OMNIBUS BUDGET BILL, C-38
- Thread starter Mancilla
- Start date
CIC's ARROGANCE KNOWS NO BOUNDS
I have notified the Department of Justice that I have ceased negotiating with them and will wait for Justice Barnes to issue his decision. Yesterday, to my query to the Federal Court about the time-line for a decision on the motion elicited the answer of "the week of July 30th is the target".
In addition to faxing my letter to DoJ, I emailed it writing:
I am sorry but I lack the patience to play this game and, thus, have faxed the attached letter to you. Should your client ever decide to evidence a modicum of consideration toward the litigants, negotiations might actually become negotiations. At this point, however, they are not.
DoJ's reply to my request for clarification elicited the following:
1. Only the files not closed will be processed; i.e., 166 out of 1,180;
2. They refuse to say what demands will be imposed on those 166, saying that on a "case by case" basis they will decided how many of their many user-hostile forms must be submitted. I interpret this answer as meaning that they will demand the full set of forms from everyone and claim that it was "case by case" because no one will take the time to review the file before sending out the order.
3. They did, however, improve on the original terms, stating that
a. the deadline for submission would be extended to 120 days (from the original 60) and
b. the request letter and medical forms would be sent out within 21 days of settlement (as oppose to whenever they got around to it).
4. The processing deadline remains 180 days from receipt of the new forms, etc. DoJ refused to say either that the files would be proceeded with first priority or that visas would be issued once the file had been finalized, as opposed to waiting for the full 180 days to release them.
Given the proposed time-line, visas would be issued many months after the October 14th date Justice Rennnie imposed. If everyone submitted the documents the very day they received the demand letter (21 days after settlement), visas would not be issued to the 165 litigants under the CIC-imposed time-line until mid-February at the earliest.
5. No consideration will be given to the files s. 87.4 purports to have closed. CIC continues to maintain the view that the only hope for these litigants is for them to initiate new litigation. (That view, however, is not my view.)
6. No allowance or consideration will be given to those whom the Consulate at Hong Kong directed to take medicals and then closed their files because the selection decision had been made after March 28th and their visas had not been issued by June 29th. For the Minister, wiping out the backlog of queue-honouring applicants is to be preferred to behaving in a decent, "Canadian" manner. Jason Kenny has the power to be magnanimous toward these applicants but prefers flexing his muscles over being a considerate Canadian.
7. And, further, according to DoJ, no one who joined after June 14th may be considered under the Protocol (Agreement) which, in any event, CIC has repudiated for these litigants. Presumably CIC's position is that its view trumps Justice Barnes' June 26th oral direction that others may join our litigation, which direction the Registry has been following. CIC's arrogance knows no bounds.
7. Finally, DoJ refused to separate settlement for 160 from their position that the other 900 litigants have no legal recourse. As DoJ expects me to abandon the 900+ litigants as a requirement for CIC's processing 160 litigants at its own pace, I have no other option than to withdraw from the negotiations.
As an aside, CIC's Access to Information and Privacy Office contacted me earlier this week, asking for my permission for the Minister to mention me by name the next time Question Period occurs in Parliament and he is obliged to address his closing of these files. Can hardly wait to hear him blame me for the problems he has created!
So, we just have Justice Barnes to rule on the motion and pray that his ruling offsets somewhat the damage Jason Kenney, in pursuing his political ambitions, has done to Canada's image.
I have notified the Department of Justice that I have ceased negotiating with them and will wait for Justice Barnes to issue his decision. Yesterday, to my query to the Federal Court about the time-line for a decision on the motion elicited the answer of "the week of July 30th is the target".
In addition to faxing my letter to DoJ, I emailed it writing:
I am sorry but I lack the patience to play this game and, thus, have faxed the attached letter to you. Should your client ever decide to evidence a modicum of consideration toward the litigants, negotiations might actually become negotiations. At this point, however, they are not.
DoJ's reply to my request for clarification elicited the following:
1. Only the files not closed will be processed; i.e., 166 out of 1,180;
2. They refuse to say what demands will be imposed on those 166, saying that on a "case by case" basis they will decided how many of their many user-hostile forms must be submitted. I interpret this answer as meaning that they will demand the full set of forms from everyone and claim that it was "case by case" because no one will take the time to review the file before sending out the order.
3. They did, however, improve on the original terms, stating that
a. the deadline for submission would be extended to 120 days (from the original 60) and
b. the request letter and medical forms would be sent out within 21 days of settlement (as oppose to whenever they got around to it).
4. The processing deadline remains 180 days from receipt of the new forms, etc. DoJ refused to say either that the files would be proceeded with first priority or that visas would be issued once the file had been finalized, as opposed to waiting for the full 180 days to release them.
Given the proposed time-line, visas would be issued many months after the October 14th date Justice Rennnie imposed. If everyone submitted the documents the very day they received the demand letter (21 days after settlement), visas would not be issued to the 165 litigants under the CIC-imposed time-line until mid-February at the earliest.
5. No consideration will be given to the files s. 87.4 purports to have closed. CIC continues to maintain the view that the only hope for these litigants is for them to initiate new litigation. (That view, however, is not my view.)
6. No allowance or consideration will be given to those whom the Consulate at Hong Kong directed to take medicals and then closed their files because the selection decision had been made after March 28th and their visas had not been issued by June 29th. For the Minister, wiping out the backlog of queue-honouring applicants is to be preferred to behaving in a decent, "Canadian" manner. Jason Kenny has the power to be magnanimous toward these applicants but prefers flexing his muscles over being a considerate Canadian.
7. And, further, according to DoJ, no one who joined after June 14th may be considered under the Protocol (Agreement) which, in any event, CIC has repudiated for these litigants. Presumably CIC's position is that its view trumps Justice Barnes' June 26th oral direction that others may join our litigation, which direction the Registry has been following. CIC's arrogance knows no bounds.
7. Finally, DoJ refused to separate settlement for 160 from their position that the other 900 litigants have no legal recourse. As DoJ expects me to abandon the 900+ litigants as a requirement for CIC's processing 160 litigants at its own pace, I have no other option than to withdraw from the negotiations.
As an aside, CIC's Access to Information and Privacy Office contacted me earlier this week, asking for my permission for the Minister to mention me by name the next time Question Period occurs in Parliament and he is obliged to address his closing of these files. Can hardly wait to hear him blame me for the problems he has created!
So, we just have Justice Barnes to rule on the motion and pray that his ruling offsets somewhat the damage Jason Kenney, in pursuing his political ambitions, has done to Canada's image.