Just in: New 4/6 rule in force as of JUNE 11, 2015

[crimesinister]

You are on the right path lets do it

If u need assistance with money lets make a meeting and do it

How do I get in touch with you?

 

[peterperez]

How do I get in touch with you?

Give me ur number or private message me

 

[neutral]

I have to agree with screech339 in this one and the problem is that there is in fact a sort of contradiction in the law.

Canada wants foreign students for 2 main reasons:

1)Because they pay higher tuition fees
2)Because once they are graduated, they have a Canadian diploma, they speak fluently one of the official languages, they are young so briefly, they will mostly integrate to Canadian society and work market.

Now, the problem is that from a LEGAL point of view, when you apply for a student visa (work permit applies also) you are asking for TEMPORARY admission to the country. You are going to study and work for a specific period and then you have to go home.

If you have an interview with an Officer at the Canadian Consulate and you tell him that after you finish your studies you want to stay in Canada, he would refuse your visa, that's the reality.

Please read the official CIC web site regarding Studying in Canada http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/study/study-who.asp

The last sentence "You must satisfy an immigration officer that you will leave Canada at the end of your authorized stay" .

So, again, from a legal point of view, it's correct to no count temporary residents days living in Canada towards the citizenship requirements.

 

[neutral]

I'm planning to mount and injunction to stop the provisions of Bill C-24 coming into force on June 11. The basis of my injunction are as follows:

1. CIC didn't pre-publish the proposed regulation in the Canada Gazette, Part I as required by specific legal requirements set out in the Statutory Instruments Act and by policy requirements that are articulated in the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation (CDSR). CIC did publish "Notice of Intent," but not the proposed regulations including the regulatory impact assessment statement (RIAS). In Tłı̨chǫ Government v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that "Consultation in a manner that conforms to the legal obligations of the consulting party must occur before the impugned activity takes place. As it is aimed at fostering agreement, consultation which occurs after the fact will likely be largely meaningless and the harm that ensues cannot be compensated through damages" and granted Tłı̨chǫ Government injuctive relief and ordered suspending the coming into force of the impugned regulations.

2. Just for good measure, I am going to argue that the "intent to reside" provision of the regulations coming into force are not compatible with the S6 of the Charter with states 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada

My plan is to get a lawyer first thing Monday morning and proceed with this. I invite anyone interested to collaborate with me to make this happen by responding here.

Yeah, the thing is to get a lawyer who would agree with you.
Regarding the number 1, I don't know so I don't have an opinion. But regarding number 2, the only you need is to understand proper English to realize that the intention to reside applies to permanent residents during their citizenship application process while the 6.(1) talks about the right of every CANADIAN to leave or stay.

 

[crimesinister]

Yeah, the thing is to get a lawyer who would agree with you.
Regarding the number 1, I don't know so I don't have an opinion. But regarding number 2, the only you need is to understand proper English to realize that the intention to reside applies to permanent residents during their citizenship application process while the 6.(1) talks about the right of every CANADIAN to leave or stay.

5(1)(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,


So no, the law doesn't make it explicitly clear "that the intention to reside applies to permanent residents during their citizenship application process". I know Minister Alexander has said verbally what you say, but, what he says verbally has no force in law. As far as the courts are concerned, they will go by what's written in the law. As well, a persons right to enjoy the benefits of the charter should not depend on the benevolence of the executive.

 

[peterperez]

5(1)(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,


So no, the law doesn't make it explicitly clear "that the intention to reside applies to permanent residents during their citizenship application process". I know Minister Alexander has said verbally what you say, but, what he says verbally has no force in law. As far as the courts are concerned, they will go by what's written in the law. As well, a persons right to enjoy the benefits of the charter should not depend on the benevolence of the executive.

You are right friend

Mate when are you going to file the case ?

Will u do soon ?

Click this link

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

They got 55 thousand supporters

I think u should contact them also

Let me know

 

[Bigudi]

Isn't there something like a "collective legal action"?

