Then they cannot be convicted, as required by the clauses quoted above, so the whole point is moot.CanadianCountry said:
Effective date of Bill C24
- Thread starter SherifEF
- Start date
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 23
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 02-02-2010
- Doc's Request.
- 16-03-2010
- AOR Received.
- 24-07-2010
- File Transfer...
- 24-03-2010
- Med's Request
- Yes
- Med's Done....
- Yes
- Passport Req..
- Yes
- VISA ISSUED...
- Yes
- LANDED..........
- Yes
So if they cannot be convicted, hence cannot be imprisoned. That was my original point, but as you said there will be imprisonment I had to discuss a bit longer.
This discussion was to point out that there is no imprisonment in question under the law. So the point is not moot.
This discussion was to point out that there is no imprisonment in question under the law. So the point is not moot.
zardoz said:
Can anybody explain, what is the political benefit of keeping the effective date secret?MUFC said:
I mean, most of the people applying between now and the elections will unlikely become citizens in time to vote
The people who are eligible to apply by June-July 2015 (like myself) have absolutely no chance of voting in the 2015 federal elections in any case. So what is the benefit of not letting us know? Seems to me like nothing to gain, but come next elections (in a few years after) I'm sure there would be a lot of angry new citizens, who remember the mess done by this conservative government
.
I do not know what underlies the observations posted by MUFC regarding the relationship between the coming into force date of section 5(1) amendments and the Federal elections.
My sense is that the relationship is less direct, more about observable accomplishments done in time for the formal campaign season, on one hand, and simply the mechanics of having loose ends wrapped up before the campaign season.
Thus, for example, if Harper calls for an early election (and some pundits are suggesting this is a real possibility), it is most likely the Governor in Council (which in reality is the PMO, and in practice is a decision by the PM himself, in this government anyway) will order the amendments to come into force well enough before the date of the election that it will represent a completed accomplishment during the formal campaign (noting that campaigning on many levels has already begun).
The election season will of course begin no later than October, at the very latest, so that sets what is undoubtedly the farthest out date the amendments will come into force (summer is far more likely, or even earlier).
In terms of how this might be expected to influence voting, the objective is to have all the changes included in Bill C-24 done, implemented, in time to appeal to those constituencies who have an active interest in the "strengthening of Canadian citizenship," and not so much about influencing new citizens (who are expected to either be not inclined to vote Conservative anyway, or who are expected to vote Conservative anyway based more on economic issues).
Note: all signs point to a very targeted constituency campaign, political wrangling to be focused on specific ridings, specific constituencies in particular regions or even individual ridings, and only minimal (as necessary) appeal to bigger, broader nation-wide concerns (except the rhetoric about being guardians of Canadian economic interests, and guardians of public safety, as in strong criminal justice). Thus, there will be more attention given, by the Conservative party anyway, to micro-issues than broad issues. This is a style of politics perfected by the adviser to American President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, leading up to the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. It is all about counting votes which will make a difference in specific electoral districts (ridings in most of Canada), and leveraging together a patchwork of what might be called swing-ridings, with little regard for what the total national vote turns out to be. (Thus, for example, if the Conservatives can appeal to specific interest groups in a few dozen ridings which will tip those ridings to the Conservatives, even if by the smallest margin of votes imaginable, that could make the difference in who forms the government, regardless of who gets the biggest total of votes in the whole country.)
Why the secrecy as to the effective date:
I don't think this is much related to the Federal election. Foremost, this sort of secrecy is simply this government's modus operandi, the way Harper and company do these things. Again I refer back to the OB 407 rollout, which was created in secret and then dumped on CIC, delivered to CIC to implement. For those of us in the public, while we started seeing what appeared to be major changes in how CIC was processing citizenship applications, and in particular in issuing RQ, within a few weeks of the implementation of OB 407, it was three months after OB 407 was rolled out that we, in the public, learned about "OB 407" and just a limited amount (highly redacted as to key elements) of what it prescribed. It took the better part of many months for those of us in the public to get a good handle on what had happened, and what it meant. (Changes to OB 407 in the meantime have been very closely guarded secrets.)
