Bill C-6: Senate stage

[monalisa]

I wonder who is able to answer my question

Which senator is supposed to transfer the bill to committee, who should ask for that? is it cons senator or lib ?

 

[subha_1962]

Good question by Monalisa, any one knows?

 

[ottawahd]

Good question by Monalisa, any one knows?

Actually it is not any one senator. What cons are doing is called filibustering. Just Google it. When senators trying to filibuster exhaust there will be a vote. And if the vote is yay, it will be referred to the committee where all the amendments are discussed and voted upon. After that there is a third reading. There would be a vote on amendments. If no amendments approved, it becomes a law. If there is any approved amendments, MPs will vote on amendments to approve it and it will become a law.

 

[monalisa]

Actually it is not any one senator. What cons are doing is called filibustering. Just Google it. When senators trying to filibuster exhaust there will be a vote. And if the vote is yay, it will be referred to the committee where all the amendments are discussed and voted upon. After that there is a third reading. There would be a vote on amendments. If no amendments approved, it becomes a law. If there is any approved amendments, MPs will vote on amendments to approve it and it will become a law.

This means that there will be a vote and it will be transferred for sure to committee, but how long it will take to vote?

Its been since 27 septembre

Because once its transferred to committee i believe its almost done because the next step after committee senates can accept the amendment or refuse it and keep the law as it is, then vote for it. am I wrong?

 

[subha_1962]

Actually it is not any one senator. What cons are doing is called filibustering. Just Google it. When senators trying to filibuster exhaust there will be a vote. And if the vote is yay, it will be referred to the committee where all the amendments are discussed and voted upon. After that there is a third reading. There would be a vote on amendments. If no amendments approved, it becomes a law. If there is any approved amendments, MPs will vote on amendments to approve it and it will become a law.

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I googled filibustering when in the US it happened last year ( or was it beginning this year , can't remember), it was a new term for me. But you mention filibuster exhaustion - when and how could it happen, can they filibuster for another year, and who decides that it is now exhaust time? Would greatly appreciate an answer.

By the way, today too no tweet from ratnaomi so may be NO today too

 

[marcher]

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I googled filibustering when in the US it happened last year ( or was it beginning this year , can't remember), it was a new term for me. But you mention filibuster exhaustion - when and how could it happen, can they filibuster for another year, and who decides that it is now exhaust time? Would greatly appreciate an answer.

By the way, today too no tweet from ratnaomi so may be NO today too

Keep in mind the issue here is not the Conservative Senators, they are against the bill from day one and are clear about it. The issue is the Liberal Senators that are looking the other way and not defending the bill nor making any attempt to move it on. This is why I doubt it will proceed to the committee in its present format.

 

[subha_1962]

First, to start, a Senator just asks the presiding officer to recognize them and then starts speaking. Or they can announce that they’re filibustering and share why.

"The Senator can never sit down, or they have yielded the floor. They have to stay on the Senate floor and continue speaking. They can’t eat, except for hard candy from a “Candy Desk,” and they can only drink water or milk.

Interestingly, the Senator can talk about whatever he or she wants while filibustering.

Breaks can only be achieved by allowing an ally Senator to ask you a question. The question can last hours and its content doesn’t really matter. But the Senator must still stay on the Senate floor. They typically can’t take a bathroom break. But during Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour-plus filibuster, he got one bathroom break when a fellow Senator asked him to temporarily yield the floor so he could make an insertion into the Congressional Record.

Filibusters can end if the majority gets 60 votes to shut it down, but that process often takes two to three days, the Boston Glob reported. Or the filibuster can win an accommodation or stop the filibuster due to fatigue".

The above is from google, but these senators take all the breaks in the world...many months in fact...so as Marcher says, why can't the Libs or the Ind's now take over...? whey is the Minister silent? they are not going get our vote one day for sure

 

[Richard11]

dont let senators to forget about bill c-6 ,keep contact them ,if you have phone,email.facebook and twitter you can contact them even if you want you can visit their offices ,bill c-6 need to be pass as soon as possible no mater what happen after passing bill,our target to pass Bill c-6

 

[subha_1962]

dont let senators to forget about bill c-6 ,keep contact them ,if you have phone,email.facebook and twitter you can contact them even if you want you can visit their offices ,bill c-6 need to be pass as soon as possible no mater what happen after passing bill,our target to pass Bill c-6

Yea to that, but how do we push the Libs and the Inds to take control and stop the filibustering....they are not communicating

 

[marcher]

dont let senators to forget about bill c-6 ,keep contact them ,if you have phone,email.facebook and twitter you can contact them even if you want you can visit their offices ,bill c-6 need to be pass as soon as possible no mater what happen after passing bill,our target to pass Bill c-6

Contacting Senators is a good move, but within limits, otherwise you are crossing the harassment line. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but the Senators have to have some minor interest in the bill to start with. Flooding them with emails will not create a sudden interest in a bill that concerns a portion of the population that most Senators like most Canadians do not care about. Many Senators might have been immigrants one day, but they have lived long enough in Canada to not care about immigrant issues. The few who care about the subject (like Omidvar) tried their best, but one hand cannot clap.
My point is beware that excessive contacting of random Senators might push them against the Bill rather than towards it.

 

[marcher]

Yea to that, but how do we push the Libs and the Inds to take control and stop the filibustering....they are not communicating

Here is something we might all be overlooking. Cons had a different approach to the Senate in Harper days. He appointed Con Senators, clearly made them aware the are there to serve the party, so as soon as any bill got there, they worked as a team to push it through. Best example is how smooth C-24 flew through. On the other hand, Mr. JT is busy playing the disney perfect character. He appoints tons of independents and lets them do what they wish. Moreover, he is not even pushing Liberal Senators to support his bills. Now from an ethical perspective, JT is right. But from a practical perspective, he is acting naive and not playing by the rules of the game; after all politics are a dirty game, you have to dirty your hands to get anywhere! Having said that, Lib Senators are not completely quiet, they are interfering with bills that they and the party considers more important. Sadly, C-6 is not one of them.

