OMNIBUS BUDGET BILL, C-38
- Thread starter Mancilla
- Start date
"when Stephen Harper and his minions declare the Enbridge pipelines would be good for "the economy", we must ask the key question..."
"Whose economy?" US veterans, Chinese migrant workers, China itself and the mostly-foreign shareholders of multinational corporations?
"Whose economy?" US veterans, Chinese migrant workers, China itself and the mostly-foreign shareholders of multinational corporations?
DoJ disclosed today CIC's position with respect to the backloggers litigation: The Minister has repudiated the Protocol (Agreement), stating:
"As you are aware, Bill C-38 has now been enacted, and as such, the pre-C5O applications that had not reached a selection decision before March 29, 2012, are terminated by operation of law. The Minister has no discretion in this matter and cannot undertake to process applications contrary to law, It is open to the Applicants to challenge the validity of the law in separate litigation."
DoJ stated that, until July 16th, it would not provide a time-line for finalizing those files which were not closed -- 35 backlog cases and 150+ files lodged between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010 -- and asked that I postpone the motion seeking to enforce the Protocol. I have declined to postpone it. DoJ's official response is due July 10th. A ruling from the Federal Court will come after July 16th.
DoJ has further declared that the pre-Bill C-50 applicants will have to start new litigation. This declaration is as false as the canard that the Minister "has no discretion in this matter". He has and he is fully aware that he has because he had Parliament grant him that discretion when be mothballed the litigants' files in 2008.
First, on 25 April 2010, the Federal Court ordered that these cases be heard on June 5th. Because Justice Donald Rennie, who heard the matter on June 5th, declined to rule on those cases, stating that they are to be governed by the Protocol, they must still be decided on the merits. By law, they must be heard no later than July 25th. While I offered to have the hearing postponed for 120 days, Bill C-38 did abolish this litigation. By law, the Federal Court by law must hold hearings for the 900+ cases remaining unless it enforces the Protocol. While Jason Kenney has anointed himself Tsar of Immigration, he has not yet abolished the Federal Court of Canada nor conferred upon it the discretion to disregard the duty CIC's immigration statute at s. 74 imposes on it; viz., to hear within ninety (90) days of the granting of leave all immigration applications. That date is July 25th.
Second, by virtue of s. 87.3(7) the Minister granted to himself the power to do anything he wants so long as he deems it to be "efficient". It would surely be efficient to halt the litigation and refreshing for him to do so in an honest manner. After all, it commenced five months before the Minister proposed to abolish the applications in order to deprive the Federal Court of its jurisdiction to rule on his sidetracking them in 2008 while fast-tracking those who applied afterwards.
Third, it is disingenuous for the Minister to declare his impotence when it was he who buried the annihilation provision in the budget implementation bill in order to ensure its passage without proper review. Indeed, Kenney would not have felt it necessary to conceal his poison pill in the budget bill if he were confident that his own Caucus would support his shameful action. But now, after having succeeded in sneakily making this insidious provision law, he raises his hands, saying "I have no option". Really? One only needs to consider what a previous Tory Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, had to say to a similar claim: "You had an option, sir. You could have done better.... This is wrong for Canada." And, that option is the provision he previously had Parliament pass for him: s. 87.3(7), which reads
s. 87.3(7) Nothing in this section in any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this Act.
Therefore, contrary to what DoJ Counsel Alison Egel-Yan claimed, Kenny has the discretion to act honourably. The only question is whether his political ambition will take precedence over his duty to Canada and to Canada's reputation.
"As you are aware, Bill C-38 has now been enacted, and as such, the pre-C5O applications that had not reached a selection decision before March 29, 2012, are terminated by operation of law. The Minister has no discretion in this matter and cannot undertake to process applications contrary to law, It is open to the Applicants to challenge the validity of the law in separate litigation."
DoJ stated that, until July 16th, it would not provide a time-line for finalizing those files which were not closed -- 35 backlog cases and 150+ files lodged between 27 February 2008 and 25 June 2010 -- and asked that I postpone the motion seeking to enforce the Protocol. I have declined to postpone it. DoJ's official response is due July 10th. A ruling from the Federal Court will come after July 16th.
DoJ has further declared that the pre-Bill C-50 applicants will have to start new litigation. This declaration is as false as the canard that the Minister "has no discretion in this matter". He has and he is fully aware that he has because he had Parliament grant him that discretion when be mothballed the litigants' files in 2008.
First, on 25 April 2010, the Federal Court ordered that these cases be heard on June 5th. Because Justice Donald Rennie, who heard the matter on June 5th, declined to rule on those cases, stating that they are to be governed by the Protocol, they must still be decided on the merits. By law, they must be heard no later than July 25th. While I offered to have the hearing postponed for 120 days, Bill C-38 did abolish this litigation. By law, the Federal Court by law must hold hearings for the 900+ cases remaining unless it enforces the Protocol. While Jason Kenney has anointed himself Tsar of Immigration, he has not yet abolished the Federal Court of Canada nor conferred upon it the discretion to disregard the duty CIC's immigration statute at s. 74 imposes on it; viz., to hear within ninety (90) days of the granting of leave all immigration applications. That date is July 25th.
Second, by virtue of s. 87.3(7) the Minister granted to himself the power to do anything he wants so long as he deems it to be "efficient". It would surely be efficient to halt the litigation and refreshing for him to do so in an honest manner. After all, it commenced five months before the Minister proposed to abolish the applications in order to deprive the Federal Court of its jurisdiction to rule on his sidetracking them in 2008 while fast-tracking those who applied afterwards.
Third, it is disingenuous for the Minister to declare his impotence when it was he who buried the annihilation provision in the budget implementation bill in order to ensure its passage without proper review. Indeed, Kenney would not have felt it necessary to conceal his poison pill in the budget bill if he were confident that his own Caucus would support his shameful action. But now, after having succeeded in sneakily making this insidious provision law, he raises his hands, saying "I have no option". Really? One only needs to consider what a previous Tory Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, had to say to a similar claim: "You had an option, sir. You could have done better.... This is wrong for Canada." And, that option is the provision he previously had Parliament pass for him: s. 87.3(7), which reads
s. 87.3(7) Nothing in this section in any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most efficient manner in which to administer this Act.
Therefore, contrary to what DoJ Counsel Alison Egel-Yan claimed, Kenny has the discretion to act honourably. The only question is whether his political ambition will take precedence over his duty to Canada and to Canada's reputation.