Bill C-6: Senate stage

[MarceauBletard]

It will get royal assent in feb/march and it will be applied as soon as possible.
Dont worry there will be no delay and backlog, just during cons gov they delay citizenship because they know immigrants might vote for libs.

libs want new citizens as much as they can before 2019. its 2017 already

I'm atheist but I'll light up a candle for this, just in case ;D

 

[itsmyid]

does it mean C6 will pass so soon

Seriously ? Did you read what was said in that post?

 

[Smearingo]

does it mean C6 will pass so soon

I think what hangincanada means is the opposite: C-6 is going to have a hard time to get passed.
headcounts show there are more conservatives and Harper's scatterbrains who do not support Bill C-6.

 

[omss]

the law will be pass

 

[asifmehmood]

I think what hangincanada means is the opposite: C-6 is going to have a hard time to get passed.
headcounts show there are more conservatives and Harper's scatterbrains who do not support Bill C-6.

Look at C-2 and C-26 voting and then you will have an idea that this bill will be passed without amendments.

B+

 

[Smearingo]

Look at C-2 and C-26 voting and then you will have an idea that this bill will be passed without amendments.

B+

I really hope so: I am not familiar with things like this in Canada... but really, they should pass C-6 asap.
Harper's C-24 concerning PR's obligations and requirements for citizenship is humiliating.

 

[monalisa]

Ha ha. Good one.

Correct me if I am wrong,

As I remember around December setting, they changed the composition of some committees and they introduced new members.

could this happen for this committee?

Could they fight in the committee for amendments ?

 

[marcher]

I see a lot of comments on here might make it difficult for a visitor to find out the latest regarding Bill C-6, so I will just include a summary of where the bill stands now:
• On December 15th, 2016 the Bill passed Second Reading and was referred to committee by Senator Omidvar
• The committee it was referred to is: Social Affairs, Science and Technology
• The committee is composed of the following Senators: 6 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, and 6 non-affiliated
• The following 2 non-affiliated Senators were appointed during Harper’s term: Jacques Demers and Don Meredith
• There are 15 votes, therefore a minimum of 8 votes are required to pass Bill C-6 through the Committee
• If all Cons vote No, and Libs vote Yes, then at least 5 out of 6 non-affiliated have to vote Yes
• One of the most possible scenarios is that the Committee will introduce amendments to the bill and send it back to House of Commons for approval. The bill can then go straight to Third Reading and Royal Assent.

Regarding the time frame; anything provided here by me or any other contributor is pure speculation, please do not take it as facts and start planning accordingly.
• The next Senate sitting is on Tuesday 31st, January.
• There is a big chance the Committee will meet the same week.
• It may take a couple of committee meetings to complete the amendments
• If no amendments are included, and there is a majority vote (highly unlikely), then the Bill could go to Third Reading after one Committee meeting
• The big question is when will the bill become law? My personal guess is it will get amended and go through the necessary route. It will not be delayed the same way it was before because the amendments will try to reach some level of compromise to keep the Cons happy. So I would say probably beginning of March would be a reasonable date for Third Reading.

 

[admontreal]

... will try to reach some level of compromise to keep the Cons happy.

Great summary marcher. However, I don't think it's realistic to state that any amendement should keep any Con happy. Amendements, if any, will enhance the Bill, while the conservatives want to alter it and even destroy it. No compromise is possible with such a difference of view. And to all the people who think that the Terrorism and language clause will be dropped at the Senate stage, I call for some realism ... Sorry, but that's never gonna happen !

 

[Whocares]

Great summary marcher. However, I don't think it's realistic to state that any amendement should keep any Con happy. Amendements, if any, will enhance the Bill, while the conservatives want to alter it and even destroy it. No compromise is possible with such a difference of view. And to all the people who think that the Terrorism and language clause will be dropped at the Senate stage, I call for some realism ... Sorry, but that's never gonna happen !

So what is your scenario if the Liberals and conservatives stick to their opinions?

 

[asifmehmood]

So what is your scenario if the Liberals and conservatives stick to their opinions?

There would be yey /ney voting and lib+ind are in majority, see the previous couple of bills got Senate's approval that cons were against. See CPP and Income tax bills details that got approval recently, you will have a better idea then.

