Bill C-6: Senate stage

[spiritsoul]

It doesn't really matter. It's a government Bill and Omidvar must have trusted an IND Senator to introduce the amendements

Probably!! as she can't introduce any change by herself anymore now.

 

[marcher]

That's been sent earlier, this composition has been confirmed.

I wonder why Omidvar stood and decided to refer the C-6 to a committee that she is not a member in it!!!

You know why? Because she is the only person in that room who gives a rat's #$% about the Bill. I was surprised why she referred it to a commission composed mostly of Cons; but based on the information I read today from last night's sitting, the members of that committee changed to 6 Cons, 3 Libs and 6 independents. Now based on this mix, and knowing all Cons will vote against the bill, and all Libs for the bill, at least 5 independents have to vote for the bill to have it approved. Would that happen? Probably it will, or in the worse case amendments will be introduced, but the important fact is the bill is moving now and heading somewhere. Omidvar is a champion of this bill so far. She does not have to be in the committee for the bill to be approved. Even if she was, she would have had one vote.

 

[marcher]

I read a few colleagues here think the Senate cannot really stop a bill and their role is just to rubber stamp it. Well that is true and false. The Senate does have the power to reject a bill, but they rarely do. They rejected 133 bills since 1909, with the last one being in 1996. That is roughly less than 3% of the total bills, a small figure. However, this does not mean every bill since 1996 have been accepted. Occasionally several are amended and sent back to HoC; and many other bills just die before elections.

Based on these scenarios, and considering two of the independent Senators in the committee are Harper appointees, there is a big chance this bill will undergo amendments. Liberals are open to amendments at this stage, the minister himself admitted that a few weeks ago.

I hope this helps some of you understand the situation better.

 

[HSD]

You know why? Because she is the only person in that room who gives a rat's #$% about the Bill. I was surprised why she referred it to a commission composed mostly of Cons; but based on the information I read today from last night's sitting, the members of that committee changed to 6 Cons, 3 Libs and 6 independents. Now based on this mix, and knowing all Cons will vote against the bill, and all Libs for the bill, at least 5 independents have to vote for the bill to have it approved. Would that happen? Probably it will, or in the worse case amendments will be introduced, but the important fact is the bill is moving now and heading somewhere. Omidvar is a champion of this bill so far. She does not have to be in the committee for the bill to be approved. Even if she was, she would have had one vote.

If 5 out of the 6 INDs vote in the favour of the bill it will pass the committee stage in February 2017.But I was wondering if it doesn't pass the committee stage and amendments are introduced how much more till will it take for the amendment process to go through.Does anyone have an idea how amendment process works and is it a time consuming process ,just like the readings at the senate or Hoc?

 

[marcher]

If 5 out of the 6 INDs vote in the favour of the bill it will pass the committee stage in February 2017.But I was wondering if it doesn't pass the committee stage and amendments are introduced how much more till will it take for the amendment process to go through.Does anyone have an idea how amendment process works and is it a time consuming process ,just like the readings at the senate or Hoc?

It has to go back to HoC after amendments. Regarding the time frame, there is no fixed time frame for these procedures. We saw how C-24 flew threw the system and was implemented pretty fast. The speed by which C-6 can proceed after amendments depends on the weight the MPs and Senators put on it. Probably after amendments it will be generally agreed upon, so there will be no resistance from the Cons. In such case, it could be a matter of a month or so before it is done and dusted. But similarly, if interest is low in it, it could hang in limbo for several more months.

 

[HSD]

It has to go back to HoC after amendments. Regarding the time frame, there is no fixed time frame for these procedures. We saw how C-24 flew threw the system and was implemented pretty fast. The speed by which C-6 can proceed after amendments depends on the weight the MPs and Senators put on it. Probably after amendments it will be generally agreed upon, so there will be no resistance from the Cons. In such case, it could be a matter of a month or so before it is done and dusted. But similarly, if interest is low in it, it could hang in limbo for several more months.

Do these amendments include the terrorist revocation clause as well.Because if the liberals didn't add this Clause I don't think the bill will have a smooth ride at the committee.And if they add the terrorist clause then liberals will think the whole bill will become purposeless.so very tricky situation ahead if both parties don't reach a common conclusion.
My personal view is if the liberals at Hoc agree to some of the amendments purposed by Cons at the committee ( that don't include changing any major clause of the bill) Cons at the committee will not be hell bent to block the bill and it will eventually pass.Only thing is time will be wasted in bill going back to Hoc and then going for final reading at senate again and it will pass somewhere close to June 2017,otherwise it may even pass in March.

