Bill C-6: Senate stage

[canadasucks]

I wonder if "Session of Parliament" means a fiscal year, or probably the period a party is in power?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7

Prorogation of a Parliament results in the termination of a session. Parliament then stands prorogued until the opening of the next session. Like the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, taken on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned. All unfinished business is dropped from or “dies” on the Order Paper and all committees lose their power to transact business, providing a fresh start for the next session.

 

[ahasan]

There is a reply from Omidvar for C6

twitter.com/ratnaomi/status/801518912613580800

 

[dpenabill]

Monsef situation is NOT relevant. There was no misrepresentation. The discrepancy in place of birth was not material. There was no fraud. There are no grounds at all for pursuing revocation of Monsef's status.

The Monsef situation has NO relevance to what is proposed or not proposed in Bill C-6, NO relevance to the progress or lack of progress in getting the Bill adopted.

In particular, there is no basis for revoking Monsef's status.

Insinuations otherwise, from a couple lawyers representing refugees and others who face potential revocation for fraud, are unfounded efforts to associate an incidental discrepancy, such as the one regarding actual location of birth in the Monsef situation, with defenses to fraud based on claims of innocent mistake. There may indeed be some unfair or unjust overreaching in the revocation proceedings based on alleged fraud, so the lawyers probably are trying to raise public awareness of a legitimate problem, but to the extent there is a problem it is in the procedure which provides minimal safeguards and exposes naturalized citizens who might be unfairly targeted and who might not get adequate notice, and moreover the procedure tends to shift the burden to the targeted citizen, at least in effect.

What underlies the lawyers's unfounded insinuations about Monsef is that they are essentially saying that any discrepancy could trigger a revocation proceeding and under the current procedure the targeted citizen might not have adequate notice or opportunity to defend against the unfair, unjustified revocation proceeding. That is, what they are saying is that in the Monsef situation, the government might proceed to revoke citizenship even though there is not really a proper ground for doing so and that (they allege) there are scores of naturalized citizens who are indeed the victim of such injustice.

Reminder: the old process required a Federal Court justice review the application to revoke citizenship before the process could proceed, and all it took to trigger this requirement was a request by the targeted citizen, and beyond that there were additional safeguards and hurdles the government would have to overcome, and then the Governor General would have to review the application to revoke, and that was subject to judicial review. The current (Bill C-24 implemented) process does indeed bear greater risks of injustice.

But again, overall, there is nothing about Bill C-6 which is related to or affected by the Monsef situation. Nothing at all.

 

[spiritsoul]

There is a reply from Omidvar for C6

twitter.com/ratnaomi/status/801518912613580800

\Her answer is primitive and not helpful!!

 

[canadasucks]

Monsef situation is NOT relevant. There was no misrepresentation. The discrepancy in place of birth was not material. There was no fraud. There are no grounds at all for pursuing revocation of Monsef's status.

The Monsef situation has NO relevance to what is proposed or not proposed in Bill C-6, NO relevance to the progress or lack of progress in getting the Bill adopted.

In particular, there is no basis for revoking Monsef's status.

First we need to understand why they changed place of birth? We know they came to Canada during 90s. So what happened in Afghanistan during 90s? Afghan Civil War led to the Taliban control. It's similar to what's happening right now in Syria. So the refugee claims from Afghanistan (as Syria right now) were much easier and had much higher chance to succeed. While Iran was much peaceful during the same period, the only way to claim refugee from Iran had to be political reason and this was very hard to prove and much difficult to succeed. If they didn't lie about their country of origin, I doubt they would have been granted refugee status. So this misrepresentation was really intentional to secure refugee status, not as innocent as she said.

This is exactly same as right now a lot of illegal economic migrants from other safe countries are buying fake Syrian passports to pretend to be Syrian refugees to get into Europe. Since her mother lied about place of birth on their original IDs used to claim refugee status, such documents could also be considered fraudulent and can be confiscated under C-6.

So there are really sufficient grounds to revoke her citizenship and her mothers without any hearing under C-24. Even with hearing, it's still difficult to prove her innocent. So a politician is politician is politician. They always have special privileges than normal people, they can change laws as they like to protect themselves, while real innocent people are suffering.

Laws should be equal to everyone. She should be stripped citizenship and quit any government job. But if she wants to avoid to be deported, she could ask her husband to sponsor her as a fresh new PR, then after 4 years to get her citizenship or 3 years if the government wants to give back her job ASAP by passing C-6.

 

[dpenabill]

First we need to understand why they changed place of birth? We know they came to Canada during 90s. So what happened in Afghanistan during 90s? Afghan Civil War led to the Taliban control. It's similar to what's happening right now in Syria. So the refugee claims from Afghanistan (as Syria right now) were much easier and had much higher chance to succeed. While Iran was much peaceful during the same period, the only way to claim refugee from Iran had to be political reason and this was very hard to prove and much difficult to succeed. If they didn't lie about their country of origin, I doubt they would have been granted refugee status. So this misrepresentation was really intentional to secure refugee status, not as innocent as she said.

This is exactly same as right now a lot of illegal economic migrants from other safe countries are buying fake Syrian passports to pretend to be Syrian refugees to get into Europe. Since her mother lied about place of birth on their original IDs used to claim refugee status, such documents could also be considered fraudulent and can be confiscated under C-6.

So it's really a sufficient ground to revoke her citizenship without any hearing under C-24. Even with hearing, it's still difficult to prove her innocent. So a politician is politician is politician. They always have special privilege than normal people, they can change laws as they like to protect themselves, while real innocent people are suffering.

