Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
I also agree that it will most likely pass based on the debate.
No of course not. Just hammering things through the Senate like Harper did is not the way to go.jsm0085 said:
I would be - honestly - interested in your opinion regarding the line I draw:
- Reintroducing appeals process: Is a valid point. C-24 removed the appeals process. Bill C-6 is generally repealing C-24 but it doesn't address this particular issue. So it makes sense to consider adding this to the bill.
- Age requirement for language test: It used to be 55. Bill C-24 changed it to 65. Bill C-6 would have it returned to 55. Now, through an amendment, it would turn out to be at 60. One could argue that the Senate is trying to find a compromise between different governments to finally settle this dispute.
------ Here's the line I draw ------
- Minors can currently only ask the minister for a waiver to be able to apply and this should be changed into a direct right to apply. This is an interesting topic and a worthwhile cause. However, this wasn't dealt with in C-24 and therefore also shouldn't be dealt with in this repeal bill. It is an important topic. There are other important ones related to citizenship like: Introducing an electronic application process for citizenship (like the one for PRs and study/work permits), the question if the current Guide to Canada covers a good selection of topics, the question if an oath to the Queen is still appropriate in today's times and so on... But this is not within the scope of this this bill. Lawmaking doesn't work this way normally. It's not "We are changing some particular ideas of the Citizenship act, so now we can add amendments about any topics related to the Citizenship Act".
Parliament can only deal with so and so many issues per year and therefore has to prioritize. It is common practice that government bills are prioritized over private member bills. The reason is that that the government is elected on a platform that deserves priority. Now Senators like Senator Oh are trying to "hijack" this bill by adding causes that should be private member bills to this bill although it's completely new topics we are talking about. Sure, ideally everyone would be allowed on the legislative highway (= government bills) but the highway has only so and so much capacity (= sitting days). And I don't want senators to make the calls on the highway. The can adjust things on the highway a bit but they shouldn't put new things on the highway.
This is the differentiation I make. Again, this it not about a delay of some weeks for me. It is a matter of principle regarding legislation.
Yep, and there was another amendment but it was withdrawn by the senator and they start 3rd reading debateJoshua1 said:
EXACTLY.spyfy said:
A lot of things have to be improved but it can't be done in ONE bill .
Laws will always have flaws . Perfection can't be reached .Working towards perfection will make a greater good , but it will never be possible to solve any situations or problems or issues caused by a law/system . If a system covers a vast majority of issues , then we have a decent system.
Allowing a minor to apply for CITIZENSHIP is more complicated than we may think since it will have an effect on other laws ( allowing a minor to sign a contract ) Have anyone wondered if a minor applies and made a serious mistake or a legal guardian applies and ends up misrepresenting the child's application ( who knows the reason why ) . Would it be a cause for revocation ? Even with the amendment , misrepresentation for fraud is a cause for citizenship revocation.