I totally agree, however, Senators like Frum have the option to vote against the clause rather than downgrading the context of the bill to ONLY this clause. Of course they won't win now (I believe) following the appointment of the new Senators.
Agreed. They won't win but they can cause some noise around it (something Conservatives are really good at). In fact, the Bill will ultimately be expanded to include appeal possibilities for people facing misrepresentation-related revocation (Something that was flagged waaaay before but that they refused to do but suddenly agreed to when a Minister faced revocation of her own citizenship - politics are disgusting sometimes...).
I hope our delays won't increase because of this douchebag.
They might decide to do checks on pay stubs and bank letters in the future, which might increase the delays by a lot...
I hope our delays won't increase because of this douchebag.
They might decide to do checks on pay stubs and bank letters in the future, which might increase the delays by a lot...
I hope our delays won't increase because of this douchebag.
They might decide to do checks on pay stubs and bank letters in the future, which might increase the delays by a lot...
I highly doubt it as these are two different procedures. PRs applying for citizenship have already been through that type of scrutiny prior to moving to the country. I think tax forms provide IRCC with the necessary information of the individual's finances.
Any hopes for passing this bill in 2016? If there was a voting button facility I would have done for this forum to get everyone's opinion.
Like many others I love this country and want to become integrated part of this country as soon as possible.
I totally agree, however, Senators like Frum have the option to vote against the clause rather than downgrading the context of the bill to ONLY this clause. Of course they won't win now (I believe) following the appointment of the new Senators.
Senators (and MPs for that matter) don't vote on clauses. They vote on a bill in it's entirety. That's why they have to get it right the first time. You're either for the whole thing, or against the whole thing.
Senators (and MPs for that matter) don't vote on clauses. They vote on a bill in it's entirety. That's why they have to get it right the first time. You're either for the whole thing, or against the whole thing.
But they still don't vote on bills clause by clause. They either support the whole bill or none of it. You don't say "I'm going to vote for everything except clause 17 and 28". It's either yay or nay.
But they still don't vote on bills clause by clause. They either support the whole bill or none of it. You don't say "I'm going to vote for everything except clause 17 and 28". It's either yay or nay.
Agreed. What I was referring to was the legislative ping pong they could theorically play with the HoC: 'Removing a clause, voting it, HoC adds it back, votes it, send it back to Senate, etc.'
But if they decide to play it the outrcry that could generate would convince them to stop after the second round !!