We do know a lot, enough. We know that her nationality was Afghan despite her place of birth. There is no doubt about her identity. We know that her place of birth had no relevance to the grounds for being granted refugee status (it was based on the situation she was in at the time, many years after her birth, and the fact there was no other country she had a right to status in, both of which there is no doubt regarding). We know she was a minor and did not personally make any misrepresentation. We know that she was personally granted refugee status so her status was not dependent on that of another person. Even if it was, if for example she obtained status in Canada as a dependent accompanying her mother, there is no evidence her mother's refugee status was obtained by fraud.

There was a discrepancy in what was reported as her place of birth. That discrepancy had no bearing on her obtaining refugee status. Moreover, that discrepancy was not a misrepresentation made by her. There was no fraud.

All the Monsef blather is a red herring.

Moreover, even if there was an arguable ground for revoking Monsef's citizenship on the grounds of fraud, that still would have no bearing on what is proposed in Bill C-6 or on how Bill C-6 has progressed or failed to progress through the legislative process.

I later noticed two discrepancies in my original PR application, and despite my best efforts I also made a mistake in my citizenship application resulting in a discrepancy. I have no fear, none whatsoever, that there is any likelihood that IRCC could or would pursue revocation of my citizenship. Not every discrepancy is a misrepresentation. Not every misrepresentation is a material misrepresentation.

I fully agree that the procedures implemented by Bill C-24 are prone to abuse and provide insufficient protection for innocent naturalized citizens. But the Monsef situation is no more relevant to a discussion about this than the many many thousands of naturalized citizens for whom there is some incidental discrepancy in their immigration history. And there are undoubtedly many many thousands. Incidental mistakes are more common, far more common, than perfect applications.

 

[Shmak2017]

What is outcome of today`s session ?

 

[Coffee1981]

They always have special privileges than normal people, they can change laws as they like to protect themselves, while real innocent people are suffering.

Pffft... innocent people. Right. The people who are getting are pieces of garbage who cheated their residence requirement, were criminals before they came to Canada, or are identity thieves. Let's stop pretending they're little innocent angels who deserve pity. The "suffering" for those people will stop the sooner they get the he77 out of my country.

 

[Coffee1981]

There was a discrepancy in what was reported as her place of birth. That discrepancy had no bearing on her obtaining refugee status. Moreover, that discrepancy was not a misrepresentation made by her. There was no fraud.

All the Monsef blather is a red herring.

Moreover, even if there was an arguable ground for revoking Monsef's citizenship on the grounds of fraud, that still would have no bearing on what is proposed in Bill C-6 or on how Bill C-6 has progressed or failed to progress through the legislative process.

This. X10,000.

 

[canadasucks]

We do know a lot, enough. We know that her nationality was Afghan despite her place of birth. There is no doubt about her identity. We know that her place of birth had no relevance to the grounds for being granted refugee status (it was based on the situation she was in at the time, many years after her birth, and the fact there was no other country she had a right to status in, both of which there is no doubt regarding). We know she was a minor and did not personally make any misrepresentation. We know that she was personally granted refugee status so her status was not dependent on that of another person. Even if it was, if for example she obtained status in Canada as a dependent accompanying her mother, there is no evidence her mother's refugee status was obtained by fraud.

Actually we don't know enough. With the same attitude of IRCC to normal applicants, after this misrepresentation (or discrepancy as you said), her credibility should be really in doubt. The fact she visited Iran many times in past few years, and Canadian citizens and Afghan citizens are almost banned to visit Iran, there is speculation that she may also be considered as Iranian citizen, or cannot explain why her family didn't get refugee status while in Iran because they thought Iran was not safe but it's suddenly safe for her to visit now?

Her mother made misrepresentation, so she should not have had refugee status in the first place. But since she was minor and was not her fault, she could be exempted 5-year ban punishment after stripping citizenship. That's why she could still stay in Canada if her husband sponsor her to start a fresh new immigration process like everyone else.

 

[Coffee1981]

Actually we don't know enough. With the same attitude of IRCC to normal applicants, after this misrepresentation (or discrepancy as you said), her credibility should be really in doubt. The fact she visited Iran many times in past few years, and Canadian citizens and Afghan citizens are almost banned to visit Iran, there is speculation that she may also be considered as Iranian citizen, or cannot explain why her family didn't get refugee status while in Iran because they thought Iran was not safe but it's suddenly safe for her to visit now?

Her mother made misrepresentation, so she should not have had refugee status in the first place. But since she was minor and was not her fault, she could be exempted 5-year ban punishment after stripping citizenship. That's why she could still stay in Canada if her husband sponsor her to start a fresh new immigration process like everyone else.

It's a 10 year ban on applying again for citizenship. Not 5.

Look, I genuinely don't believe that wrong city of birth is a huge deal, and I think many people would agree with me. I think, say, molesting a child and burning off your finger prints, and making a fake refugee claim under a stolen identity - AND THEN GETTING CITIZENSHIP is much, much worse. I strongly, strongly suspect THOSE are the types of cases IRCC is actually proceeding on.

 

[itsmyid]

What is outcome of today`s session ?

Must be skipped as usual lol

 

[rizmayo]

Must be skipped as usual lol

It won't be discussed until it moves to the top of Orders of the Day. So far C-6 has been at the bottom of 2nd Reading list for a long time.

 

[itsmyid]

Got this reply from her. Says it is on for tomorrow. Let's see
https://twitter.com/ratnaomi/status/801592224999837696

It was on for today as well , and the day before, and the day before .....just saying

 

[747-captain]

It was on for today as well , and the day before, and the day before .....just saying

OMG!!! They are working on Thanksgiving day???.....when they went on vacation for months on end? Is this legit?