Lawsuit to stop BILL C24 : Member Crimesinister

[screech339]

We did not know these rules in advance. We planned our lives, careers and finances based on a definite timeline, after which we are free to make our living in better job-providing countries. It is no secret that the Canadian economy is slowing down and there are almost are no jobs in many fields that cost us fortunes to earn our degrees in. It is against any constitution to keep us imprisoned in our countries (where ever we come from) while we can have better jobs abroad. After I got my PR, I planned for a 2-year period of my life wasted in part-time low-paying jobs in order to be a citizen, fair enough after 8-years staying in Canada. I cannot be SURPRISED by new laws forcing me to waste another 2 years. I'll be more beneficial to the Canadian economy working abroad and contributing to the economy by paying taxes from where ever I live.

To say that you did not know the rule ahead of time is hard to believe. This bill has been signed into law last year and gave 1 years notice. And didn't know about it for a whole year? Don't think anyone is going to believe you not knowing about the change for a whole year.

First was the signing of the bill which it has been on the news for a good while. You couldn't escape it at all since it was on the news on aa daily basis. Then the fee increase. Then the internal change about removing the judges from the decision making (don't expect you to know this since there wasn't much news on that) and now the 4/6 rule coming into effect. You never noticed any of that changes for a whole year?

 

[CanadianCountry]

Screech,
Why do have to take the things the wrong way. What he is saying is when he decided to come to Canada he didnt know about the rules will be changed midway. He is not saying he didnt hear anything about rule change in the last 1 year.

To say that you did not know the rule ahead of time is hard to believe. This bill has been signed into law last year and gave 1 years notice. And didn't know about it for a whole year? Don't think anyone is going to believe you not knowing about the change for a whole year.

First was the signing of the bill which it has been on the news for a good while. You couldn't escape it at all since it was on the news on aa daily basis. Then the fee increase. Then the internal change about removing the judges from the decision making (don't expect you to know this since there wasn't much news on that) and now the 4/6 rule coming into effect. You never noticed any of that changes for a whole year?

 

[ngag]

Screech,
Why do have to take the things the wrong way. What he is saying is when he decided to come to Canada he didnt know about the rules will be changed midway. He is not saying he didnt hear anything about rule change in the last 1 year.

That's it. Thanks CanadianCountry.

I thought my words were bright clear. I have been cheated. If I knew it early enough, I would definitely switch to another country. It's too late to be forced to alter my plans.

 

[dpenabill]

Observation: making major changes to the Citizenship Act, including the residency requirement, was a specific platform item promised by the Tories in the 2011 election campaign.

Actual notice these changes were coming was readily available to anyone who was doing their homework. In case the election campaign promises were forgotten, CIC Ministers Alexander, and before him Kenney, often repeated this promise over the years, and actually both made explicit promises in early 2013 this would be done and effective before the end of 2013 . . . so the fact that Bill C-24 did not get tabled until February 2014, Royal Assent June 2014, and fully implemented June 2015, is really no excuse, no reason for crying foul about the lack of notice.

The failure to act, as much as any action, has consequences. Those who did not do their homework cannot really blame anyone else for their not knowing what was publicly known information.

There really was a lot of notice these changes were coming. At the very least, CIC itself (which is really only obligated to post current requirements, not future requirements) has had notice of these changes prominently posted at its website since June 19, 2014. But again, these changes have been promised since September 2011, so there was no surprise they were coming.

 

[vic.aj]

Excuse me? Who are you people? You are living here, under the good graces of a generous country and you still have the audacity to start a 'law suit' for your so called rights? If you feel so cheated, why not simply return to your country of birth?

One of the MANY ironies with this nonsensical lawsuit is that you are doing this under the laws of Canada, which country you are now challenging. Is Canada supposed to maneuver its laws so that it fits into your own little worries and situation? Seriously? Get a grip!

Every country passes laws that it thinks will benefit IT and not you... Lower your self-centeredness!

 

[CanadianCountry]

Vic.aj,
If some people have the audacity to challenge the law, whats your problem? Maybe you are lacking a perspective. For some of these people, they believe they have given their life for this country, they have given in terms of sweat and blood. Experienced a lot of agony and angst. In return they are only expecting a little nicer treatment than what they are getting now.

Whats wrong with that? Even if they seek a remedy of sorts, it will still be within Canadian laws. Its not un-Canadian like to seek something if it is protected by law. If courts say no, then atleast people would have tried.

Excuse me? Who are you people? You are living here, under the good graces of a generous country and you still have the audacity to start a 'law suit' for your so called rights? If you feel so cheated, why not simply return to your country of birth?

One of the MANY ironies with this nonsensical lawsuit is that you are doing this under the laws of Canada, which country you are now challenging. Is Canada supposed to maneuver its laws so that it fits into your own little worries and situation? Seriously? Get a grip!

Every country passes laws that it thinks will benefit IT and not you... Lower your self-centeredness!

 

[wd1]

Observation: making major changes to the Citizenship Act, including the residency requirement, was a specific platform item promised by the Tories in the 2011 election campaign.

