17 vacant seats in the senate,what for?

[surgi]

As the senate may be the real obstacle for Bill C-6 as the conservatives has 42 members and there are 8 more independent members hired by Harper and have conservative tendencies. There are 17 vacant seats in the Senate,anyone knows why they are still vacant and why Trudeau did not hire members for these seats?

 

[spyfy]

The Senate will NOT be an obstacle for Bill C-6. I don't know why everybody all of sudden is obsessed with the Senate, a superfluous and powerless institution that nobody gives a damn about...

In any case, Trudeau introduced a new process how Senators get nominated and that process needs some time to get implemented. Hence it'll take a while before these 17 seats are filled.

 

[scylla]

The Senate will NOT be an obstacle for Bill C-6. I don't know why everybody all of sudden is obsessed with the Senate, a superfluous and powerless institution that nobody gives a damn about...

THIS.

The Senate is useless. If the Liberals want to do everyone a favour - introduce a bill to abolish the Senate.

 

[Canadiandesi2006]

As the senate may be the real obstacle for Bill C-6 as the conservatives has 42 members and there are 8 more independent members hired by Harper and have conservative tendencies. There are 17 vacant seats in the Senate,anyone knows why they are still vacant and why Trudeau did not hire members for these seats?

Probably search for the best among worst politicians whose priority is to serve only the political bosses is still on..... ;D

 

[screech339]

I dunno how come all are nervous about the senate.

Here's a thought, they have a lifetime job that they love but it's not guaranteed.

Since they won jackpot having that job, I don't think any rational man will jeopardize that.

Its like stirring the hornets nest with the liberal government for those who oppose it.

How can they jeopardize their job? Their job is safe until they retire no matter how they vote in the senate. The only way their job is jeopardize is if they found convicted of a serious federal charge.

 

[alphazip]

THIS.

The Senate is useless. If the Liberals want to do everyone a favour - introduce a bill to abolish the Senate.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Senate can only be abolished with the consent of ALL the provinces. A simple bill passed by Parliament wouldn't do it.

 

[alphazip]

The Senate will NOT be an obstacle for Bill C-6. I don't know why everybody all of sudden is obsessed with the Senate, a superfluous and powerless institution that nobody gives a damn about...

The Senate is not powerless. Although most Senators may not want to be seen as obstructing Bill C-6, they certainly have the power to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_Canada

"The approval of both chambers [the House of Commons and Senate] is necessary for legislation and, thus, the Senate can reject bills passed by the Commons. Between 1867 and 1987, the Senate rejected fewer than two bills per year, but this has increased in more recent years."

 

[surgi]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/a-terrorist-is-a-terrorist-is-a-terrorist-tory-senators-vow-to-fight-changes-to-citizenship-laws-for-dual-nationals

Please read this. Of course the senate can delay or even refuse the bill and make it stuck for sometimes . The problem is that this bill will allow liberals to have more voters in the next election. The conservatives would do their best at least to delay it including pressure on the senate members appointed by Harper to vote against. They do not care if those members would loose their positions or not. Those who voted for Bill C-24 may vote against Bill C-6 as a principal of ethics .

 

[surgi]

THIS.

The Senate is useless. If the Liberals want to do everyone a favour - introduce a bill to abolish the Senate.

The senate is really useless it costs the tax payers more than 100 millions a year. It is a good idea to launch a petition to abolish the senate.

 

[surgi]

While the timeline for Bill C-6 cannot be reliably predicted, it is likely it will be adopted and become law.

To the extent the Senate might obstruct adoption of Bill C-6, while technically it could totally scuttle the Bill, the likelihood of that is small. Possible, but not at all likely.

The more salient possibility is that the Senate proposes amendments which require the Bill to be revisited in the House of Commons, and if those amendments are not acceptable to the majority in Parliament, the process could take a long while to reconcile the differences and pass a Bill which gets adopted. The usual suspect would be section 3 in Bill C-6, which repeals subsection 10.(2) in the current Citizenship Act (provision giving Minister authority to revoke citizenship for those convicted of certain crimes), and section 4 in Bill C-6 which amends other provisions of the Citizenship Act related to the implementation of subsection 10.(2).

Whether this particular part of Bill C-6 (sections 3 & 4 of the Bill) becomes problematic may depend in part on the extent to which Canadian opinion swings one way or the other. Currently, as noted before and often, the Liberal motto a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian appears to have wide-based and strong appeal, and unless this is dramatically eroded (such as in reaction to a major terrorist event in Canada or directly affecting Canada), it is hard to see how the Senate could successfully oppose these changes to the Citizenship Act.