My sense is that this government simply believes this is the best way to govern, to keep the process of making changes pure within the government's inner circle, free from influence, lobbying, public discourse, or other efforts to influence what changes will be made. This includes, it appears, when to actually implement changes. Note, for example, that the major changes to the citizenship application process, including consolidation of extensive authority in the Minister that was previously the domain of Citizenship Judges, came into effect on August 1st, in an order made by the Governor in Council just the previous day, not formally published until weeks later, but informally noticed in the CIC web site just later in the day the changes took effect, that is, on August 1st. The public had no advance notice beyond the fact that those provisions were part of Bill C-24 which had been given Royal Assent on June 19th. That is precisely the amount of notice the public has as yet regarding the coming into force date for amendments in Section 5(1).
It is hard to imagine the changeover necessary to implement the amendments to section 5(1) can be done that secretly, so that the public does not know of it until it has actually happened. But it seems most likely there will be minimal advance notice before the day it actually happens.
DND said:
I do not know what underlies the observations posted by MUFC regarding the relationship between the coming into force date of section 5(1) amendments and the Federal elections.
My sense is that the relationship is less direct, more about observable accomplishments done in time for the formal campaign season, on one hand, and simply the mechanics of having loose ends wrapped up before the campaign season.
Thus, for example, if Harper calls for an early election (and some pundits are suggesting this is a real possibility), it is most likely the Governor in Council (which in reality is the PMO, and in practice is a decision by the PM himself, in this government anyway) will order the amendments to come into force well enough before the date of the election that it will represent a completed accomplishment during the formal campaign (noting that campaigning on many levels has already begun).
The election season will of course begin no later than October, at the very latest, so that sets what is undoubtedly the farthest out date the amendments will come into force (summer is far more likely, or even earlier).
In terms of how this might be expected to influence voting, the objective is to have all the changes included in Bill C-24 done, implemented, in time to appeal to those constituencies who have an active interest in the "strengthening of Canadian citizenship," and not so much about influencing new citizens (who are expected to either be not inclined to vote Conservative anyway, or who are expected to vote Conservative anyway based more on economic issues).
Note: all signs point to a very targeted constituency campaign, political wrangling to be focused on specific ridings, specific constituencies in particular regions or even individual ridings, and only minimal (as necessary) appeal to bigger, broader nation-wide concerns (except the rhetoric about being guardians of Canadian economic interests, and guardians of public safety, as in strong criminal justice). Thus, there will be more attention given, by the Conservative party anyway, to micro-issues than broad issues. This is a style of politics perfected by the adviser to American President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, leading up to the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. It is all about counting votes which will make a difference in specific electoral districts (ridings in most of Canada), and leveraging together a patchwork of what might be called swing-ridings, with little regard for what the total national vote turns out to be. (Thus, for example, if the Conservatives can appeal to specific interest groups in a few dozen ridings which will tip those ridings to the Conservatives, even if by the smallest margin of votes imaginable, that could make the difference in who forms the government, regardless of who gets the biggest total of votes in the whole country.)
Why the secrecy as to the effective date:
I don't think this is much related to the Federal election. Foremost, this sort of secrecy is simply this government's modus operandi, the way Harper and company do these things. Again I refer back to the OB 407 rollout, which was created in secret and then dumped on CIC, delivered to CIC to implement. For those of us in the public, while we started seeing what appeared to be major changes in how CIC was processing citizenship applications, and in particular in issuing RQ, within a few weeks of the implementation of OB 407, it was three months after OB 407 was rolled out that we, in the public, learned about "OB 407" and just a limited amount (highly redacted as to key elements) of what it prescribed. It took the better part of many months for those of us in the public to get a good handle on what had happened, and what it meant. (Changes to OB 407 in the meantime have been very closely guarded secrets.)
My sense is that this government simply believes this is the best way to govern, to keep the process of making changes pure within the government's inner circle, free from influence, lobbying, public discourse, or other efforts to influence what changes will be made. This includes, it appears, when to actually implement changes. Note, for example, that the major changes to the citizenship application process, including consolidation of extensive authority in the Minister that was previously the domain of Citizenship Judges, came into effect on August 1st, in an order made by the Governor in Council just the previous day, not formally published until weeks later, but informally noticed in the CIC web site just later in the day the changes took effect, that is, on August 1st. The public had no advance notice beyond the fact that those provisions were part of Bill C-24 which had been given Royal Assent on June 19th. That is precisely the amount of notice the public has as yet regarding the coming into force date for amendments in Section 5(1).
