The details in the Liberal platform regarding immigration are found in a pdf at https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-for-Canadian-immigration-and-economic-opportunity.pdf
The Liberal platform states that
the Liberals will repeal "the unfair elements of Bill C-24 . . . that make it more difficult for hard-working immigrants to become Canadian citizens."
The other high profile commitments for change include:
-- repeal the so-called "two-tiered" citizenship provisions in Bill C-24
-- increase budgets for processing applications in key areas such as family class reunification applications
-- expanding program for accepting refugees in Canada and funding refugee aid programs abroad
Additionally, the Liberal platform says that it will restore credit (toward citizenship residency requirements) for students and other temporary residents. (I was wrong about this aspect of the Liberal platform, as in I was not aware of this commitment, and in addition to those who point this particular aspect out above, I was also corrected in this regard in another topic.)
There was no promise to repeal Bill C-24 entirely. And indeed those provisions should not be repealed in their entirety, as there were many provisions in Bill C-24 making long needed, much over-due changes. But there are several aspects of the changes made by Bill C-24 which should be rolled back, and several deserving at least another close examination (Harper had limited the consultations and shut down debate, foreclosing the extent of review and assessment the legislative process ordinarily demands before such major changes are made).
hfinkel said:
Here is where I read about the LPs position on C-24 [in the Ottawa Citizen]:
Specifically: " Trudeau promises to rescind Bill C-24."
Perhaps this statement has taken Trudeau's position out of context?
No, the Ottawa Citizen did not take Trudeau's position out of context. They misrepresented it. Blatantly overstating it. Just as they did, relative to both Muclair and Trudeau, in many of the other descriptions of the NDP and Liberal platforms. The author's slant permeates this piece purporting to be a voter's guide to the differences between the parties.
As noted above, you can see the Liberal's platform regarding immigration and citizenship in the pdf
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-for-Canadian-immigration-and-economic-opportunity.pdf
hfinkel said:
Perhaps he has only addressed the two-tier citizenship portion of the law?
How then would he repeal only the two-tier portion and nothing else?
Will he repeal the entire law and then re-enact a new one in 2016 or 2017?
How does this work?
I read elsewhere that Trudeau merely abstained from a vote on C-24...correct?
I do not recall how the Liberals voted regarding Bill C-24. I do recall that Harper truncated the consultations and restricted debate, and used the Conservative majority to reject every attempt to even consider amendments (including those to change obvious errors in the bill as tabled . . . to avoid delaying the passage of the bill by proposed amendments, Harper rammed it through as it was, then in later Bills did the cleanup of some obvious errors through further amendments).
The vast majority of legislation that gets passed by Parliament is largely the
amendment of existing law, and not a total repeal and replacement.
Thus, for example, Bill C-24 did not repeal the existing
Citizenship Act and replace it with the
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. Rather, the
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (the
SCCA) contain detailed provisions amending various provisions in the
Citizenship Act, including the repeal of certain specific provisions.
To
repeal is somewhat different, but I am not all that well acquainted with the Canadian legislative process to know precisely the difference between amending a statute so as to delete or replace certain provisions in the existing law, versus the
repeal of a specific provision in the existing law.
I know some examples. Until 2009,
section 8 of the Citizenship Act (as it was then constituted) prescribed that persons born outside Canada who were Canadian citizens by virtue of citizenship by birth (due to at least one parent being a Canadian citizen)
ceased to be a Canadian citizen on their 28th birthday unless they made an application to retain citizenship. This provision was
repealed in an act adopted by Parliament in 2008 (Conservatives were a minority government at the time).
And, in the
SCCA itself, for example,
section 14 of the SCCA states that then existing Section 18 of the
Citizenship Act "is repealed."
This can be very specific, again in the
SCCA, section 15.(2) of the
SCCA states that "The portion of subsection 19(2) of the English version of the Act after paragraph (b) is repealed."
Again, I am not fully cognizant what difference it makes if a provision is deleted, replaced, or repealed. But one sees examples of all three in the
SCCA's amending of the
Citizenship Act (as it was constituted prior to the
SCCA amendments).
Repealing the two-tiered citizenship provisions
This is really about repealing the provisions which give the Minister authority to revoke a person's citizenship for certain criminal convictions committed while a citizen. It is referred to as the two-tiered citizenship provisions because they only apply to some citizens, not all citizens.
To repeal this, all the government needs to do is pass and obtain Royal Assent for a Bill which has a provision that specifies Section 10.(2) of the current
Citizenship Act is repealed. More than that would be required as a practical matter, since there are provisions which would need to be amended to remove reference to revocations on these grounds. But, the core of what would do it is simply a provision in a Bill which specifies that Section 10.(2) of the current
Citizenship Act is repealed.
If, for example, section 10.(2) is repealed, the same Bill would most likely also repeal Section 10.4 (the provision which makes 10.(2) applicable only to certain citizens, which is to say to all citizens except those who would be rendered stateless).
Remember the Senate!
The Liberals have a majority in Parliament. The opposition parties are, essentially, powerless to stop the Liberals from tabling and passing any legislation the Liberals choose to adopt.
But to actually be given Royal Assent, the legislation must also be approved by the Senate.
The Conservatives have a majority in the Senate! And, technically, there is
no Liberal caucus in the Senate (Trudeau disbanded the Liberal caucus in the Senate, or excluded them from the Liberal Caucus . . . not sure of the actual mechanism involved, but there is not a formal Liberal caucus in the Senate).
Historically it would be extremely unusual for the Senate to block adopted legislation. The Senate will occasionally recommend certain amendments, not approve the legislation, send it back to Parliament where it can be amended, passed and then returned to the Senate for its approval. I believe (but do not know examples) the Senate might sometimes identify reasons for not adopting certain legislation and those reasons might be sufficiently persuasive that the legislation is dropped without being adopted.
Could the Conservatives in the Senate block Liberal House of Parliament legislation? Like a Bill to legalize marijuana? The repeal or major revision of Bill C-51? The repeal of the provisions to revoke citizenship for the commission of certain crimes (such as terrorism)? Or the revision of the requirements for citizenship to restore them to what they were prior to the
SCCA? I do not know. The Senate could certainly stall the progress of any such legislation.
Restoring credit, toward citizenship requirements, for time spent in Canada as a student or otherwise with temporary status:
This would be far more complicated than simply repealing some particular provisions. I alluded to part of the problem in another topic, regarding how complicated it would be to do this with the 4/6 rule which is tangled with other physical presence requirements and tax filing obligations. The simple thing would be to restore the prior requirements as they were, albeit replacing "residency" with "physical presence" (to avoid the morass of conflicting jurisprudence the previous residency requirement was mired in for more than a quarter century).
But this seems unlikely. Cannot say I know the temperament or inclinations of the Liberal Party all that much, so someone else's guess is probably as good as mine. But my guess is this is unlikely. Which is not to say I doubt the Liberals will restore the credit for pre-landing time, but to say it is not something easily done with a quick fix, but is more likely to take well into the term, as in years.
Speaking of quick fixes, I am not sure there will be a rush to repeal the two-tiered citizenship provisions either. The only one whose citizenship has been revoked, so far, is still in a Canadian prison where he is likely to remain for many years. Otherwise, Trudeau's new Minister of CIC can simply decline to exercise the authority prescribed under section 10.(2) of the
Citizenship Act, so no one will be affected.
That said, the letter giving notice has been sent to a number of individuals, including one who was born in Canada to parents who were not citizens of any other country at the time of his birth, and who has not in fact acquired or obtained any other citizenship (but is arguably entitled to claim Pakistani citizenship pursuant to a change in Pakistan law after his birth in Canada), so there are a number of judicial proceedings already in progress. Perhaps it would be prudent for the government to move quickly to repeal these provisions and thereby render the court cases moot.
It can also be expected that the application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeals decision in the Niqab case will be withdrawn by Trudeau's new Minister of CIC (whoever that will be).
