Effective date of Bill C24

[CanadianCountry]

That is what capital punishment is for. High crimes like treason, terrorism against Canadian interests deserve death penalty, not citizenship revocation.

Stupid law.

Cheaper for some other countries to jail the terrorist than us. We don't have to pay on our taxpayers dime to look after terrorist.

 

[dpenabill]

According to the way the law is written, the Ministry must give an individual leave to pursue their case before the courts. Now, this may be struck down by the courts later, but it is what the law says.

Still NOT true.


As revised, section 22.1 of the Citizenship Act now provides (verbatim quote):

22.1 (1) An application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act may be made only with leave of the Court.

(2) The following provisions govern an application for leave:
(a) the application must be filed in the Registry of the Court and served on the other party within 30 days after the day on which the applicant is notified of or otherwise becomes aware of the matter;
(b) a judge of the Court may, for special reasons, allow an extended time for filing and serving the application;
(c) a judge of the Court shall dispose of the application without delay and in a summary way and, unless a judge of the Court directs otherwise, without personal appearance; and
(d) no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory decision.


(see section of Citizenship Act under the title (clue) "Judicial Review")

Section 22.2 governs the judicial review. It also allows further appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court Justice certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved.

No leave from the Minister is required to obtain leave to appeal. The application for leave is made to the Federal Court, not to the Minister.

You may be confused about the right to a hearing regarding revocation for fraud; per the new procedure for revoking citizenship for fraud, as revised section 10(5) provides that a hearing may be held "if the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required."

And yes, this is one of the provisions which is at least likely to face a serious challenge, given the right to fair procedure. But this is not about obtaining judicial review before the courts. That is for the Courts to decide.

 

[valigap31]

Amazing just in 3 days 75 000 People have vote against bill c24,
https://www.change.org/p/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens

 

[screech339]

That is what capital punishment is for. High crimes like treason, terrorism against Canadian interests deserve death penalty, not citizenship revocation.

Stupid law.

At least we are not killing anyone. Still cheaper for us to deport terrorists out than to keep them in jail.

Capital punishment is removed only because there is a chance of killing an innocent person. Whereas deporting them, if there are in fact innocent later we can give their citizenship back. Hard to bring them back to life after they are dead.

 

[Martin29]

At least we are not killing anyone. Still cheaper for us to deport terrorists out than to keep them in jail.

Capital punishment is removed only because there is a chance of killing an innocent person. Whereas deporting them, if there are in fact innocent later we can give their citizenship back. Hard to bring them back to life after they are dead.

Once he/she is a Canadian citizen then its Canada's responsibility even if he/she do some terrorist activity.They should make sure about their credibility before granting citizenship.You cannot give citizenship to a person and later if he do terrorism then dumb him back to his country.What Canada is trying to do?Other countries are Canada's Garbage bin?

Take all the good ones and dumb all bad ones back.

 

[scylla]

Amazing just in 3 days 75 000 People have vote against bill c24,
https://www.change.org/p/hon-chris-alexander-pc-mp-canadian-government-stop-bill-c-24-don-t-turn-millions-of-us-into-second-class-canadian-citizens

75,000 people have not signed in three days. This petition was created about a year ago when the bill was first passed. 75,000 people have signed over the course of a year.

 

[MUFC]

75 000 people who are not aware that all those petitions are pure waste of time.

Just like the clicking of a Like or Dislike button.

 

[Natan]

Still NOT true.


As revised, section 22.1 of the Citizenship Act now provides (verbatim quote):

22.1 (1) An application for judicial review with respect to any matter under this Act may be made only with leave of the Court.

(2) The following provisions govern an application for leave:
(a) the application must be filed in the Registry of the Court and served on the other party within 30 days after the day on which the applicant is notified of or otherwise becomes aware of the matter;
(b) a judge of the Court may, for special reasons, allow an extended time for filing and serving the application;
(c) a judge of the Court shall dispose of the application without delay and in a summary way and, unless a judge of the Court directs otherwise, without personal appearance; and
(d) no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory decision.


(see section of Citizenship Act under the title (clue) "Judicial Review")

Section 22.2 governs the judicial review. It also allows further appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court Justice certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved.

No leave from the Minister is required to obtain leave to appeal. The application for leave is made to the Federal Court, not to the Minister.

You may be confused about the right to a hearing regarding revocation for fraud; per the new procedure for revoking citizenship for fraud, as revised section 10(5) provides that a hearing may be held "if the Minister, on the basis of prescribed factors, is of the opinion that a hearing is required."

And yes, this is one of the provisions which is at least likely to face a serious challenge, given the right to fair procedure. But this is not about obtaining judicial review before the courts. That is for the Courts to decide.

Thank you, dpenabill -- I stand corrected.

 

[valigap31]

75,000 people have not signed in three days. This petition was created about a year ago when the bill was first passed. 75,000 people have signed over the course of a year.

If you look at dawn
Updates
75000 supporters 3 days ago

 

[valigap31]

75 000 people who are not aware that all those petitions are pure waste of time.

Just like the clicking of a Like or Dislike button.

Agree, but it concern me how many people are unhappy.

 

[sjakub]

If you look at dawn
Updates
75000 supporters 3 days ago

"ago", not "in three days".
This means that the number of supporters reached 75,000 3 days ago. Since the beginning, not in the last 3 days.

Actually if you look even lower, it says: "40,000 supporters 12 months ago".

Which means that 12 months ago it had 40,000 supporters and it took 12 months to get 35,000 new supporters.

 

[valigap31]

"ago", not "in three days".
This means that the number of supporters reached 75,000 3 days ago. Since the beginning, not in the last 3 days.

Actually if you look even lower, it says: "40,000 supporters 12 months ago".

Which means that 12 months ago it had 40,000 supporters and it took 12 months to get 35,000 new supporters.

You could be right.

 

[MUFC]

Agree, but it concern me how many people are unhappy.

For each and every new Law there will be supporters and disappointed people.

 

[scylla]

If you look at dawn
Updates
75000 supporters 3 days ago

No - you've completely misunderstood the "3 days ago" update. Three days ago the number of people supporting the petition REACHED 75,000. That's what that update means. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see comments from those who signed the petition that are a year old. This is the same petition that was launched when the bill was passed last year. Again, this petition is now a year old. 75,000 DID NOT sign in 3 days.

 

[polara69]

If you look at dawn
Updates
75000 supporters 3 days ago

And that is why proof of knowledge and comprehension of the English language was extended to 64 when applying for citizenship.

So much drama here on this forum due to misinterpretation and failure to comprehend.