Bill C24
- Thread starter Goldline
- Start date
Just by reading on what it means by "Time Allocation motion" and "Standing Order 78 (3)" -sashali78 said:
It is used when government thinks that the bill may be delayed and they set time frames on number of day of debates and do a hard stop when time is reached.
It is very confusing. Someone with law studies can probably enlighten us on this.
I think the best measure of where the bill is it is the little graphic on one of the links that I included earlier: it has seven stages, and C-24 is at the first, because it has been referred to committee after the second reading, but hasn't been received by that committee yet. When the committee starts to consider it, it will be at stage 2. The actual time that it'll take to go through the stages basically depends on which of the following scenarios plays out:
- the government wants the bill to pass, but not urgently or anxiously, and it allocates plenty of time for debate and analysis at the committee level, regardless of whether it is going to listen to the results of said debate.
- the government wants the bill to pass, doesn't care about debate but wants it to have the appearance of propriety, so it keeps it short.
- the government rams it through.
If the CPC wants, this bill can be finished before the summer recess -- perfunctory consideration in committee, back to the House of Commons, three quick votes in the Senate. I suspect that in the Canadian system doing that might have drawbacks as well, particularly when dealing with a matter of identity, such as citizenship. I don't know how strong the ability of the government is to focus on multiple large bills at once is, or whether the uproar around C-23 will have a real effect on C-24, when they are sent to different committees. I don't know if the final two weeks of the session are a time when a lot of business gets done fast, or if committees are happy to just let stuff sit on the agenda for fall. I don't know if the Senate will act quickly after the House votes for the third time, or if the schedule there is full and slow. These are all as important as technical details of procedure.
- the government wants the bill to pass, but not urgently or anxiously, and it allocates plenty of time for debate and analysis at the committee level, regardless of whether it is going to listen to the results of said debate.
- the government wants the bill to pass, doesn't care about debate but wants it to have the appearance of propriety, so it keeps it short.
- the government rams it through.
If the CPC wants, this bill can be finished before the summer recess -- perfunctory consideration in committee, back to the House of Commons, three quick votes in the Senate. I suspect that in the Canadian system doing that might have drawbacks as well, particularly when dealing with a matter of identity, such as citizenship. I don't know how strong the ability of the government is to focus on multiple large bills at once is, or whether the uproar around C-23 will have a real effect on C-24, when they are sent to different committees. I don't know if the final two weeks of the session are a time when a lot of business gets done fast, or if committees are happy to just let stuff sit on the agenda for fall. I don't know if the Senate will act quickly after the House votes for the third time, or if the schedule there is full and slow. These are all as important as technical details of procedure.
You can already see what they will be discussing on Apr 8 and 9 - definitely not C-24.
More advanced hearings on the topic of Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System
Apr 8
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6515023&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Apr - 9
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6511939&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
And then in recess from Apr 12- 27 and back only Apr 28 !
More advanced hearings on the topic of Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System
Apr 8
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6515023&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Apr - 9
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6511939&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
And then in recess from Apr 12- 27 and back only Apr 28 !
This is new for the Citizenship Committee as of March 28, 2014 - not discussing the citizenship part yet
PROTECTING CANADA AND CANADIANS,
WELCOMING THE WORLD : A MODERN VISA SYSTEM
TO HELP CANADA SEIZE THE MOMENT
Report of the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration
David Tilson
Chair
MARCH 2014
41st PARLIAMENT, SECOND SESSION
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6449839&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2 (Click on the NEXT button for the detailed content)
PROTECTING CANADA AND CANADIANS,
WELCOMING THE WORLD : A MODERN VISA SYSTEM
TO HELP CANADA SEIZE THE MOMENT
Report of the Standing Committee
on Citizenship and Immigration
David Tilson
Chair
MARCH 2014
41st PARLIAMENT, SECOND SESSION
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6449839&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2 (Click on the NEXT button for the detailed content)
Debates in the House April 7, 2014
"Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for a few days now, I have been asking all the witnesses at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration about the language testing for sponsoring spouses. All the witnesses agree that the language tests will do nothing to help protect women from violence.
Can the minister therefore now confirm that he will not impose any criteria based on language, income or education for the sponsorship of spouses?
(1440)
[Expand]
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, no, as I have already said, we have no intention of introducing new requirements in terms of language or any other criteria for spousal sponsorship.
We are in favour of open debate. We want to protect women from violence here in Canada and within the immigration program. Does the third party support protecting women from violence? Their leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party, does not appear too sure about that.
[English]
[Expand]
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for once I congratulate the minister for his acceptance of clear non-Orwellian Liberal logic. Well done. However, he is not off the hook on refugees.
From Jack Pickersgill and the Hungarian refugees, in the 1950s, to Paul Martin, all Canadian governments have accepted thousands of refugees when the circumstances have demanded it. The same is true for other countries today with thousands of Syrian refugees.
Why is it that one month ago the minister said that Canada had accepted a grand total of 10 refugees? For once, will he tell us how many of the 1,300 sponsored refugees are here?