 

[monalisa]

• The committee is composed of the following Senators: 6 Conservatives, 3 Liberals, and 6 non-affiliated
• The following 2 non-affiliated Senators were appointed during Harper’s term: Jacques Demers and Don Meredith

Jacques Demers and don meredith one of them might vote for c6

even cons might vote for c6

I have question,
If one cons senate doesnt come for the meeting, will they vote if one is missing 8/14? I seen something like that but not in committee

 

[marcher]

Great summary marcher. However, I don't think it's realistic to state that any amendement should keep any Con happy. Amendements, if any, will enhance the Bill, while the conservatives want to alter it and even destroy it. No compromise is possible with such a difference of view. And to all the people who think that the Terrorism and language clause will be dropped at the Senate stage, I call for some realism ... Sorry, but that's never gonna happen !

@admontreal I didn't literally mean they will keep the Cons happy, the Cons are only happy with C-24, but I meant a half way compromise has to take place to push C-6 through. I understand where you are coming from regarding your points, but I have to remind you of one thing. Libs like every other political party, care about politics before anything else. Their priority in this bill is to have it approved rather than ensuring the right law is in place. They might not completely scrap off the clauses about language and terrorism in the bill, but they might modify the wording to get the Cons consent. Keep in mind, they will only be amending the Bill if it doesn't get the majority vote in the Committee. In such a situation, they cannot stick to their grounds and refuse to amend the bill. I think it is reasonable to expect non-affiliated Senators nominated by Harper to vote against the bill, but there is 50/50 chance they could vote in favour. I think the only ones we can assume will vote against the bill for sure are Cons.
The way I visualize it, and this is based on my pure personal opinion, the language requirement will be changed probably to meet half way between what it is now and what it was before. As per the terrorism clause, I think there might be additional wording added to narrow the group of individuals they are targeting with the revocation clause. As I said, this all depends on how the committee votes first.

One last point, we may see Cons and Libs as enemies on the stand, but they are colleagues behind the scenes. So eventually they will find a point to agree on regarding C-6.

 

[marcher]

Jacques Demers and don meredith one of them might vote for c6

even cons might vote for c6

I have question,
If one cons senate doesnt come for the meeting, will they vote if one is missing 8/14? I seen something like that but not in committee

I am not sure monalisa. They might postpone voting if there is an absentee. They never seem to be in any rush until the holidays are at the door

 

[tyl92]

@admontreal I didn't literally mean they will keep the Cons happy, the Cons are only happy with C-24, but I meant a half way compromise has to take place to push C-6 through. I understand where you are coming from regarding your points, but I have to remind you of one thing. Libs like every other political party, care about politics before anything else. Their priority in this bill is to have it approved rather than ensuring the right law is in place. They might not completely scrap off the clauses about language and terrorism in the bill, but they might modify the wording to get the Cons consent. Keep in mind, they will only be amending the Bill if it doesn't get the majority vote in the Committee. In such a situation, they cannot stick to their grounds and refuse to amend the bill. I think it is reasonable to expect non-affiliated Senators nominated by Harper to vote against the bill, but there is 50/50 chance they could vote in favour. I think the only ones we can assume will vote against the bill for sure are Cons.
The way I visualize it, and this is based on my pure personal opinion, the language requirement will be changed probably to meet half way between what it is now and what it was before. As per the terrorism clause, I think there might be additional wording added to narrow the group of individuals they are targeting with the revocation clause. As I said, this all depends on how the committee votes first.

Properly said , but even though bill c6 passed second reading , however it still has a long way ahead full of challenges . They will be back in february , unless a big surprise , i don't see it being passed quickly, even c2 was discussed a lot of times during committee sessions and third reading . If it gets amended , we are looking at bigger delays , because of the back-and forth legislative process . I'm even wondering if even it gets through committee stage ..will we face the same thing as second reading i.e regular debate adjournments etc...?
But like i said before , anyone eligible in 2017 under current rules shouldn't be hoping much from that and even if it passes super quickly and is implemented quickly which will surprise us all and i know we'd like to be surprised by this bill c6.