Call For Lawsuit against C-24 and Amendments on C-6

[canadasucks]

All friends, whoever you are new PRs or already citizens, whether you are impacted by C-24 or not, whether you think wasting a few years without the freedom of full citizenship matters or not, this is about restoring justices and fairness in this country. There will be longer life span deals you are making with the government such as pension plan. If the government does not learn lessons from this, similar laws can still be made in the future to harm the minority groups. such as two-tier citizen for pension and apply retrospectively.

There are still 3 months until Senate resumes the reading of C-6. But the court is not on break. A lawsuit needs to be filed during this time in order to get the ruling or pressure Parliament to amend C-6. This is the result it should be:

Repeal the retrospective clauses of C-24, for the applicants who have qualified under the old rules (3/4+Pre-PR) between the effect of C-24 (June 11, 2015) and the court ruling or the royal assent of C-6, the applications shall be deemed to be made on that date and put into the queue in such order and processed accordingly.

For example, If an applicant has qualified under the old rules since June 12, 2015, one day after the the effect of C-24, when he/she makes application, it should be deemed to be made on June 12, 2015, the application should be processed before the 2016 and 2017 applications.

You all need to be inspired by the immigrants in the UK, who fought numbers of unfair retrospection laws in the last 10 years and won, since then the government learned lessons and never applied retrospectively any new laws. Recently passed Bill C-14 (medical assistance in dying) was also the result of court ruling.

 

[dkera]

All friends, whoever you are new PRs or already citizens, whether you are impacted by C-24 or not, whether you think wasting a few years without the freedom of full citizenship matters or not, this is about restoring justices and fairness in this country. There will be longer life span deals you are making with the government such as pension plan. If the government does not learn lessons from this, similar laws can still be made in the future to harm the minority groups. such as two-tier citizen for pension and apply retrospectively.

There are still 3 months until Senate resumes the reading of C-6. But the court is not on break. A lawsuit needs to be filed during this time in order to get the ruling or pressure Parliament to amend C-6. This is the result it should be:

Repeal the retrospection clauses of C-24, for the applicants who have qualified under the old rules (3/4+Pre-PR) between the effect of C-24 (June 11, 2015) and the court ruling or the royal assent of C-6, the applications shall be deemed to be made on that date and put into the queue in such order and processed accordingly.

For example, If an applicant has qualified under the old rules since June 12, 2015, one day after the the effect of C-24, when he/she makes application, it should be deemed to be made on June 12, 2015, the application should be processed before the 2016 and 2017 applications.

You all need to be inspired by the immigrants in the UK, who fought numbers of unfair retrospection laws in the last 10 years and won, since then the government learned lessons and never applied retrospectively any new laws. Recently passed Bill C-14 (medical assistance in dying) was also the result of court ruling.

so you're actually suggesting people sue against a law of the land ?

 

[canadasucks]

so you're actually suggesting people sue against a law of the land ?

It's called "Judicial Review" by legal term. If you believe democracy, the judiciary is one of three elements apart from government and parliament and is the last resort after the later two are failed to uphold justices and fairness.

 

[wegafega]

I am in. I am one of Harper victim. I applied for Immigration in November 2009 and my application got delayed in Buffalo office for 2 years because of the backlog when they close the application to the PR, then when I got my medical in January 2012. they closed Buffalo office in July 2013 and my application got lost when they moved it to Ottawa, which made me to stay waiting form my PR for 1 year and 6 months after my medical exam until I got the PR in July 2013. Then they change the law before I am eligible by 1 month.

Now I have to be in a queue to get my citizenship!!!! More than 8 years I am waiting.

I hate the conservative government and will vote against them for my whole life and will tell my story to my children and grand children and all my family member and friends.

 

[screech339]

I am in. I am one of Harper victim. I applied for Immigration in November 2009 and my application got delayed in Buffalo office for 2 years because of the backlog when they close the application to the PR, then when I got my medical in January 2012. they closed Buffalo office in July 2013 and my application got lost when they moved it to Ottawa, which made me to stay waiting form my PR for 1 year and 6 months after my medical exam until I got the PR in July 2013. Then they change the law before I am eligible by 1 month.

