You know why? Because she is the only person in that room who gives a rat's #$% about the Bill. I was surprised why she referred it to a commission composed mostly of Cons; but based on the information I read today from last night's sitting, the members of that committee changed to 6 Cons, 3 Libs and 6 independents. Now based on this mix, and knowing all Cons will vote against the bill, and all Libs for the bill, at least 5 independents have to vote for the bill to have it approved. Would that happen? Probably it will, or in the worse case amendments will be introduced, but the important fact is the bill is moving now and heading somewhere. Omidvar is a champion of this bill so far. She does not have to be in the committee for the bill to be approved. Even if she was, she would have had one vote.spiritsoul said:
If 5 out of the 6 INDs vote in the favour of the bill it will pass the committee stage in February 2017.But I was wondering if it doesn't pass the committee stage and amendments are introduced how much more till will it take for the amendment process to go through.Does anyone have an idea how amendment process works and is it a time consuming process ,just like the readings at the senate or Hoc?marcher said:
It has to go back to HoC after amendments. Regarding the time frame, there is no fixed time frame for these procedures. We saw how C-24 flew threw the system and was implemented pretty fast. The speed by which C-6 can proceed after amendments depends on the weight the MPs and Senators put on it. Probably after amendments it will be generally agreed upon, so there will be no resistance from the Cons. In such case, it could be a matter of a month or so before it is done and dusted. But similarly, if interest is low in it, it could hang in limbo for several more months.HSD said:
Do these amendments include the terrorist revocation clause as well.Because if the liberals didn't add this Clause I don't think the bill will have a smooth ride at the committee.And if they add the terrorist clause then liberals will think the whole bill will become purposeless.so very tricky situation ahead if both parties don't reach a common conclusion.marcher said:
I am curious what amendments are going to be suggested. The terrorist clause will not be scrapped completely, as it is the clause behind the flashy Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian phrase that played a big role in Liberal victory last elections. Somehow that clause has to be narrowed further and not be too generic to impact a lot of dual nationality holders. I have no idea what they will come up with, probably some fellows might share suggestions here.HSD said:
In the case of C-24, it was voted for in one sitting and passed on for Third Reading and then Royal Assent. Other bills have been in the committee for a couple of sittings (about 3 average). With C-6, everything could happen, difficult to set a time frame.zig_zag said:
I think the language requirement is reasonable - and for retired parents/grandparents, it really doesn't make a difference since they won't be physically fit enough to travel that much, so either staying as PR or becoming citizen wouldn't really have much impact on themmarcher said:
I find the whole story a bit sad actually. They finally progressed several bills just to go on holiday. This could have been done last September. None of the speeches since then added any value to the debate. Instead they just ignored it until now.canadasucks said:
The won't compromise on the Terrorist clause. It's either you treat all the citizens the same way or you don't. You can come up with all the definitions you want, this will never be enough. The Minister said he is open on amendements to add items to the bill, not to remove items. Especially not that one. As per the language requirement, it will go back to the old one. I don't see the point of subjecting kids between 14 to 18 to a language requirement. They need to be welcomed, not tested over and over.marcher said:
