Bill C-6: Senate stage

[MM26]

May I draw your attention to these facts:

This is the current status of bills before the Senate:

As you can see, the last category, which is exactly the category in which C-6 will fall, already has two bills in the pipeline. Even if C-6 were sent to the Senate today, they would first want to finish C-4 and C-7 before they dealt with C-6. So sending the bill to the Senate today would simply mean that a bill would be added to a pile that already has stuff on it. Plus, there are three bills at the third reading stage which is a lot. So there is literally no difference in when the Senate will deal with C-6, no matter if C-6 were sent to the Senate today or next week. In either case, they wouldn't have time before next week.

To add to that, this is the current status of bills before the House:

As you can see, at the moment a huge amount of bills are at second reading in the house, while the committees barely have any bills to deal with (two bills in committee is nothing in the HoC). You can clearly see how things are piling up the Second Reading box and the Commitee and third Reading boxes are empty (or close to empty).

So let me ask you this: If you were the person in charge of deciding what bills to deal with in the HoC and you observe these two things:

• The Senate won't be ready to deal with C-6 until next week at the least.
• There are too many bills at Second Reading in the HoC and the committees have barely anything to do.

So: What would you decide to deal with today?!

With all respect that I have for you and your time and effort in this forum, I do not agree with you on this. The priority should be always for the bills that were introduced first, specially such a bill that was introduced one year and a half before. Until it passed the Senate the blame was always on the Senate that delayed the bill. If you remember, the government was trying to make this bill law before Canada day last year (they wanted the Senate to pass the bill in about two weeks before the Summer break!). Take Bill C-37 as an example, It took them about two weeks to discuss the Senate amendments and it became law on May 18, exactly when there are so many bills at second reading in the parliament as you mentioned. I think there are other reasons for this delay for C-6, for example either there are disagreements between the parliament members/senators or they are delaying it so that it can become a law as close to Canada day as possible so they can make the announcement that day, which means (if the latter is the case) their political purpose is more important than implementing the law and benefiting people who are waiting for this bill!

 

[ChippyBoy]

With all due respect, this is complete speculation. You are also vastly overestimating the influence the Opposition has in the House of Commons. They basically have zero influence the House because the schedule is dictated by the government except on "Opposition Days". The government has been pushing through bill after bill after bill in the last weeks using Time Allocation Motions. Back room deals like this don't happen.

So I would suggest to file this under "conspiracy theory".

Youngster (at 52yo I'm way older than you, I expect), with all due respect to you personally, back room deals go on every day and they certainly do happen in Parliament, whether one likes it or not. And as for being frustrated and impatient, I'm now (along with many others on here, I think) presently beyond those and am damned angry that the present Liberal Government has handled this so appallingly badly. Only Minister McCallum and Senator Jaffer come out as good, competent, and on-the-ball so far as I can see. Omidvar wasn't astute or self-deprecating enough as a newly-minted Senator to resist becoming a photo-op tool; Harder couldn't have been limper in the Senate, and Hussen seems totally wet.

 

[spyfy]

With all respect that I have for you and your time and effort in this forum, I do not agree with you on this. The priority should be always for the bills that were introduced first, specially such a bill that was introduced one year and a half before.

This is not how a single parliament in any western democracy works. Parliaments don't work by "First in, first out".

Until it passed the Senate the blame was always on the Senate that delayed the bill. If you remember, the government was trying to make this bill law before Canada day last year (they wanted the Senate to pass the bill in about two weeks before the Summer break!).

Yes and that didn't happen because the Conservatives in the Senate started delaying it. So we agree on that.

Take Bill C-37 as an example, It took them about two weeks to discuss the Senate amendments and it became law on May 18, exactly when there are so many bills at second reading in the parliament as you mentioned.

Bill C-37 dealt with a health crisis regarding safe injection sites. That is a totally different situation. I assume that you are not reading the journals of the debate, but in both the HoC and the Senate, the opposition members stated several times that they only let the bill pass so fast because it deals with a health crisis and time is of the essence. Peoples lives were literally at risk. So of course this bill got fast-tracked. This is, by the way, exactly why "First in, First out" is not the right way to do things in parliament.