In any event: While it is difficult to say when, the odds are high that Bill C-6 will be adopted and become law, with no major revisions. However, politics are always prone to dramatic and unpredictable shifts in the wind, so there are no guarantees, none at all. Unless and until Bill C-6 is passed by the Senate and finally adopted in Parliament, there is no relying on its provisions becoming law, let alone on any predictions about when its provisions will take actual effect.

 

[MarceauBletard]

The Senate will NOT be an obstacle for Bill C-6. I don't know why everybody all of sudden is obsessed with the Senate, a superfluous and powerless institution that nobody gives a damn about...

In any case, Trudeau introduced a new process how Senators get nominated and that process needs some time to get implemented. Hence it'll take a while before these 17 seats are filled.

I certainly hope you're right.
We should have the answer next week.

 

[Coffee1981]

As the senate may be the real obstacle for Bill C-6 as the conservatives has 42 members and there are 8 more independent members hired by Harper and have conservative tendencies. There are 17 vacant seats in the Senate,anyone knows why they are still vacant and why Trudeau did not hire members for these seats?

You clearly missed that whole election last year that featured lively debate on the future of the Senate. Trudeau won't appoint new Senators unless they're selected by a non-partisan committee. He doesn't want a bunch of old party hacks getting a free lunch for life. There should be NO RUSH to fill those seats, my friend. As a soon-to-be-Canadian you should be paying attention to things like this.

 

[Natan]

Not all Canadians place the same high value on immigration we Forum-ites do. Those Canadians least likely to value immigration are also most likely to vote Conservative. Before we discount senators playing to their base because we think it will harm them in the next election, let's remember what happened to the NDP when Tom Mulcair denounced Harper's policies regarding swearing the oath of citizenship while wearing a niqab -- his party was soundly defeated for it. (Mulcair won my vote with that one act and therewith epitomized all the things that make me proudest of being Canadian.)

 

[MarceauBletard]

Not all Canadians place the same high value on immigration we Forum-ites do. Those Canadians least likely to value immigration are also most likely to vote Conservative. Before we discount senators playing to their base because we think it will harm them in the next election, let's remember what happened to the NDP when Tom Mulcair denounced Harper's policies regarding swearing the oath of citizenship while wearing a niqab -- his party was soundly defeated for it. (Mulcair won my vote with that one act and therewith epitomized all the things that make me proudest of being Canadian.)

Someone who refuses to show his/her face shouldn't be allowed citizenship.
On that particular issue, the Tories were right.
Niqab is illegal in my native country (and hijabs are illegals in most Belgian schools.)
Niqabs are illegal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Egypt and Chad.
I'm not saying Canada has to follow those countries, but showing your face during the oath is a minimum in my personal opinion.
That being said, for Bill C-6, I fully agree with the liberals and I was against Bill C-24.
I understand the sensitivities here but not everything is black or white, there are shades of grey in every party, good and bad things everywhere.

Now, I'd be happy if we continue discussing the subject at hand instead of going into politics.
I think we should leave politics to politicians and just go vote what we want when the election day is up.

 

[Natan]

Someone who refuses to show his/her face shouldn't be allowed citizenship.
On that particular issue, the Tories were right.
Niqab is illegal in my native country (and hijabs are illegals in most Belgian schools.)
Niqabs are illegal in Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Egypt and Chad.
I'm not saying Canada has to follow those countries, but showing your face during the oath is a minimum in my personal opinion.
That being said, for Bill C-6, I fully agree with the liberals and I was against Bill C-24.
Not everything is black or white, there are shades of grey in every party, good and bad things everywhere.

Whether or not someone wears a niqab during their oath ceremony says absolutely nothing about their commitment to Canadian citizenship. The prospective citizen has not only signed the oath (making it legally binding), but also has verbally sworn the oath in front of a female officer in private. Preventing her from becoming a citizen just because she does not want to go [face] naked in public seems purely spiteful.

In a free country, people should be free to wear whatever they choose, whether they wear it for religious, national or fashion purposes is immaterial. If we are worried about women being subjugated by the clothes they wear, our societies should work harder to integrate the adults of that society into our social and economic fabric (something most European countries have failed to do). This is something we do quite well in Canada. Women who wear niqabs and hijabs may do so out of a sense of cultural requirement when they move here, but their children will do so out of choice, if at all. We should not oppress and discriminate against them for this practice, but allow them to express themselves without judging them. (This is, after all, one of the values we expect them to adopt when they move here, isn't it?)