I'm planning to mount and injunction to stop the provisions of Bill C-24 coming into force on June 11. The basis of my injunction are as follows:

1. CIC didn't pre-publish the proposed regulation in the Canada Gazette, Part I as required by specific legal requirements set out in the Statutory Instruments Act and by policy requirements that are articulated in the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation (CDSR). CIC did publish "Notice of Intent," but not the proposed regulations including the regulatory impact assessment statement (RIAS). In Tłı̨chǫ Government v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that "Consultation in a manner that conforms to the legal obligations of the consulting party must occur before the impugned activity takes place. As it is aimed at fostering agreement, consultation which occurs after the fact will likely be largely meaningless and the harm that ensues cannot be compensated through damages" and granted Tłı̨chǫ Government injuctive relief and ordered suspending the coming into force of the impugned regulations.

2. Just for good measure, I am going to argue that the "intent to reside" provision of the regulations coming into force are not compatible with the S6 of the Charter with states 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada

My plan is to get a lawyer first thing Monday morning and proceed with this. I invite anyone interested to collaborate with me to make this happen by responding here.

 

[crimesinister]

Isn't there something like a "collective legal action"?

We don't have time for a class action suit. I've emailed Rocco Galati. Let's see a) if he's willing to take the case b) how much it's going to cost.

 

[peterperez]

We don't have time for a class action suit. I've emailed Rocco Galati. Let's see a) if he's willing to take the case b) how much it's going to cost.

Mate let us know what Rocco says

 

[ngag]

I'm planning to mount and injunction to stop the provisions of Bill C-24 coming into force on June 11. The basis of my injunction are as follows:

1. CIC didn't pre-publish the proposed regulation in the Canada Gazette, Part I as required by specific legal requirements set out in the Statutory Instruments Act and by policy requirements that are articulated in the Cabinet Directive on Streamlining Regulation (CDSR). CIC did publish "Notice of Intent," but not the proposed regulations including the regulatory impact assessment statement (RIAS). In Tłı̨chǫ Government v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that "Consultation in a manner that conforms to the legal obligations of the consulting party must occur before the impugned activity takes place. As it is aimed at fostering agreement, consultation which occurs after the fact will likely be largely meaningless and the harm that ensues cannot be compensated through damages" and granted Tłı̨chǫ Government injuctive relief and ordered suspending the coming into force of the impugned regulations.

2. Just for good measure, I am going to argue that the "intent to reside" provision of the regulations coming into force are not compatible with the S6 of the Charter with states 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada

My plan is to get a lawyer first thing Monday morning and proceed with this. I invite anyone interested to collaborate with me to make this happen by responding here.

I am with you. I'll send you my phone in a private message. Please text me with your next steps

 

[sam_1985]

Just FYI... foreign students are eligible for provincial healthcare after living in a province for 13 consecutive months. It's renewable yearly and you need to disclose if you have been outside the province for 30 consecutive days. Many students don't know this and continue paying for health insurance annually. This is something the International Student office should tell students.

But you are correct in that foreign students pay taxes, etc but are not eligible for many scholarships, gov't loans, welfare and other social benefits. The issue with this law is the gov't claims to want citizens that have formed a deep connection with the country but in the same breathe enacts a law that does not favor these very group of would-be citizens.

As for voting, the Mayor of my city has talked about making PRs eligible to vote in municipal/local elections. No word yet on how far the proposal went.

Thanks for the information. By the way, Quebec does not offer the healthcare to international students. Maybe other Canadian provinces do. I went to school in QC.

 

[neutral]

5(1)(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,


So no, the law doesn't make it explicitly clear "that the intention to reside applies to permanent residents during their citizenship application process". I know Minister Alexander has said verbally what you say, but, what he says verbally has no force in law. As far as the courts are concerned, they will go by what's written in the law. As well, a persons right to enjoy the benefits of the charter should not depend on the benevolence of the executive.

Sure, so once Stephen Harper get his pension and go live to Miami, if happens that he has another citizenship, he will lose his Canadian citizenship because he doesn't live anymore in Canada .... yeah, sure.....

 

[Bigudi]

Mate let us know what Rocco says

Who the heck is Rocco?

 

[ngag]

You are right friend

Mate when are you going to file the case ?

Will u do soon ?

Click this link

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

They got 55 thousand supporters

I think u should contact them also

Let me know

Now 56 thousand supporters

 

[ApMaria]

This is the only part of the new rules I don't agree with. It means if you were here on study permit / work permit / visitor vida before applying for PR, you can't count half of those days toward your citizenship (old rule, you could use up to one year).

Who are the rest of most applicants? There should be an exception I believe . If you become as a PR before June 11th, they may be count time spent before you become PR . Any possibility?