Writing an amendment takes several days. It has to be written by people who know the law and know law language. That takes a while. It's not like someone just proposes to add "we wanna have an appeals process, yo" to the law. This has to be well-written. That's most likely why it wasn't proposed in committee.
They likely have to have some lawyer write it up. I think they will have internal discussions between minister and senators while they write it.
I think it will come from Senator Art Eggleton or Omidvar. So liberal.
I think it is already written and will be presented at the third reading. They knew about the amendment for many months now and the Libs want this as quickly as possible
I think it is already written and will be presented at the third reading. They knew about the amendment for many months now and the Libs want this as quickly as possible
I think this gives an idea on what can happen next.
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/ourcountryourparliament/html_booklet/process-passing-bill-e.html
I think it is already written and will be presented at the third reading. They knew about the amendment for many months now and the Libs want this as quickly as possible
Committee meeting in progress. And Don Meredith is VOTING with the Liberals. They just voted 8/5 to PASS Clause 3. So NO REVOCATION of Citizenship for DUAL Nationals. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.
Ha! Everybody laughed at me when I said we never know what Don Meredith (Harper appointed, now non-affiliated) might vote! 8)
spyfy said:
This is getting frustrating. OK, one more time:
Just because there was no amendments made in committee, that doesn't mean that senators won't propose an amendment during third reading back in the Senate. In fact one Senator basically announced that there will be an amendment proposed.
I didnt know he was appointment by Harper. Being non affiliated, I thought he was Trudeau appointed. Either ways he seemed to be a solid guy who votes with common sense. Some of the Con senators, even with lawyer backgrounds, didnt seem to have any issue with the revocation after every single expert witness said it was unconstitutional. I found that very odd! Its one thing to be a politician and saying such things and completely another when you are appointed as an independent senator.
I didnt know he was appointment by Harper. Being non affiliated, I thought he was Trudeau appointed. Either ways he seemed to be a solid guy who votes with common sense. Some of the Con senators, even with lawyer backgrounds, didnt seem to have any issue with the revocation after every single expert witness said it was unconstitutional. I found that very odd! Its one thing to be a politician and saying such things and completely another when you are appointed as an independent senator.
The minister is against revoking citizenship for terrorism and similar crimes. (National Post Article)
The minister is in favour of revoking citizenship for fraud during the PR or citizenship application. This kind of revocation has been there for decades. (Article that you shared)
Only this second kind of revocation is what all this appeals process discussion is about.
Which part of the article are you not understanding.
"We believe that the current process is constitutionally sound," Hussen said. "However, we are very much open to examining any proposals that add to procedural fairness with respect to citizenship revocation.
"We've always said that we are open to those proposals. We will examine them closely. We will work closely with the senators on that."
That means that if a senate comes back with an amendment to keep revoking of citizenship with appeal added, he will consider it.
This has to be well-written. That's most likely why it wasn't proposed in committee.
