Bill C-6: Senate stage

[spiritsoul]

Which part of the article are you not understanding.

"We believe that the current process is constitutionally sound," Hussen said. "However, we are very much open to examining any proposals that add to procedural fairness with respect to citizenship revocation.
"We've always said that we are open to those proposals. We will examine them closely. We will work closely with the senators on that."

That means that if a senate comes back with an amendment to keep revoking of citizenship with appeal added, he will consider it.

He is to consider it doesn't not meant to accept it ;-)

 

[spyfy]

Which part of the article are you not understanding.

"We believe that the current process is constitutionally sound," Hussen said. "However, we are very much open to examining any proposals that add to procedural fairness with respect to citizenship revocation.
"We've always said that we are open to those proposals. We will examine them closely. We will work closely with the senators on that."

That means that if a senate comes back with an amendment to keep revoking of citizenship with appeal added, he will consider it.

I've watched the whole committee meeting yesterday and I think most people on here who've been watching this issue from the start can confirm that these proposals regarding procedural fairness only consider revocation of citizenship in case of fraud. In fact, the minister himself adamantly spoke AGAINST the revocation in case of terrorism/war crimes/...

The "current process" referred to in the article is about the current process regarding revocation in case of fraud.

So to spell it out: There is two kinds of revocation:

Type A: A citizen committed fraud in his immigration application(s). He/she can then be stripped of his/her citizenship.

Type B: After becoming a citizen, he/she commits acts of terrorism/war crimes. He/she can then be stripped of his/her citizenship.

Type A has been around for ages. The current amendment discussion is about adding an appeals process to type A. This is what the article you link to is talking about:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/minister-open-to-allowing-appeal-process-in-revoking-citizenship-1.3307345

Type B has been introduced by the Harper government. The current government opposes it and the Minister himself opposes it. This is what the article marcher linked to is about:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/immigration-minister-defends-legislation-to-prevents-convicted-dual-nationals-from-losing-citizenship

 

[screech339]

I've watched the whole committee meeting yesterday and I think most people on here who've been watching this issue from the start can confirm that these proposals regarding procedural fairness only consider revocation of citizenship in case of fraud. In fact, the minister himself adamantly spoke AGAINST the revocation in case of terrorism/war crimes/...

The "current process" referred to in the article is about the current process regarding revocation in case of fraud.

He may personally be against it himself, doesn't mean he has to enforce his personal belief on the bill. He has set his personal belief aside and consider Canada's best national interests and consider how it is unfair that citizenship is revoked for fraud or war crimes but not for terrorism.

 

[spyfy]

He may personally be against it himself, doesn't mean he has to enforce his personal belief on the bill. He has set his personal belief aside and consider Canada's best national interests and consider how it is unfair that citizenship is revoked for fraud or war crimes but not for terrorism.

This is official government position, not just his personal belief. You can read that all over the place.

The distinguishing factor is not if it's fraud or war crimes or terrorism... The distinguishing factor is: If you committed such crimes before becoming a citizen, you can't get citizenship. If you lied that you didn't commit them, it is stripped off you. If you commit such crimes after becoming a citizen, then you are dealt with like any other citizen.

I'm not opening a discussion here and I'm not talking about my own opinion here. I'm merely echoing exactly what the Minister, as the representative of the Government of Canada, said in committee yesterday.

 

[screech339]

This is official government position, not just his personal belief. You can read that all over the place.

So was election reform as well. That was all over that place. Now that is killed since the majority doesn't want it.

53% of canadians still want revoking of citizenship in place.

 

[spyfy]

So was election reform as well. That was all over that place. Now that is killed since the majority doesn't want it.

53% of canadians still want revoking of citizenship in place.

You are comparing an election promise and an exploratory process by a House commitee to a law that has already passed the house of commons. That's Apples and Oranges.

This is a forum to discuss citizenship and immigration matters and help people understand the process. If you want to discuss philosophy on government, what the government should do, what Canadians want/don't want and what your own opinion on this is, there is many places all over the internet where people would love to discuss that with you.

 

[Konan1982]

Still in process to pass law 3/5?