Here is a quote from the Government Representative in the Senate: "This legislation is urgent. The number of opioid-related overdoses and deaths in our country continues to tragically climb, leading to a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities. Last year there were 931 lives lost as a result of illicit drug overdoses in British Columbia alone, and 343 lives lost in Alberta due to fentanyl use."

And this is from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate: "Honourable senators, the time has come to adopt this bill. Time will tell us if the minister was right to refuse to open the door to a more modern approach that gives users of these sites a choice between poison and therapy. This being said, we must remember that lives are at stake. Therefore, we must now vote on this bill and encourage the minister to demonstrate to us that she can address this crisis with these measures."

These are quotes from both sides of the aisle. Notice something? Please don't tell me that C-6 is more important than (or even just "almost as important as") the health and lives of residents.

I think there are other reasons for this delay for C-6, for example either there are disagreements between the parliament members/senators or they are delaying it so that it can become a law as close to Canada day as possible so they can make the announcement that day, which means (if the latter is the case) their political purpose is more important than implementing the law and benefiting people who are waiting for this bill!

Do you really think they care about two weeks so they can make the announcement on Canada day? That is pure speculation on your part.

I pointed out above, with the screenshots and elaborations that this bill will NOT become law any faster if it passes the HoC this week instead of next week (or possibly even in two weeks) because the Senate is at capacity for third reading and amendment consideration. So can you please tell me why you want the bill to pass today and not next week? It will make no difference.

 

[spyfy]

Youngster (at 52yo I'm way older than you, I expect), with all due respect to you personally, back room deals go on every day and they certainly do happen in Parliament, whether one likes it or not. And as for being frustrated and impatient, I'm now (along with many others on here, I think) presently beyond those and am damned angry that the present Liberal Government has handled this so appallingly badly. Only Minister McCallum and Senator Jaffer come out as good, competent, and on-the-ball so far as I can see. Omidvar wasn't astute or self-deprecating enough as a newly-minted Senator to resist becoming a photo-op tool; Harder couldn't have been limper in the Senate, and Hussen seems totally wet.

I really don't need someone to "age-splain" me. If all you have to offer to support your argument is your age and your frustration, while I support my argument with screenshots from the parliamentary websites, quotes from Members of Parliament and Senators and observations of similar timelines, I don't see the point here.

I also didn't say "backroom deals don't happen". I said "backroom deals like this don't happen" (where "like this" referred to the kind of backroom deal construed in the post I was quoting).

 

[ChippyBoy]

With all respect that I have for you and your time and effort in this forum, I do not agree with you on this. The priority should be always for the bills that were introduced first, specially such a bill that was introduced one year and a half before. Until it passed the Senate the blame was always on the Senate that delayed the bill. If you remember, the government was trying to make this bill law before Canada day last year (they wanted the Senate to pass the bill in about two weeks before the Summer break!). Take Bill C-37 as an example, It took them about two weeks to discuss the Senate amendments and it became law on May 18, exactly when there are so many bills at second reading in the parliament as you mentioned. I think there are other reasons for this delay for C-6, for example either there are disagreements between the parliament members/senators or they are delaying it so that it can become a law as close to Canada day as possible so they can make the announcement that day, which means (if the latter is the case) their political purpose is more important than implementing the law and benefiting people who are waiting for this bill!

I think that Chagger is the key at this stage, since a political animal like that will undoubtedly be in the thick of back-room deal brokering on bills' progresses. Loving India as I do (particularly their cuisines, plural), and from the particular English phraseologies which one comes across both in correspondences with the citizenship & immigration authority in Ottawa as well as on here, it's high time to fight fire with fire and for us affected by C-6 to exhort all expat Indians on here with any way whatsoever of influencing her to contact her office and to try to push for expedition on C-6.

 

[ChippyBoy]

I really don't need someone to "age-splain" me. If all you have to offer to support your argument is your age and your frustration, while I support my argument with screenshots from the parliamentary websites, quotes from Members of Parliament and Senators and observations of similar timelines, I don't see the point here.

