Bill C-6: Senate stage

[jsm0085]

https://twitter.com/SenatorVictorOh/status/859501637446053888
READ IT

You need to understand that the immigration minister doesn't speak for the entire HoC. There is a good chance the bill will pass with amendments but the reality is, it may not.

These are the days of our lives

 

[MarceauBletard]

https://twitter.com/SenatorVictorOh/status/859501637446053888
READ IT

https://twitter.com/SenatorVictorOh/status/859501637446053888
Senator Victor Oh‏ @SenatorVictorOh
The Federal Government thinks that my amendment to bill C6 is not needed. The vulnerable children who it helps disagree. @AhmedDHussen

Yup. So like I thought, because they didn't come up with the idea, they'll probably reject AT LEAST 1 amendment.
The contrary would be very surprising.

 

[jsm0085]

https://twitter.com/SenatorVictorOh/status/859501637446053888
Senator Victor Oh‏ @SenatorVictorOh
The Federal Government thinks that my amendment to bill C6 is not needed. The vulnerable children who it helps disagree. @AhmedDHussen

Yup. So like I thought, because they didn't come up with the idea, they'll probably reject AT LEAST 1 amendment.
The contrary would be very surprising.

I don't think it would be that surprising. Politics is a game.

An amendment, similar to the one discussed yesterday, would be a deal breaker. It would be, without a doubt, returned. Considering there was no evidence to support the age change to 55 specifically and considering the child in care clause received support from libs, cons and independents - I'd be surprised if it's rejected.

Again, this is not the immigration minister's choice, it's the choice of the houses vote.

 

[spyfy]

Yup, I also think it is not unlikely that the HoC will not accept some of the amendments. Senator Ohs tweet says that the minister called the amendment not necessary. I listened to the QP yesterday and didn't hear the minister say that. But they'll publish the Hansard soon then we will know.

 

[James Russo]

What time is the vote scheduled today?

 

[spyfy]

What time is the vote scheduled today?

They didn't specify a certain time. Usually senate starts at 2pm and Question period ends at 3pm. One can assume that then they will start debating C-6 again.

 

[monalisa]

I don't think it would be that surprising. Politics is a game.

An amendment, similar to the one discussed yesterday, would be a deal breaker. It would be, without a doubt, returned. Considering there was no evidence to support the age change to 55 specifically and considering the child in care clause received support from libs, cons and independents - I'd be surprised if it's rejected.

Again, this is not the immigration minister's choice, it's the choice of the houses vote.

Yes your right, sen oh amendment is good, it will be accepted by the HoC even sen jaffer supported it.
These minors deserve to be citizens too, children rights

 

[Varangian]

What time is the vote scheduled today?

The vote is not scheduled. But according to senator Sen. Mobina Jaffer "most likely" it will happen today. Nobody knows the exact time thou.

Sen. Mobina Jaffer‏Verified account @SenJaffer 1h1 hour ago
More
Today most likely we will be voting on #C6 and its amendments. Then the Bill will go to HOC #senCA

 

[Joshua1]

This is the legislative process at this stage

"The Senate often makes amendments to bills, some of which involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. The House normally accepts such amendments.

If the House does not agree with the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion stating the reasons for its disagreement, which it communicates in a message to the Senate. If the Senate wishes the amendments to stand nonetheless, it sends a message back to the House, which then accepts or rejects the proposed changes. If an agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held, although this practice has fallen into disuse."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/Compendium/web-content/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm

From what I understand here, if the amendments are rejected by HoC and the bill is back to the Senate, a message (not a motion) will be sent back to the House from the Senate. The question is what is the modus operandi of such messages i.e. is it a letter? a summon? a phone call? etc. Does anyone here know?

 

[MarceauBletard]

This is the legislative process at this stage

"The Senate often makes amendments to bills, some of which involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. The House normally accepts such amendments.

If the House does not agree with the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion stating the reasons for its disagreement, which it communicates in a message to the Senate. If the Senate wishes the amendments to stand nonetheless, it sends a message back to the House, which then accepts or rejects the proposed changes. If an agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held, although this practice has fallen into disuse."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/Compendium/web-content/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm

From what I understand here, if the amendments are rejected by HoC and the bill is back to the Senate, a message (not a motion) will be sent back to the House from the Senate. The question is what is the modus operandi of such messages i.e. is it a letter? a summon? a phone call? etc. Does anyone here know?