Actual notice these changes were coming was readily available to anyone who was doing their homework. In case the election campaign promises were forgotten, CIC Ministers Alexander, and before him Kenney, often repeated this promise over the years, and actually both made explicit promises in early 2013 this would be done and effective before the end of 2013 . . . so the fact that Bill C-24 did not get tabled until February 2014, Royal Assent June 2014, and fully implemented June 2015, is really no excuse, no reason for crying foul about the lack of notice.

The failure to act, as much as any action, has consequences. Those who did not do their homework cannot really blame anyone else for their not knowing what was publicly known information.

There really was a lot of notice these changes were coming. At the very least, CIC itself (which is really only obligated to post current requirements, not future requirements) has had notice of these changes prominently posted at its website since June 19, 2014. But again, these changes have been promised since September 2011, so there was no surprise they were coming.

Sure, but they didn't read about those incoming changes in Canada Gazette. The only gazette they read every week. I can't stop laughing.

 

[moejun]

the trying part i get, but to say that they were cheated is totally absurd.

 

[YorkFactory]

I cannot be SURPRISED by new laws forcing me to waste another 2 years.

This is basically a contention that Parliament is unable to change laws if it inconveniences anyone who was counting on those laws not changing. While it's a a curious argument, it's also almost certainly a losing one.

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

The intent-to-reside clause applies exclusively to non-citizens (i.e., those PRs who are applying for citizenship). It does not stop naturalized Canadians from changing their minds about where to live after they've been naturalized.

 

[crimesinister]

This is basically a contention that Parliament is unable to change laws if it inconveniences anyone who was counting on those laws not changing. While it's a a curious argument, it's also almost certainly a losing one.

I'm not arguing about the supremacy of Parliament. That's matters relating to that are not justiciable. However, CIC had to follow certain legally mandated procedures before they register the new regulations, part of which involves consultation with stakeholders AFTER the propose regulations have been pre-published in Gazette I and BEFORE they're registered and published in Gazette II. I specifically wrote to them during the firs comment period that I wish to partake in consultation following the pre-publication of the proposed regulations. They are, by law, required to give me the opportunity to do so. But they didn't. I want courts to order the GIC to refrain from registering the regulations until proper consultations have taken place.

The intent-to-reside clause applies exclusively to non-citizens (i.e., those PRs who are applying for citizenship). It does not stop naturalized Canadians from changing their minds about where to live after they've been naturalized.

It does. The government can turn around and say "Hey, you promised that your intention was to reside in Canada, but now you're jetting off to a foreign land. So you lied." and take away their citizenship. I am all for stopping citizens of convenience, but, we can't let the government violate the Charter willy nilly.

 

[crimesinister]

Excuse me? Who are you people? You are living here, under the good graces of a generous country and you still have the audacity to start a 'law suit' for your so called rights? If you feel so cheated, why not simply return to your country of birth?

One of the MANY ironies with this nonsensical lawsuit is that you are doing this under the laws of Canada, which country you are now challenging. Is Canada supposed to maneuver its laws so that it fits into your own little worries and situation? Seriously? Get a grip!

Every country passes laws that it thinks will benefit IT and not you... Lower your self-centeredness!

While your Ministers Chris Alexander and Jason Kenney were helping big businesses bring TFWs and put Canadians out of work, I was working my proverbial off to create jobs in Canada for Canadians. And then, I exposed the TFW program for what it was pressuring the government to do something about it. I'm a leader of the labour movement, and I work day and night protecting the rights of the working Canadians.

What have you done for Canada today, vic.aj?

 

[peterperez]

While your Ministers Chris Alexander and Jason Kenney were helping big businesses bring TFWs and put Canadians out of work, I was working my proverbial off to create jobs in Canada for Canadians. And then, I exposed the TFW program for what it was pressuring the government to do something about it. I'm a leader of the labour movement, and I work day and night protecting the rights of the working Canadians.

What have you done for Canada today, vic.aj?

Very true crime sinister

 

[wd1]

Hey crimesinister,
Did you get your estimate yet ?
All laws of Canada, conform to the Constitution. To challenge fair law you need more political power than money. Bill C24 is for people's greater good.
The problem is, that bill wasn't translated to 6.500 languages.

 

[crimesinister]

I urgently need PRs affected by the provisions coming into force on June 11 to share their stories about how these regulations coming into force without consultation will cause irreparable harm. No court in Canada will grant an injunction without showing irreparable harm, so this is critical.

"Irreparable harm" deals with the nature of the harm, rather than its magnitude. This is harm which cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because a party cannot collect damages from the other.

 

[wd1]

I urgently need PRs affected by the provisions coming into force on June 11 to share their stories about how these regulations coming into force without consultation will cause irreparable harm. No court in Canada will grant an injunction without showing irreparable harm, so this is critical.

"Irreparable harm" deals with the nature of the harm, rather than its magnitude. This is harm which cannot be quantified in monetary terms or which cannot be cured, usually because a party cannot collect damages from the other.

You are basically thinking, that 4 years waiting is induction of "Irreparable harm".