+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Bill C-6: Senate stage

Coffee1981

Star Member
Jun 29, 2016
136
11
septimius said:
Seriously, I come to this thread looking for updates but mostly find depressing comments instead! Here's what's going to happen, the senate will reconvene on the 28th, during that week, they will do the third reading with amendments and send it to the HOC. Looking at previous bills that went through similar process, it shouldn't take long. The HOC will agree to the Senate amendments and the bill will immediately receive Royal assent. Here is an example where it took only one day from senate to HOC to royal assent.

C-9: An Act to amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992
Chamber Note Date
Senate 3rd reading with amendments May 13, 2009
House Agreed to Senate amendments May 14, 2009
Royal Assent Chapter 9 May 14, 2009
That presupposes that the House views the amendment as "friendly". The Minister told the Senate he was open to suggestions. He didn't cut them a blank cheque. The amendment was written without consulting the Federal Court or IRCC. Sen. O said that at the end of the discussion today. The Minister and the Prime Minister may have other ideas.

She's asked for a lot today. She may have to scale back her request if she wants it passed.
 

captain74

Star Member
Jun 21, 2009
196
11
subha_1962 said:
Tweet from Sen Jaffer is not good news

Currently the debate is on the amendment. Then the vote for the amendment. Then another 3rd reading debate on the whole bill. Then another vote. OMG



@mego149 @J_polus debate on amendment, Vote, and then 3rd Reading debate and then vote #senCA
Seen as a sequence these steps create an image of a long process. In reality these debates and votes could be all done and over with in a matter of a couple of days. The vote in the House of Commons could be done the very next day as well.

The key is - some one needs to push for these votes at the earliest!

It seems that the independents (facilitated by Senator McCoy) are behind the bill with the proposed amendments. That should mean enough votes to pass it with the amendment.
 

captain74

Star Member
Jun 21, 2009
196
11
Coffee1981 said:
That presupposes that the House views the amendment as "friendly".
Agreed.

However, given that the bill will only go to HoC when it has passed the vote in the Senate with the amendment included, all that would be needed in the HoC will be a final reading and a vote.

I can't see why the minister would object to the (hard to argue against) amendment at the final reading stage and sabotage the bill put forward by his own department. Once the minister is behind the bill, the entire liberal contingent will back it.
 

hangincanada

Star Member
Oct 6, 2016
155
30
captain74 said:
Agreed.

However, given that the bill will only go to HoC when it has passed the vote in the Senate with the amendment included, all that would be needed in the HoC will be a final reading and a vote.

I can't see why the minister would object to the (hard to argue against) amendment at the final reading stage and sabotage the bill put forward by his own department. Once the minister is behind the bill, the entire liberal contingent will back it.
unless cic and senators have reached agreement on the amendment it is not going to be accepted overnight by the house. clearly, omidvar said the draft was created by the senate alone, that is of a concern.
 

AmirATM

Star Member
Oct 4, 2016
119
22
spyfy said:
Sure, because your feeling based on your experience regarding emergency room wait times is more reliable than the assessment of the timeline by a CIC employee.
We will see spyfy - I will remind you - and yes CIC employee's guess is as good as my guess based on my experience in the emergency room. I dont usually get stressed for things out of my control but you seem desperate to me - you getting very touchy by people expressing an opinion different than yours.
 

Joshua1

Hero Member
Nov 18, 2013
946
473
As both the former and new ministers of immigration stated, c-6 is fine as it is. Should the senate try to bring some amendment as this late stage, they conservatives could continue to stall the bill and derail the changes. Remember, c-6 is not pertinent to "old-stock" Canadians. The bill should be passed as is and the amendment be done later. With all the border strengthening rhetoric coming from the US and refugees crossing the border, the Canadian conservatives could use that as a fear tactics to stall.
 

subha_1962

Hero Member
Dec 20, 2013
265
24
It feels like at this point that the minority opposition conservatives in the senate are vastly more influential than the majority joined independents and liberals under a majority elected liberal government that is unable to get one of their key bills passed for over one year.