Wow, that's very useful info! Thank you!
I guess we're nearing the very end now (but I was thinking that a year ago also.)

 

[spyfy]

This is the legislative process at this stage

"The Senate often makes amendments to bills, some of which involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. The House normally accepts such amendments.

If the House does not agree with the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion stating the reasons for its disagreement, which it communicates in a message to the Senate. If the Senate wishes the amendments to stand nonetheless, it sends a message back to the House, which then accepts or rejects the proposed changes. If an agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held, although this practice has fallen into disuse."
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/Compendium/web-content/c_g_legislativeprocess-e.htm

From what I understand here, if the amendments are rejected by HoC and the bill is back to the Senate, a message (not a motion) will be sent back to the House from the Senate. The question is what is the modus operandi of such messages i.e. is it a letter? a summon? a phone call? etc. Does anyone here know?

Such messages are sent from one house to the other the usual way, just like bills and everything else. So don't read into the word "message" that any kind of particular means for communication are being used. As usual, the HoC gets the bill, then votes whatever and then sends a message to the Senate on what they disagree on. This message is, like everything else, printed and send over. Then the Senate looks at it with the same means as they look at bills and then votes whatever and so on. But there is no several readings. It's a single debate and then they vote which amendments to keep.

 

[Joshua1]

Such messages are sent from one house to the other the usual way, just like bills and everything else. So don't read into the word "message" that any kind of particular means for communication are being used. As usual, the HoC gets the bill, then votes whatever and then sends a message to the Senate on what they disagree on. This message is, like everything else, printed and send over. Then the Senate looks at it with the same means as they look at bills and then votes whatever and so on. But there is no several readings. It's a single debate and then they vote which amendments to keep.

Thanks! Then, based on your assertion "...there is no several readings. It's a single debate...", it becomes a matter of which sitting days the Senate will convene (May and June) in the eventuality of a HoC rejection of the amendments.

 

[spyfy]

Thanks! Then, based on your assertion "...there is no several readings. It's a single debate...", it becomes a matter of which sitting days the Senate will convene (May and June) in the eventuality of a HoC rejection of the amendments.

This is a very helpful overview of how amended bills were dealt with in the past:
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/HouseOfCommons/legislation/HOCBillsAmandedBySenate.aspx

 

[spyfy]

Also, here is the verbatim quote from the Hansard of yesterday which has now been published. This is what the minister said about Senator Oh's amendment regarding minors:

Thank you, Senator Oh, for that important question and for raising an important issue. I want to assure you that current authorities under the Citizenship Act already allow a minor to request a waiver of the age requirement when they're making an application for Canadian citizenship. However, I can assure you that the government will give careful analysis and consideration to the amendments proposed by the Senate, including your amendment.

I also want to inform you that the raison d'être for Bill C-6 is to remove obstacles to citizenship and to clear the path for all eligible permanent residents who want to become Canadian citizens. We are of the same mind when it comes to easing the path for people to become citizens and not creating obstacles for citizenship, which we feel Bill C-24 did.

Bill C-6 also enhances program integrity, supports the goal for making it easier for immigrants to build successful lives by taking that final step of integration by becoming Canadian citizens.

Again, I want to thank you for raising that issue. I can assure you I will give my most careful analysis and consideration to that amendment. At the same time, I want you to note that the current legislation, the Citizenship Act, does allow for minors to request a waiver in their application for Canadian citizenship.

So in no way has he said that the amendment is unnecessary. This is the misquotation I was talking about earlier.

 

[Joshua1]

This is a very helpful overview of how amended bills were dealt with in the past:
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/HouseOfCommons/legislation/HOCBillsAmandedBySenate.aspx

Very useful info! Thanks!

Based on some of these precedents, in my opinion, it's reasonable to assume the bill getting Royal Assent by July 1 (A lot of those timelines were within 2 months - in cases where HoC disagreed with Senate amendments).