Now I have to be in a queue to get my citizenship!!!! More than 8 years I am waiting.

I hate the conservative government and will vote against them for my whole life and will tell my story to my children and grand children and all my family member and friends.

Since you landed as PR in 2013, you would have qualified for citizenship in July 2015 under the 3/4 rule (assuming full 2 year pre-PR credit included). So in effect your qualification for citizenship began since July 2011. That's 5 years of waiting now. Not 8 years.

If you are going to join in this class action lawsuit, at least get your facts straight. Your credibility will be gone if you go on claiming you waited 8 years for citizenship, when in fact you were waiting to "qualify" for citizenship for 5 years.

 

[McClane]

This forum really needs a psychological help section. The inferiority complex is through the roof.

I've been a PR for 8 years, unable to apply for citizenship due to a lot of business travel abroad, and yet I thought I was doing very well. Now I realize this has been inhuman torture and a blatant human rights abuse.

 

[deerestlovelybear]

I am in! Nobody understands because they are not in our shoes. The right to travel is one of the most basic human right and nobody knows how onerous it is to get the PR card renewal when receive radom secondary review from an unknown officer. I have 3 days short of the residency requirements for old 3/5 rule when the new law coming into force because I had to travel a few times to care for my old parents back home when they are not well. Unfortunately I was a victim of bill C24 and now my PR card is in secondary review for 3 months without any sign of when it can be completed. I am being held hostage in this country because of all the beaureaucracy and there is no way to ask for any help, no compassion, nothing! The PR travel document takes 2 months to process as they said and who dare to leave the country without a PR card because if you stuck there 2 months chance are you will lose your job. It is totally inhumane the whole process. Free immigrants from the prison and unfair treament. Please treat us as human and not beggars, we came here with our full energy and our knowledge and skills and assets that Canada did not spend a single cent on us, please do not think we are just here to get welfare, nobody wants to do that!

 

[foodie69]

All friends, whoever you are new PRs or already citizens, whether you are impacted by C-24 or not, whether you think wasting a few years without the freedom of full citizenship matters or not, this is about restoring justices and fairness in this country. There will be longer life span deals you are making with the government such as pension plan. If the government does not learn lessons from this, similar laws can still be made in the future to harm the minority groups. such as two-tier citizen for pension and apply retrospectively.

There are still 3 months until Senate resumes the reading of C-6. But the court is not on break. A lawsuit needs to be filed during this time in order to get the ruling or pressure Parliament to amend C-6. This is the result it should be:

Repeal the retrospection clauses of C-24, for the applicants who have qualified under the old rules (3/4+Pre-PR) between the effect of C-24 (June 11, 2015) and the court ruling or the royal assent of C-6, the applications shall be deemed to be made on that date and put into the queue in such order and processed accordingly.

For example, If an applicant has qualified under the old rules since June 12, 2015, one day after the the effect of C-24, when he/she makes application, it should be deemed to be made on June 12, 2015, the application should be processed before the 2016 and 2017 applications.

You all need to be inspired by the immigrants in the UK, who fought numbers of unfair retrospection laws in the last 10 years and won, since then the government learned lessons and never applied retrospectively any new laws. Recently passed Bill C-14 (medical assistance in dying) was also the result of court ruling.

Just for my better understanding, what is your country of origin?

 

[canadasucks]

For anyone not familiar with Canadian legal system and aware what rights they have, here are some info.

All the laws made in this country must comply with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in this case, C-24 failed and can be challenged by Judicial Review. Also C-6 does not fix that problem or will even make things worse if it's not amended. Why?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 7
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada including non-citizens.
There is the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint. However, the right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal." (R. v. Clay, 2003) That is, the concept extends beyond physical restraint by the government as it goes to the core of the human experience.

Some of above personal stories clearly show how retrospective changes made by C-24 violated the right to liberty under Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The retrospective changes violated the important personal choices they made according to the law at that time when they started to live in this country and restrained their dignity and independence.

 

[ngag]

For anyone not familiar with Canadian legal system and aware what rights they have, here are some info.

