so has bill C6 been all approved yet? I got lost at this stage where this bill is now, is it still at House of Common?
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
So what will happen if the courts doesn't appeal nor adhere to their ruling? Can Spyfy or someone give an opinion please
My understanding is that even if they don't appeal, they can iplement this factor without passing C6. But since it is already an amendment in the bill doesn't it make sense to pass the bill and then do the amendment.
can we put a bit of pressure by using each of us our tweets on twitter or we gonna stay talking only on this forum? come on guyss
I know some will say over and over do not look into the "Projected Order of Business" for an indication when the Bill will be on the agenda. While it may the case on other instances, but it has not been the case in this instance so far. Therefore until the bill is on the agenda, discussed as planned and a decision is made, I will not get excited nor discouraged.
Of course the POB is the authority on what happens the next day. But please note, again, that a government bill will never, never, never, ever show up the POB more than one day before it is debated. Just look at the Subsequent days. They always exclusively list bills with numbers beyond 200 which are not government bills.
forget about it, they still have 3 weeks, if we remove next week that's mean 2 more weeks to work on it, i usually believe in miracles that's why i'm still hoping and anything else is a waist of time, chagger said this week now jenny kiway she even doesn't know when lool but like usal same answer hopefully before summer break
NDP is not aware of what governement Bills will be debatted next week, only the Governement decides so there is still hope they will introduce Bill C-6 for next week.
They have a lot of Bills to send to Senate before summer break. C-46 was sent to comittee yesterday so logically next Bill to be debated is going to be C-45 because they also want it to go to comittee quickly. Once these two are in comittee the governement will probably start C-6. I think the issue was that C-6 would take like an entire week of debates and pushing C-45 and C-46 too long would cause them to not be able to go to Senate before the break. Also there is no point in sending C-6 this week since Senate still has to debate C-7 and C-4
They have a lot of Bills to send to Senate before summer break. C-46 was sent to comittee yesterday so logically next Bill to be debated is going to be C-45 because they also want it to go to comittee quickly. Once these two are in comittee the governement will probably start C-6. I think the issue was that C-6 would take like an entire week of debates and pushing C-45 and C-46 too long would cause them to not be able to go to Senate before the break. Also there is no point in sending C-6 this week since Senate still has to debate C-7 and C-4
Does anyone actually expect it to pass before the summer break? It has dragged on for almost 2 years now, won't be a surprise if it goes on for another 2 years
I still think there is enough for the bill to come into law by July 1 if the government is willing. The amendments can be debated in one sitting and less than a day at HoC. Should the bill go back to the Senate, I don't why see why the 45 senators who voted for... wouldn't push to accept the HoC decision by June 30. This is surely a contentious bill for many Canadians because of fear of terrorism. So I assume, this is why the politicians are struggling with it.
Not much to base expectations on, one way or the other. In terms of what is less likely versus more likely, my guess is that it is fairly likely Bill C-6 receives Royal Assent before the summer break. Not placing any bets on it. Just saying.
subha said:
The topic you probably want to pose these queries in is:subha said:
Federal Court strikes down key provisions of Citizenship Act (this might link)
In any event . . .
It appears you are asking about the decision by Justice Gagné in the Hassouna v. Canada 2017 FC 473 case challenging the procedure for revoking citizenship on the grounds of misrepresentaion or fraud, as currently prescribed in Section 10 of the Citizenship Act, this version being the one adopted pursuant to Bill C-24 in 2014.
For reference, for the decision itself, see http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/231272/index.do
This decision has been discussed in some depth in the topic titled Federal Court strikes down key provisions of Citizenship Act (this might link), including a relatively recent post by me in which I speculate some about the status and future of the case.
It is worth keeping in mind that Federal Court decisions have limited precedent authority. Note, for example, that Justice Gagné ruled that " . . . citizenship is a privilege only when it has not yet been obtained." And this plays a significant role in the reasoning underlying the Justice's conclusions and ruling that Subsections 10(1), 10(3), 10(4) in the Citizenship Act are inoperative. In contrast, other Federal Court Justices have ruled that citizenship itself is a privilege. Other Federal Court Justices have also applied, as operative, these same subsections in the Citizenship Act.
Thus, unless the case is appealed and a ruling made by a Federal Court of Appeal, which decision would have precedent authority, it is uncertain and unclear just what impact this decision will have. You may have noticed, for example, that media reports quote Lorne Waldman as expressing the hope that this decision influences the government to not proceed with revocation cases against others.
Would other Federal Court Justices rule the same, basically following Justice Gagné's reasoning? It is easy to guess, based on widely diverging views among various Federal Court Justices, that there would be some significant differences. Again, as I have already referenced, others have already stated that citizenship is a privilege, not just access to citizenship, and Justice Gagné did not follow their rulings.
In the meantime, as you apparently apprehend, the situation changes if the Senate amendment to Bill C-6, which revises the procedure for revocation of citizenship on the ground of misrepresentation, is adopted by the HoC and becomes part of the final, fully adopted and given Royal Assent, version of Bill C-6. And indeed, the decision might be some incentive for the Liberal government to approve this amendment, which would render Justice Gagné's decision largely moot (but not technically, not as to the specific parties in that case).
I recognize there is a great deal of interest in following the progress of Bill C-6, but frankly I find a lot of the day-to-day non-event obsession of minimal interest. But even for those interested in whether this factor or that can have influence on how this goes, speculating about the extent to which the Liberal government might be pushed to accept Senate amendments, like the one revising revocation procedure, is just that, speculating. Sure, I occasionally throw some of my own speculations into the bonfire of opinions about the prognosis for Bill C-6, and watch the smoke dissipate, since that is all that amounts to, a bit of smoke curling up and drifting away while we wait to see what the HoC actually does and where things go next.
Also in the meantime, we can also wait to see if the government appeals Justice Gagné's decision, or otherwise makes a motion to suspend or stay the operation of the case (or in effect does both, appeals and asks the court to hold the case in limbo pending legislation).
My guess, and yes I too sometimes offer a guess, is that we are likely to see the outcome of Bill C-6 before we see what happens with the Justice Gagné decision in this case.
lets be realistic, is 1 month before summer break, is absolutely no time, for this bill to become a law, before summer break.
spyfy, was right about sen. Jaffer, we cant trust her.