It is hard to imagine the changeover necessary to implement the amendments to section 5(1) can be done that secretly, so that the public does not know of it until it has actually happened. But it seems most likely there will be minimal advance notice before the day it actually happens.
Here is one major site that they are aware of...
The goal of every political party is to attract as many votes as possible.
Here is the tricky part... the dominant cluster of immigrants are from Asia( the newcomers and the new citizens) . The common thing in the behaviour of the Asians is that they are very supportive for their friends also immigrants from the same ethnic groups.
Many people from this ethnic groups will be effected in a negative way so the people from the same group who are already Canadians and have the right to vote might hit very hard the expectations of the Conservatives and it is very possible that they will lose the elections if the Asians vote against them , because of that Bill.
I am sure that the Conservatives conduct pool expectations in different scenarios, so basically if they implement the changes before the elections, then the reactions against them will be a factor from the Asians.
Playing with immigrants in an immigrant country is a very risky matter.
The goal of every political party is to attract as many votes as possible.
Here is the tricky part... the dominant cluster of immigrants are from Asia( the newcomers and the new citizens) . The common thing in the behaviour of the Asians is that they are very supportive for their friends also immigrants from the same ethnic groups.
Many people from this ethnic groups will be effected in a negative way so the people from the same group who are already Canadians and have the right to vote might hit very hard the expectations of the Conservatives and it is very possible that they will lose the elections if the Asians vote against them , because of that Bill.
I am sure that the Conservatives conduct pool expectations in different scenarios, so basically if they implement the changes before the elections, then the reactions against them will be a factor from the Asians.
Playing with immigrants in an immigrant country is a very risky matter.
Based on other factors (such as deteriorating economy) I believe that the Conservatives would have better chances to win, if the elections were to happen as soon as possible. Come Spring/Summer and we will see much less hiring (not to say layoffs) in the oil-sands, capital markets in Canadian banks etc (employment growth is already so-so for about a year now, and this is before the oil plunge)MUFC said:
Even given the better chances, the conservative government is likely to loose their majority in any case (based on provincial results in Ontario/Quebec & unlikely replay of the last federal election results in Quebec).
Speaking for myself (again I can't vote in the coming elections)
Economically, I lean more towards less taxation, and would vote for conservatives in the normal circumstances, but:
- I would never vote for a party who made me a second class citizen, and I'm OK to paying more taxes, if need be, just to kick the current government out of office
- This PC government doesn't seem to be capable of delivering anything. I.e:
* Economy is a mess (not a forum to elaborate)
* Immigration is a mess. Why would you change the immigration program every year?
* Citizenship process is a mess. I know many PR, living for more than 6 yr in this country, paying (high) income taxes but do not know when their RQ is actually going to be reviewed, nor the reason why they were handed such
Let's don't forget the big frustration of tens of thousands new citizens who are not able to sponsor their families in the current conditions of the rules for sponsorship for parents and grandparents.
My general feeling is that the cut off date is fluctuating in close relation to the expected pool results. And the direction of that fluctuation is for procrastination. First from some statements in the media it was mention that they expect the changes to be implemented in the spring of 2015... couple of months after they've shared with the public that the changes are expected to happen in the summertime of 2015... and from the last reports from ones of the biggest local offices we've started to hear the September- October frame.
So from Spring we moved all the way to Autumn. There is a feeling that they procrastinate because they want to keep themselves in charge just a little bit more
My general feeling is that the cut off date is fluctuating in close relation to the expected pool results. And the direction of that fluctuation is for procrastination. First from some statements in the media it was mention that they expect the changes to be implemented in the spring of 2015... couple of months after they've shared with the public that the changes are expected to happen in the summertime of 2015... and from the last reports from ones of the biggest local offices we've started to hear the September- October frame.
So from Spring we moved all the way to Autumn. There is a feeling that they procrastinate because they want to keep themselves in charge just a little bit more
MUFC said:
Every seasoned politician knows, you keep the power as long as possible, unless you can improve the situation
Harper is on top now. He can only go down, by either loosing the majority or loosing the elections
As I see it it is going to be bigger headwinds henceforth.
