The inanity involved is staggering, as is any reaction other than "Right. Retroactive repeal, paperwork all paid for by the government, my aides are drafting the bill right now."
Which I'm not seeing.
(If they fix things correctly in a reasonable timeframe, I will totally link that story, too.)
While I certainly appreciate that sentiment (particularly on behalf of the people this is directly affecting), I think the reality is that the public service in general works at a particular speed, and some of their advice and information is needed to deal with this. It's a lot like the people affected in the Citizenship Act loophole in effect until 1977 who are now finding out after 60 years that they were never citizens. The government is doing what they can to speed up the process, but they are not going to just rip up all the laws that exist. I am glad, as I don't trust any government enough to give them the power to rip up laws in that way.
Without having read the entirety of the Citizenship Act any time recently, I can't see how it would be that hard to draft a law that says "Any former Canadian citizen whose citizenship was revoked due to X, Y, or Z law under Q circumstances between M and N years is a full citizen and has been entitled to all the rights of a citizen this whole time. Any problems this causes are fixed at the government's expense. Our bad!" and get it passed in a right hurry.
"Any problems this causes are fixed at the government's expense. "
You can't actually pass a law like that because then you can spend the next ten years in court as any problem that any person deems to have been "caused by this" goes after you. For example, some person is delayed getting their passport due to this. They cannot travel to the US on business. They blame the government for losing the deal. It is not clear whether they would have closed the deal even had they been able to go. Should the government compensate them for the value of the business deal?
This is how I translate Finley's statement (and I am no Conservative supporter, bear in mind): "Any former Canadian citizen whose citizenship was revoked due to X, Y, or Z law under Q circumstances between M and N years should be a full citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen this whole time. Short of committing financial suicide or making irresponsible promises, we will do our best to restore their citizenship as quickly as possible."
It's not that far from what you want. And I suspect if it was an NDP government doing it you wouldn't have an issue ;).
Here is another thing. All these people are finding out about the issue why? Because they are trying to get passports to travel to the US. How would the US react if we were granting passports to people who were not technically citizens? Even if we had a really good reason? These guys are a bit uptight about security these days. And sure, you can say "screw the US", but again this is reality, not hippy idealist world 8^).
I don't expect "our bad" to get into law, either. That was meant to be things like administrative expenses.
I suspect if it was an NDP government doing it you wouldn't have an issue
If there was an NDP government, I suspect I'd be far more worried about why the fuck most of the country went deeply insane and somehow figured that electing the NDP to anything higher than dogcatcher would result in anything but ruin, and I'd be far too concerned at the imminent total destruction of the economy to worry so much about a few people's passports.
You have to be an idiot to be a Republican. The CPC are Republican wannabes. This does *not* make me hard-left, and it especially doesn't mean I indulge in NDP levels of stupid.
That was meant to be things like administrative expenses. Addendum: with the assumption that the actual law would spell out what was and was not covered, and that what was covered would, in fact, be reasonable.
It remains to be seen what will actually occur, and how much of a burden the people who did nothing wrong will have to put up with on account of this snafu.
"CIPG" didn't start this, but how they end it (or not) may say a few things about them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 03:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 03:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:16 pm (UTC)Which I'm not seeing.
(If they fix things correctly in a reasonable timeframe, I will totally link that story, too.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:06 pm (UTC)"Any problems this causes are fixed at the government's expense. "
You can't actually pass a law like that because then you can spend the next ten years in court as any problem that any person deems to have been "caused by this" goes after you. For example, some person is delayed getting their passport due to this. They cannot travel to the US on business. They blame the government for losing the deal. It is not clear whether they would have closed the deal even had they been able to go. Should the government compensate them for the value of the business deal?
This is how I translate Finley's statement (and I am no Conservative supporter, bear in mind): "Any former Canadian citizen whose citizenship was revoked due to X, Y, or Z law under Q circumstances between M and N years should be a full citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen this whole time. Short of committing financial suicide or making irresponsible promises, we will do our best to restore their citizenship as quickly as possible."
It's not that far from what you want. And I suspect if it was an NDP government doing it you wouldn't have an issue ;).
Here is another thing. All these people are finding out about the issue why? Because they are trying to get passports to travel to the US. How would the US react if we were granting passports to people who were not technically citizens? Even if we had a really good reason? These guys are a bit uptight about security these days. And sure, you can say "screw the US", but again this is reality, not hippy idealist world 8^).
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:12 pm (UTC)I suspect if it was an NDP government doing it you wouldn't have an issue
If there was an NDP government, I suspect I'd be far more worried about why the fuck most of the country went deeply insane and somehow figured that electing the NDP to anything higher than dogcatcher would result in anything but ruin, and I'd be far too concerned at the imminent total destruction of the economy to worry so much about a few people's passports.
You have to be an idiot to be a Republican. The CPC are Republican wannabes. This does *not* make me hard-left, and it especially doesn't mean I indulge in NDP levels of stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 05:14 pm (UTC)Addendum: with the assumption that the actual law would spell out what was and was not covered, and that what was covered would, in fact, be reasonable.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-27 04:06 pm (UTC)"CIPG" didn't start this, but how they end it (or not) may say a few things about them.