[Expand]
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada, as usual, has been generous in responding to the Syrian refugee crisis, as we have always been, in Diefenbaker's time and under every Conservative government. Hundreds of Syrians have arrived in Canada. They have been accepted faster than in any other country.
Earlier this year I mentioned a number that had to do with the referrals we started getting from the UNHCR. In December, we acted quickly on those referrals. We continue to act quickly and to be generous. There are 1,700 applications in process. That is more than any of our peers can boast.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!"
Source:
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
"Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for a few days now, I have been asking all the witnesses at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration about the language testing for sponsoring spouses. All the witnesses agree that the language tests will do nothing to help protect women from violence.
Can the minister therefore now confirm that he will not impose any criteria based on language, income or education for the sponsorship of spouses?
(1440)
[Expand]
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, no, as I have already said, we have no intention of introducing new requirements in terms of language or any other criteria for spousal sponsorship.
We are in favour of open debate. We want to protect women from violence here in Canada and within the immigration program. Does the third party support protecting women from violence? Their leader, the Leader of the Liberal Party, does not appear too sure about that.
[English]
[Expand]
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for once I congratulate the minister for his acceptance of clear non-Orwellian Liberal logic. Well done. However, he is not off the hook on refugees.
From Jack Pickersgill and the Hungarian refugees, in the 1950s, to Paul Martin, all Canadian governments have accepted thousands of refugees when the circumstances have demanded it. The same is true for other countries today with thousands of Syrian refugees.
Why is it that one month ago the minister said that Canada had accepted a grand total of 10 refugees? For once, will he tell us how many of the 1,300 sponsored refugees are here?
[Expand]
Hon. Chris Alexander (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Canada, as usual, has been generous in responding to the Syrian refugee crisis, as we have always been, in Diefenbaker's time and under every Conservative government. Hundreds of Syrians have arrived in Canada. They have been accepted faster than in any other country.
Earlier this year I mentioned a number that had to do with the referrals we started getting from the UNHCR. In December, we acted quickly on those referrals. We continue to act quickly and to be generous. There are 1,700 applications in process. That is more than any of our peers can boast.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!"
Source:
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
This is what I am saying chakrab,
It seems they are more focused on dual (Canada-US) citizens' problems when it comes to handing their financial information to IRS.
It is good news they are overwhelmed with other, "more important" pieces of legislation.
Cheers
It seems they are more focused on dual (Canada-US) citizens' problems when it comes to handing their financial information to IRS.
It is good news they are overwhelmed with other, "more important" pieces of legislation.
Cheers
There is some news from the committee proceedings. It looks like we should relax for at least one month, as the debates and 6 meetings on Bill C-24 will start only on April 28, 2014.
"The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.
That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the Committee on Wednesday, February 26, 2014, the Committee undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, starting on Monday, April 28, 2014.
That six (6) meetings be devoted to hear from witnesses as follows:
• The Hon. Chris Alexander, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) officials appear on Monday, April 28, 2014, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
• The Committee hear from stakeholders for an additional (5) five meetings.
That the total number of witnesses for this study be divided among the recognized parties according to their standings in the House of Commons: fifteen (15) for the Government (Conservative Party), eleven (11) for the Official Opposition (New Democratic Party) and two (2) for the other opposition party (Liberal Party). "
Source:
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6508928&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
"The Committee proceeded to the consideration of matters related to Committee business.
That, notwithstanding the motion adopted by the Committee on Wednesday, February 26, 2014, the Committee undertake a study on the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, starting on Monday, April 28, 2014.
That six (6) meetings be devoted to hear from witnesses as follows:
• The Hon. Chris Alexander, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) officials appear on Monday, April 28, 2014, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
• The Committee hear from stakeholders for an additional (5) five meetings.
That the total number of witnesses for this study be divided among the recognized parties according to their standings in the House of Commons: fifteen (15) for the Government (Conservative Party), eleven (11) for the Official Opposition (New Democratic Party) and two (2) for the other opposition party (Liberal Party). "
Source:
www parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6508928&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Your link doesn't work, I'm afraid -- if you're right, this is not good news, as far as I'm concerned; because of the two week break, this is actually the soonest that the committee could get to this, so it suggests that they're going to try and get this bill moving prior to the summer recess.
Not very good news on Bill C-24.
As stated before, there will be 6 consultation meetings at the Committee stage. Two of them are scheduled for April 28 and 30 and sashali78 says his group will be in front of the Committee on May 7. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the consultation will be over before the second week of May. The government is pushing hard on all the fronts, and will probably pass the bill before the summer shut down.
We shall see...
As stated before, there will be 6 consultation meetings at the Committee stage. Two of them are scheduled for April 28 and 30 and sashali78 says his group will be in front of the Committee on May 7. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the consultation will be over before the second week of May. The government is pushing hard on all the fronts, and will probably pass the bill before the summer shut down.
We shall see...