Bill C-6: Senate stage

[MTweet12]

This is simply wrong. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Both the minister and the government representative in the senate gave generally favourable statements about such an amendment.

The bill made a huge step forward today, progress wise. Not backwards.

Everyone should in fact be very happy right now. This is more progress than we've seen in months.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Coffee1981]

Your information is wrong.

I have very high-level friends at IRCC. We'll see who's wrong in a couple of months.

The ugly truth is the Federal Court can't handle the extra work and nobody wants a process that drags for years. Some of the amendment is unconstitutional as well, according to IRCC's lawyers.

 

[meayman]

It is amazing how some people tell pure BS with no ground of truth with that confidence!!!
To the pessimists: The amendment has passed and this si a very positive sign that the whole bill will pass the senate. They won't vote to amend a bill that they will reject or let it die!!

We can just hope the third reading debate will be pushed faster by the liberals and not let CONs do their monkey business of delay tactics.

 

[Hey]

Couldn't complain ever for such progress
But imagine that such progress only in 15 min

 

[Redfield]

Senator Harder already said that the government would vote in favor of the amendment

"The important business of government is before us and that is Bill C-6. The amendment that I am speaking to would improve procedural fairness in the process of revocation of citizenship for fraud or false representation."

"With respect to this particular amendment, which proposes a right to proceedings in the Federal Court, I will vote for it. However, I will vote for this amendment in the spirit of proceeding with the legislation that includes greater procedural fairness for revocation, while noting that the government continues to consider the precise form of an appeal process that it will support. Should the government's deliberations result in a different preferred model, I will comment further at that appropriate time.

That said, I would note that I am pleased with what I believe is the emerging consensus between the government and many senators that legislation is required with respect to the issue of the process for revocation of citizenship based on misrepresentation. I look forward to facilitating further constructive work on this issue."

 

[Coffee1981]

It is amazing how some people tell pure BS with no ground of truth with that confidence!!!
To the pessimists: The amendment has passed and this si a very positive sign that the whole bill will pass the senate. They won't vote to amend a bill that they will reject or let it die!!

We can just hope the third reading debate will be pushed faster by the liberals and not let CONs do their monkey business of delay tactics.

I agree. It will pass the Senate. Absolutely. But the House will not pass it with the amendment as drafted. That's when we get a stalemate.

 

[razerblade]

When is the next sitting?

 

[spiritsoul]

I have very high-level friends at IRCC. We'll see who's wrong in a couple of months.

The ugly truth is the Federal Court can't handle the extra work and nobody wants a process that drags for years. Some of the amendment is unconstitutional as well, according to IRCC's lawyers.

The amendment was prepared by lawyers in cooperation with the Minister's office.
Also, the gov. Rep. stated that the government supports the amendment.

So, please stop spreading rumors with your "high-level" friend who should be dismissed from his "high-level" position for spreading internal sensitive information!!

 

[Coffee1981]

Senator Harder already said that the government would vote in favor of the amendment

"The important business of government is before us and that is Bill C-6. The amendment that I am speaking to would improve procedural fairness in the process of revocation of citizenship for fraud or false representation."

"With respect to this particular amendment, which proposes a right to proceedings in the Federal Court, I will vote for it. However, I will vote for this amendment in the spirit of proceeding with the legislation that includes greater procedural fairness for revocation, while noting that the government continues to consider the precise form of an appeal process that it will support. Should the government's deliberations result in a different preferred model, I will comment further at that appropriate time.

That said, I would note that I am pleased with what I believe is the emerging consensus between the government and many senators that legislation is required with respect to the issue of the process for revocation of citizenship based on misrepresentation. I look forward to facilitating further constructive work on this issue."

Exactly. The Minister won't want to be locked into this very, very prescriptive method of revocation. There are other methods IRCC would prefer to use.

 

[captain74]

"high-level" friend who should be dismissed from his "high-level" position for spreading internal sensitive information!!

 

[Coffee1981]

The amendment was prepared by lawyers in cooperation with the Minister's office.
Also, the gov. Rep. stated that the government supports the amendment.

So, please stop spreading rumors with your "high-level" friend who should be dismissed from his "high-level" position for spreading internal sensitive information!!

No it wasn't. It was prepared by a law clerk at the Senate. She testified to that herself when it was introduced. The department had no idea of what was coming.

 

[MTweet12]

I have very high-level friends at IRCC. We'll see who's wrong in a couple of months.

The ugly truth is the Federal Court can't handle the extra work and nobody wants a process that drags for years. Some of the amendment is unconstitutional as well, according to IRCC's lawyers.

I don't have friends at IRCC, but this is a faulty logic. Just compare this bill to bill C-24 which absolutely had unconstitutional elements and yet still became passed and been applied for 2.5 years now. So even if the bill was really unconstitutional, the only possibility it's revoked is if it was challenged in court. For C-6, I can't see a scenario when this happens.

 

[asifmehmood]

I agree. It will pass the Senate. Absolutely. But the House will not pass it with the amendment as drafted. That's when we get a stalemate.

Have a hot coffee added with amended chocolate..............lol

 

[Coffee1981]

I don't have friends at IRCC, but this is a faulty logic. Just compare this bill to bill C-24 which absolutely had unconstitutional elements and yet still became passed and been applied for 2.5 years now. So even if the bill was really unconstitutional, the only possibility it's revoked is if it was challenged in court. For C-6, I can't see a scenario when this happens.

It is being challenged in court. See Monla vs. Minister of CIC

 

[meayman]

I agree. It will pass the Senate. Absolutely. But the House will not pass it with the amendment as drafted. That's when we get a stalemate.

I understand that the House will vote for this amendment, either accept it and the bill goes to Royal assent with the amendment, or reject it and the bill goes to royal assent without it.

If the government feels the need for a different amendment, they will need to propose another bill regarding citizenship revocation due to for fraud or false representation. It won't definitely be in this bill anymore as this one has passed the HoC already.