Bill C-6: Senate stage

[monalisa]

That's a great observation marcher. The 3/5 rule is a technicality while other clauses were much more symbolic and meaningful.

I agree and disagree ;D

because the 3/5 is very important, its the replacement of 183 days /year and 4/6
If someone must leave more than 183 days because one member of the family is sick, then this year will not be counted

If you go vacation, to see your family or for fun, these 4 years will become 5+ years to apply or become citizen.

Many jobs requires to be citizen special in Ottawa

 

[admontreal]

I agree and disagree ;D

because the 3/5 is very important, its the replacement of 183 days /year and 4/6
If someone must leave more than 183 days because one member of the family is sick, then this year will not be counted

If you go vacation, to see your family or for fun, these 4 years will become 5+ years to apply or become citizen.

Many jobs requires to be citizen special in Ottawa

We don't imply that this technicality shouldn't be adressed. Some of my family members were heavily penalized through the new clause. It's just that the focus shouldn't be on this (relatively) short term issue. If you plan to keep your original citizenship or can't get rid of it, why should you rush to have a citizenship that gives you less value (and fundamental rights) than other Canadians (who are not dual nationals or Canadian-born)?

 

[quasar81]

In the meantime, only 40 people have signed the petition to be sent to Speaker of senate. Maybe it is less important than posting and bickering going on here.

 

[marcher]

In the meantime, only 40 people have signed the petition to be sent to Speaker of senate. Maybe it is less important than posting and bickering going on here.

Is there a minimal number of signatures needed for the Speaker to consider it?

 

[HSD]

Hi Marcher

Do you have info about the sequence of events that are going to happen for bill c6 from here on.We all know it might be amended to include the "right to appeal" clause.So my question is if that amendment is introduced into the bill at the committee stage then after that will it go to Senate for third reading and get royal assent or after third reading does it need to go to HOC again and then again to the senate for third reading.

 

[Shmak2017]

do you mind to send link to sing petition ?

In the meantime, only 40 people have signed the petition to be sent to Speaker of senate. Maybe it is less important than posting and bickering going on here.

 

[marcher]

Hi Marcher

Do you have info about the sequence of events that are going to happen for bill c6 from here on.We all know it might be amended to include the "right to appeal" clause.So my question is if that amendment is introduced into the bill at the committee stage then after that will it go to Senate for third reading and get royal assent or after third reading does it need to go to HOC again and then again to the senate for third reading.

Good question HSD. I will give my opinion, please do not take it as a fact. Anyone who knows better please weigh in and correct me. Here are the possible scenarios:

Scenario 1) The Senate Committee approves the bill, passes it on to third reading (which is technically a formality), then off to Royal Assent.
Scenario 2) The Senate Committee suggests amendments including the one you mentioned. Then I think it might be sent back to HoC for approval first before it goes for Third Reading.
Scenario 3) The Senate Committee suggests amendments; then sends the Bill back to HoC. HoC reject the amendments. It could then end there unless HoC come back with new amendments and vote in favour; then it will probably have to go back to First Reading again.

These scenarios are based on my guess, I hope anyone savvy of the processes comments.

 

[quasar81]

In the meantime, only 40 people have signed the petition to be sent to Speaker of senate. Maybe it is less important than posting and bickering going on here.

https://www.change.org/p/george-j-furey-pass-citizenship-bill-c-6?recruiter=658804277&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

 

[monalisa]

Good question HSD. I will give my opinion, please do not take it as a fact. Anyone who knows better please weigh in and correct me. Here are the possible scenarios:

Scenario 1) The Senate Committee approves the bill, passes it on to third reading (which is technically a formality), then off to Royal Assent.
Scenario 2) The Senate Committee suggests amendments including the one you mentioned. Then I think it might be sent back to HoC for approval first before it goes for Third Reading.
Scenario 3) The Senate Committee suggests amendments; then sends the Bill back to HoC. HoC reject the amendments. It could then end there unless HoC come back with new amendments and vote in favour; then it will probably have to go back to First Reading again.

These scenarios are based on my guess, I hope anyone savvy of the processes comments.

BUT now there are 8/15 would vote for the bill in committee and approve it
I never followed up any committee procedure for other bills.
will they read it and vote?

What is the process for approving

 

[marcher]

BUT now there are 8/15 would vote for the bill in committee and approve it
I never followed up any committee procedure for other bills.
will they read it and vote?

What is the process for approving

monalisa I am in the same position as you. In all honesty this whole Senate HoC ..etc is boring business . I am only following it now because I am interested in C-6. Very educating experience though, I must admit I am more interested now.

 

[dpenabill]

Do you have info about the sequence of events that are going to happen for bill c6 from here on. We all know it might be amended to include the "right to appeal" clause. So my question is if that amendment is introduced into the bill at the committee stage then after that will it go to Senate for third reading and get royal assent or after third reading does it need to go to HOC again and then again to the senate for third reading.

I will leave questions about particular procedural details to others, albeit overall, in general terms, the Senate could vote to reject Bill C-6, which is highly unlikely but possible, or approve it as is, in which case it would get Royal Assent. Alternatively, the Senate could introduce and vote on amendments, which if adopted would require the House of Commons to vote on the amendments . . . ultimately both must pass the same Bill or it does not become law.

