It is not hypocrisy. The current officials apply the current law, which was created by the Cons. The Cons could not revoke more citizenships during their rule because the laws in place prevented them from revoking several cases that have been revoked during Lib, simply because of the law in place. Libs can't just apply a new law of their own, they need to pass the law first which they are trying through C-6.
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
That is interesting news. Someone on this forum previously mentioned a court decision as another means of changing revocation of citizenship under the current law.
The only thing I worry about is whether this will require a new amendment of C-6 regarding revocations to more closely align with the court's decision. Which means it would need to be amended yet again (or re-introduced as a new amendment as the bill has already passed both houses of parliament?). How would this work if that was the case?
Got this from Bardish office in response to my email-
Thank you for taking the time to contact the office of the Hon. Bardish Chagger, Member of Parliament for the Riding of Waterloo, in regards to Bill C-6.
Minister Chagger appreciates hearing from Canadians on the issues that are important to them. I will be sure to share your thoughts and concerns. As Bill C-6 was just passed by the Senate with amendments, there has not been a set date as to when the House of Commons will bring it forward for debate. I would also encourage you to contact your local Member of Parliament if you have any other additional thoughts, you can find your MP by searching your postal code in the following link:
Thank you for taking the time to contact the office of the Hon. Bardish Chagger, Member of Parliament for the Riding of Waterloo, in regards to Bill C-6.
Minister Chagger appreciates hearing from Canadians on the issues that are important to them. I will be sure to share your thoughts and concerns. As Bill C-6 was just passed by the Senate with amendments, there has not been a set date as to when the House of Commons will bring it forward for debate. I would also encourage you to contact your local Member of Parliament if you have any other additional thoughts, you can find your MP by searching your postal code in the following link:
Libs didn't. C24 did. Stay on C24 related revocations was halted and thus c6 was brought and pushed forward, but Senate........
We have argued this to death on this forum: the effects of contacting MPs vs not contacting MPs
I am one of those who think it's pointless to contact them. The generic/bureaucratic email reply you've received proves my point. For this bill in particular, getting a cordial reply is not an indication that they will/can do anything about it. But, feel free to try.
Same generic reply is what me and another friend got. It is a good thing as that means they are getting so many such emails on C-6 that they "have to" prepare a generic reply specific to this topic. What else they would reply? It is not a personal case #/personal file issue. It is a generic issue we are wanting the MP to act on. Means issue is getting noticed by staff, and they will pass it on to MP....Last week we got lot of emails/phone on C-6 implementation. We should do something about it.
And that's what we want....that is enough and solve the purpose. MPs here listen, and their staff is their ears.
We can debate it to death as you said....already.
Last edited:
I'm sure the best way to cope with all this waiting is MORE cynicism, right guys?!
This is not meant to be offensive. I'm just simply stating the fact that there are 2 different opinions about this issue here, but anyone is entitled to do what they think is right.
I do not think C-6 is a priority to most Canadian Citizens. Pot smoking, assisted death, labor etc. are bills that they consider...
Yes the liberals did. C-24 gave the minister (or his delegate) the power to revoke citizenship if they are convinced that fraud happened. It is, however, the ministers decision if and how he uses that right. It seems, in fact, that the Liberal government put additional effort into using these provisions. That was their decision. Just like a local politician can decide to concentrate the police force on catching jaywalkers instead of helping kids on their way to school, the Minister can decide to concentrate the IRCC workforce on using these C-24 provisions instead of speeding up other processes.
Independent of the question if that is a good choice or not and what the appropriate balance is, it is a choice that this, the liberal, government made. So you can't say that the Libs aren't responsible for this. In fact, on top of that, they even refused to abolish the C-24 provisions regarding no appeals process when opposition MPs suggested just that in the committee of the HoC. The only reason why the Senate had to get involved like this is because the Liberals refused to change a part of the law that all experts agreed on was not within the limits of due process. Their ignorance is responsible for this.
This bill has many good parts, but the Libs are also responsible for the bad ones.
I'm certainly not a blind defender of the Liberals (See my last post), but note that the Conservatives had the majority in the House back then. So the Liberals couldn't stop the bill in the House (and in fact, Bill C-24 and Bill C-6 took about the same time in the house. C-6 took some weeks more but that was just due to a break in the parliamentary schedule).
However, the Conservative caucus in the Senate was responsible for most of the C-6 delays (note the two amendments that would've killed the core of the bill, plus all the delays in the fall). You can't blame the Liberals for that. The Liberals didn't delay bill C-24, because they realized they were in the minority in the House and they could do nothing but delay. That is the responsible thing to do. So you have to blame the Cons in the Senate for behaving like a baby that doesn't get what they want.
Note that at the moment, there are four amended bills before the Commons: C-4, C-6, C-7, C-37
Also note that that by now, for all bills except C-6, the detailed wish of the government regarding the bills has been published in the notice paper:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8939485&File=13
Also note that two of these bills, C-7 and C-37, are on the agenda of the Projected Order of Business for tomorrow:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8944114&File=0
Let's see if this time they will stick to the projected order of business. The sooner they are done with those bills, the faster they will have room for C-6.
Also note that that by now, for all bills except C-6, the detailed wish of the government regarding the bills has been published in the notice paper:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8939485&File=13
Also note that two of these bills, C-7 and C-37, are on the agenda of the Projected Order of Business for tomorrow:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=NoticeOrder&Mode=1&Language=E&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8944114&File=0
Let's see if this time they will stick to the projected order of business. The sooner they are done with those bills, the faster they will have room for C-6.
MarceauBletard
Hero Member
- Aug 12, 2016
- 119
- 124
- Category........
- QSW
- Visa Office......
- Montréal, Québec
- LANDED..........
- 18-05-2011 WHP
Yep.
I hope people now understand why I was so stunned when they proposed amendments a few months ago.
I told you guys this would delay C-6 quite a bit more. It now seems I was right, unfortunately.
By the way, I don't know if you guys have seen this article:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/stripping-people-of-canadian-citizenship-without-hearing-unfair-judge-rules
I think what matters the most is when 3/5 will be implemented. I wonder whether or not cic already has the plan the the bill was introduced in 2016. If that is the case, the time when the bill gets passed does not matter too much. Imagine when you apply for the citizenship you still have to wait for those arranged ceremony dates to take the oath even after your application is approved.