Agreed. They won't win but they can cause some noise around it (something Conservatives are really good at). In fact, the Bill will ultimately be expanded to include appeal possibilities for people facing misrepresentation-related revocation (Something that was flagged waaaay before but that they refused to do but suddenly agreed to when a Minister faced revocation of her own citizenship - politics are disgusting sometimes...).spiritsoul said:
Well it would be highly unlikely. The Refugee Process is very different than the Citizenship one (I hope).MarceauBletard said:
I highly doubt it as these are two different procedures. PRs applying for citizenship have already been through that type of scrutiny prior to moving to the country. I think tax forms provide IRCC with the necessary information of the individual's finances.MarceauBletard said:
Senators (and MPs for that matter) don't vote on clauses. They vote on a bill in it's entirety. That's why they have to get it right the first time. You're either for the whole thing, or against the whole thing.spiritsoul said:
They can recommend removing clauses or enhancing them, or even adding them like they're gonna do with the appeal process for misrepresentation cases.Coffee1981 said:
But they still don't vote on bills clause by clause. They either support the whole bill or none of it. You don't say "I'm going to vote for everything except clause 17 and 28". It's either yay or nay.admontreal said:
Agreed. What I was referring to was the legislative ping pong they could theorically play with the HoC: 'Removing a clause, voting it, HoC adds it back, votes it, send it back to Senate, etc.'Coffee1981 said:
