Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
Redfield said:
They know this. The issue right now is some senators (cons) agree with C-24, while others don't and favor bill C-6. What you see as a roadblock they see as a safeguard to Canada. They know how you feel, they just don't agree with the changes.
Yeah but the conservative senators are not really my audience. I emailed the ones who voted for the McCoy amendment against the conservatives. What the Senate needs is for the independents to not stay idle and vote, that's how you overcome conservatives. Basically, if they vote against, that means that the rest of the amendments might not pass
jsm0085 said:
I agree, with you, I support the two amendments about Due Process and Child applicants. I don't really have an opinion about the age of 60 for language requirements as I understand both sides but I am very opposed to any amendments increasing residency period, lowering the credit given to students/workers or allowing the government to strip dual citizens from their citizenship. I wrote to roughlt 52 senators, most of them independant just to kind of expose the other side of the story that many don't consider like foreign students who've been here for like 7-8 years and still can't apply. So far I got a couple responses, including Senator Harder who said "I share your concern and will work to defeat this amendment."
The Child applicants bill has been flagged as a no-go for IRCC on the advice of the Justice Department. Simply put, children cannot form intent if they're under 18, and that makes their signature on the form worthless, and any lies or fraud nonpunishable. There's already a waiver for children under Section 5(3) of the act who want to become citizens and don't have a Canadian citizen waiver. It's the age waiver. It gets plenty of use already.
It's another poison pill to make sure the bill won't pass with amendments at the House.
It's another poison pill to make sure the bill won't pass with amendments at the House.
The minor amendment will not pass in the Senate, it will be voted out, it is not legal
The age for the language requirement wasn't an electoral promise and may pass in HOC
The right to go to the court for revocation of the citizenship was welcomed by the government (Sen. Harder)
Let's see what other amendments/Jokes they will come up with !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The age for the language requirement wasn't an electoral promise and may pass in HOC
The right to go to the court for revocation of the citizenship was welcomed by the government (Sen. Harder)
Let's see what other amendments/Jokes they will come up with !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Does anyone know if sen. Griffin voted pro or against, amendment represented by sen. Jaffer and sen. Omidvar on citizenship revoked?
I love how people still have hope. They can't see that the cons do not want to hold a vote right now because either outcome makes them look bad. If they agree, it goes against their ideals. If they refuse, they come off as opposing the will of the people. So what's the best tactic? Introduce as much amendments as possible to show they support the will of the people without sacrificing their core values. In addition, introducing amendments will stall the bill as much as possible so there is a possibility the bill automatically dissolves which is an even better outcome for them.
I'm going to support the cons push against the bill because I'd rather live the facts than a false hope. Makes planning day to day life much more easier.
I'm going to support the cons push against the bill because I'd rather live the facts than a false hope. Makes planning day to day life much more easier.