 

[monalisa]

dont let senators to forget about bill c-6 ,keep contact them ,if you have phone,email.facebook and twitter you can contact them even if you want you can visit their offices ,bill c-6 need to be pass as soon as possible no mater what happen after passing bill,our target to pass Bill c-6

why do you want this bill to pass as soon as possible? just for the rule of 3/5 but you can spend 12 months more and you get citizenship.

as I wish it will pass today before tomorrow, but we have no other choice, 1 year more we will not die.

But i agree with you about the intention to live in canada, some people are professionals and in case they get chances overseas why not, sometimes new immigrants have no choice for good job in canada.

Language rule, its not logic to be canadian and you cant communicate in english, for adults really hard to learn new language, but they can put low passing grades for adults.

some how billl c24 is not bad except for the 4/6 and 183 days rule, i admit some immigrants in past screwed us, they cheated but they can be revoked their citizenship no need to create hard rules for us.

everybody in this country is immigrant, its a matter who arrived earlier than us.

at the end i support c6 no doubt but we are speechless sometimes

 

[spiritsoul]

Here is something we might all be overlooking. Cons had a different approach to the Senate in Harper days. He appointed Con Senators, clearly made them aware the are there to serve the party, so as soon as any bill got there, they worked as a team to push it through. Best example is how smooth C-24 flew through. On the other hand, Mr. JT is busy playing the disney perfect character. He appoints tons of independents and lets them do what they wish. Moreover, he is not even pushing Liberal Senators to support his bills. Now from an ethical perspective, JT is right. But from a practical perspective, he is acting naive and not playing by the rules of the game; after all politics are a dirty game, you have to dirty your hands to get anywhere! Having said that, Lib Senators are not completely quiet, they are interfering with bills that they and the party considers more important. Sadly, C-6 is not one of them.

Lib Senators are mostly against JT as he previously got them out of his party. They never forgot him kicking them out so, they are at some point just spectators and in some other occasions they play the dirty game against his will.

 

[marcher]

why do you want this bill to pass as soon as possible? just for the rule of 3/5 but you can spend 12 months more and you get citizenship.

as I wish it will pass today before tomorrow, but we have no other choice, 1 year more we will not die.

But i agree with you about the intention to live in canada, some people are professionals and in case they get chances overseas why not, sometimes new immigrants have no choice for good job in canada.

Language rule, its not logic to be canadian and you cant communicate in english, for adults really hard to learn new language, but they can put low passing grades for adults.

some how billl c24 is not bad except for the 4/6 and 183 days rule, i admit some immigrants in past screwed us, they cheated but they can be revoked their citizenship no need to create hard rules for us.

everybody in this country is immigrant, its a matter who arrived earlier than us.

at the end i support c6 no doubt but we are speechless sometimes

Hi monalisa, the points you raise are important, and have been discussed by various members of this thread in earlier discussions. At this point, we need to be realistic, no matter how 4/6 affected us, whether it is inconvenient for us to wait a year longer, or whether it means a loss of opportunities for a new job or visiting family for some, there is nothing that could be done about it this far down the line. We also know that even if C-6 was approved today, it will take another year before 3/5 kicks in; and that automatically means a backlog increase, so it will be more of an issue than a solution. Having said that, various fellows here explained that 4/6 rule for them is more than waiting a year; C-24 has provisions that overlook the period many individuals spent in Canada prior to PR (such as student ..etc), in their cases, their waiting time is increasing to 2 or more years.

As far as intent of residing is considered, that is one messy clause that no one seems to understand. Official interpretation by IRCC says it is applicable to the period of applying for citizenship (i.e. about 4 to 5 months at the present rate). However, the clause is broad and high level, and it is easy to legally define it as applicable to anytime after you become a citizen. Now that is a serious issue which clearly makes us all second class citizens. We understand the main purpose for it is to prevent Canadians of Convenience such as Lebanese Canadians of 2006; but in reality if the law exists, who knows when it could be used against us. Same applies to the citizenship revocation for terrorists. While we all agree terrorists deserve the maximum punishment, how do we know who the government decides to define as terrorist. There was some folk here mentioning that pro-environment individuals obstructing a mining project were defined terrorists by the government.

The goals of C-6 are definitely right and the way to go. The actual bill itself though is not immune from criticism because it has a lot of loopholes and flaws. I still think it might need some amendments before it can become law.

As per language requirements, you are right about older people struggling to learn languages. But in all honesty, if they are admitted as skilled immigrants, or if they will be participating in the working force, then they need to have language skills for that. On the other hand, if they are sponsored parents or grandparents, who retired and will be living with their children, then probably a lower standard of language requirements should be applied.

 

[ottawahd]

Keep in mind the issue here is not the Conservative Senators, they are against the bill from day one and are clear about it. The issue is the Liberal Senators that are looking the other way and not defending the bill nor making any attempt to move it on. This is why I doubt it will proceed to the committee in its present format.

Hi

This is a bit of misinformation. Unless in special cases, all senators can speak for or against any bill. And no they do not announce we are filibustering. They just register their names to speak. There are 42 cons and in theory each can delay a week or so. So, unless there is an urgency they can postpone it for 42 weeks. Having a liberal or an independent in the list of speakers, it just adds to the delay. So best action by libs and independent senators is to just have con sens their 10 minutes of fame. It will pass in 42 weeks or sooner if cons stops being cons which I doubt so.