I also didn't say "backroom deals don't happen". I said "backroom deals like this don't happen" (where "like this" referred to the kind of backroom deal construed in the post I was quoting).

Dear Spyfy, I didn't mean to "age-splain" anything to you whatsoever, so I apologise if I've offended you unintentionally; merely to allude to the wisdom naturally accruing to one as old and well-travelled as myself concerning the ways of the world. But neither do I subscribe to a Continental European's ingrained faith in bureaucracies, governments, and authorities. I live in the real world of back-room deals, influence, argument, persuasiveness, selling, etc. All else bears little relation to the world, as I've increasingly found it to be as I've progressively aged.

 

[spyfy]

Dear Spyfy, I didn't mean to "age-splain" anything to you whatsoever, so I apologise if I've offended you unintentionally; merely to allude to the wisdom naturally accruing to one as old and well-travelled as myself concerning the ways of the world. But neither do I subscribe to a Continental European's ingrained faith in bureaucracies, governments, and authorities. I live in the real world of back-room deals, influence, argument, persuasiveness, selling, etc. All else bears little relation to the world, as I've increasingly found it to be as I've progressively aged.

Thanks for clarifying. Your initial post came across differently, so I'm happy to hear it wasn't meant like that.

I am aware of what you mean with "a Continental European's ingrained faith in bureaucracies, governments, and authorities". Maybe there are "less noble" reasons of why this bill is stuck. However, I'm of the opinion as long as there is some reasonable explanation that does not assume malicious behaviour, that explanation should be preferred over the one involving assumptions about malicious behaviour.

Maybe I am too optimistic with that.

But yeah, all good. I understand where you are coming from now.

 

[ChippyBoy]

Thanks for clarifying. Your initial post came across differently, so I'm happy to hear it wasn't meant like that.

I am aware of what you mean with "a Continental European's ingrained faith in bureaucracies, governments, and authorities". Maybe there are "less noble" reasons of why this bill is stuck. However, I'm of the opinion as long as there is some reasonable explanation that does not assume malicious behaviour, that explanation should be preferred over the one involving assumptions about malicious behaviour.

Maybe I am too optimistic with that.

But yeah, all good. I understand where you are coming from now.

I love Voltaire's Candide as much as anyone, but I've also read (perhaps unfortunately) de Sade, hehe.

 

[ChippyBoy]

"as long as there is some reasonable explanation that does not assume malicious behaviour, that explanation should be preferred over the one involving assumptions about malicious behaviour."

Let's always be wary of being too in-tune with this line of thinking, so as to avoid atrocities such as the Holocaust from happening in our society.

 

[lilen]

are we still in bill c6 or we just moved to a philosophy class loooll?

 

[anasja2000]

Some interesting timings between HoC and Senate for bills C-4 and C-37

http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8073132
http://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=8689350

No one size fits all. each Act has its own time and

This is what Chagger said on May 18 (I'm paraphrasing):
- Monday C-6
- Tuesday C-46
- Wednesday C-46
- Thursday allotted day (i.e. budget)

This is what really happened:
- Monday C-46
- Tuesday C-45
- Wednesday C-46
- Thursday allotted day

This is pretty close to the plans that she announced before the break. Plans can change. I don't recall her saying "We guarantee that this will be the order next week" or "We promise this will be the order". All that happened is that some opposition MP asked what the plan for the week were and she said what the plan looked like at that time.

If you want me to speculate on the reasons for the change, here are some:
- Over the break, they had the time to look at the status of bills in both Houses in detail and adjusted the schedule accordingly. Possibly they realized exactly what I was pointing out above?
- The staff responsible for writing the motion regarding C-6 needs some extra days to draft that motion.
- The minister had to change travel plans at the last minute and couldn't be present on particular days in parliament. Naturally it doesn't make sense to debate C-6 without the responsible minister.
- this list could go on and on.

What I'm trying to say is:
Some people in this forum have insanely high expectations regarding the parliamentary schedule. Anyone who works in an office-based job must have experienced first hand that plans change on the last minute and no matter how well you plan ahead, things might come differently.
Parliamentarians are humans just like us, you can't reasonably expect them to have 100% foresight.