 

[Shmak2017]

Trudeau's approval rating hits new low (but it's still pretty high): poll

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-briefing/article33344441/

 

[HSD]

Trudeau's approval rating hits new low (but it's still pretty high): poll

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/politics-briefing/article33344441/

This has nothing to do with bill C6 which is at the senate stage atm.So irrelevant post.

 

[marcher]

Do these amendments include the terrorist revocation clause as well.Because if the liberals didn't add this Clause I don't think the bill will have a smooth ride at the committee.And if they add the terrorist clause then liberals will think the whole bill will become purposeless.so very tricky situation ahead if both parties don't reach a common conclusion.
My personal view is if the liberals at Hoc agree to some of the amendments purposed by Cons at the committee ( that don't include changing any major clause of the bill) Cons at the committee will not be hell bent to block the bill and it will eventually pass.Only thing is time will be wasted in bill going back to Hoc and then going for final reading at senate again and it will pass somewhere close to June 2017,otherwise it may even pass in March.

I am curious what amendments are going to be suggested. The terrorist clause will not be scrapped completely, as it is the clause behind the flashy Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian phrase that played a big role in Liberal victory last elections. Somehow that clause has to be narrowed further and not be too generic to impact a lot of dual nationality holders. I have no idea what they will come up with, probably some fellows might share suggestions here.

As for the language clause which is the second most controversial clause in the bill, the Libs might scrap it as the Cons made a reasonable argument against it. Language requirements can be removed for retired grandparents or parents living with their children and grandkids, but not for someone who is still active in the workforce.

 

[zig_zag]

So what's the process like in the committee? Is it going to be multiple sessions just like the second reading or it could be a one time thing? And when are they going to discuss this bill?

 

[marcher]

So what's the process like in the committee? Is it going to be multiple sessions just like the second reading or it could be a one time thing? And when are they going to discuss this bill?

In the case of C-24, it was voted for in one sitting and passed on for Third Reading and then Royal Assent. Other bills have been in the committee for a couple of sittings (about 3 average). With C-6, everything could happen, difficult to set a time frame.

 

[itsmyid]

I am curious what amendments are going to be suggested. The terrorist clause will not be scrapped completely, as it is the clause behind the flashy Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian phrase that played a big role in Liberal victory last elections. Somehow that clause has to be narrowed further and not be too generic to impact a lot of dual nationality holders. I have no idea what they will come up with, probably some fellows might share suggestions here.

As for the language clause which is the second most controversial clause in the bill, the Libs might scrap it as the Cons made a reasonable argument against it. Language requirements can be removed for retired grandparents or parents living with their children and grandkids, but not for someone who is still active in the workforce.

I think the language requirement is reasonable - and for retired parents/grandparents, it really doesn't make a difference since they won't be physically fit enough to travel that much, so either staying as PR or becoming citizen wouldn't really have much impact on them

 

[canadasucks]

Reading the script from yesterday. This is funny:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Lang, your time is up.
Senator Lang: Could I have five minutes?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
...
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I'm sorry, Senator Lang, but your time has expired.
Senator Lang: May I please have another five minutes?
Senator Carignan: No.
...
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
An Hon. Senator: Never.

 

[marcher]

Reading the script from yesterday. This is funny:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Lang, your time is up.
Senator Lang: Could I have five minutes?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
...
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I'm sorry, Senator Lang, but your time has expired.
Senator Lang: May I please have another five minutes?
Senator Carignan: No.
...
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?
An Hon. Senator: Never.

I find the whole story a bit sad actually. They finally progressed several bills just to go on holiday. This could have been done last September. None of the speeches since then added any value to the debate. Instead they just ignored it until now.

 

[admontreal]

I am curious what amendments are going to be suggested. The terrorist clause will not be scrapped completely, as it is the clause behind the flashy Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian phrase that played a big role in Liberal victory last elections. Somehow that clause has to be narrowed further and not be too generic to impact a lot of dual nationality holders. I have no idea what they will come up with, probably some fellows might share suggestions here.

As for the language clause which is the second most controversial clause in the bill, the Libs might scrap it as the Cons made a reasonable argument against it. Language requirements can be removed for retired grandparents or parents living with their children and grandkids, but not for someone who is still active in the workforce.

The won't compromise on the Terrorist clause. It's either you treat all the citizens the same way or you don't. You can come up with all the definitions you want, this will never be enough. The Minister said he is open on amendements to add items to the bill, not to remove items. Especially not that one. As per the language requirement, it will go back to the old one. I don't see the point of subjecting kids between 14 to 18 to a language requirement. They need to be welcomed, not tested over and over.