Compared to this when bill C24 was passed the majority CONS exerted their influence and the bill was passed in record time, without a whimper by the then opposition (as Senator Omidvar mentioned yesterday), very sad and it comes out as the liberal government being thoroughly incompetent.
 

capermanet

Star Member
Jun 17, 2016
143
47
Next meeting on March/28/2017
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator McCoy, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ringuette:

That Bill C-6 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended,

(a)in clause 3, on page 4, by replacing line 1 with the following:

“3 (1)Subsection 10(2) of the Act is repealed.

(2) Subsection 10(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(3) Before revoking a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship, the Minister shall provide the person with a written notice that

(a) advises the person of his or her right to make written representations;

(b) specifies the form and manner in which the representations must be made;

(c) sets out the specific grounds and reasons, including reference to materials, on which the Minister is relying to make his or her decision; and

(d) advises the person of his or her right to request that the case be referred to the Court.

(3.1) The person may, within 60 days after the day on which the notice is received,

(a) make written representations with respect to the matters set out in the notice, including any humanitarian and compassionate considerations — such as the best interests of a child directly affected — that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances and whether the Minister’s decision will render the person stateless; and

(b) request that the case be referred to the Court.

(3.2) The Minister shall consider any representations received from the person pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(a) before making a decision.

(3) The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 10(4):

(4.1) The Minister shall refer the case to the Court under subsection 10.1(1) if the person has made a request pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(b) unless the person has made written representations pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(a) and the Minister is satisfied

(a)on a balance of probabilities that the person has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances; or

(b)that sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.

(4) The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 10(5):

(5.1) The Minister shall provide a notice under subsection (3) or a written decision under subsection (5) by personally serving the person. If personal service is not practicable, the Minister may apply to the Court for an order for substituted service or for dispensing with service.

(5.2) The Minister’s decision to revoke citizenship or renunciation of citizenship is final and is not subject to judicial review under this Act or the Federal Courts Act.”;

(b)in clause 4, on page 4,

(i)by replacing line 2 with the following:

“4 (1) Subsection 10.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

10.1 (1) If a person makes a request under paragraph 10(3.1)(b), the person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked only if the Minister seeks a declaration, in an action that the Minister commences, that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and the Court makes such a declaration.

(2) Subsections 10.1(2) and (3) of the Act are re-”, and

(ii)by adding after line 6 the following:

“(3) Subsection 10.1(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(4) If the Minister seeks a declaration, he or she must prove on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.

(5) In an action for a declaration, the Court

(a) shall assess, on a balance of probabilities, whether the facts — acts or omissions — alleged in support of the declaration have occurred, are occurring or may occur; and

(b) with respect to any evidence, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive and base its decision on any evidence adduced in the proceedings that it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.”;

(c)on page 4, by adding after line 7 the following:

“5.1 Subsection 10.5(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

10.5(1) On the request of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister shall — in the originating document that commences an action under subsection 10.1(1) on the basis that the person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act other than a fact that is also described in paragraph 36(1)(a)or (b)or (2)(a) or (b) of that Act — seek a declaration that the person who is the subject of the action is inadmissible on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights or on grounds of organized criminality under, respectively, subsection 34(1), paragraph 35(1)(a)or (b) or subsection 37(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.“;

(d) on page 7,

(i)by adding after line 16 the following:

“19.1 A person whose citizenship or renunciation of citizenship was revoked under subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act after the day on which this Act receives royal assent but before the day on which all of subsections 3(2)to (4) come into force, is deemed never to have had their citizenship revoked.”, and

(ii)by adding after line 21 the following:

“20.1 If, immediately before the coming into force of section 4, a notice has been given to a person under subsection 10(3) of the Citizenship Act and the matter was not finally disposed of before the coming into force of that section, the person may, within 30 days after the day on which that section comes into force, elect to have the matter dealt with and disposed of as if the notice had been given under subsection 10(3) of the Citizenship Act, as enacted by subsection 3(2).”;

(e)on page 8, by replacing lines 16 to 25 with the following:

“25 Subparagraphs 40(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are replaced by the following:

(ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act before the coming into force of paragraphs 46(2)(b)and (c), as enacted by An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, or

(iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of the Citizenship Act before the coming into force of paragraphs 46(2)(b)and (c), as enacted by An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

26 Paragraphs 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(b) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act; or

(c) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act.”; and

(f)in clause 27, on page 9, by adding after line 9 the following:

“(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”.
 

tyl92

Hero Member
Apr 1, 2013
265
13
They have just done nothing so far.
I never expected such a long amendment, and the question of amending this bill c6 was raised a long time ago even the previous minister was aware of it during the HoC stage .
Why didn't they just amend it at the committee since this was so important if we refer to the length of the amendment ?
Stupidest way ever.
Im just going to stop following this bill, I feel stupid and they're messing around in their playground so I won't get into this trick anymore again
Because at the end this bill will end up passing as is just like in the HoC where Jenny Kwan's amendments were qualified Out of scope
 

AliceL

Member
Mar 9, 2017
14
3
tyl92 said:
They have just done nothing so far.
I never expected such a long amendment, and the question of amending this bill c6 was raised a long time ago even the previous minister was aware of it during the HoC stage .
Why didn't they just amend it at the committee since this was so important if we refer to the length of the amendment ?
Stupidest way ever.
Im just going to stop following this bill, I feel stupid and they're messing around in their playground so I won't get into this trick anymore again
Because at the end this bill will end up passing as is just like in the HoC where Jenny Kwan's amendments were qualified Out of scope
I feel the same... I think Sen. Omidvar has great intentions but she is clearly very inexperienced with this whole political poker game and the whole "lawyering" thing, as she admitted herself yesterday... The Cons will continue with the filibustering, because at the end of the day, what they care about is not the terrorism issue, but rather how many immigrants they delay from getting their citizenship (which is why they passed the 4/6 rule back in 2014 in the first place). Because, more "new" citizens = more votes for the libs. It's all about power games, never about what's good for the country.
 

surya99

Star Member
Oct 25, 2016
59
5
subha_1962 said:
Tweet from Sen Jaffer is not good news

Currently the debate is on the amendment. Then the vote for the amendment. Then another 3rd reading debate on the whole bill. Then another vote. OMG



@mego149 @J_polus debate on amendment, Vote, and then 3rd Reading debate and then vote #senCA
Why in the hell she brought amendment at this stage now. She can wait till it pass and make a new bill and play with it forever. OMG... is this a some kind of game that these senators are playing with us. She lost my respect... bloody politics
 

spiritsoul

Hero Member
Jan 9, 2013
448
35
Mississauga
Category........
FSW
Visa Office......
London
NOC Code......
2511
App. Filed.......
28-03-2011
AOR Received.
02-05-2011
File Transfer...
02-05-2011
Med's Request
25-11-2012
Med's Done....
17-01-2013
Interview........
Nil
Passport Req..
18-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
11-03-2013
LANDED..........
16-06-2013
tyl92 said:
and please take my word , that amendment will end up out of scope .
I hope so
 

septimius

Star Member
Sep 12, 2013
78
5
Coffee1981 said:
That presupposes that the House views the amendment as "friendly". The Minister told the Senate he was open to suggestions. He didn't cut them a blank cheque. The amendment was written without consulting the Federal Court or IRCC. Sen. O said that at the end of the discussion today. The Minister and the Prime Minister may have other ideas.

She's asked for a lot today. She may have to scale back her request if she wants it passed.
It does "presuppose" it as friendly because the previous Minister stated that the reason it wasn't included in the bill was because it was "out of scope" not because they were against it. In other words, he messed up and then realized actually, the proposed amendment should have been included in the bill.

My god, a guy tries to throw in some positivity in and you end up with "presuppositions" and negativitiy.
 

iboua001

Full Member
May 22, 2013
21
9
tyl92 said:
They have just done nothing so far.
I never expected such a long amendment, and the question of amending this bill c6 was raised a long time ago even the previous minister was aware of it during the HoC stage .
Why didn't they just amend it at the committee since this was so important if we refer to the length of the amendment ?
Stupidest way ever.
Im just going to stop following this bill, I feel stupid and they're messing around in their playground so I won't get into this trick anymore again
Because at the end this bill will end up passing as is just like in the HoC where Jenny Kwan's amendments were qualified Out of scope
I believe that the due process was never into consideration during HOC (low priority and out of scope), but they have realized its importance after Maryam Moncef's case. so The amendment was introduce at a very late stage. I personally like this amendment, as I feel it will make us more confident about our citizenship and that is not something that will be taking away by some analyst without you having to pull up a fight. I can't wait for the bill to pass but I rather that this get included as well.