Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
Ohh, they can. It takes that long partially because they can. Senate rules are more flexible than the ones of the HoC. With the leave of the senate, a senator can propose almost any amendment. That's why we saw Omidvar's amendment (which was ruled out of scope at HoC), then the language amendment, and now children-related amendment.spyfy said:
Despite the frustration. I would rather have a complete bill covering many of the shortcomings of all previous citizenship bills. A bill that is fair and working. Otherwise, if loopholes are still there, future goverments either Liberal. Conservative or NDP might introduce newer bills to address such shortcomings and perhaps repeal many good things that is being fought for in C6 (like residency, language, revocation ... etc). If a certain ammendment is not pertaining to the article that helps our individual cases (say 3/5), it does not mean it is not equally important.
In fact, I would rather they debate on such new and side ammendments and they run of time before the whole bill vote, rather than give them time to change vital and core articles of C6
In fact, I would rather they debate on such new and side ammendments and they run of time before the whole bill vote, rather than give them time to change vital and core articles of C6
Thank you.knightofOrthodoxy said:Despite the frustration. I would rather have a complete bill covering many of the shortcomings of all previous citizenship bills. A bill that is fair and working. Otherwise, if loopholes are still there, future goverments either Liberal. Conservative or NDP might introduce newer bills to address such shortcomings and perhaps repeal many good things that is being fought for in C6 (like residency, language, revocation ... etc). If a certain ammendment is not pertaining to the article that helps our individual cases (say 3/5), it does not mean it is not equally important.
In fact, I would rather they debate on such new and side ammendments and they run of time before the whole bill vote, rather than give them time to change vital and core articles of C6
Just to clarify: I'm not frustrated about the delay. Who cares about four weeks. I am actually more concerned about the general direction the Senate seems to take since the large intake of independent Senators in the fall. You can see it with C-4, you can see it with C-6. One day (hopefully) I will be a Canadian citizen and I will be able to vote for the house of commons. But no matter what government I vote it, there is now this independently-dominated senate that just adds random pet-projects to bills. Even to bills which are direct consequences of the platform the government was elected on.jsm0085 said:
There is an abundant amount of important topics. There always is another topic that is also important and should be dealt with in any bill. Politics has to prioritize. But I want elected representatives to prioritize. And not a body of unelected people with life tenure (until age of 75) in a body whose composition the Canadian electorate has close to zero power to change.
The senate should give sober second thought. They should correct mistakes by the government. But we cannot have an unelected body actually dictate the agenda of the government. There is always other important topics. But it is elected officials who balance all these important topics.
Again, I'm not concerned with these extra four-ish weeks. But with the general direction parliament seems to take.
Have you followed the debate on C-4 earlier today? There was a Senator who openly admitted that she feels amendments are starting to get out of scope on the regular by now, but that she didn't dare to raise that point earlier. The Senate can amend anything. But they should use their powers responsibly.vasyok said: