That makes sense. At least they won't throw the baby out with the bath water if they disapprove of the amendment in the House.meayman said:
Bill C-6: Senate stage
- Thread starter marcher
- Start date
1st, without going into details, this suit wasn't challenging bill C-24.Coffee1981 said:
2nd, even if it was challenge, then this is exactly my point! Bill C-24 would have passed and became a law and the 4/6 regulation has been applied for some time now even though it had unconstitutional sections! So let's say, for the sake of argument, that someone challenges the amendment to C-6 sometime in the future, that won't change the fact that things like the 3/4 regulation will have been applied for some time by then. And even if the suit was won, only the sections that were defeated by the suit will be affected and not the whole bill.
hope sen.Eaton will keep her promise to address later this week if not next week, and won't play any more con tricks.jsm0085 said:
Joshua1 said:
(3.1) The person may, within 60 days after the day on which the notice is received,
(a) make written representations with respect to the matters set out in the notice, including any humanitarian and compassionate considerations — such as the best interests of a child directly affected — that warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances and whether the Minister's decision will render the person stateless; and
(b) request that the case be referred to the Court.
*** Ok, so what about people who don't want to go to court? How are their cases to be handled? Not explained. It costs on average $65,000 to take one's case case to Federal Court when all is said and done. Who gets most of that money? The lawyers.
(3.2) The Minister shall consider any representations received from the person pursuant to paragraph (3.1) (a) before making a decision.
(3) The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 10(4):
(4.1) The Minister shall refer the case to the Court under subsection 10.1(1) if the person has made a request pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(b) unless the person has made written representations pursuant to paragraph (3.1)(a) and the Minister is satisfied
(a) on a balance of probabilities that the person has not obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances; or
(b) that sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.
*** Again, what if the person is forthcoming and says "yeah, you know, you're right. I did lie. I'm sorry. But I don't want to go to court."? No option. You must go to court and pay to lawyer up and pay the fees.
(4) The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 10(5):
(5.1) The Minister shall provide a notice under subsection (3) or a written decision under subsection (5) by personally serving the person. If personal service is not practicable, the Minister may apply to the Court for an order for substituted service or for dispensing with service.
(5.2) The Minister's decision to revoke citizenship or renunciation of citizenship is final and is not subject to judicial review under this Act or the Federal Courts Act.";
**** This is possibly unconstitutional. It cuts off an individual's right of appeal, and right of access to the court.
(b) in clause 4, on page 4,
(i) by replacing line 2 with the following:
"4 (1) Subsection 10.1(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
10.1 (1) If a person makes a request under paragraph 10(3.1)(b), the person's citizenship or renunciation of citizenship may be revoked only if the Minister seeks a declaration, in an action that the Minister commences, that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances and the Court makes such a declaration.
*** Again, no other choice but to go to court. Windfall for the lawyers.
(2) Subsections 10.1(2) and (3) of the Act are re-", and
(ii) by adding after line 6 the following:
"(3) Subsection 10.1(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) If the Minister seeks a declaration, he or she must prove on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.
(5) In an action for a declaration, the Court
(a) shall assess, on a balance of probabilities, whether the facts — acts or omissions — alleged in support of the declaration have occurred, are occurring or may occur; and
(b) with respect to any evidence, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence and may receive and base its decision on any evidence adduced in the proceedings that it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances.";
(c) on page 4, by adding after line 7 the following:
"5.1 Subsection 10.5(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
10.5 (1) On the request of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Minister shall — in the originating document that commences an action under subsection 10.1(1) on the basis that the person obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, with respect to a fact described in section 34, 35 or 37 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act other than a fact that is also described in paragraph 36(1)(a) or (b) or (2)(a) or (b) of that Act — seek a declaration that the person who is the subject of the action is inadmissible on security grounds, on grounds of violating human or international rights or on grounds of organized criminality under, respectively, subsection 34(1), paragraph 35(1)(a) or (b) or subsection 37(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.";
(d) on page 7,
(i) by adding after line 16 the following:
"19.1 A person whose citizenship or renunciation of citizenship was revoked under subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act after the day on which this Act receives royal assent but before the day on which all of subsections 3(2) to (4) come into force, is deemed never to have had their citizenship revoked.", and
*** THIS IS THE POISON PILL. Every person who has ever been revoked, under both the new and the former models will have their citizenship restored. Even the 100 or so people who were revoked under the former Cabinet/Federal Court model. There is no specification that this is only from Bill C-24.
(ii) by adding after line 21 the following:
"20.1 If, immediately before the coming into force of section 4, a notice has been given to a person under subsection 10(3) of the Citizenship Act and the matter was not finally disposed of before the coming into force of that section, the person may, within 30 days after the day on which that section comes into force, elect to have the matter dealt with and disposed of as if the notice had been given under subsection 10(3) of the Citizenship Act, as enacted by subsection 3(2).";
(e) on page 8, by replacing lines 16 to 25 with the following:
"25 Subparagraphs 40(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are replaced by the following:
(ii) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of that Act before the coming into force of paragraphs 46(2)(b) and (c), as enacted by An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, or
(iii) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act in the circumstances set out in section 10.2 of the Citizenship Act before the coming into force of paragraphs 46(2)(b) and (c), as enacted by An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.
26 Paragraphs 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(b) subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act; or
(c) subsection 10.1(3) of the Citizenship Act."; and
(f) in clause 27, on page 9, by adding after line 9 the following:
"(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.".
I am absolutely all-in favour of some form of doing revocations better, but this is a total windfall for the lawyer-lobby, and forces people to take their cases to court when they might not want to or be able to afford it. It's for the rich.