Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
Yes!deerestlovelybear said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/05/trudeau-may-change-law-to-protect-monsef
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/27/maryam-monsef-citizenship-senate-amend-law_n_12224226.html
It's so funny, from the news:
"Omidvar, who moved second reading of C-6 on Tuesday in the upper chamber, said Senate procedural rules are different and she's hopeful the upper house will be able to do what the Commons could not."
But the fact is, when Commons (Liberals have majority in both House and Committee) could and had chance (NDP proposed it) to do so a few months ago but they chose not to. After Monsef, Senate want to do so but they could not (because Cons have majority in Committee).
Typical lies.
"Omidvar, who moved second reading of C-6 on Tuesday in the upper chamber, said Senate procedural rules are different and she's hopeful the upper house will be able to do what the Commons could not."
But the fact is, when Commons (Liberals have majority in both House and Committee) could and had chance (NDP proposed it) to do so a few months ago but they chose not to. After Monsef, Senate want to do so but they could not (because Cons have majority in Committee).
Typical lies.
I think that is the main reason. But I also think that Libs are finally spotting more deficiencies in bill C-6 that may cause issues if it becomes law. I did not follow it closely at the HoC, so I am wondering how all such issues were overlooked or agreed upon. I do question the practicality of Bill C-6; and why its clauses vary drastically; i.e. why include a 3/5 rule which is a fairly simple rule that Cons introduced for no justifiable reason, with the revoking of citizenship of terrorists clause, which is way more complicated and very difficult to defend despite it being unconstitutional.deerestlovelybear said:
spiritsoul said:
if i may ask for my future reference, how do i check to see if a bill is skipped for that day?
If you missed what happened at the HoC, here it is:marcher said:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8295141
Both NDP Jenny Kwan and Green Party Elizabeth May moved the same amendment, but Libs decided not to be "open to amendments" as McCallum promised from the first Committee meeting with all members.
More funny is, when McCallum appeared at the Senate for Question Period, he repeated the same phase "open to amendments" again. But when he missed the same promise at the HoC, now it's different story and it's not up to him but up to Conservatives committee chair and members to be open to amendments. I guess it's just karma.
I guess McCallum is just a pure career politician. he instead of the senators is the one who should be responsible for all the delays and consequential results of the delays.canadasucks said:
Because C-6 is not important, it also becomes a test bed for other more important law repealing Libs promised including repealing C-51. Now they messed it up, until C-6 is fixed, I don't think they have the ability to repeal any other more important laws. JT will just become another Obama, had too many dreams but little he can do.marcher said: