Liberals not prioritizing because they are no pressure from constituents to pass....CANADIANZ said:
Also a good question. On one hand, they could set it forward to take effect for a year like C-24.Amoojoon said:
It may, if not lot of people call/email minister to implement ASAP.Amoojoon said:
I laughedspyfy said:Chillllll, people
I have the feeling some people expected it to go like this:
"The senate passes the bill. The Speaker shouts "Splendid! Send a messenger to the West Wing informing the Commons about this historic passage!" A messenger runs through the hall, opens the doors of the Commons, and shouts "The Bill has Passed". The HoC erupts into cheers and immediately drops all business. They vote and it passes into law. Champagne and glitter rains from the ceilings, a choir of immigrants sings "We are the champions" from the balcony and we all lived happily ever after. THE END."
This is not how it works.
Jokes aside, it is pretty much ridiculous to assume that 48 hours after the bill passed the Senate there is any indication of its status whatsoever in the Common's documents. How on earth is that an indication that things are going slow. This has to go over several administrative tables before it reaches the Commons. Spoiler alert: There are no messengers running from the East Wing to the West Wing. Instead it takes some days for documents going through parliamentary bureaucracy.
This has been going on for a year and you are complaining about nothing happening in two days. Again, chilllll.
spyfy said:Chillllll, people
I called my my conservative MP Bob Saroya and he told me exactly what you just described Spyfy: ..."A messenger runs through the hall, opens the doors of the Commons, and shouts "The Bill has Passed". The HoC erupts into cheers and immediately drops all business. They vote and it passes into law. Champagne and glitter rains from the ceilings, a choir of immigrants sings "We are the champions" from the balcony and we all lived happily ever after."
Spyfy, you owe me a new laptop, you made me spill my evening tea!
Thanks for being the voice of reason, and bringing some levity to some of this total absurdity :spyfy said:Chillllll, people
I have the feeling some people expected it to go like this:
"The senate passes the bill. The Speaker shouts "Splendid! Send a messenger to the West Wing informing the Commons about this historic passage!" A messenger runs through the hall, opens the doors of the Commons, and shouts "The Bill has Passed". The HoC erupts into cheers and immediately drops all business. They vote and it passes into law. Champagne and glitter rains from the ceilings, a choir of immigrants sings "We are the champions" from the balcony and we all lived happily ever after. THE END."
This is not how it works.
Jokes aside, it is pretty much ridiculous to assume that 48 hours after the bill passed the Senate there is any indication of its status whatsoever in the Common's documents. How on earth is that an indication that things are going slow. This has to go over several administrative tables before it reaches the Commons. Spoiler alert: There are no messengers running from the East Wing to the West Wing. Instead it takes some days for documents going through parliamentary bureaucracy.
This has been going on for a year and you are complaining about nothing happening in two days. Again, chilllll.
that is taking hold on these forums!!!spyfy said:Chillllll, people
I have the feeling some people expected it to go like this:
"The senate passes the bill. The Speaker shouts "Splendid! Send a messenger to the West Wing informing the Commons about this historic passage!" A messenger runs through the hall, opens the doors of the Commons, and shouts "The Bill has Passed". The HoC erupts into cheers and immediately drops all business. They vote and it passes into law. Champagne and glitter rains from the ceilings, a choir of immigrants sings "We are the champions" from the balcony and we all lived happily ever after. THE END."
This is not how it works.
Jokes aside, it is pretty much ridiculous to assume that 48 hours after the bill passed the Senate there is any indication of its status whatsoever in the Common's documents. How on earth is that an indication that things are going slow. This has to go over several administrative tables before it reaches the Commons. Spoiler alert: There are no messengers running from the East Wing to the West Wing. Instead it takes some days for documents going through parliamentary bureaucracy.
This has been going on for a year and you are complaining about nothing happening in two days. Again, chilllll.
- can you please let me know if the amendments made by the senate that allow minors to apply alone will change the residency requirements for children under 18 that applied in the current law.spyfy said:This is - unfortunately - completely incorrect.
I can't tell if the HoC will accept the amendment or not.
However, it is not unconstitutional. First of all, nowhere in the Constitution of Canada (= the several laws comprising the Constitution, British North America Act and so on) does it state that 18 is the age of majority and that you have to be 18 to apply to the government for anything.
Also, you misunderstood the amendment. Even if this amendment passes, a minor may sign the application but it must still be countersigned by a legal guardian. For example, a minor refugee child has a legal guardian assigned to them who would countersign the application. This legal guardian is not their parent! So far, without the amendment, no one could file an application on the child's behalf unless the actual parents (adoptive or natural) apply at the same time or are already citizens. Not even a legal guardian could do it. This is what the amendment changes. Note that even under the current law, when a child of Canadian parents applies for citizenship, it is the child who applies. It is the parents who sign for the child but it is still the child who applies. That is already the case.
Again, nothing about this amendment is contradictory to other laws or custom. And it is definitely not unconstitutional.
It is also generally incorrect that minors do not have any legal capacity. For example, a minor has all the legal capacity to agree to a trade within usual limits. For example, every time a child buys a pack of chewing gum, it goes into a legal contract with the seller. You seem to misunderstand the term "legal capacity".
And I can guarantee that this has nothing to do with sex, gambling or smoking pot. I promise
The HoC might not accept this amendment for many other reasons of course.