But I am posting in this topic because what caught my attention is something I did not know:

"We all know it might be amended to include the 'right to appeal' clause."

I did not know this. I was not aware this was among amendments being seriously posed. The absence of a right to appeal for applicants has been something I have often addressed, going back to before Bill C-6 was tabled, and indeed to my view this is one of the most salient things wrong with the changes made by Harper's Bill C-24.

My understanding, from a good while ago now, was that while there had been some acknowledgement that this was an issue warranting attention, it was not on the table for Bill C-6, that is, that there had been no serious consideration of amending Bill C-6 to include a right of appeal for applicants.

In contrast, my impression was that some Senators were dragging things out in an effort to force amendments related to the repeal of the provisions allowing the Minister to revoke citizenship on the grounds of convictions for certain criminal offences, and the removal of the "intent to reside" requirement.

In any event, if you have some sources or more information relative to a serious effort to amend Bill C-6 to incorporate an applicant's right to appeal, I would appreciate some citation or links.

 

[admontreal]

I will leave questions about particular procedural details to others, albeit overall, in general terms, the Senate could vote to reject Bill C-6, which is highly unlikely but possible, or approve it as is, in which case it would get Royal Assent. Alternatively, the Senate could introduce and vote on amendments, which if adopted would require the House of Commons to vote on the amendments . . . ultimately both must pass the same Bill or it does not become law.

But I am posting in this topic because what caught my attention is something I did not know:

"We all know it might be amended to include the 'right to appeal' clause."

I did not know this. I was not aware this was among amendments being seriously posed. The absence of a right to appeal for applicants has been something I have often addressed, going back to before Bill C-6 was tabled, and indeed to my view this is one of the most salient things wrong with the changes made by Harper's Bill C-24.

My understanding, from a good while ago now, was that while there had been some acknowledgement that this was an issue warranting attention, it was not on the table for Bill C-6, that is, that there had been no serious consideration of amending Bill C-6 to include a right of appeal for applicants.

In contrast, my impression was that some Senators were dragging things out in an effort to force amendments related to the repeal of the provisions allowing the Minister to revoke citizenship on the grounds of convictions for certain criminal offences, and the removal of the "intent to reside" requirement.

In any event, if you have some sources or more information relative to a serious effort to amend Bill C-6 to incorporate an applicant's right to appeal, I would appreciate some citation or links.

Hi Dpenabill - long time no talk!

Here's the link of the stories :

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/04/mccallum-says-he-hopes-senate-will-help-canadians-stripped-of-citizenship-with-no-hearing.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/27/maryam-monsef-citizenship-senate-amend-law_n_12224226.html

They were consecutive to the controversy around Minister Monsef's place of birth.
Moreover, Senator Omidvar and MP Kwan confirmed to me via email that this is the consensus amendment and that they are working with Minister McCallum to get it passed at the Senate Committee level, for what it's worth...
I believe this is the only amendement seriously considered, the aim would be to enhance the Bill, no denature it by removing some key aspects such as the abolition of Intent to reside and terrorist citizenship revocation.

I hope this helps.

 

[HSD]

Good question HSD. I will give my opinion, please do not take it as a fact. Anyone who knows better please weigh in and correct me. Here are the possible scenarios:

Scenario 1) The Senate Committee approves the bill, passes it on to third reading (which is technically a formality), then off to Royal Assent.
Scenario 2) The Senate Committee suggests amendments including the one you mentioned. Then I think it might be sent back to HoC for approval first before it goes for Third Reading.
Scenario 3) The Senate Committee suggests amendments; then sends the Bill back to HoC. HoC reject the amendments. It could then end there unless HoC come back with new amendments and vote in favour; then it will probably have to go back to First Reading again.

These scenarios are based on my guess, I hope anyone savvy of the processes comments.

Thanks marcher for all the info.The committee stage is like a closed book for most of us.Lets hope they just start discussing the bill in committee meetings and not just drag it as done in the second reading in the senate.

 

[admontreal]

Thanks marcher for all the info.The committee stage is like a closed book for most of us.Lets hope they just start discussing the bill in committee meetings and not just drag it as done in the second reading in the senate.

If you want a good overview of how it may work for C-6, take a look at how C-14 was handled :

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3640195?client=ms-android-lge

There was a time pressure on this Bill, amendements were voted at the Committee, it went to the HoC which accepted or refused some of them and then went to the Senate for Third reading and RAssent. That's the scenario I foresee for C-6 as well.

 

[HSD]

If you want a good overview of how it may work for C-6, take a look at how C-14 was handled :

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3640195?client=ms-android-lge

There was a time pressure on this Bill, amendements were voted at the Committee, it went to the HoC which accepted or refused some of them and then went to the Senate for Third reading and RAssent. That's the scenario I foresee for C-6 as well.

So basically it will go to the Hoc directly from the committee(if some amendments are recommended) and will then go to senate for third reading.So even if all these things unfold at a reasonable speed it can still get royal assent before senate summer break i.e June 2017.