 

[spyfy]

Still in process to pass law 3/5?

Read above.

 

[screech339]

You are comparing an election promise and an exploratory process by a House commitee to a law that has already passed the house of commons. That's Apples and Oranges.

This is a forum to discuss citizenship and immigration matters and help people understand the process. If you want to discuss philosophy on government, what the government should do, what Canadians want/don't want and what your own opinion on this is, there is many places all over the internet where people would love to discuss that with you.

In other words, there is a possibility of keeping revoking of citizenship with appeal as an amendment.

As much as you don't want to admit that as a possibility, the bill is not done yet. So don't get your hopes up just yet.

I am merely pointing out that while it has passed committee stage, doesn't mean it will pass senate as is.

 

[aries9811]

So is that next step will be Third Reading, now ? Or Another meeting for Committee Review on Second Reading? Quiet Confusing. Hope it passes asap!!!

 

[_MK_]

For those who are wondering and/or didnt get a chance to watch the proceedings today (mar 2),
the bill passed the committee. This means they will not do a report or any amendment proposals as part of the committee investigation. They will add some observations.

They read the Bill clause by clause and every single clause passed (some with division but still passed which is what matters).

The expectation is that during 3rd reading in front of the entire senate, some senator will propose some amendments (in the area of appeal process of citizenship revocation due to fraud/misrepresentation).
Other than that, there will be no other changes to the bill.

Once this is passed by the senate, the House of Commons will likely also vote and pass it and then it will get Royal Assent to become law. There will no longer be 2 classes of citizenship after that. Also the 3/5 rule with 1 year credit for students/workers will be back and the "Intent to reside" clause will be removed.

 

[spyfy]

In other words, there is a possibility of keeping revoking of citizenship with appeal as an amendment.

As much as you don't want to admit that as a possibility, the bill is not done yet. So don't get your hopes up just yet.

I am merely pointing out that while it has passed committee stage, doesn't mean it will pass senate as is.

I'm not hoping anything I simply outlined government position. I simply reacted to you sharing that ctv article as some kind of hint that the Minister is considering to keep revocation of citizenship for terrorism etc. And that is not the case, see above.

Of course, what the Senate will do we will have to see.

 

[screech339]

I'm not hoping anything I simply outlined government position. I simply reacted to you sharing that ctv article as some kind of hint that the Minister is considering to keep revocation of citizenship for terrorism etc. And that is not the case, see above.

Of course, what the Senate will do we will have to see.

Just because it is government position, doesn't mean it has to or will follow through on it. Remember election reform. Remember Mexico must be part of NAFTA re negotiations. Is government willing to kill a billion dollar trade with US over Mexico and not go it alone with US? Not all government position is the right one.

Anyway, the point is, the bill is not done yet until it receive royal assent. Until that happens, the bill can be amended at any point before royal assent.

 

[subha_1962]

Senator Frum seems to be very upset. Here is her tweet


Senator Linda Frum‏Verified account @LindaFrum

Sad day at Senate committee today as Trudeau Senators pass his legislation to restore the citizenship of dual national convicted terrorists.

 

[koziamorda1]

People, do not get to excited! The process is still long
here is excerpt from here:
lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/ourcountryourparliament/html_booklet/process-passing-bill-e.html
......
3 COMMITTEE STAGE

At the Committee Stage, the bill is studied carefully. Committee members hold hearings or special meetings where different people inside and outside government can make comments about the bill. The committee can ask for government officials and experts, or witnesses, to come and answer questions. The committee can suggest changes or amendments to the bill when it gives its report to the House.

4 REPORT STAGE

At the Report Stage, the committee reports the bill back to the House. All parliamentarians can then debate it. During this stage, those who were not part of the committee that studied the bill can suggest changes to the bill.

5 THIRD READING

The bill is then called for a Third Reading. The parliamentarians debate it again. Sometimes they can change their minds about a bill. They might vote for it at Second Reading but not at Third Reading if they do not like the changes made to the bill. If it passes Third Reading, the bill then goes to the other House where it goes through the same stages.

I hope Reporting and Third Reading both happen at the same time, but might two separate events!