Petition: PM Trudeau, repeal Bill C-24
- Thread starter spiritsoul
- Start date
Correct, one has to vary of all politicians and as you say it is same wine. But as civil society we can also try to lobby about something if it is important even if it may not work rather than be dispassionate about it. At least they will know that the people have not forgotten their election promises 18 more signatories are needed to complete the petitionCanadiandesi2006 said:
https://www.change.org/p/justin-trudeau-a-canadian-is-a-canadian-is-a-canadian-pm-trudeau-repeal-bill-c-24?source_location=petitions_share_skipcazrypr said:
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/undoing-the-tories-a-guide-to-harperisms-that-the-liberals-have-or-might-kill&pubdate=2016-01-22
The article only mention trudeau to repeal the stripping citizenship based on convicted terrorism. Nothing else. No mention about going back to 3/4 rule or giving pre-PR credit back.
Funny that nobody mentioned a peep about stripping citizenship due to treason before terrorism was added to the list. This actually happened in the past. In 1957, former MP Fred Rose was convicted of spying for Russia thus lost his citizenship. So a precedent has been made. MP John Diefenbaker introduced a motion to revised the law to prevent this from happening again. If Diefenbaker can introduced a motion, pass parliament and revised the law. Surely any future government can also introduced a motion to reversed Diefenbaker's motion.
The article only mention trudeau to repeal the stripping citizenship based on convicted terrorism. Nothing else. No mention about going back to 3/4 rule or giving pre-PR credit back.
Funny that nobody mentioned a peep about stripping citizenship due to treason before terrorism was added to the list. This actually happened in the past. In 1957, former MP Fred Rose was convicted of spying for Russia thus lost his citizenship. So a precedent has been made. MP John Diefenbaker introduced a motion to revised the law to prevent this from happening again. If Diefenbaker can introduced a motion, pass parliament and revised the law. Surely any future government can also introduced a motion to reversed Diefenbaker's motion.
Hiscreech339 said:
This is also my impression from the articles published post election. The main focus is only over the stripping Canadian citizenship from dual nationals. Nothing more.
From where that repealing back to 3/4 came from I got also no idea. Most probably just a wishful thinking from the affected parties.
Observation: As has been discussed in some depth in other topics, there have been major constitutional changes, including the adoption of the Charter of Rights, since the isolated and quickly banned cold war action to revoke citizenship of communist spies. There is little or nothing in that history which illuminates much at all about the constitutionality of Section 10(2) in the Citizenship Act (which prescribes the authority of the Minister to revoke citizenship of dual nationals for acts committed while a citizen of Canada). Moreover, of course, the Liberals have promised to repeal these provisions, and that would preclude any need for a judicial determination as to their constitutionality. Obviously, Parliament has authority to repeal prior acts of Parliament. Thus, it is neither odd nor funny that totally irrelevant matters more than a half century ago are not discussed, particularly in the context of Parliament acting to revise the Citizenship Act.
As also observed often in this forum, promised changes to the Citizenship Act other than as to those authorizing the revoking of citizenship for dual nationals (for specified crimes after becoming a citizen) are not likely to come about in the immediate future. At the least, there will be a period of time, first, during which the government solicits input from the public and stakeholders. That input will likely have significant influence in what the government decides to actually change. Thus, while a reversion to the 3/4 rule is not part of the overt agenda (as described in campaign promises, the Liberal campaign platform, or the mandate letter from Trudeau to Minister McCallum), what the government actually does could be influenced by public input, including, possibly, considering reversion to the 3/4 rule. My sense is that given the greater flexibility the 4/6 rule affords PRs, the 4/6 rule itself is probably best for a large number of PRs pursuing a path to citizenship, even if that makes the path a little longer for those who do not need that flexibility.
In any event, what changes will actually be made (beyond repealing section 10(2) and related provisions, relating to revoking the citizenship of dual nationals) is still very much up in the air, and not coming real soon. The process of revising major legislation is complicated, demands thorough and extensive study, consideration, and deliberation, and thus TIME.
In the meantime, the Minister is not exercising the authority to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals, so for practical purposes it is as if this authority has already been repealed -- so long, of course, as the current government remains in power.
As also observed often in this forum, promised changes to the Citizenship Act other than as to those authorizing the revoking of citizenship for dual nationals (for specified crimes after becoming a citizen) are not likely to come about in the immediate future. At the least, there will be a period of time, first, during which the government solicits input from the public and stakeholders. That input will likely have significant influence in what the government decides to actually change. Thus, while a reversion to the 3/4 rule is not part of the overt agenda (as described in campaign promises, the Liberal campaign platform, or the mandate letter from Trudeau to Minister McCallum), what the government actually does could be influenced by public input, including, possibly, considering reversion to the 3/4 rule. My sense is that given the greater flexibility the 4/6 rule affords PRs, the 4/6 rule itself is probably best for a large number of PRs pursuing a path to citizenship, even if that makes the path a little longer for those who do not need that flexibility.
In any event, what changes will actually be made (beyond repealing section 10(2) and related provisions, relating to revoking the citizenship of dual nationals) is still very much up in the air, and not coming real soon. The process of revising major legislation is complicated, demands thorough and extensive study, consideration, and deliberation, and thus TIME.
In the meantime, the Minister is not exercising the authority to revoke the citizenship of dual nationals, so for practical purposes it is as if this authority has already been repealed -- so long, of course, as the current government remains in power.
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Oh Look, France is following Harper's lead in revoking citizenship from dual citizens convicted of terrorism. Strange coming from a socialist president. I guess Bill-24 actually has some merits to it and not based on some right wing ideology of the conservatives after all.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/france-s-justice-minister-resigns-over-objections-to-terrorism-bill-1.2753697
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/france-s-justice-minister-resigns-over-objections-to-terrorism-bill-1.2753697