This is good for C-6Now What? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-citizenship-act-1.4108346
any effect on amendments in HoC?
This is good for C-6Now What? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-citizenship-act-1.4108346
any effect on amendments in HoC?
Lets wait to see what the government has to say about this. Hopefully, we can get some fast track now on C-6 (my opinion).This is good for C-6
How come...Just curious.The Court judgement makes it mandatory for the government to accept the revocation amendment. So considering the three amendments , I would not be surprised if HoC accepts all three.
According to the following paragraph in the article, this ruling MAY impact C6 (negatively in the short term and/or positively in the long term), but I'm not a legal expertThis is good for C-6
1. Revocation - The Judge found the minister may not revoke citizenship based on the old Bill of rights. Gave 60 days for the government to file an appeal. So mostly the government is in the wrong foot and also they are defending C24 provisions which will make them unpopular. If they stick to an appeal and then reject Senate amendments, it will be a lengthy debate, back and forth communication. My opinion is that, they have an excuse to say they got a court judgement and they wont be appealing again and fix the issue with C6.How come...Just curious.
In fact this is good as the court's decision is in line with one of the amendments. I think it will pass once they put it on the HoC schedule. Now the question is when will they do this!Now What? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-court-citizenship-act-1.4108346
any effect on amendments in HoC?
You are right... I just went through the video recording after seeing this post; C-4 was not mentioned at all.So todays journal was published
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Journals&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8935872&File=0
And there is no mention of C-4 on there. But last night C-4 was on the Projected Order of Business for today, wasn't it?
I still stand by the point that C-4 and C-6 are very different bills, but still this seems to indicate that even the Projected Order of Business can't be taken seriously since they don't really follow it.
Or am I missing something here?
This may also be the reason why C-4 was skipped today as Mr Hussen seconded the rejection of Senate's amendments.On a different note, I learned that the Minister (Ahmed Hussen) is currently traveling. See his twitter feed, where he says that he is in London, UK at the moment. That might add to the fact that we hear nothing about C-6.
Seconding a motion is a formal procedure that isn't really relevant for the process. In fact, bills are often discussed while the person who seconded a motion isn't present. Also, Hussen's travel plans weren't ad-hoc but planned ahead. So they wouldn't have put it on there in the first place if they required him to be there.This may also be the reason why C-4 was skipped today as Mr Hussen seconded the rejection of Senate's amendments.