Will Bill C6 dead because of Monsef case?

[deerestlovelybear]

It seems that The Liberals is planning to sacrifice this bill to make case to change the particular clause that allow Minister Monsef to retain her citizenship?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

 

[keesio]

It's not dead. But many amendments will likely be made.

 

[sistemc]

No, those are two separate issues.

But luckily there are plenty of bargaining materials in the C-6 which will allow polititians to make media appearances using catchy phrases about terorism, national security, canadian values, two-class citizens ...

At the end, liberals will remove/add some irrelevant clauses which in real life do not affect anyone, keep unchanged what is realy important (physical presence), and the bill will finally pass the senate with several months of delay.

 

[marcher]

It seems that The Liberals is planning to sacrifice this bill to make case to change the particular clause that allow Minister Monsef to retain her citizenship?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

Like every other field, politicians have to prioritize the tasks they manage. I do not think that C-6 will be completely dead; but significant amendments might take place. For a minute, step back and put yourself in the Libs' shoes. What is more important to you? Your Minister who might lose her citizenship and become a scandal in your party's history; or a bill targeted towards improving citizenship procedures for PRs, who neither voted nor have any impact on any voting process. Some will say, once PRs become citizens they will vote, but do the Libs really care about that at this stage? Who will they vote? The Cons who created C-24? Plus, once you become a citizen, you no longer care about such bills because they no longer impact you, unless you mess up and get caught by C-24 provisions. Once a citizen, you are more concerned with the subjects most citizens care about such as taxes ..etc.

 

[links18]

That's what happens when you have to ram through legislation to fix previously ill considered legislation--you get more ill considered legislation.

 

[torontosm]

That's what happens when you have to ram through legislation to fix previously ill considered legislation--you get more ill considered legislation.

I'm not sure why you think C-24 was ill considered. It seems like the Canadian population was pleased with it, and even the Liberals appear to be using its provisions quite aggressively. Perhaps it may not have been in your favor, but it was hardly "ill considered".

C6 on the other hand is nothing but partisan nonsense. Even the Minister of Immigration couldn't defend C6 on multiple occasions, and there doesn't seem to be any thought, logic or research behind any of the clauses.

 

[marcher]

I'm not sure why you think C-24 was ill considered. It seems like the Canadian population was pleased with it, and even the Liberals appear to be using its provisions quite aggressively. Perhaps it may not have been in your favor, but it was hardly "ill considered".

C6 on the other hand is nothing but partisan nonsense. Even the Minister of Immigration couldn't defend C6 on multiple occasions, and there doesn't seem to be any thought, logic or research behind any of the clauses.

I agree with you torontosm .. when you look at the meat of the bill, you get a sense it was just put forward to change what the conservatives did, without reasonable motives; except for probably the citizenship revocation which might be unconstitutional if abused to discriminate among Canadians. I have yet to hear from Mr McCullum how he is planning on implementing 3-5 rule without having an excessive backlog that will debilitate the whole citizenship process.

 

[links18]

I'm not sure why you think C-24 was ill considered. It seems like the Canadian population was pleased with it, and even the Liberals appear to be using its provisions quite aggressively. Perhaps it may not have been in your favor, but it was hardly "ill considered".

C6 on the other hand is nothing but partisan nonsense. Even the Minister of Immigration couldn't defend C6 on multiple occasions, and there doesn't seem to be any thought, logic or research behind any of the clauses.

Come on. C-24 was a joke with its multiple charter violating provisions and ridiculous unenforceable clauses. It was passed against the recommendation of just about every stakeholder in the process. Of course, the Liberals' attempts to fix the mess has now fallen flat on its face as they tried to have their cake and eat it too--until one of their own fell afoul of it. And I wasn't personally affected by C-24 at all.

 

[torontosm]

Come on. C-24 was a joke with its multiple charter violating provisions and ridiculous unenforceable clauses. It was passed against the recommendation of just about every stakeholder in the process. Of course, the Liberals' attempts to fix the mess has now fallen flat on its face as they tried to have their cake and eat it too--until one of their own fell afoul of it. And I wasn't personally affected by C-24 at all.

Multiple charter violating provisions? Unenforceable clauses? I'm not sure what bill you read, but not a single legal challenge has proven to be successful and the law(and its clauses) have been in effect now for about a year. So, all clauses are indeed being enforced.

As for the bill being passed against the recommendation of every stakeholder, which stakeholders are you referring to? The few scant liberal immigration lawyers that stood to see their business decline as a result of the new law? The few people who were directly affected by the changes? I don't see or hear too many of them protesting anymore. And as for the Liberals who raised objections, they seem to be gleefully enforcing its provisions in a manner that is more aggressive than the Cons. And as a result, I don't see them trying too hard to "fix the mess".