Also some other remarks:
- It makes literally no noticeable difference for any of us if this bill passes next week or in two weeks. Literally no difference (because once we apply for citizenship, you won't be able to plan processing time by the week).
- So I don't understand why so many people freak out just because things change by a day or two.
- You say "Perhaps with your parliamentary insight you might be able to explain to me just why the very Minister concerned (A. Hussen) has been doing the garden party and horse racing circuit in top hat & tails in England this month while C-6 has sat at the gate in Ottawa now since May 3rd?" I guess mostly you just wanted to be a bit sarcastic, but I don't think even you believe that the Minister did nothing in England but visiting a horse race. Also, international travel plans are made months in advance and take huge efforts of planning between the offices, do you really expect the British and Canadian government to cancel a travel schedule just so that some bill passes some weeks earlier?!

My most important remark, however, is this one:
Have a look at the progress of this bill and note that
1. Last year Bill C-6 spent three months in the house of commons. That is totally normal.
2. It took the Senate eight months to bring it to committee. <--- This is the long one.
3. It spent two weeks in the Senate in committee. That is totally normal.
4. It spent 6-8 weeks at third reading in the Senate. That is totally normal or maybe just a little bit longer than usual.
5. It will probably have spent about 6-8 weeks in the House of Commons right now. That is totally normal.

Please note that there is only one step in this process that was unusually long. That is Step 2. During all other steps, the bill moved at completely normal speed. And please don't come me with "C-24 passed the Senate in nine days". That's because the Harper government did not respect parliamentary procedure and made his caucus hammer everything through the Senate.

So to everyone who is super anxious, nervous and disappointed, I ask you very much to take a step back and think about this:
Yes, Step 2 took forever. But since then, everything has been going normal. So there is really no good reason to panic so much and to be so impatient. I understand why your first reaction might be frustration and impatience. I am in the same situation as most people in this thread. It is only human to get frustrated over it. But it is also human to then take a step back and realize that things aren't as bad as they seem.

Thanks for these insightful views..You're hero

 

[naturalca]

This is what Chagger said on May 18 (I'm paraphrasing):
- Monday C-6
- Tuesday C-46
- Wednesday C-46
- Thursday allotted day (i.e. budget)

This is what really happened:
- Monday C-46
- Tuesday C-45
- Wednesday C-46
- Thursday allotted day

This is pretty close to the plans that she announced before the break. Plans can change. I don't recall her saying "We guarantee that this will be the order next week" or "We promise this will be the order". All that happened is that some opposition MP asked what the plan for the week were and she said what the plan looked like at that time.

If you want me to speculate on the reasons for the change, here are some:
- Over the break, they had the time to look at the status of bills in both Houses in detail and adjusted the schedule accordingly. Possibly they realized exactly what I was pointing out above?
- The staff responsible for writing the motion regarding C-6 needs some extra days to draft that motion.
- The minister had to change travel plans at the last minute and couldn't be present on particular days in parliament. Naturally it doesn't make sense to debate C-6 without the responsible minister.
- this list could go on and on.

What I'm trying to say is:
Some people in this forum have insanely high expectations regarding the parliamentary schedule. Anyone who works in an office-based job must have experienced first hand that plans change on the last minute and no matter how well you plan ahead, things might come differently.
Parliamentarians are humans just like us, you can't reasonably expect them to have 100% foresight.

Also some other remarks:
- It makes literally no noticeable difference for any of us if this bill passes next week or in two weeks. Literally no difference (because once we apply for citizenship, you won't be able to plan processing time by the week).
- So I don't understand why so many people freak out just because things change by a day or two.
- You say "Perhaps with your parliamentary insight you might be able to explain to me just why the very Minister concerned (A. Hussen) has been doing the garden party and horse racing circuit in top hat & tails in England this month while C-6 has sat at the gate in Ottawa now since May 3rd?" I guess mostly you just wanted to be a bit sarcastic, but I don't think even you believe that the Minister did nothing in England but visiting a horse race. Also, international travel plans are made months in advance and take huge efforts of planning between the offices, do you really expect the British and Canadian government to cancel a travel schedule just so that some bill passes some weeks earlier?!

My most important remark, however, is this one:
Have a look at the progress of this bill and note that
1. Last year Bill C-6 spent three months in the house of commons. That is totally normal.
2. It took the Senate eight months to bring it to committee. <--- This is the long one.
3. It spent two weeks in the Senate in committee. That is totally normal.
4. It spent 6-8 weeks at third reading in the Senate. That is totally normal or maybe just a little bit longer than usual.
5. It will probably have spent about 6-8 weeks in the House of Commons right now. That is totally normal.

Please note that there is only one step in this process that was unusually long. That is Step 2. During all other steps, the bill moved at completely normal speed. And please don't come me with "C-24 passed the Senate in nine days". That's because the Harper government did not respect parliamentary procedure and made his caucus hammer everything through the Senate.

So to everyone who is super anxious, nervous and disappointed, I ask you very much to take a step back and think about this:
Yes, Step 2 took forever. But since then, everything has been going normal. So there is really no good reason to panic so much and to be so impatient. I understand why your first reaction might be frustration and impatience. I am in the same situation as most people in this thread. It is only human to get frustrated over it. But it is also human to then take a step back and realize that things aren't as bad as they seem.

The problem is that no motion has been proposed regarding C-6 amendment by the senate. After C-4 was passed by senate with amendment and sent back to the house, the motion regarding the amendment is proposed and shown in the order paper several days, at least, before it is discussed in the house.

 

[SufferInCan]

I think that Chagger is the key at this stage, since a political animal like that will undoubtedly be in the thick of back-room deal brokering on bills' progresses. Loving India as I do (particularly their cuisines, plural), and from the particular English phraseologies which one comes across both in correspondences with the citizenship & immigration authority in Ottawa as well as on here, it's high time to fight fire with fire and for us affected by C-6 to exhort all expat Indians on here with any way whatsoever of influencing her to contact her office and to try to push for expedition on C-6.

I sent her an e-mail. Unfortunately. below was the reply from her office:

'' Dear xxxxxx,
Thank you for taking the time to contact the office of the Hon. Bardish Chagger, Member of Parliament for the Riding of Waterloo.
Minister Chagger welcomes the views of constituents on the issues that are important to them, whether supportive or critical. You may be assured that your comments and views have been duly noted and are appreciated. As this point there is no set date for when the Bill be passed. I encourage you to stay engaged and follow the Bill’s progress on the Parliament of Canada website here: http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Bill=C6&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1. You may also want to contact your local Member of Parliament in the future for more information on the Bill.
Thank you again for contacting our office.
Sincerely, ''

 

[vancouverbc2013]

So glad to see you guys got it worked out! I got nervous for a second!
So I guess nothing is happening this week? We r just hoping for next one is that where we are at?

 

[SufferInCan]

I sent this email to Ariv Virani - if you take the five minutes to contact your MP YES it WILL help...one email can help..

here are the MPs: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members

Dear Minister xxx,

Thanks to your office for taking the time to read my letter, I am a [ENTER RIDING] resident.

I am writing to you to request that you help progress bill c-6 which will allow lawful permanent residents to become citizens within a swifter time frame (3 of the past 5 years, as opposed to 4 of the past 6) amongst other more important measures such as a hearing prior to revocation.

Under the proposed laws ... [explain why this is important to you]

The bill is now over a year since it was introduced. I appreciate your hands were tied by a hostile senate, however I would suggest now is the time to lobby your colleagues and the NDP to help achieve a win for your government.

Most importantly, please remember that the delay of the passage of this bill has an affect on people's lives who want to be a part of this great country and will allow them to continue to contribute to the prosperity.

Please feel free to reach out to me on this email address or .[PHONE NUMBER]

Thanks for your consideration - looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely

[NAME]

I sent my liberal MP, and below was the funny reply I received today from his office;

'' The Conservative Senates are blocking him in the Senate.
it was sent to the Senate in June 2016 ''

xxxx BSW
Constituency Assistant
xxxxx MP ''