AmirATM]

From what i heard today, it sounds very promising. intent to reside clause was tackled well, citizenship revocation and language requirements as well,however, I just realized that they didn't talk about reducing 4 out of 6 to 3 out of 5- or did i miss it?- Can someone comment please?

 

[Cantonese]

Hi

When they are meeting next ?

Thanks
Syed B.

It will be tomorrow morning, 10:30 I think.

 

[pk10]

Was there a vote in the second reading of Bill C-6 in the senate?

Does anyone know what the breakdown of the vote was?

The day the bill was referred to the senate committe last year does not list the vote count. Not sure if they even had one (or if its even required at second reading):

https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/421/debates/089db_2016-12-15-e

If such a vote did occur it'll be really interesting as it'll probably be a good predictor of whats to come in third reading. Committe stage is looking good as far as today's proceedings are concerned.

 

[hangincanada]

Was there a vote in the second reading of Bill C-6 in the senate?

Does anyone know what the breakdown of the vote was?

The day the bill was referred to the senate committe last year does not list the vote count. Not sure if they even had one (or if its even required at second reading):

https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/chamber/421/debates/089db_2016-12-15-e

If such a vote did occur it'll be really interesting as it'll probably be a good predictor of whats to come in third reading. Committe stage is looking good as far as today's proceedings are concerned.

there will be a clause by clause vote, and the results will be made as recommendations in their report for the chamber to consider in the third reading

 

[spyfy]

Probably a silly question: Why is there a discussion about allowing proper hearing before the citizenship is revoked when the bill itself is essentially about doing away with the ability to revoke someone's citizenship. Can someone shed some light on this?

There is two kinds of revocation (I'm simplifying a bit)

1. Revocation regarding convicted terrorists and some other crimes.
2. Revocation because of misrepresentation (say, in your PR application or your citizenship application you claimed to never have been convicted for anything. Or you lied about your country of birth. Or your other citizenships or...).

Nr. 1 was introduced by the Harper government. Bill C-6 will remove that case.

Nr. 2 will still be a thing. But they want to introduce a hearing for it. (That's what the possible amendment in the senate is about)

 

[nofrills]

I'm not missing the point. Anyone can save up and pay $600, I'm really sorry.

No they can't. Just because you write it down, doesn't make it true.

People with large families receive a LOT of government support, a WHOLE LOT. I know personally some. They live better than I do.

The article is talking about low income families.

If I can afford it, paying rent and heating by myself on minimum wage (close to it) with zero government support, anyone can, I'm sorry.
Canada is not a country where you are left with nothing.

If people think Citizenship is not worth the struggle of saving $600, I'm not sorry for them.
As I see it, it is positive that these people don't apply - not negative.
Anyway, they have their PR and can play with their PR status their whole life if they're happy that way.
Some people do that anyway because their country don't allow dual-citizenship.

You're continuing to miss the point, if you can't see past your own world view then I can't be bothered teaching you. Feel free to think beyond your own personal experience sometime.

 

[itsmyid]

No they can't. Just because you write it down, doesn't make it true.

The article is talking about low income families.

You're continuing to miss the point, if you can't see past your own world view then I can't be bothered teaching you. Feel free to think beyond your own personal experience sometime.

You are so funny .... since when expressing your personal opinion counts as teaching ? And has he asked you to teach him?

And as he wrote it down didn't make it true , what made the stuff you just wrote down true?

 

[chilkootcee]

I found the videos of the actual Senate Committee meetings to present the concerns and questions in an understandable way...

http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2?fk=445732&globalStreamId=3&useragent=Mozilla/5.0%20(Windows%20NT%206.1;%20WOW64)%20AppleWebKit/537.36%20(KHTML,%20like%20Gecko)%20Chrome/56.0.2924.87%20Safari/537.36

C.

 

[nofrills]

You are so funny .... since when expressing your personal opinion counts as teaching ? And has he asked you to teach him?

That doesn't make any sense. If you don't feel like reading a different opinion maybe don't read the forum.

And as he wrote it down didn't make it true , what made the stuff you just wrote down true?

Specifically?

 

[itsmyid]

That doesn't make any sense. If you don't feel like reading a different opinion maybe don't read the forum.

Specifically?

Nothing wrong with different opinion, but expressing that opinion while self-claiming it as "teaching" is just ridiculous

 

[egghead]

I agree in a sense, but also feel that if they really want this bill and intend to push it through, they should already be doing these things. We have waited more than eighteen months, sat through the debacle Monsef debacle, Senate reform, etc. This wait is on top of the time lost to the previous government's bill. Trudeau's government hasn't shown a 100% commitment to this bill, they could do that by fast-tracking what is left.

So here's my 2 cents:

- Fwiw tommorow's meeting will be really interesting. Today was very favorable for us - as in the arguments of the Conservatives were in tatters. The law proferssor in particular tore into the CON arguments.

- I think the amendment the Lib senators want to bring in is the revocation of citizenship removal hearings. I believe the CONs dont have a problem with that either. This should not be a problem with the House of Commons though - in a lot of way it appears that the House of Commons actually wanted this to be part of the bill. I dont expect rejections from the House of Commons here. Delays possibly though.

- The intend to reside clause too looks like its going to get canned.

- I think the bill may get Royal Ascent by Canada Day if the next committe meetings go well.

I just cant see how the reduction of time from 4 years to 3 will go into effect in the same time frame though. It has been made clear that clause wont go into effect until the government has done appropriate planning. Dont put your hopes on Canada Day for that clause.

But overall still big positives on the bill today.