If they skip all the second reading laws each time we have nothing to worry about. I thought only C-6 that was targeted by such negligence. So it's just ongoing business as usual procedures.
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
yeah, nice try.punk said:So I met with around 10 conservative senators today and I talked about this specific bills. They all told me that the bill will pass because the senate have liberal majority and this is a government bill. They however said that every senator is interested in speaking about this bill, so its taking time.
This senate overall is slightly slow since they have only passed 25 bills in this session since last year while in 2013 around 75 bills were passed. Don't think so that the bill will die, but its taking time more time. If you want to expedite it, reach out to senators on daily basis so they can all speak on it and then pass it
There will be a Senate sitting today:
Senate sitting no. 80
Time: 1:30 PM - 5:30 PM EST
Link: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161201/-1/6367
Bill C-6 is No. 2 on the Second Readings List.
Find out, this afternoon, live from the Senate!
Senate sitting no. 80
Time: 1:30 PM - 5:30 PM EST
Link: http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20161201/-1/6367
Bill C-6 is No. 2 on the Second Readings List.
- Will Senator Frum discuss Bill C-6?
Will other Senators comment and discuss the Bill further?
Will they all finally agree on the Bill?
Will the bill be rejected and ended?
or ... will they just skip it like every other day?
Find out, this afternoon, live from the Senate!
Senator Frum adjourned the discussion a couple of days ago, she is not the one behind all this delay. However, at the moment, she is holding it while preparing her speech. As you can guess, because she is a Conservative, she will recycle the same argument in different words and a few pages. The real purpose why the bill is static for a while is because not a single Liberal Senator is showing any interest in it, nor defending it.Conservatives are doing their job by adjourning the bill and reminding everyone of their opinion; which is to maintain their Bill C-24. Independent Senator Omidvar tried everything she can; but her options are limited since she is not a member of the standing committee. I personally think Liberal Senators were instructed to stay quiet and watch this bill die so a new one will be prepared around Minister Monsef's situation.Anvatrix said:
Contacting anyone that comes to your mind is not necessarily a good approach. You need to address the right people that have a direct impact on the bill where it stands now. The minister of immigration? Of course not; what can he do for you? He has zero power over the bill at this stage; he is a spectator like the rest of us now watching what the Senate will do. MPs? The bill has already passed through the House of Commons, the MPs did their job. Senators? Yes, those are the ones to address, but you need to pick the right ones. For example, no need to contact Conservative Senators because they are acting as a team to support and maintain C-24; so the best you will get out of them is a fake promise. Instead, focus should be on Liberal Senators, and the question to be asked is why are they not acting? Otherwise, they'll just throw in the same fake promises of the Conservatives. I do wonder though if certain independent Senators should be contacted; but in many cases like Omidvars, they have limited options to make a significant impact on the progress of the bill.Richard11 said:
thanks Marcher..
i am aligned with your thought that liberals will leave the bill to die.. lets see what happens..
i am aligned with your thought that liberals will leave the bill to die.. lets see what happens..
I don't think so. Senator Jaffer (Liberal) made a beautiful speech in order to defend the bill and other Senators were supportive of it. I don't think the Liberals would do such a thing (instruct to watch it die while drafting another bill), first because they can't instruct 'Liberal Senators' of anything, since those are not in the Caucus, second because nothing can change Monsef's situation, whether there are amendments or a new bill, her case presents a slight change of place of birth which is not material enough to trigger a revocation. Had her mother ommitted to mention a criminal conviction, that would be another discussion, but now the only thing that Monsef should worry about is the Electoral Reform (and the disappointing proposal her committee had for.us).marcher said:
all those that were impacted ..eligible to apply in 2015 or after and had to wait an extra year or two won't benefit unfortunately . The 2017 people will just apply under current rules .
Even c2 hasn't passed yet , which was a major campaign promise and affecting mostly all Canadians . They are very very slow.
c2 was proposed in december 2015. One year after , still at the senate .
As for C6 , it was in february of this year , nothing happened as well .
Even c2 hasn't passed yet , which was a major campaign promise and affecting mostly all Canadians . They are very very slow.
c2 was proposed in december 2015. One year after , still at the senate .
As for C6 , it was in february of this year , nothing happened as well .
You make a good point. Thinking about it again, I think because C-6 affects us directly, we value you it way higher than it actually is. For the rest of the Senate, it is among the least crucial bills, and hence they are giving it less importance.admontreal said:
That is true. You know why though? I feel like Senators waste tremendous amount of time in long speeches addressing irrelevant subjects. It sounds like more of a competition of who will provide the most eloquent yet incredibly boring speech to show off their language skills. This applies to all discussions, not just C-6. If they stick to the core details of each subject, they'll get a lot more done. I listened to Senator Ngo's never ending speech last time; and the guy did not add one new thing to the discussion. At the end of the day, they are paid by our tax money not to give speeches about someone's accolades or just repeat the same points made by previous members using different words and ten more pages.tyl92 said:
I just believe that we (including me) have difficulty to realize how slow the Senate is. As tyl92 observed, very important Bills are still at the Senate a year after being introduced. I didn't see any major Bill (except the assisted-dying bill due to the Supreme Court deadline) being fully passed since Trudeau became PM.marcher said:
marcher said:
Apparently the debates regarding the assisted-dying bill were quite interesting and added really good value. But I agree with you, the Senators, especially the Conservative ones, tend to copy paste and paraphrase the same lame arguments.
In all honesty I never listen to Senate sessions unless to follow any updates on to C-6. From what I heard recently, they spent a lot of time praising some random Joe for accomplishments. Then when C-6 is brought up, the speeches about it could be summarized in less than 5 sentences in most cases (the core arguments). I mention Senator Ngo's speech again, if you read it, the guy rambles forever, but I have yet to find one, a single one new idea he brought in. It is disappointing considering he was an immigration judge; he should have had at least one more important thing to add.admontreal said:
Immigration Judge, Refugee from Vietnam (where citizenship revocation for dissidents was once discussed), 'Human Rights Champion' (as he self-proclamed) and many other things that may have brought value to the debate ... And still, as you say, he recycled the same crap as his peers did...marcher said:
