Quote:
Originally Posted by EndLeSS8
You guys don't seem to understand what this is leading up to and what this rule means to your constitutional rights
Let's say your parents are from China and moved here and are naturalized Canadian citizens about 20 years ago
You were born in Canada, and you have never been to China, but you are Chinese by race and a Canadian citizen by birth.
Because of the vagueness of the wording of Bill C51, if you are convicted of terrorism, you CAN be deported to China, EVEN if you have never been to China and have absolutely no relation to China, and no relatives in China, etc
No one here is saying that terrorists are good people etc
What we are saying that Bill C51 can be unconstitutional because it is a HUGE stepping stone towards revoking your Canadian citizenship, even if you are Canadian by birth. That's INSANE
|
You don't seem to understand Bill C51.
I just read it, nowhere in the bill did it touch on deportation or a loss of citizenship as a result of convictions arising from the use of the bill. The bill increases the Gov. ability to obtain information and use that information against someone who is suspected of being involved with terrorism - the court process still exists, you can still be found not guilty etc.
Bill C24 on the other hand... would expand the scope of those subject to citizenship revocation to include all those born in Canada presumed able to claim citizenship in another state through one of their parents. It would also significantly expand the grounds on which citizenship may be revoked.
The revocation process will primarily be a paper one, where the Minister gives notice of intent to revoke, the person responds and a decision is made by the Minister. The Minister may hold a hearing in some instances, and in limited circumstances there will continue to be a hearing before a Federal Court judge. There is no longer any recourse to the Governor in Council, who may take into account equitable considerations after a finding that revocation is warranted due to a breach of the Act.
What would constitute a breach of the act?
Basically any criminal offence.
Having read the bill yes it seems as though there should probably be additional checks in place, most notable for me was a recommendation by the CBA that said;
- The CBA Section recommends that a citizen facing revocation always have the right to a hearing before an independent and impartial decision-maker.
This would prevent the minister from making decisions with any bias etc.
Do I think either bill is evil or unconstitutional, no I do not.
I think there is an assumption among some immigrants/children born of immigrants that the Gov will start deporting every single person that commits any criminal if they meet the criteria.
Personally, I think that's crazy, I suspect the full scope of this bill and the associated act will only be used to get rid of the "worst of the worst". Plus, once these cases start to hit the books, expect the first few to hit the supreme court which could very well result in amendments to the bill/act.
Stepping back for a moment though, many people try to suggest that this is the first steps towards us ending up like London in V for Vendetta... I don't see that.