+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445
Client Portal

Bill C-6: Senate stage

The Court judgement makes it mandatory for the government to accept the revocation amendment. So considering the three amendments , I would not be surprised if HoC accepts all three.
 
This was much needed, Cons. revoked about 60 citizenship... Lib revoked about 300 in only last two year.

Typical Justin Trudeau's hypocrisy.
 
jsm0085 said:
This is good for C-6
Click to expand...

According to the following paragraph in the article, this ruling MAY impact C6 (negatively in the short term and/or positively in the long term), but I'm not a legal expert

"As for subsections 10 (1), (3) and (4) while the judge declared them inoperative because they violate the Bill of Rights, she did not find they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, the judge suspended her judgment for 60 days to give the government time to decide if it wants to file an appeal."
 
quasar81 said:
How come...Just curious.
Click to expand...
1. Revocation - The Judge found the minister may not revoke citizenship based on the old Bill of rights. Gave 60 days for the government to file an appeal. So mostly the government is in the wrong foot and also they are defending C24 provisions which will make them unpopular. If they stick to an appeal and then reject Senate amendments, it will be a lengthy debate, back and forth communication. My opinion is that, they have an excuse to say they got a court judgement and they wont be appealing again and fix the issue with C6.

2. Senator Oh's amendment on children - Sen Oh went to the extent of getting UNHCR and other child activists involved in this. Since it only affects very very few applicants, this will mostly be accepted.

3. Age from 55 to 60. I dont see this as a big change and Minister Hussein being a strict person based on his previous work as a lawyer he will think it adds value to the citizenship bill and avoid criticism.

So my take is government will accept all three in principle and may propose changes in implementation by adding additional clauses which the senate will agree to.
 
So todays journal was published
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...e=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8935872&File=0

And there is no mention of C-4 on there. But last night C-4 was on the Projected Order of Business for today, wasn't it?

I still stand by the point that C-4 and C-6 are very different bills, but still this seems to indicate that even the Projected Order of Business can't be taken seriously since they don't really follow it.

Or am I missing something here?
 
On a different note, I learned that the Minister (Ahmed Hussen) is currently traveling. See his twitter feed, where he says that he is in London, UK at the moment. That might add to the fact that we hear nothing about C-6.
 
spyfy said:
So todays journal was published
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...e=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8935872&File=0

And there is no mention of C-4 on there. But last night C-4 was on the Projected Order of Business for today, wasn't it?

I still stand by the point that C-4 and C-6 are very different bills, but still this seems to indicate that even the Projected Order of Business can't be taken seriously since they don't really follow it.

Or am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

You are right... I just went through the video recording after seeing this post; C-4 was not mentioned at all.
 
spyfy said:
On a different note, I learned that the Minister (Ahmed Hussen) is currently traveling. See his twitter feed, where he says that he is in London, UK at the moment. That might add to the fact that we hear nothing about C-6.
Click to expand...

This may also be the reason why C-4 was skipped today as Mr Hussen seconded the rejection of Senate's amendments.
 
sansnom said:
This may also be the reason why C-4 was skipped today as Mr Hussen seconded the rejection of Senate's amendments.
Click to expand...

Seconding a motion is a formal procedure that isn't really relevant for the process. In fact, bills are often discussed while the person who seconded a motion isn't present. Also, Hussen's travel plans weren't ad-hoc but planned ahead. So they wouldn't have put it on there in the first place if they required him to be there.
 
So, technically HoC wasted a week. There was pretty much no news either.
Hopefully, we will see C-6 discussion next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.