All the laws made in this country must comply with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in this case, C-24 failed and can be challenged by Judicial Review. Also C-6 does not fix that problem or will even make things worse if it's not amended. Why?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 7
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada including non-citizens.
There is the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint. However, the right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal." (R. v. Clay, 2003) That is, the concept extends beyond physical restraint by the government as it goes to the core of the human experience.

Some of above personal stories clearly show how retrospective changes made by C-24 violated the right to liberty under Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I agree with you. However, C-24 had been already challenged in court by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) on the grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Also, asking for amendments of C-6 may even delay the process.
We are tens of thousands of victims, if not hundreds of thousands, all sharing similar stories. Given that number of affected permanent residents (sooner or later citizens), it is the duty of minister and PM to fulfill their promises and achieve justice for these countless groups. Can we arrange a number of representatives other than the MPs to go meet the minister and PM, explain how we were affected and harmed by the previous government's policies? We want solid solutions and a timeline to end this suffer. We all respect democratic processes, but it is clear that nasty games are being imposed to delay justice

 

[canadasucks]

I agree with you. However, C-24 had been already challenged in court by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) on the grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Also, asking for amendments of C-6 may even delay the process.
We are tens of thousands of victims, if not hundreds of thousands, all sharing similar stories. Given that number of affected permanent residents (sooner or later citizens), it is the duty of minister and PM to fulfill their promises and achieve justice for these countless groups. Can we arrange a number of representatives other than the MPs to go meet the minister and PM, explain how we were affected and harmed by the previous government's policies? We want solid solutions and a timeline to end this suffer. We all respect democratic processes, but it is clear that nasty games are being imposed to delay justice

I believe the case you mentioned was about striping citizenship not about the retrospective residency requirements changes.

Retrospective changes of immigration laws have been challenged many times in other countries such as UK and Australia and they were all won. That's why you don't see such clauses for the new laws in other countries now.

Politicians don't have to listen to the minority groups or non-citizens if they have no values for them. But they have to obey the ruling from the court.

 

[Dave01]

For anyone not familiar with Canadian legal system and aware what rights they have, here are some info.

All the laws made in this country must comply with Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in this case, C-24 failed and can be challenged by Judicial Review. Also C-6 does not fix that problem or will even make things worse if it's not amended. Why?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 7
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone". This includes all people within Canada including non-citizens.
There is the right to liberty, which protects an individual's freedom to act without physical restraint. However, the right has been extended to include the power to make important personal choices. The court described it as "[touching] the core of what it means to be an autonomous human being blessed with dignity and independence in matters that can be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal." (R. v. Clay, 2003) That is, the concept extends beyond physical restraint by the government as it goes to the core of the human experience.

Some of above personal stories clearly show how retrospective changes made by C-24 violated the right to liberty under Section 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The retrospective changes violated the important personal choices they made according to the law at that time when they started to live in this country and restrained their dignity and independence.

I missed the 3/4 too by few days and have been here in CA now for 6 years. What is the next step to take this up? I'm in I'm in I'm in!!!

 

[quasar81]

I missed the 3/4 too by few days and have been here in CA now for 6 years. What is the next step to take this up? I'm in I'm in I'm in!!!

BCCLA(BC Civil Liberties Association) already have a lawsuit against C-24 regarding intent to reside(right to mobility granted by charter) and citizenship revocation. Not 3/5 though as it is a law, nothing against charter of rights of Canada.

 

[canadasucks]

BCCLA(BC Civil Liberties Association) already have a lawsuit against C-24 regarding intent to reside(right to mobility granted by charter) and citizenship revocation. Not 3/5 though as it is a law, nothing against charter of rights of Canada.

It's not about changes from 3/4 to 4/6 or 3/5 against the Charter. It's the new laws applied retrospectively against the Charter! As when old PRs landed, they made personal choices and planed their life based on the laws at that time. New laws should only apply to the new PRs. That's the basic principal of any laws involving people's life.

 

[Dave01]

It's not about changes from 3/4 to 4/6 or 3/5 against the Charter. It's the new laws applied retrospectively against the Charter! As when old PRs landed, they made personal choices and planed their life based on the the laws at that time. New laws should only apply to the new PRs only. That's the basic principal of any laws involving people's life.

so which way to go