Bill C-24: Harper govt is being sneaky again

[crimesinister]

As you know, I'm trying to challenge the Governor-in-Council from promulgating the amended regulations that alter the residency requirement. As I mentioned earlier, I can only do this under two cases:


1. If the Privy Council announces their intention to change, in which case one can ask the court for an injunction
2. If the Governor-in-Council announces that the regulations have been amended, in which case one can ask a judge to stay the amended regulations


They have done neither. They have amended the regulations, but are delaying the publication of amended regulations. This is within the letter of the law, they can delay it for at least 23 days, more if they seek an exemption. Yes, what they're doing is within the letter of the law. However, keeping citizens and potential citizens in the dark about the very regulations that determine the eligibility for citizenship is not how democracy works.

Once again, Harper government is showing utmost contempt for Canadians and the democratic processes of the nation.

 

[dpenabill]

As you know, I'm trying to challenge the Governor-in-Council from promulgating the amended regulations that alter the residency requirement. As I mentioned earlier, I can only do this under two cases:


1. If the Privy Council announces their intention to change, in which case one can ask the court for an injunction
2. If the Governor-in-Council announces that the regulations have been amended, in which case one can ask a judge to stay the amended regulations


They have done neither. They have amended the regulations, but are delaying the publication of amended regulations. This is within the letter of the law, they can delay it for at least 23 days, more if they seek an exemption. Yes, what they're doing is within the letter of the law. However, keeping citizens and potential citizens in the dark about the very regulations that determine the eligibility for citizenship is not how democracy works.

Once again, Harper government is showing utmost contempt for Canadians and the democratic processes of the nation.

I cannot guess what you have been smoking, but the residency requirement was NOT altered by amended regulations.

Parliament adopted the amended statutory provisions (not regulations) which altered the residency requirement. This legislation was first published in February 2014. The official publication of the adopted Act (the SCCA) was published August 13, 2014 in Part III of the Gazette, precisely as prescribed by law.

 

[SergiiK]

It looks like some group of people wants to be sneaky and continue cheating Canada. I don't even have PR but I totally support government with their steps.

 

[MUFC]

It looks like some group of people wants to be sneaky and continue cheating Canada. I don't even have PR but I totally support government with their steps.

The cheaters are complaining from this law , No doubt.

 

[CanV]

As you know, I'm trying to challenge the Governor-in-Council from promulgating the amended regulations that alter the residency requirement. As I mentioned earlier, I can only do this under two cases:


1. If the Privy Council announces their intention to change, in which case one can ask the court for an injunction
2. If the Governor-in-Council announces that the regulations have been amended, in which case one can ask a judge to stay the amended regulations


They have done neither. They have amended the regulations, but are delaying the publication of amended regulations. This is within the letter of the law, they can delay it for at least 23 days, more if they seek an exemption. Yes, what they're doing is within the letter of the law. However, keeping citizens and potential citizens in the dark about the very regulations that determine the eligibility for citizenship is not how democracy works.

Once again, Harper government is showing utmost contempt for Canadians and the democratic processes of the nation.

You are wasting your time, which is OK. You are wasting government resources which is funded by tax money, which is NOT OK. What is in it for you? Is it money or you are trying to become famous?

No one cares about what you are doing now and trust me it's going to garbage but let's say someone decides to listen to you, I guarantee you with 100% confidence that if this comes down to where the government will ask people to vote on this, you will lose so badly and only then you will become famous for making a fool out of yourself.

 

[CanV]

And guess what? I wasn't sure who I am voting for in October. Thanks to you now I know. The people that made and passed this bill will forever be my heros. So suck it up.

 

[crimesinister]

I cannot guess what you have been smoking, but the residency requirement was NOT altered by amended regulations.

Parliament adopted the amended statutory provisions (not regulations) which altered the residency requirement. This legislation was first published in February 2014. The official publication of the adopted Act (the SCCA) was published August 13, 2014 in Part III of the Gazette, precisely as prescribed by law.

When certain provisions of the SCCA came into force on May 28th, 2015 because the Governer-in-Council made an Order-in-Council fixed the day they came into force as the May 28th, 2015.

PC Number: 2015-0626
Date: 2015-05-28

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsection 46(2.1) of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014, fixes the day on which this Order is made as the day on which subsections 7(1) and (2), section 8, subsection 9(1), section 14, subsection 19(2), section 21, subsection 24(5.1) and sections 42 and 43 of that Act come into force.

But there's no record of an Order-in-Council fixing the date for remaining provisions of the SCCA coming into force.


These

 

[dpenabill]

When certain provisions of the SCCA came into force on May 28th, 2015 because the Governer-in-Council made an Order-in-Council fixed the day they came into force as the May 28th, 2015.

PC Number: 2015-0626
Date: 2015-05-28

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsection 46(2.1) of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014, fixes the day on which this Order is made as the day on which subsections 7(1) and (2), section 8, subsection 9(1), section 14, subsection 19(2), section 21, subsection 24(5.1) and sections 42 and 43 of that Act come into force.

But there's no record of an Order-in-Council fixing the date for remaining provisions of the SCCA coming into force.


These

Huh?

The Governor in Council made the following Order June 4, 2015:

P.C. 2015-751 June 4, 2015

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsections 46(2) and (3) of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014, fixes June 11, 2015, as the day on which subsections 2(2), (3), (5), (6), ( 8 ), (11), (15) and (17) to (19), 3(1), (2), (4) to (6) and ( 8 ) and 4(2), (3), (5), (6), ( 8 ), (10) and (11), section 6, subsections 9(2) and (4), section 10, subsection 12(2), section 15, subsections 16(1) and (3), sections 17 and 18, subsections 19(1) and (3), section 23, subsections 24(1) to (5), (5.2) and (6) and sections 25, 26 and 28 to 30 of that Act come into force.

To be clear, this is the Order which, in addition to numerous other provisions in the SCCA, established June 11 as the date on which the new grant requirements would take effect.

Once CIC announced the change-over for June 11, no reasonable persons ever doubted there was such an order duly made by the Governor in Council.

I am reminded of the philosopher who denied the existence of any reality other than what was being directly perceived. Can't see the sofa and chairs in the other room, they do not exist. That's a very special sort of bubble.

 

[crimesinister]

Huh?

The Governor in Council made the following Order June 4, 2015:

P.C. 2015-751 June 4, 2015

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsections 46(2) and (3) of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 2014, fixes June 11, 2015, as the day on which subsections 2(2), (3), (5), (6), ( 8 ), (11), (15) and (17) to (19), 3(1), (2), (4) to (6) and ( 8 ) and 4(2), (3), (5), (6), ( 8 ), (10) and (11), section 6, subsections 9(2) and (4), section 10, subsection 12(2), section 15, subsections 16(1) and (3), sections 17 and 18, subsections 19(1) and (3), section 23, subsections 24(1) to (5), (5.2) and (6) and sections 25, 26 and 28 to 30 of that Act come into force.

To be clear, this is the Order which, in addition to numerous other provisions in the SCCA, established June 11 as the date on which the new grant requirements would take effect.

Once CIC announced the change-over for June 11, no reasonable persons ever doubted there was such an order duly made by the Governor in Council.

I am reminded of the philosopher who denied the existence of any reality other than what was being directly perceived. Can't see the sofa and chairs in the other room, they do not exist. That's a very special sort of bubble.

Which was registered today. My statement was valid at the time it was made. I never doubted the existence of the order. I just asserted that there was no record of it.

 

[dpenabill]

Which was registered today. My statement was valid at the time it was made. I never doubted the existence of the order. I just asserted that there was no record of it.

Precisely (well, except that the Order, along with the Order you quoted supposedly in contrast, was registered yesterday, both registered yesterday not today).

Precisely: there was an order. You did not doubt there was. But because you had not seen it, you asserted there was no record of it.

There was absolutely no reason to doubt the Order had been made, once it was announced by CIC that it had, including the date fixed in the Order. There was no reason to doubt that there was in fact a paper record of it in both CIC (the Minister formally requesting the Order) and the Privy Council (which submitted the Order for registration and publication).

Nonetheless you asserted there was not. Knowing there was (as you confess, you "never doubted" the existence of the order).

Those sorts of assertions in the courts will justifiably result in having to pay the other side's lawyer and other legal fees (such assertions sometimes referred to as frivolous or specious assertions). Here such assertions are false made in bad faith.

For the record, one might say, making false assertions damages one's credibility.

 

[alphazip]

Precisely (well, except that the Order, along with the Order you quoted supposedly in contrast, was registered yesterday, both registered yesterday not today).

Precisely: there was an order. You did not doubt there was. But because you had not seen it, you asserted there was no record of it.

There was absolutely no reason to doubt the Order had been made, once it was announced by CIC that it had, including the date fixed in the Order. There was no reason to doubt that there was in fact a paper record of it in both CIC (the Minister formally requesting the Order) and the Privy Council (which submitted the Order for registration and publication).

Nonetheless you asserted there was not. Knowing there was (as you confess, you "never doubted" the existence of the order).

Those sorts of assertions in the courts will justifiably result in having to pay the other side's lawyer and other legal fees (such assertions sometimes referred to as frivolous or specious assertions). Here such assertions are false made in bad faith.

For the record, one might say, making false assertions damages one's credibility.

This would seem to be a semantic difference. By "no record", crimesinister undoubtedly meant "no record available to the public."

 

[Elk-hunter]

It looks like some group of people wants to be sneaky and continue cheating Canada. I don't even have PR but I totally support government with their steps.

thumbs up

 

[dpenabill]

This would seem to be a semantic difference. By "no record", crimesinister undoubtedly meant "no record available to the public."

Not really. The statement was made to support an assertion that CIC's implementation of the new requirements prescribed by the amendments to the Citizenship Act in the SCCA was invalid, insinuating that there was no valid Order for the new requirements to be made effective. But crimesinister confesses knowing that the order had indeed been made. The argument was specious and crimesinister knew this when making it. That is, crimesinister was deliberately making a false argument. Not the first but rather one of many (insinuating there is a constitutional vagueness issue with 5(1)(c.1), for example, is unadulterated rubbish; assertions that there was a failure to publish the new requirements as required by law, when indeed the SCCA was duly published and its proceedings before public duly open to the public from its first publication at the First Reading in February 2014, including publication of the version given Royal Assent and the official Gazette publication of the adopted legislation in September 2014, among numerous other specious, frivolous, and otherwise simply unfounded arguments posed).

There are some serious issues involved with the SCCA, issues which deserve attention and litigation. In many respects this government has adopted a number of provisions which in essence tend to make the status of citizen comparable to being licensed to drive, a privilege which can be defined by Parliament virtually at will. Some elements of this legislation conflate the privilege of being granted citizenship with the status of citizen, essentially saying that since the grant of citizenship is a privilege, the status of being a citizen is likewise a privilege. Justice Rennie has said that is OK, that is how the modern principle of citizenship works. That decision is in the appellate process. I do not know what the outcome of that litigation will be, but I do recognize there are some very serious issues involved. And I do see it as problematic to essentially equate the grant of citizenship (which many Federal Court justices have ruled, without hesitation, is a privilege) with the nature of citizenship itself.

In other words, I can fully grasp the concept that the grant of citizenship is a privilege. And I think Canadian case law fully supports that conclusion. But the SCCA has elements which tend to treat citizenship itself as a privilege. I do not know how the upper courts will handle this, but to my view that is at the least problematic. I think wrong, but that level of constitutional law is above my pay grade.

There are also some serious issues related to various procedural changes implemented by the SCCA, such as giving the Minister the authority to grant or not grant citizenship without having to meet the Baker requirements (which we have thanks in large part to the efforts of Rocco Galati in the 90s and the true independence of Canada's judiciary), which has an impact on every applicant deemed to have a residency case, not just the tiny percentage of people who might face revocation proceedings (which is not to give a pass regarding the new procedures for revoking citizenship; these procedures are sure to face some deserved tough challenges in the years to come).

Perhaps I should just ignore the specious and frivolous, the unfounded and uninformed. But I see the specious and frivolous too often distracting, sometimes derailing, sincere discussions about the real issues, including real issues affecting the lives of immigrants just trying to figure out what they can to assist their efforts to navigate the bureaucracy.

 

[crimesinister]

Not really. The statement was made to support an assertion that CIC's implementation of the new requirements prescribed by the amendments to the Citizenship Act in the SCCA was invalid, insinuating that there was no valid Order for the new requirements to be made effective.

The trouble with pompous individual who uses loquacious language to impress others is that eventually, their ability to comprehend anything not conveyed using bombastic verbiage starts to deteriorate. These individuals begin to misinterpret words of others and infer meanings never implied.

In other words, I meant exactly what I said: There was no record of the order in council in question on the day I made that statement. I never asserted that CIC's implementation of the new requirements were invalid.