Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[CanV]

OK, here are a couple quotes from the G&M:

A royal assent ceremony, which is the final step for a bill that has passed the House of Commons and Senate, is scheduled for Thursday with 10 bills expected to be approved. Among the bills is C-23, the controversial Fair Elections Act that overhauls many of the rules governing Canadian elections, as well as several budget implementation bills and a pair of bills relating to First Nations agreements.

The Conservative government's overhaul of citizenship laws, Bill C-24, is also expected to receive royal assent, though a source said that may ultimately come in the coming days, as C-24 is also scheduled for third and final reading in the Senate on Thursday.

In other words, just chill and see what happens -- they might vote on it today, they might vote on it next week. There's no way to parse what's happening through the Internet. It might come down to issues of how fast votes can be entered into the record, or couriered to a ceremony, or stuff we have no idea about.

Timing is no longer critical... Implementation is.

They wanted to pass it so fast with minimum discussions and zero input. Lets see what they have in mind next.

One thing for sure is its going to be challanged in courts. We have to trust our judicial system, dont we?

 

[us2yow]

such a joke.... it is so glaringly in violation on the dual citizens proposal front..the whole world literally is crying foul on its constitutionality..

.....and they have shamelessly gone ahead with it.... looking so unprofessional and tacky...and losing the little respect that was left for them !

that sounds like something a dictatorship would do ! go figure !

These ludicrous contradictions still baffle me ! :-X

 

[CanV]

all the challenges are regarding dual citizenships. not the issues discussed here.

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

 

[chakrab]

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

minister always had the power to revoke citizenship. that's how it always will be. no one else can revoke citizenship. this bill extends the grounds of revoking citizenship.

the challenge is to stop making criminal offense in another country a ground/reason for revoking citizenship.

 

[zardoz]

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

What happens if the Supreme Court (assuming it gets that far) decides that it's not unconstitutional? How will everyone here deal with that possibility? Discuss...

 

[alphazip]

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

The court challenges all concern ministerial power to revoke citizenship; none concern the power of the Government to change the rules for becoming a citizen. Therefore, there's no reason to think that future court decisions will (say) reduce the number of years necessary for citizenship.

As to Royal Assent, C-24 will apparently receive it today IF the bill passes quickly enough. If not, it will receive it soon. In any case, we'll have to see what the coming into force date is, though when that will be announced is another unknown.

 

[chakrab]

What happens if the Supreme Court (assuming it gets that far) decides that it's not unconstitutional? How will everyone here deal with that possibility? Discuss...

depends if harper becomes jackson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

In a popular quotation that is probably apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

 

[on-hold]

minister always had the power to revoke citizenship. that's how it always will be. no one else can revoke citizenship. this bill extends the grounds of revoking citizenship.

the challenge is to stop making criminal offense in another country a ground/reason for revoking citizenship.

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

Yer both right . . . One thing we haven't spent enough time discussing is how the government really missed a huge opportunity with this bill. Citizenship is important and they had a chance to write a bill that would bring birth Canadians and immigrant Canadians together by stressing the things that are important; no one here is arguing against the 4/6 year change and other details. This bill could have included an affirmation of the responsibilities of citizenship, things that would resonate with birth Canadians as well -- but then they had to go and stick in nasty clauses that reinforce stereotypes, which are badly worded and presumably symbolic, and actually weaken citizenship by making it easier to strip . . . Why? Can it be THAT important to separate Omar Khadr from his Canadian passport?

Small impulses lead to small laws -- the Charter, it ain't.

 

[CanV]

The court challenges all concern ministerial power to revoke citizenship; none concern the power of the Government to change the rules for becoming a citizen. Therefore, there's no reason to think that future court decisions will (say) reduce the number of years necessary for citizenship.

As to Royal Assent, C-24 will apparently receive it today IF the bill passes quickly enough. If not, it will receive it soon. In any case, we'll have to see what the coming into force date is, though when that will be announced is another unknown.

Who said anything about years?

I am talking about the minister being able to revoke citizenships instead of courts.

 

[alphazip]

People in this forum who are looking to become citizens should not be concerned with future court challenges to C-24. Again, they refer to a part of the bill concerning stripping dual citizens of their citizenship for certain crimes, such as treason. The challenges have nothing to do with the "number of years" issue or other new requirements to apply for citizenship.

 

[chakrab]

Who said anything about years?

I am talking about the minister being able to revoke citizenships instead of courts.

courts do not revoke citizenship. never have and never will. they only settle disputes, don't enforce laws.

that's usually one of the questions in the sample citizenship tests

 

[CanV]

People in this forum who are looking to become citizens should not be concerned with future court challenges to C-24. Again, they refer to a part of the bill concerning stripping dual citizens of their citizenship for certain crimes, such as treason. The challenges have nothing to do with the "number of years" issue or other new requirements to apply for citizenship.

Dude you are the only one talking about the years lol

 

[CanV]

courts do not revoke citizenship. never have and never will. they only settle disputes, don't enforce laws.

that's usually one of the questions in the sample citizenship tests

Whatever, they have the final say which Cons dont like.

 

[CanV]

courts do not revoke citizenship. never have and never will. they only settle disputes, don't enforce laws.

that's usually one of the questions in the sample citizenship tests

Stop being a smart a$$, you know what I meant ;D

 

[Tolerance]

I disagree. The important challenge is ministrial power to revoke citizenships, regardless under what ground. Once the court determines its unconstitutional and remove it then the bill should make more sense.

I agree.