NDP proposes bill to protect Canadians abroad

[madmax]

Canadians are stupid. Period.

Speak for youself.

[bush_cheney2004]

....She had all of the proper paperwork, so what is your problem with her? The government did wrong to her, and she shoudl be compensated for it.

Then there is something wrong with the "paperwork". I can buy $1000 worth of consumer products with just my index finger as identity verification. Something is missing from the story.....my co-worker will return from her native Kenya on Monday without any issues.

In any event, this will be another way to extort money from Canadians.

[punked]

Then there is something wrong with the "paperwork". I can buy $1000 worth of consumer products with just my index finger as identity verification. Something is missing from the story.....my co-worker will return from her native Kenya on Monday without any issues.

In any event, this will be another way to extort money from Canadians.

Maybe it is because Kenya knows the government of Canada does not care. This law the NDP want passed is based off the US law you guys have so there you go doing something right.

[jdobbin]

There is a Charter Challenge. That is all. And it could fail a Charter Challenge (hopefully unlikely). However That is the purpose of the Charter and no doubt the judges would suggest to the government to create a law to protect citizens abroad.

A law which encompasses these safeguards.

I don't think you take my meaning. There is a constitutional issue involved between royal perogative and the Charter. Even if you create a new law, there is still royal perogative. That is within the constitution. However, so are your Charter rights.

What we need is clarification from the Supreme Court that the Charter overides perogative when it comes to citizenship

Sounds like Liberal double talk and excuses not to protect the citizens of Canada.

Sounds like someone doesn't know the constitutional issues involved. We need the court to sort it out.

If you are suggesting that all Canadians have to use a charter challenge to ensure their safety abroad, then there is a problem with the function of government.

I am suggesting the court only has to rule once on what rule prevails.

This bill directs specific government action. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Clearly the parties failed in their duties to act on behalf of Canadians.

Get ready for the invoice.

This bill proposed still doesn't deal with royal perogative while overrules all laws in this particualr area according to the Constitution. Sort out the Charter and this and you will find your answer.

[punked]

I don't think you take my meaning. There is a constitutional issue involved between royal perogative and the Charter. Even if you create a new law, there is still royal perogative. That is within the constitution. However, so are your Charter rights.

What we need is clarification from the Supreme Court that the Charter overides perogative when it comes to citizenship

Sounds like someone doesn't know the constitutional issues involved. We need the court to sort it out.

I am suggesting the court only has to rule once on what rule prevails.

This bill proposed still doesn't deal with royal perogative while overrules all laws in this particualr area according to the Constitution. Sort out the Charter and this and you will find your answer.

It wont however sort out how our government over sea's ie. Embassies and so are to act and what they should do. This is a grey area that should be sorted out. We shouldn't cloud up the water more becuase we are scared what the poll numbers say./

[jdobbin]

It wont however sort out how our government over sea's ie. Embassies and so are to act and what they should do. This is a grey area that should be sorted out. We shouldn't cloud up the water more becuase we are scared what the poll numbers say./

If the consulate general screwed up, it isn't a violation of the law but incomptence. I guess we'll hear more in the case now going forward.

It still does't sort out the issue of the Constitution. Any law created can still be overuled by perogative.

[punked]

If the consulate general screwed up, it isn't a violation of the law but incomptence. I guess we'll hear more in the case now going forward.

It still does't sort out the issue of the Constitution. Any law created can still be overuled by perogative.

It can and that would be a huge PR mistake that the Liberals and NDP can jump all over. If they can pass this bill with the Bloc and the Cons overrule at some point with perogative then you get to say they are dictators who don't want the government to work, take down the government on a real issue and we all win. Pass the law it is simple. I think the Liberals will pass the law or copy it and make it part of their platform for the next election I bet the second one is what they will do. They like NDP ideas they just don't want the NDP to get the credit.

[jdobbin]

It can and that would be a huge PR mistake that the Liberals and NDP can jump all over. If they can pass this bill with the Bloc and the Cons overrule at some point with perogative then you get to say they are dictators who don't want the government to work, take down the government on a real issue and we all win. Pass the law it is simple. I think the Liberals will pass the law or copy it and make it part of their platform for the next election I bet the second one is what they will do. They like NDP ideas they just don't want the NDP to get the credit.

If one law can be overruled, they all can. You can cry dictator all you want but sorting out the issue of royal perogative is where you want to go with this. If the Charter prevails in a Supreme Court challenge, then you won't see ministers exercising direct control in contravention of the Charter.

The Liberals are not opposed to protecting Canadians. But how will a law that can be overuled legally change that?

[punked]

If one law can be overruled, they all can. You can cry dictator all you want but sorting out the issue of royal perogative is where you want to go with this. If the Charter prevails in a Supreme Court challenge, then you won't see ministers exercising direct control in contravention of the Charter.

The Liberals are not opposed to protecting Canadians. But how will a law that can be overuled legally change that?

Royal perogative in Canada pertains only too the issuing of passports aboard. This bill deals with a whole host of other unwritten laws Dobbin. I expect if the Liberals oppose this too see it in their new red book in the future almost word for word.

[Topaz]

There's another woman that left London On, to go to school in Scotland and her passport was stole and she's trying to get back to Canada and is having a lot of red tape doing so and again she has to prove who she is.