There is always a possibility for him to retire, In this case he/PC need a good replacement candidate proposing/having done some major reforms, and elections will be held in October
The people who are not able to sponsor their parents, are probably not so much PC voters anyway
For instance, if the bar to sponsor family members was raised (say you need to prove 100K-150K family income), but the process would be faster, many PC voters would have no problems with that
Under my theory, this is only part of the explanation for the secrecy (i.e. they want to keep as far away from public discourse, lobbying, and scrutiny as possible).dpenabill said:
The other part of the explanation is that they actually do not want to be held liable for any negative consequences, if they officially commit to a specific date of implementation WAY AHEAD of the date. Like it or not, there's a plethora of law firms and lawyers with plenty of time on their hands who love to take on negative client cases and sue the government just for the fame and headlines (never mind the money).
I truly believe that this is the Conservatives' worst nightmare. Naturally, they'll go to great lengths to avoid it and, as they've learned through hard experience over the years, the less you publicly commit, the less you can be held accountable for (be it in open court or just in the public eye). Not committing to a fixed date, and not giving any notice of it would avoid charges of the sort that will result if they ever wanted to change the implementation date after giving notice but before the date itself (for example nobody will be able to hold the government to the prior promise of a fixed date if no advance promise of a "kick-in" date was made).
I believe this because I see it not just in the current case but also in a bunch of other areas. They are very careful to avoid promising anything or committing to anything specific so as to not have any responsibility to live up to what they announce they're going to do. It's hard to explain but you see this attitude in a lot of things they do. Closest case-in-point I can think off the top of my head: The change from the current Federal Skilled Worker Program to Express Entry. Many people are wrong in believing this essentially kills off the program. In terms of admission numbers, nothing's changed. They'll still admit 285,000 immigrants, 60% as skilled workers, pretty much the same as before.
The real change with EE is in the legal provision that they now no longer have on obligation to process every application that's brought to them. They can pick and choose which profiles they're interested in. This avoids the backlogs but at the same time it removes, once and for all, one of the biggest sources of grounds for lawsuits in the past: the claim from lawyers that applicants have a right to expect processing and that, through delays of several years or more, the government is not living up to the obligation to process. So the goal is to reduce, as much as possible, the grounds under which the government can be sued or otherwise held accountable. To quote one of the lawyers who is a staunch critic of Express Entry precisely because of the manner that it selects applicants (by invitation only), "the result can be justified at any time", i.e. now you have no legal recourse against the government when you don't get selected to apply.
Hello guys,
According to the website http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-changes.asp, it says " In 2015, these final changes will be in force:
provisions to give citizenship to more “Lost Canadians”;
new residence requirements;
new intent to reside requirement; .....etc"
Date Modified: 2014-12-08 (updated)
Now it no where says in June 2015 or spring or summer. So will they change the form effective January 2015 for the residence calculator? I am concerned.
According to the website http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/cit-changes.asp, it says " In 2015, these final changes will be in force:
provisions to give citizenship to more “Lost Canadians”;
new residence requirements;
new intent to reside requirement; .....etc"
Date Modified: 2014-12-08 (updated)
Now it no where says in June 2015 or spring or summer. So will they change the form effective January 2015 for the residence calculator? I am concerned.
CanadianCountry
Hero Member
- Jan 26, 2011
- 23
- Category........
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 02-02-2010
- Doc's Request.
- 16-03-2010
- AOR Received.
- 24-07-2010
- File Transfer...
- 24-03-2010
- Med's Request
- Yes
- Med's Done....
- Yes
- Passport Req..
- Yes
- VISA ISSUED...
- Yes
- LANDED..........
- Yes
What do you expect when nobody want to take any action? At the least what people can do is send an email to the BC Civil liberties and request for immediate action, costs nothing.
Also if you read closely the revocation procedures will come into force earlier than the above listed provisions. Nobody can say when these provisions will come into force but it seems they are pushing for an early date.
Also if you read closely the revocation procedures will come into force earlier than the above listed provisions. Nobody can say when these provisions will come into force but it seems they are pushing for an early date.
Raman_Ram said:
