加拿大家园论坛

集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

原文链接:https://forum.iask.ca/threads/622820/

Les Paradis : 2013-01-19#1
先来给个状态updates:

1月16开庭接近尾声的时候,Justice Rennie要求双方提交以后可能的上诉需要问到的问题------这个步骤是每次开庭判决都会有的。

这个程序会在下周结束。

等这个程序完了之后,正式的书面判决随时就会发布了。虽然6月5号TIM的开庭,Justice Rennie只用了9天就发布了判决书,但他是为了赶在C38生效之前让案子了结才用了这么短的时间。这次的时间应该长一些。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-19#2
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

再来谈谈我为什么这么自信我们胜诉了。

这次开庭不是哪一个律师独有的,加拿大东西岸的移民律师都集中在一起战斗。根据他们这段时间通过各种渠道发布的反馈,开庭期间,申请人一方进行得非常顺利。

1. CIC的律师,根本没能提供有可信度的辩论为什么prec50的案子要被一刀切。他们在法庭的表现很被动很狼狈。

2. 申请人一方的律师控告87.4违宪的中心论点是,CIC在搞种族歧视。欧西的申请人90%审完了,只有10%被切,亚非地区的,只有10%到50%审完,50%到90%的被切。律师们用数据事实说话,Justice Rennie被说服。

如果Justice Rennie判一刀切合法,那就是为种族歧视保驾护航了,显然他不敢做这“第一个吃螃蟹的人”。

3. Justice Rennie本人认为即时的移民系统和移民积案可以共存,并不需要把旧案一刀切了才能有新系统。

4. 王仁铎和Tim的助理律师Rocco Galatti 在法庭上做了一段精彩的关于违宪议题的演讲。当他演讲的时候,全场鸦雀无声,其中一个旁听的律师说感到很荣幸能听到Galatti的演讲。不仅如此,谦虚的法官Rennie还感谢他了,说他的演讲让自己对宪法的了解更进一步。

5. Justice Rennie在法庭上完全没有向着CIC一方。如果我们败诉,至少他会在法庭上说出一两个原因,可惜完全没有!

6. 法官虽然没有当庭给判决,但他的态度说明了一切。6月5开庭的时候是这样的,11月Shukla案败诉的时候,法官Russell也完全没有一句话向着败诉方。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-19#3
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

这次开庭的性质:

只有一个:87.4一刀切法律的合法性-----要么合法,要么不合法。没有mundamus命令----不会强制CIC审理案件(如果它败诉了的话)。Justice Rennie在法庭上说,败诉方可以继续上诉。因此,现阶段不存在和解!

In anticipation of an appeal, Mario Bellissimo asked Justice Rennie if he rules in our favour, to oblige CIC to resume processing of the litigants' files during any appeal.

然而,代表原告人的律师贝里斯摩(Mario Bellisimo)已要求法官,倘若判决原告人胜诉而移民部提出上诉的话,于等待上诉聆讯排期期间,加国移民部要开始继续办理原告人的申请。

就是说,也有可能不用等到上诉到最高法院胜利后起诉人才获审。

这个可能性有多大呢?

值得庆幸的是,那些律师们考虑得很周全,在这次开庭就把以后的困难先拿出来解决。

王仁铎在法庭上把329后打分的获得签证的事情拿出来证明CIC可以不在329的前提下让起诉人的案件得到审理:

“移民部一再宣称这些积案将因法案生效而自动作废,事实上情况没有那麽简单,有律师举证移民部官员在法案生效后,仍继续对某些已遭作废的申请案发出移民签证,发现后予以撤销,最后又以「人道理由」恢复这些人的移民签证,证明移民部所谓积案「自动作废」的说法是自相矛盾。”

Lorne Waldman也强调了329不是解决问题的唯一前提,他对多伦多星报说:

Lawyer Lorne Waldman said processing of the “terminated” applications had been inconsistent, with some being processed even when they did not have a selection decision before the old cutoff, and others offered permanent resident visas on humanitarian grounds.

LW的意思,也是有那么多人在329后才打分属于被切的案子,但同样得到了签证,因此329是个谎言。如果这次我们胜诉了,CIC完全可以一边上诉一边审理起诉人的案子。

Bellissimo,王仁铎,Lorne都不仅在法庭上尽了很大努力辩论一刀切87.4违宪,更联合起来要求此案的起诉人必须在这一级的法庭胜诉后即获得审理,而不是等CIC上诉到最高法院。

律师们的愿望能否实现先放在一边,先赞赏一下他们做了件很实际的事情!

appollon : 2013-01-19#4
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

资料很丰富很有说服力,谢谢moi!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-19#5
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

“移民部一再宣称这些积案将因法案生效而自动作废,事实上情况没有那麽简单,有律师举证移民部官员在法案生效后,仍继续对某些已遭作废的申请案发出移民签证,发现后予以撤销,最后又以「人道理由」恢复这些人的移民签证,证明移民部所谓积案「自动作废」的说法是自相矛盾。”

这个329荒谬性的问题我过去几个月一直有提到,在开庭前我给TIM和李克伦的邮件的部分内容:

What CIC keeps repeating these days is the term "terminated by operation of law", this draws to the ultimate question, when is this law able to operate and terminate files? On and after June 29, that's right, despite this law explicitly says applicants' selection decisions not decided before March 29 must be terminated.

While there is a presumption against retroactive or retrospective legislation, that presumption can be rebutted through clear statutory language. The problem here is not with 87.4's retrospective property, but whether 87.4 is able to operate before June 29 while it is still a proposed legislation, the question is quite clear too, absolutely not.

So, those assessed after March 29 and issued before June 29 Visas are absolutely not governed by 87.4, as their applications had been finalized right before 87.4 came into force, no more files for 87.4 to terminate, even though they are exactly the kind of files to be terminated by 87.4.

The same goes for the outstanding applications of Liang and ME group. The ME group's selection decision are made right before 87.4 is able to operate, their files had been finalized before it came into force, no more files to be terminated by 87.4.

我的这封邮件已经广泛传播了:wdb23:

大地江海 : 2013-01-19#6
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

赞Moi为起诉人无私辛勤地奉献精力智慧

chaoszr : 2013-01-19#7
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

康尼在放风一刀切的时候曾经说过,移民部此举"法律后果要小的多",并且在c38生效后宣称"申请人可以去告违宪"。
可以推测,移民部对违宪的败诉是有预期的,但什么才是康尼所谓的最小后果,肯定不是28万人全放,难道是放过起诉的这几千人吗?也不一定,康尼在放话时是无法预知有多少人起诉的。
如果最后无法和解,康尼所谓的最小后果似乎只有一下三条:1,放过可以绕开c38的几百人。2,确信移民部的作法最后不违宪。3,即使被判违宪,最后搬出但书的大棒,彻底赖帐。
但愿我是杞人忧天,希望律师们对此有所准备。

yannie : 2013-01-19#8
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

......

我想我是海117 : 2013-01-19#9
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

:wdb9::wdb9:赞,天堂

Oldman : 2013-01-19#10
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

向战斗中的同学及律师们致敬!!!, 从胜利中看到了加拿大的希望...

dicaprio : 2013-01-19#11
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

唉,看到希望等待的同时把腿摔骨折了,就算最后赢了也不知道有没有影响。。。

Oldman : 2013-01-19#12
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

唉,看到希望等待的同时把腿摔骨折了,就算最后赢了也不知道有没有影响。。。

踢球摔的?

唯一的影响是有可能不能代表加拿大国家足球队出场了...,咱们自己还是可以踢业余队.

一切都会好的, 特别是你5.29体检就签收了.

lazy : 2013-01-19#13
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

还有一点,今年的新政是5月4日(CIC自己提的时间),说明CIC给这次听证结果预留了时间,那么在CIC可以接受的5月4日前,是否执行“一刀切”应该会有个结论吧

dicaprio : 2013-01-19#14
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

踢球摔的?

唯一的影响是有可能不能代表加拿大国家足球队出场了...,咱们自己还是可以踢业余队.

一切都会好的, 特别是你5.29体检就签收了.
恩,踢球,后交叉韧带断裂,股骨末端骨裂,唉,现在手术做完了每天康复理疗是痛得生不如死呀...以后再踢估计也是见人就躲或传球了,呵呵

chaoszr : 2013-01-19#15
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

还有一点,今年的新政是5月4日(CIC自己提的时间),说明CIC给这次听证结果预留了时间,那么在CIC可以接受的5月4日前,是否执行“一刀切”应该会有个结论吧
我来替cic回答吧。cic会说,新政会在5月4日执行,因为还未执行,所以不能肯定新政对申请人不利,且91的申请人已被依法切案,他们可以重递申请,目前来看,并无对申请人不利的条件。
顺便回答一下bbxudavid两个问题:我记得填简表和补料时填的表都有Nationality一项,移民部怎么说不知来源地呢?新系统按年龄计分,我们被拖延了这么长时间,按新标准年龄一项就对我们不公平,怎么说没有不利之处?cic会说,我们没有要求申请人填写nationality一项,且处理申请的领事馆效率不同,所以我们不能保证每个申请都会及时处理,因此我们没有地域歧视;如果申请人因为年龄积分无法达到所需分数,说明申请人没有达到加拿大劳动力市场的要求,且申请人还可以采取其他途径顺利登陆加拿大。
各位知道什么叫白马非马,什麽叫顾左右而言他了吗?

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-19#16
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

嗯,反正都是狡辩,唉,看法官的了!

Oldman : 2013-01-19#17
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

恩,踢球,后交叉韧带断裂,股骨末端骨裂,唉,现在手术做完了每天康复理疗是痛得生不如死呀...以后再踢估计也是见人就躲或传球了,呵呵

过了30,发现骨头比从前脆了....我32岁那年踢球做动作时, 很清晰听见自己的Qi关节里面很清澈的一声响-"咔嚓"... ...一块黄豆大小的骨头掉下来了... ..

等移民,等到咱们过去只能踢中老年足球了.... 不过总算还能踢, 期待大家一起踢球.

法国裁缝 : 2013-01-20#18
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

过去养老是最好的选项。
慢慢等别着急,晚去未必是坏事,人民币一直在升值呐,国内财富积累的速度要比加国快多了。
没看早去的那些,都穷的叮当响,整天担惊受怕的就是怕别人过去抢他们饭碗中不多的几粒米。

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-20#19
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

夜长梦多,就是担心但书条款,保守党立法行政权在手,还是不得不防!

appollon : 2013-01-20#20
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

夜长梦多,就是担心但书条款,保守党立法行政权在手,还是不得不防!

没看出来,不妨举例说明之。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-20#21
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

没看出来,不妨举例说明之。

有必要这样较劲吗?现在有无数种可能性,大家只是在探讨这些还没发生的“可能”而已。

再次呼吁所有看帖的人不要太过认真太钻牛角尖!!!

chaoszr : 2013-01-20#22
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

夜长梦多,就是担心但书条款,保守党立法行政权在手,还是不得不防!
普及下但书条款吧。

加拿大的“但书条款”模式
  加拿大《权利与自由宪章》(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)是该国1982年宪法法案(Canada’s Constitution Act)的第一章,诚如该宪章的名称所昭示的那样,其明确规定了公民所享有的若干基本权利和自由。这些权利和自由首先被归为7类,然后又依据权利的明确性被分为两大类:一类是高度明确的,包括“民主权利”、“自由迁徙权”、“加拿大的官方语言权”以及“少数民族的语言教育权”四种;另一类则是较为模糊的,包括“基本自由”(Fundamental freedoms)(第2条)、“法律权利”(Legal rights)(第7-14条)以及“平等权利”(Equality rights)(第15条)三种。
  与其他国家宪法相比,加拿大《权利与自由宪章》有两个方面的特点,(a)其第1条规定,立法机关可以在“明确的,且在自由民主的社会中可以被证明为正当”的前提下,通过制定法律合理限制宪章中所确认的权利——当然,法院有权审查相关法律是否真正达到宪章第1条所设定的标准; (b)各级法院有权依照宪法审查国会、省或者地方(territorial)立法机关颁布的法律(最高法院具有最终的权威性)。但是当,也只能当,立法涉及宪章第2条以及7-15条所规定的权利时,国会和省立法机关有权援引宪章第33条规定的“但书条款”(notwithstanding clause),做出一个“该部法律或者法律中的条款虽然违反了宪章所保护权利或者自由,但依然具有效力”的声明(make a declaration)。该声明做出以后,相关法律或者法律条款虽然违宪,却享有免除司法审查的特权。 具体程序如下:
  (1)国会或省立法机关在立法中明确宣布(expressly declare), 他们所通过的法案或者法案的某一条款虽然侵犯了宪章第2条所规定的“基本自由”或者第7到15条规定的“法律权利”或者“平等权利”,但依然需要实施;
  (2)一个法案,或者法案的条款如果按照本条规定的方式做了但书宣告,即该条款为“排除违宪条款”,因此可以不受本宪章第2条或第7-15条人权条款的约束,但是这个声明必须指明其所排除的是上述哪一条所规定的权利;
  (3)依据(1)所作出的声明的有效期最长为5年;
  (4)国会或省立法机关可以依据(1)所规定的条件,在5年期限届满之后重新发表新的“违宪但有效”的声明,而且没有次数限制;
  (5)程序(4)应当符合程序(3)的要求。
  这就是说,依据加拿大宪法的规定,当立法机关希望通过一项违宪的法律(当然要限于《权利与自由宪章》第2,7-15条规定)时,或者当加拿大最高法院认为某一项具体的立法违宪时,国会和省议会就可以动用第33条赋予的权力制定新的且不受司法审查和监督的法律。尽管这项权力的行使是有事项和时间范围的限制,却形成了自身鲜明的特色。特别是与美国式的强司法审查模式相比,其一方面赋予法官强有力的权力来保护人权,另一方面又赋予立法机关可以在常规时刻(normal times)通过日常政治(比如制定或者修改普通法律,与“非常时刻”(exceptional time)进行宪法修改相对)推翻法院意见的权力。也就是说,《权利与自由宪章》下的加拿大法院有权进行司法审查,但司法权对于宪法的意见并非最终的,也不能因此获得至高地位,因为代表民主的立法机关对宪法和人权事务拥有最终的决定权。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-20#23
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

还有一点,今年的新政是5月4日(CIC自己提的时间),说明CIC给这次听证结果预留了时间,那么在CIC可以接受的5月4日前,是否执行“一刀切”应该会有个结论吧


技术移民新政本来是2012年11月施行的,多伦多星报报道了,后来推迟到2013年初,等2013年到了CIC又宣布5月4才开始施行。由此可见,CIC是多么反复无常朝令夕改不断折腾。我希望加拿大的法官不要像康尼的CIC这样变态,在法庭上那么袒护申请人,十天半月出判决书了又变卦!

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-20#24
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

chraoz,你既然这么清楚加国法律体系, 那第一条是什么?地区歧视涉及哪一条?希望你能分析一下官司走向。顺便问一下,但书条款通过需要国会绝对多数吗?还是简单多数就可以?

chaoszr : 2013-01-20#25
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

chraoz,你既然这么清楚加国法律体系,希望你能分析一下官司走向。顺便问一下,但书条款通过需要国会绝对多数吗?还是简单多数就可以?
网上搜的,现学现卖,只是探讨官司发展的一种可能,抛砖引玉。
不过还真打算泡泡图书馆,研究一下这个题目。

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-20#26
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
根据第一条,但书条款本身合法也不容易:
Oakes test:
There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional
The means must be rationally connected to the objective
There must be minimal impairment of rights
There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective
The test is heavily founded in factual analysis so strict adherence is not always practiced. A degree of overlap is to be expected as there are some factors, such as vagueness, which are to be considered in multiple sections. If the legislation fails any of the above branches, it is unconstitutional. Otherwise the impugned law passes the Oakes test and remains valid.
Since Oakes, the test has been modified slightly.[3]

Les Paradis : 2013-01-20#27
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

这次开庭CIC的律师针对一刀切合理的辩护是:

移民部没有违法、违反宪法或人权法。申请人不可以说:「我递交了申请,加国移民部就一定要去办理! 」

这位律师的意思其实就是申请人和CIC之间没有合同。

我对CIC的辩护感到很意外-----堂堂一个国家的移民部的辩护律师怎么能在同一个地方摔倒两次?6月14的判决书不是早就肯定了双方之间存在合同吗?

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html

第【40】条:

Canadian jurisprudence has long recognized that Ministers have an obligation to perform their legal duties in a reasonably timely manner. This legal duty has long coexisted with the understanding that Ministers are accountable for the management and direction of their ministries and have the authority to make policy choices and to set priorities.

正是因为移民部对申请人有obligation和legal duties,所以Liang胜诉了,Liang的mundamus强制令被法庭发出。

判决书第【24】段详细阐述了在什么情况下,起诉人会得到Mundamus

其中前三条是:

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.

2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.

3. There is a clear right to performance of that duty, in particular:

这里早就反反复复强调了CIC对申请人有duty。

CIC的辩护律师针对双方不存在合同,狡辩“申请人不可以说,我递交了申请,加国移民部就一定要去办理”,在6月14号已经输了一次,现在竟然又把输掉的论点再拿到台面。这是什么原因呢?CIC的律师水平太差了吗?不是的!而是它的确理屈词穷,完全找不到让人信服的借口为什么必须要一刀切pre-c50申请人!

jack mi : 2013-01-20#28
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC最近不是把没S2的网上查询关掉了吗,不会是想销毁证据吧。那句:我们某某时侯开始处理你的案子。现在谁也查不到了,索性赖个干干净净。老赖嘛,大家都明白的哈。
有S2的还没关掉,也许会继续审理?但没S2的难啊,即便成功,也不知何时了。另外巴恩斯9月18号开庭所说的话在还没变成正式书面文件前是否具有法律效用不得而知。

appollon : 2013-01-20#29
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

这次开庭CIC的律师针对一刀切合理的辩护是:

移民部没有违法、违反宪法或人权法。申请人不可以说:「我递交了申请,加国移民部就一定要去办理! 」

这位律师的意思其实就是申请人和CIC之间没有合同。

我对CIC的辩护感到很意外-----堂堂一个国家的移民部的辩护律师怎么能在同一个地方摔倒两次?6月14的判决书不是早就肯定了双方之间存在合同吗?

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html

第【40】条:

Canadian jurisprudence has long recognized that Ministers have an obligation to perform their legal duties in a reasonably timely manner. This legal duty has long coexisted with the understanding that Ministers are accountable for the management and direction of their ministries and have the authority to make policy choices and to set priorities.

正是因为移民部对申请人有obligation和legal duties,所以Liang胜诉了,Liang的mundamus强制令被法庭发出。

判决书第【24】段详细阐述了在什么情况下,起诉人会得到Mundamus

其中前三条是:

1. There must be a public legal duty to act.

2. The duty must be owed to the applicant.

3. There is a clear right to performance of that duty, in particular:

这里早就反反复复强调了CIC对申请人有duty。

CIC的辩护律师针对双方不存在合同,狡辩“申请人不可以说,我递交了申请,加国移民部就一定要去办理”,在6月14号已经输了一次,现在竟然又把输掉的论点再拿到台面。这是什么原因呢?CIC的律师水平太差了吗?不是的!而是它的确理屈词穷,完全找不到让人信服的借口为什么必须要一刀切pre-c50申请人!

有没有合同关系是关键之关键,既可以说是他理屈词穷,也可以堪称是他的底线。否则就真的需要弄出个啥但书条款了,那个更难。

appollon : 2013-01-20#30
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

普及下但书条款吧。

加拿大的“但书条款”模式
  加拿大《权利与自由宪章》(Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)是该国1982年宪法法案(Canada’s Constitution Act)的第一章,诚如该宪章的名称所昭示的那样,其明确规定了公民所享有的若干基本权利和自由。这些权利和自由首先被归为7类,然后又依据权利的明确性被分为两大类:一类是高度明确的,包括“民主权利”、“自由迁徙权”、“加拿大的官方语言权”以及“少数民族的语言教育权”四种;另一类则是较为模糊的,包括“基本自由”(Fundamental freedoms)(第2条)、“法律权利”(Legal rights)(第7-14条)以及“平等权利”(Equality rights)(第15条)三种。
  与其他国家宪法相比,加拿大《权利与自由宪章》有两个方面的特点,(a)其第1条规定,立法机关可以在“明确的,且在自由民主的社会中可以被证明为正当”的前提下,通过制定法律合理限制宪章中所确认的权利——当然,法院有权审查相关法律是否真正达到宪章第1条所设定的标准; (b)各级法院有权依照宪法审查国会、省或者地方(territorial)立法机关颁布的法律(最高法院具有最终的权威性)。但是当,也只能当,立法涉及宪章第2条以及7-15条所规定的权利时,国会和省立法机关有权援引宪章第33条规定的“但书条款”(notwithstanding clause),做出一个“该部法律或者法律中的条款虽然违反了宪章所保护权利或者自由,但依然具有效力”的声明(make a declaration)。该声明做出以后,相关法律或者法律条款虽然违宪,却享有免除司法审查的特权。 具体程序如下:
  (1)国会或省立法机关在立法中明确宣布(expressly declare), 他们所通过的法案或者法案的某一条款虽然侵犯了宪章第2条所规定的“基本自由”或者第7到15条规定的“法律权利”或者“平等权利”,但依然需要实施;
  (2)一个法案,或者法案的条款如果按照本条规定的方式做了但书宣告,即该条款为“排除违宪条款”,因此可以不受本宪章第2条或第7-15条人权条款的约束,但是这个声明必须指明其所排除的是上述哪一条所规定的权利;
  (3)依据(1)所作出的声明的有效期最长为5年;
  (4)国会或省立法机关可以依据(1)所规定的条件,在5年期限届满之后重新发表新的“违宪但有效”的声明,而且没有次数限制;
  (5)程序(4)应当符合程序(3)的要求。
  这就是说,依据加拿大宪法的规定,当立法机关希望通过一项违宪的法律(当然要限于《权利与自由宪章》第2,7-15条规定)时,或者当加拿大最高法院认为某一项具体的立法违宪时,国会和省议会就可以动用第33条赋予的权力制定新的且不受司法审查和监督的法律。尽管这项权力的行使是有事项和时间范围的限制,却形成了自身鲜明的特色。特别是与美国式的强司法审查模式相比,其一方面赋予法官强有力的权力来保护人权,另一方面又赋予立法机关可以在常规时刻(normal times)通过日常政治(比如制定或者修改普通法律,与“非常时刻”(exceptional time)进行宪法修改相对)推翻法院意见的权力。也就是说,《权利与自由宪章》下的加拿大法院有权进行司法审查,但司法权对于宪法的意见并非最终的,也不能因此获得至高地位,因为代表民主的立法机关对宪法和人权事务拥有最终的决定权。

明白了,谢谢!
不过感觉这个实施很不寻常,也是闹得更大了,不会轻易用的。对加拿大来说,与其如此,不如死咬着不承认合同关系呢。

appollon : 2013-01-20#31
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在最担心的是关于合同关系的辩论,如能赢下这个辩论,官司应该无忧。

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-20#32
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]今天收到的邮件, 和大家分享。[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Trouble viewing this email? Read it online [/FONT]​



Dear Friend,
I am writing to you today to share in a growing concern within failure of the citizenship and immigration department.
Over the last several years, our offices have seen a gradual decline in the level of service being offered by Citizenship & Immigration Canada, under the guidance of the Conservative government.
Wait-times for processing of applications have been getting longer and longer, and it has become more difficult to access information regarding the status of applications. When we do receive responses from immigration officials, they are often vague and generalized messages that offer little comfort to those seeking to reunite with family members.
As of November 2011, the CIC has suspended intake of parental sponsorship applications, as they claim to be dealing with the backlog of applications that have yet to be reviewed. However, in the last 8 months, there has been no movement in the review of these cases, leaving many applicants in limbo.
Earlier this year, the Conservative government also saw fit to “re-structure” the Federal Skilled Worker program. Applications that have sat in foreign offices unopened, even some submitted 4 to 5 years ago, were deleted and simply are sent back to the applicants, with a message that states that they are welcome to apply again. Given the lack of assistance these individuals received with their first application, it seems doubtful that any new cases would fare better.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the CIC recently informed our offices that the current estimated time for review of citizenship applicant’s residency questionnaires, which at last check was 12 to 18 months, has ballooned to 48 months. Along with my colleague Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal Critic for Citizenship and Immigration, I recently held a press conference to outline my concerns with this new development. You can view this meeting at the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19zJbdbCmEo
Also you can see the press release which was issued by the Liberals at: http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/conservatives-leave-canadians-citizenship-limbo/
Article which appeared in the newspaper at: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Liberals+call+Kenney+wait+times+citizen+applications/7823359/story.html
The Conservative government has responded to this situation, stating that our office has highlighted only the most severe cases, and that this figure does not represent the norm. This, however, is misleading. We have been advised by Citizenship and Immigration Canada that the 48-month wait period is the new standard by which these applications will be viewed, meaning that hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who have already gone through the immigration process will be put into limbo for up to FOUR years before they are advised as to whether or not they even qualify for citizenship.
I share in the concerns of many of the people being forced to weather these new changes, and hope that we can make the necessary changes to an obviously flawed system, in order to ensure that we do not fail the world in our reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity.
Should you know of someone who is in this situation and would need assistance for us to follow up their case please have them contact me for assistance at: http://www.jimkarygiannis.net/petition_and_action_requests/citizenship_follow_up

Regards,

Hon. Jim Karygiannis P.C., M.P.
Scarborough-Agincourt
Liberal Critic for Multiculturalism
Constituency Office
3850 Finch Ave East Suite 206
Scarborough Ontario
M1T 3T6
Tel: (416) 3

You are subscribed to this mailing list as shaohaiyue@hotmail.com. Please click here to modify your message preferences or to unsubscribe from any future mailings. We will respect all unsubscribe requests

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-20#33
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在入籍申请后等待标准时间是48个月,4年,而不是12-18个月,铁了心的排外,手段毒辣阴险。在此期间,若不小心因为开车违章等被判超过6个月的刑期,就会被赶回国!
那些登陆加国就变脸,过河拆桥,为一刀切大声叫好,排斥同胞的人,若某一天被灰溜溜赶回国,不知道那时还会欢呼不?

kevin20000 : 2013-01-20#34
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

感谢分享

chaoszr : 2013-01-20#35
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在最担心的是关于合同关系的辩论,如能赢下这个辩论,官司应该无忧。
合同关系是违宪官司赢了以后的事儿了,cic认为法律的效力大于合同的约束,合同不干切案的诉讼。
cic的理屈词穷只是应付法庭辩论的手段,即使地球人都明白cic在耍赖皮,法庭也要将cic的答辩记录在案,这就是程序。目的是拖,上诉,再上诉,直到最高院,直到为自己赢得两年的时间。
cic(确切的说是保守党政府)还有终极手段,就是但书条款,几个月前就有同学讨论这个话题了。
http://forum.iask.ca/showthread.php?t=557299
当然使用这个手段还要看到时候的情况,如保守党的支持率、经济环境、起诉人数等,作这个决定是要冒政治风险的。话说回来,保守党里像哈珀、康尼这样的二百五不少,连《京都议定书》都敢不认账(这可不牵扯到种族歧视吧),为了自己的小算盘能做出什么不要脸的事还不一定。

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-20#36
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

但书条款仍然得经司法审查其必要性!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#37
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在最担心的是关于合同关系的辩论,如能赢下这个辩论,官司应该无忧。


我认为但书条款不会用的。因为集体诉讼已经不存在了。保守党政府在极力避免但书条款,所以千方百计不让集体诉讼成案。

这个问题不是一两句话解释得清楚的。以后详解!

rose201109 : 2013-01-21#38
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在最担心的是关于合同关系的辩论,如能赢下这个辩论,官司应该无忧。
虽然没有很明确的一般意义上的合同,但FN信视同合同,具有合同的特征、效力,如果没有合同怎么就能收申请费呢,状态栏怎么一直是WE STARTED PROSSESING YOUR APPLICATION IN XX XX2007,这难道不能足以证明已经具有合同关系吗?没有合同就收费,就允诺已经正在处理你的案子,这不是自己说自己(CIC)非傻即 chao吗?

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#39
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC最近不是把没S2的网上查询关掉了吗,不会是想销毁证据吧。那句:我们某某时侯开始处理你的案子。现在谁也查不到了,索性赖个干干净净。老赖嘛,大家都明白的哈。
有S2的还没关掉,也许会继续审理?但没S2的难啊,即便成功,也不知何时了。另外巴恩斯9月18号开庭所说的话在还没变成正式书面文件前是否具有法律效用不得而知。


有S2的人打官司比无S2的人没有一丝一毫的优势!!!

一刀切的标准不是有没有S2!!!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#40
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在最担心的是关于合同关系的辩论,如能赢下这个辩论,官司应该无忧。


合同关系的辩论,我们在6月14就成功了,还存在担忧吗?

我从去年底到现在都发了N多个帖子说一月开庭我们必赢,不赢就反常了!!!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#41
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

王仁铎说,如果法院能够接受“一刀切”违宪的论点,则移民部的“一刀切”将被暂停,且适用所有申请人,如此一来,酝酿中的“一刀切”集体诉讼即可不必再进行。

这就是我几天前说的,只要一刀切法律被判违宪,结果会适用于所有28万人,无论有没有参加起诉。

但即使一刀切违宪的胜诉结果适用于所有人,对没有起诉的人也没有任何实际意义。因为那只是表明一刀切不合法,而没有强制CIC审理案子。参加起诉的人要在这个判决基础上再加一次mundamus命令的判决,CIC才开始审理案子。没起诉的人不可能得到CIC主动审理!这是一个很简单的道理:你从06年07年申请到2012年6月,这几年都没有一刀切的法律,为什么CIC没有审你?法院只能判决一刀切不合法,不可能要求CIC审理所有人!

就是说,即使87.4违宪胜诉的结果适用于全体28万人,那些没参加起诉的,也要再等个10年8年才能得到审理。不过从目前的情况看,你想等10年8年也等不到了,因为去年9月18CIC表态文件只保留两年,到2014年9月就要销毁了。

现在法院已不接受新的起诉人,所有诉讼组都关闭了。我认为判决出来后,法院也可能不再接受新的,即使接受,再参加也没多大意义了,因为那比之前参加的人又要晚一两年得到审理。一个活生生的例子已经发生了:梁东去年7月拿到了签证,那35个打分的有一半在去年10月签证,剩下的也都DM了。后来参加起诉的,还只是体检完,最后结案会比梁东晚一年。

法院的确造成了申请人的合法插队,但游戏就是这样玩的,你觉得不合理,就去采取措施啊,去国际法院告加拿大法院。在网上骂街有用吗?

所以这次想摘桃子的,打酱油的全部不会得逞。Justice Barnes为CIC把好了第一关,不让参加不参加效果都一样的集体诉讼成案。这对已经参加进来的人是好事。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#42
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

关于这次判决对Tim组的影响:

这是Tim在1月1号发的邮件:

If the Court declares s. 87.4 to be invalid, all the files will be resurrected -- subject to a certain appeal. If so, I will ask our dear judge to reconsider his denial of my motion asking him to enforce the Agreement. After all, the reason DoJ gave for not honouring it was s. 87.4. With it removed, the only issue should be whether it will extend to those who joined after June 14th.

如果87.4被判不合法,法官就要重新考虑他的动议,因为无论是法官还是DoJ不同意329前没打分的起诉人获得审理的原因都是87.4一刀切法律,现在它被判违宪了,那就不存在审理这些人会与法律相抵触。但614后参加进来的人可能不会得到批准(因为那个protocol规定了614判决不适用于后加入的人)。

这是1月18号的邮件:

In anticipation of an appeal, Mario Bellissimo asked Justice Rennie if he rules in our favour, to oblige CIC to resume processing of the litigants' files during any appeal. Thus, if Justice Rennie rules in our favour and requires CIC to resume processing while it appeals his decision, your cases will go forward.

Bellissimo要求法官强制CIC审理起诉人的案件,不受CIC继续上诉的影响。如果Justice Rennie同意了,我们的案子也会得到审理。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#43
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

87.4被判违宪后,91起诉人的案子复活重新得到审理,审理的先后顺序,也就是所谓的“秩序”是怎么样的呢?Tim的pre614的635人稳稳的排在队列的最前方,ME被切的可能位置一样。其他组的排在后面。和91打分起诉的秩序完全一样:TIM的pre614的35人先走,其他组的以及TIM的614后加入的后走。

TIM的pre614在2013年有很大希望获审。不仅87.4违宪胜诉对我们有帮助,李克伦的不撼动87.4在87.4合法的前提下给ME打官司对我们帮助更大!

smilon : 2013-01-21#44
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

希望案件按照Les paradis 分析的进行。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#45
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

希望案件按照Les paradis 分析的进行。


不仅是被动的等待、单纯的“希望”事情这样发展,更要积极去推动它往这个方向走。反正我的主观努力在发挥作用,我也有决心一定要把它弄赢!如果我是TIM,肯定不会让pre614走到今天这个局面。pre614那么多的优势、那么多法理人情上的强势都被白白浪费了!

我是流氓我怕谁 : 2013-01-21#46
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

"现在法院已不接受新的起诉人,所有诉讼组都关闭了。" ---- 错误.

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#47
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

"现在法院已不接受新的起诉人,所有诉讼组都关闭了。" ---- 错误.


谁告诉你现在法院可以接受新的起诉人?Justice Barnes还是Rennie?

Tim组1月7号已关闭。Bellissimo等律师网上报名的页面也关闭了。还有哪个组是开放的?

kevintiger : 2013-01-21#48
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

感谢MOI辛勤的努力和沟通。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#49
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

感谢MOI辛勤的努力和沟通。


我只要说6月14以后进来的人不能适应614判决就有人不开心了。可是事实就是这样的啊。无论如何我也要促成614前的人先走:wdb23:

kevintiger : 2013-01-21#50
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

我只要说6月14以后进来的人不能适应614判决就有人不开心了。可是事实就是这样的啊。无论如何我也要促成614前的人先走:wdb23:
看起来今年春节有点意思了啊.

开心不仅仅是自己吃肉,还包括不喜欢(西方某些政客和狗腿子们)的人吃屎.:wdb6:

Les Paradis : 2013-01-21#51
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

看起来今年春节有点意思了啊.

开心不仅仅是自己吃肉,还包括不喜欢(西方某些政客和狗腿子们)的人吃屎.:wdb6:

:wdb6::wdb6::wdb6:

争这一口气比什么都重要,这也是我坚持下来的强大动力!:wdb23:

snowolf2008 : 2013-01-21#52
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

判决结果月内出来,最终以判决和执行作为结果,不过分乐观,不过分悲观. 目前不错的局面只是律师在辩论上上占据优势,但不代表最后的结局。 正如去年61结果判决出来之后,一片欢呼的形势,但是最后诸多因素导致现在都没有结果....

Les Paradis : 2013-01-22#53
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

判决结果月内出来,最终以判决和执行作为结果,不过分乐观,不过分悲观. 目前不错的局面只是律师在辩论上上占据优势,但不代表最后的结局。 正如去年61结果判决出来之后,一片欢呼的形势,但是最后诸多因素导致现在都没有结果....


Bellissimo律师要求胜诉后CIC一边上诉一边审理案子,如果此要求被否定,这次违宪赢了对任何人都没实际作用。我一直以来对违宪诉讼的胜诉判决执行都不乐观,如果CIC霸王到底,参加违宪的起诉人只能在2015到2016年解脱。

但是TIM的pre614如果也陪这些违宪的人一起等2015到2016,那就是天下第一冤!!!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-22#54
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

正如去年61结果判决出来之后,一片欢呼的形势....

别人欢呼那是别人的事情。中国的成年人都是比较极端的,一会天上一会地下,一会乐观一会骂。顺利的时候把一个人捧成了神仙,不顺利的时候恨不得把一个人踩死。某些态度变化极大前后对比让人感觉可笑的帖子,我就不顶起来了。

jack_yxj : 2013-01-22#55
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

TIM的pre614在2013年有很大希望获审。不仅87.4违宪胜诉对我们有帮助,李克伦的不撼动87.4在87.4合法的前提下给ME打官司对我们帮助更大![/quote]

是不是可以得出这样的推论:香港未S2的可能在今年会陆续S2呢?

Les Paradis : 2013-01-22#56
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

NDP的移民部长Jinny Sims在6月15号----TIM的614判决出来后的第二天发布的新闻和讲话:

http://jinnysims.ndp.ca/post/respect-the-court-process-outstanding-applications-jinny-sims

连接来自Jinny Sims的official site

Respect the court, process outstanding applications: Jinny Sims

OTTAWA – After Canada’s top court undermined the Conservatives’ reckless immigration bill, NDP Immigration critic Jinny Sims (Newton-North Delta) called on the government to do the right thing and finally process the immigration applications the government once deemed eligible for processing.

“The Minister can’t simply ‘delete’ this problem as he tried to do with the backlog,” said Sims in today’s Question Period in the House of Commons.

“The people who have waited patiently in the backlog followed the rules. They did everything correctly and they are being punished because the Conservatives are looking for an easy way out of a problem they and the former Liberal government created. Will the Conservatives do the right thing, apply the court decision to the outstanding applications, and play by the rules themselves?”

In a stinging rebuke from the federal court yesterday, Justice Donald Rennie ruled the government is obliged to process all applications it accepted into the system. The decision comes after approximately 900 applicants under the federal skilled workers’ program sued Immigration Minister Jason Kenney for breaking the government’s obligation to process the applications received within a reasonable time frame.

“The court’s decision highlights the recklessness of this Conservative bill,” said Sims.

“The Minister of Immigration has no plan. He’s making it up as he goes and it’s Canadians who will pay the price. Will the government comply with Justice Rennie’s decision? Will it process the outstanding applicants?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S9DRU4q6mUs

Les Paradis : 2013-01-22#57
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

看来Jinny Sims在判决出来后马上就意识到保守党政府不会尊重法庭的判决,所以她的讲话重点就是质问

Will the government comply with Justice Rennie’s decision? Will it process the outstanding applicants?

政府会不会遵守法官Rennie的决定?会不会处理那些尚未开始审理的移民申请?

这里的意思显而易见:Justice Rennie判我们胜诉,但CIC不执行判决。

这个历史很可能会再次发生------2月份的某个日子,一刀切被判违宪,但CIC拒不审理起诉人的案件,而是继续拖延时间玩上诉。

希望届时反对党能再出来声援,如果有实际行动施压保守党就更好了。

从Jinny Sims的讲话里可以看到虽然同为左派阵营,NDP对自由党也有很强的排斥:

The people who have waited patiently in the backlog followed the rules. They did everything correctly and they are being punished because the Conservatives are looking for an easy way out of a problem they and the former Liberal government created.

保守党想通过直接一刀切来寻求最简单的途径来解决前朝自由党政府留下的移民积案。

就是说NDP也认为28万人的积案是自由党造成的,在这个时候NDP也不忘记顺带批评一下自由党----党派之间的斗争都无孔不入了。

我后来发现这28万人的确有相当数量来自保守党上台之前的CIC,03年那次集体诉讼虽然赢了,但自由党仍然把移民积压冷冻了-----主要是印度的。这就是为什么这次被一刀切的主力仍然是印度03年04年的案子。不过当时的自由党对中国的案件是很偏袒的,把那批人全部大赦了,据说有些人连雅思成绩都无需提供直接给了签证。

保守党上台后对印度的积压仍然持续冷冻,导致印度从2001年到2008年2月27这段时间的移民申请只处理了不到10%,给打官司的律师留下CIC搞种族歧视的铁证。

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-22#58
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

In a stinging rebuke from the federal court yesterday, Justice Donald Rennie ruled the government is obliged to process all applications it accepted into the system.
是说判决结果出来了?我看错了日期,是2012年6月15日的!

大地江海 : 2013-01-22#59
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

请问这句话引用的出处?谢谢

Les Paradis : 2013-01-22#60
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

03年那次集体诉讼虽然赢了,但自由党仍然把移民积压冷冻了-----主要是印度的。这就是为什么这次被一刀切的主力仍然是印度03年04年的案子。

03年的集体诉讼就是“参加不参加效果都一样”性质的,现在看来,“参加不参加都一样”是个美丽的谎言。CIC败诉后不切你,但是也不审你,而是把你无限期拖延,拖了10年再来第二次切你。

这次也一样,CIC即使认输了,它仍然会说28万人数量太多,不可能马上审完,需要花时间。就像康尼刚上台的时候说的: It will take some time to process..... 这个some time 被证明是 forever,最后干脆把积案一笔勾销一了百了。

我是流氓我怕谁 : 2013-01-22#61
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

谁告诉你现在法院可以接受新的起诉人?Justice Barnes还是Rennie?

Tim组1月7号已关闭。Bellissimo等律师网上报名的页面也关闭了。还有哪个组是开放的?

就算如此, 那也只能说这些律师不受理新的案件了. 不代表法院不接受新的起诉. 法院的大门永远是打开的, 有任何人任何时间起诉都会受理.

appollon : 2013-01-22#62
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

03年的集体诉讼就是“参加不参加效果都一样”性质的,现在看来,“参加不参加都一样”是个美丽的谎言。CIC败诉后不切你,但是也不审你,而是把你无限期拖延,拖了10年再来第二次切你。

这次也一样,CIC即使认输了,它仍然会说28万人数量太多,不可能马上审完,需要花时间。就像康尼刚上台的时候说的: It will take some time to process..... 这个some time 被证明是 forever,最后干脆把积案一笔勾销一了百了。

嗯,有道理。是一种很大的可能性。道理他承认,但行动就是不配合。

kevintiger : 2013-01-22#63
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

如果法院判定874违宪后,我觉得:
[1]类似TIM这样的诉讼会风起云涌(因为不许起诉的限制废了,是不是874不许大家诉讼?不确定,MOI纠正);
[2]加拿大省下一大笔钱;
[3]该等的继续等,新法继续出台,继续插队;
[4]以蜗牛的速度审理,TIM的pre614会不会follow Liang先生的判决,有待进一步确认;

自己一面之词, 不对的更正。

lazy : 2013-01-22#64
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

我还有个担心,如果87.4真的违宪,CIC不会不知道吧,那么为什么CIC还这么做呢?这里面肯定还有不可告人的秘密:wdb5:

雾霾和计划生育都害人 : 2013-01-22#65
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

至少可以起到拖延效果!而且,万一CIC没输呢?

大地江海 : 2013-01-22#66
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Rennie的判决是要载入史册的,他不会不顾及历史的沉淀和加国的国际形象.法律是没有国界的.

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-22#67
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

感觉Rennie是个伟大的法官,从他的质问CIC可以看出,也是一位虚心的大法官,尊敬控方律师的学识,还说从中对人权法的认识有了提高。期待,加拿大是个有公平和正义的国家。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#68
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

就算如此, 那也只能说这些律师不受理新的案件了. 不代表法院不接受新的起诉. 法院的大门永远是打开的, 有任何人任何时间起诉都会受理.

我说的是现在不接受,现在是个什么概念?就是发帖的时间对不?

现在法院已不接受新的起诉人,所有诉讼组都关闭了。我认为判决出来后,法院也可能不再接受新的,即使接受,再参加也没多大意义了,因为那比之前参加的人又要晚一两年得到审理。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#69
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

如果法院判定874违宪后,我觉得:
[1]类似TIM这样的诉讼会风起云涌

现在加拿大的移民政策处在十字路口,一切都有可能,现在无论给什么结论都早了。无论是康尼,法官,律师,都没人知道以后的路怎么走。康尼和CIC这几年一直都是用试探的方式出新政策。

根据已经发生的事实,只要没有集体诉讼,87.4被判违宪了,没起诉的人必须再发起诉讼才能得到审理。但这里有很多疑问没得到解决:

1. CIC到底还能不能退费
2. CIC承诺两年不销毁文件,如果败诉了,这个两年就可能延长了。它两年后销毁文件也不合法-----只要它这次败诉了。
3. 律师们还到底申请集体诉讼不,集体诉讼能不能申请成功。

对于Tim的pre614而言,越早上岸越好,越拖下去越不利。现在万幸的是,李克伦给ME打官司,在不挑战87.4合法性的前提下解决问题,这对TIM的pre614帮助最大。只要李克伦成功了,Tim的pre614就会紧随其后。但我希望TIM能抢在李克伦之前成功,而不要再次被动。
但书条款是针对违宪诉讼的,对非违宪诉讼不起作用。

thomaswang1 : 2013-01-23#70
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

MOI, TIM的pre-614大概什么时候法官能再次开庭?

snowolf2008 : 2013-01-23#71
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

MOI, TIM的pre-614大概什么时候法官能再次开庭?

最近TIM没有申请开庭呀!在等听证的结果

thomaswang1 : 2013-01-23#72
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

TIM的pre-614没参加听证

chaoszr : 2013-01-23#73
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在加拿大的移民政策处在十字路口,一切都有可能,现在无论给什么结论都早了。无论是康尼,法官,律师,都没人知道以后的路怎么走。康尼和CIC这几年一直都是用试探的方式出新政策。

根据已经发生的事实,只要没有集体诉讼,87.4被判违宪了,没起诉的人必须再发起诉讼才能得到审理。但这里有很多疑问没得到解决:

1. CIC到底还能不能退费
2. CIC承诺两年不销毁文件,如果败诉了,这个两年就可能延长了。它两年后销毁文件也不合法-----只要它这次败诉了。
3. 律师们还到底申请集体诉讼不,集体诉讼能不能申请成功。

对于Tim的pre614而言,越早上岸越好,越拖下去越不利。现在万幸的是,李克伦给ME打官司,在不挑战87.4合法性的前提下解决问题,这对TIM的pre614帮助最大。只要李克伦成功了,Tim的pre614就会紧随其后。但我希望TIM能抢在李克伦之前成功,而不要再次被动。
但书条款是针对违宪诉讼的,对非违宪诉讼不起作用。
cic起码有两道保险掌握,1.官司两年内结束就但书;2.官司两年以上就毁件,即使起诉的同学获审还可以提高拒签率让大家人财两空。而91同学只有违宪胜诉这华山一条路啊。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#74
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

MOI, TIM的pre-614大概什么时候法官能再次开庭?


如果这次87.4被判违宪,TIM的pre614就有很大可能得到审理,就不需要开庭了!

因为CIC把那35个打分的和635个未打分的区分开来,只让35人获审的依据就是87.4. 如果87.4被判违宪了,635人就没有理由不开始审理!

pre614的635人既可以在87.4违宪的前提下解决问题,也能在87.4合法的前提下解决问题。一条路走不通就走另一条路!

我们不会承认635人被一刀切了,但87.4被判违宪了,那也没有理由不去接受这个判决!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#75
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

我还有个担心,如果87.4真的违宪,CIC不会不知道吧,那么为什么CIC还这么做呢?这里面肯定还有不可告人的秘密:wdb5:


CIC如果提前知道87.4违宪,当初为什么在各个场合高调喊话“一刀切经得起任何法律的挑战”“尽管来告”?

87.4违宪不违宪,只在法官的判决中。法官可以判它违宪,也可以判它不违宪。没有什么法律是生来就违宪或者生来就不违宪的。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#76
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

而91同学只有违宪胜诉这华山一条路啊。


Me被切和Tim的Pre614可以不在违宪胜诉的前提下解决问题

剩下的人应该巴不得这两组同学成功。他们的成功对剩下的人有很强大的正面影响力!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#77
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

感觉Rennie是个伟大的法官,从他的质问CIC可以看出,也是一位虚心的大法官,尊敬控方律师的学识,还说从中对人权法的认识有了提高。期待,加拿大是个有公平和正义的国家。


加拿大的司法独立有没有被保守党的多数席位破坏,这次判决就是试金石。保守党的多数席位能不能操纵这个成熟民主国家的法庭,就在Justice Rennie的一念之间。

chaoszr : 2013-01-23#78
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

普及下“加拿大的惩罚性赔偿”
  在加拿大,惩罚性赔偿的目的是处罚、预防,以及体现法院对被告行为的不满。到今天,加拿大所有的省都允许惩罚性赔偿,但以前并不是这样。传统上,加拿大某个省是否承认惩罚性赔偿,取决于该省的法律是否适用普通法。只有在采用普通法的区域,惩罚性赔偿才是一种法律上的补救手段。比如在采用大陆法的魁北克省,惩罚性赔偿不能在私人案件中适用。直到1991年,魁北克修改民法规则,才允许惩罚性规则的适用。在Vorvis案件中,加拿大最高法院规定惩罚性赔偿可以在任何案件中适用,只要被告的行为构成严厉的、报复性的、应受谴责的或者恶意的。在Hill案件中,加拿大最高法院补充到,惩罚性赔偿只应在损害赔偿和额外补偿都不足以实现惩罚和预防目的时适用。 
 
  惩罚性赔偿主要用于国际侵权案件中,例如:诽谤、侵害、非法监禁等。此外,疏忽行为也可能导致惩罚性赔偿,但适用的很少。惩罚性赔偿同时可以适用于违约案件中,条件是原告所受损害是由一个独立不法行为所致。很多省的法律禁止惩罚性赔偿在涉及死者的案件中使用,因为这样的赔偿并不能代表死者所受到的损害,反而会不恰当地增加生者的财产。此外,对于根据一项法定权利导致的诉求也不能适用惩罚性赔偿,除非该法律明确规定了这样的救济。 
  至于赔偿数额的确定,传统的做法是陪审团有很大的自由裁量权。鉴于惩罚性赔偿逐渐增长的趋势,加拿大最高法院主张,陪审团应该得到指导,内容是关于惩罚性赔偿的功能以及决定数额时需考虑的因素。最高法院列举了11项陪审团应该考虑的因素。 
  (1) 惩罚性赔偿是一种例外,而不是原则 
  (2) 仅当不法行为超过了一般不当行为的程度,成为一种故意的、恶意的、武断的或者该受谴责的行为时,才可以适用惩罚性赔偿 
  (3) 在确定数额时,惩罚性赔偿应和以下因素保持一定比例:造成的损害、不法行为的程度、原告相应的脆弱程度、被告所获的利益或收益,等等 
  (4) 被告因同一行为而遭受的其它罚款或者惩罚应该被考虑进去 
  (5) 一般情况下,仅当其它惩罚不足以实现惩罚、预防和否定功能的时候,惩罚性赔偿才予以适用 
  (6) 惩罚性赔偿的目的并不在于补偿原告 
  (7) 惩罚性赔偿的目的在于:对被告的行为予以惩罚,避免被告和其他人在将来重复类似的不法行为,体现社会对该行为的否定态度 
  (8) 仅当损害赔偿――其在某种程度上也具有一种惩罚性――不足以实现以上三项目标的时候,惩罚性赔偿才可以适用 
  (9) 惩罚性赔偿的数额不能高于理性地符合其目标的必要的额度 
  (10)尽管通常国家会作为对不法行为任何罚款或者处罚的接受者,但惩罚性赔偿会给原告带来一大笔额外财富 
  (11)法官和陪审团应该发现,有节制的惩罚性赔偿通常来说已经足够 
 
  最近这些年里,惩罚性赔偿在加拿大也是大规模的增长。值得一提的是,和美国最高法院不同,加拿大最高法院并不将惩罚性赔偿和刑事处罚的比例作为惩罚性赔偿金是否过高的一个判断因素。 
 
  总的来说,加拿大允许在侵权以及合同领域适用惩罚性赔偿,这和美国的做法是一样的。同时,它也经历了惩罚性赔偿金大规模增长的趋势。 
王律师早在去年5月份就表示了,应当对加拿大政府这种赤裸裸的违约行为进行惩罚性赔偿。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#79
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

发起赔偿也是违宪性质的官司。因为87.4(5)规定了被一刀切的人不得索偿。

但是索赔和要求审理是两种不同的官司,加拿大法庭负责索赔的和审理案件的是两个不同的部门。索赔官司不受Justice Barnes的管制。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#80
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

 
王律师早在去年5月份就表示了,应当对加拿大政府这种赤裸裸的违约行为进行惩罚性赔偿。


王前几天对媒体说:如果这次败诉就发起索赔。他这么高调对媒体说这个“千人索赔团”,我刚开始觉得很惊讶,后来发现这是他的策略,是在利用这段判决书还未发布的时期给CIC震慑,逼它败诉后乖乖执行判决。

反正2013年是有好戏看了。

2012是因,2013是果。

chaoszr : 2013-01-23#81
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

cic将两种违法行为(撕毁合同、剥夺申请人权利)同时打包进87.4当中,不仅增加了自己违宪败诉的机会,也几乎堵死了自己使用但书条款的路子,世界上没有一个法制健全的国家胆敢用一个下位法剥夺宪法赋予的基本人权,加拿大是不是想尝尝鲜。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-23#82
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

cic将两种违法行为(撕毁合同、剥夺申请人权利)同时打包进87.4当中,不仅增加了自己违宪败诉的机会,也几乎堵死了自己使用但书条款的路子,世界上没有一个法制健全的国家胆敢用一个下位法剥夺宪法赋予的基本人权,加拿大是不是想尝尝鲜。

:wdb37:你这个观点比较新颖!

我情愿相信这是物极必反的必然规律,保守党要开始走下坡路。

当初C38通过的时候,有反对党说要从那一天开始就揭露C38,一直揭露到加拿大2015的大选。这些反对党都应该感谢被一刀切的这些外国移民申请人-----是我们让C38遭遇第一个重大惨败。

katharine : 2013-01-24#83
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

MOI,这次的结果会在年前出来吗?

Les Paradis : 2013-01-24#84
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

MOI,这次的结果会在年前出来吗?


过完年才出来,大概初几的时候吧,不会迟于元宵节。我本来过年要去韩国玩,离开网络一段时间,现在看来离不了!

jack_yxj : 2013-01-24#85
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

香港的今年有可能S2吗

Les Paradis : 2013-01-24#86
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Bellissimo再对媒体透露这次开庭律师们的辩论:

http://canadianimmigrant.ca/news-an...ed-fsw-applicants-heard#.UQD8TaEQYoA.facebook

这次有详细的数据事实表明CIC的一刀切是间接的种族歧视:

Mario Bellissimo, of Bellissimo Law Group, produced statistics that he said demonstrated that applicants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa had been discriminated against.

The figures showed that in Feb. 27, 2008, there was a backlog of applications from 640,813 people. Of these, all but 278,391 were processed by June 29, 2012.

A significant majority, 91.9 per cent, of the unprocessed files, which were terminated, originated in visa offices in Asia, the Middle East or Africa.

While the United States, Germany and France processed nearly all their backlogged files between February and June, the Philippines processed only 36.4 per cent and Ghana managed 25.4 per cent.

Bellissimo said this was not because some offices had more applications to process than others during this time; the U.S.A. had 17,225 backlogged files, the Philippines 21,581.
Rather, he said, the countries in which files were processed at a faster rate were “more like Canada.” Applicants from these visa offices were prioritized “in the belief they’d be better able to more successfully integrate,” due to a “stereotype,” he said.

Les Paradis : 2013-01-24#87
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Bellissimo挖掘的数据显示:

1. 2008年227之前有64万技术移民积压人数,到C38生效的2012年629时,27.8万人处理完了。

2. 被一刀切的有91.9%来自亚洲、中东和非洲

3. 来自美国、德国和法国的pre-c50申请人几乎在C38生效前的二月到六月全部处理完,同期的菲律宾只处理了36.4%

4. Bellissimo说这并不是因为遭到歧视的地区的使馆在这段时间有更多的积压。美国的积压案件有1.7万宗,菲律宾的有2.1万宗。

CIC有秘密的种族歧视配额表。在C38生效前的几个月,CIC加班加点让美国和西欧的91申请人抢先审理完,让这些白人免于一刀切!

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-24#88
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC有秘密的种族歧视配额表。在C38生效之前的几个月,CIC加班加点让美国和西欧的91申请人率先得到审理,让这些白人免于一刀切。
如果证实CIC这样做, 那么太有利了。继续挖掘这点。

angleheart : 2013-01-24#89
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

这个时候要是能找到污点证人是最好的了。

tguozq : 2013-01-24#90
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

能买到cic的“深喉”出来就最好了

Les Paradis : 2013-01-24#91
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

....

angleheart : 2013-01-24#92
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

如果这个时候要是律师要是能根据法庭的命令让CIC london交出现在所有91的但是还没结案的,结果一定会很气人,我估计这些剩下的人没有一个是白人。

我奇怪的一点是: CIC的官方指令肯定是没有歧视来自不同地域的申请人的,但是全球的CIC 为何可以这么整齐,这么一致的来歧视的处理这些非白人的申请者,这里面一定大有文章,大家想过没有?如果真要是揪出这么一个污点证人出来的话,那可就是天大的窟窿,移民部的官员要坐牢的。呵呵!

snowolf2008 : 2013-01-24#93
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

如果这个时候要是律师要是能根据法庭的命令让CIC london交出现在所有91的但是还没结案的,结果一定会很气人,我估计这些剩下的人没有一个是白人。

我奇怪的一点是: CIC的官方指令肯定是没有歧视来自不同地域的申请人的,但是全球的CIC 为何可以这么整齐,这么一致的来歧视的处理这些非白人的申请者,这里面一定大有文章,大家想过没有?如果真要是揪出这么一个污点证人出来的话,那可就是天大的窟窿,移民部的官员要坐牢的。呵呵!

如果律师真的把这一点揪出来,包括康尼在内的所有人都是要付出代价的!

sandflower : 2013-01-24#94
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC在去年配额大部分给了欧洲,我们还在期待英国审理完了,就轮到我们。结果等来的是一刀切,大家可以翻翻旧帖子

tguozq : 2013-01-25#95
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

如果有媒体挖cic的人员,作为污点证人,一定会引起加拿大政坛地震。

chaoszr : 2013-01-25#96
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

王前几天对媒体说:如果这次败诉就发起索赔。他这么高调对媒体说这个“千人索赔团”,我刚开始觉得很惊讶,后来发现这是他的策略,是在利用这段判决书还未发布的时期给CIC震慑,逼它败诉后乖乖执行判决。
反正2013年是有好戏看了。
2012是因,2013是果。
87.4(5)就是此地无银三百两,用立法的形式剥夺申请人的上诉及索赔的权利就是说明在CIC毁约的情况下申请人有权上诉及索赔。为什么614后梁东一干人等180天就结案了,梁东是所谓329前的,而且是有判决说CIC不当拖延,CIC再不审理,梁是有权索赔而且是惩罚性赔偿的,所以包括北京在内的329前的都有协商的180天的“优待”。而和梁一起的印度人的227的案子,因为没有判决支持,所以227的就没有优待。

CIC的策略并不是先入为主的,而是步步为营的,它是有底线的,就是“怎样少摊官司,多切人,不赔钱”。包括前一段时间所谓给“错发VISA的”申请人以人道,纯属障眼法。87.4是以打断审理过程为前提的,申请人拿到VISA说明审理过程已经结束,不受87.4支配的,这群人完全可以索赔的。

即使91的违宪诉讼败诉,即使我们的申请“依法”被切,我们也是有权要求赔偿的。切案是无条件的,这是91的先天身份所决定的;但索赔是有条件的,就是自然人有91的身份,而如果被切了,91的身份没有了,自然人可以以另外的身份即不受87.4约束的身份索赔。王律师不会是虚张声势,律师们应该比我们有这方面的敏感性,也有这方面的准备。难怪隔壁有把王律师叫“搅屎棍子”的,能让人恨到牙根痒痒的人也必定很有办法。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-25#97
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC在去年配额大部分给了欧洲,我们还在期待英国审理完了,就轮到我们。结果等来的是一刀切,大家可以翻翻旧帖子

英国的审理得差不多了之后,马上把巴基斯坦的10几万案子转到伦敦,造成英国仍然有海量积压的假象。

你说的旧帖子就是我以前的老ID发的,数据是我整理出来的。没想到你还记得。

现在看来,这个阴谋从09年就开始酝酿好了。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-25#98
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

而和梁一起的印度人的227的案子,因为没有判决支持,所以227的就没有优待。


和LIANG一起的130多个227的全部得到了CIC给的180天结案的待遇。227的代表案例本身的mundamus被驳回,是因为她的案件当时正在处理中,无需再给强制令。但剩下的227全部被justice Rennie要求CIC即时审完。

angleheart : 2013-01-25#99
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

前一整子不是有人放出消息说有些cic的部门在大量的裁员,不知到是不是真的。如果是真的话,那么从这些被解雇的前工作人员里可以追踪到信息的。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-26#100
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

继续发动媒体谴责加拿大一刀切不公平:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fairness+lost+immigration+reform/7864538/story.html

Fairness lost in immigration reform

Never before have sweeping changes to policies been undertaken with so little public debate or consultation


Last week, the Federal Court of Canada was asked to strike down legislation that terminated the applications of 280,000 foreign skilled workers and their families for being in breach of the Charter of Rights and the rule of law. The government's 2008 decision to eliminate its vast visa processing backlog for the Federal Skilled Worker program by simply legislating away the files of thousands of individuals who had been waiting in good faith for years stands in stark contrast to an immigration system that had long been internationally recognized for its procedural transparency and fairness.

How can we account for the Harper government's drastic departure from the well-established principle of non-arbitrariness in immigrant admissions?

These legislative changes were not the result of thoughtful legislative deliberation, far from it. Rather, reflecting a broader pattern of tightly controlled decision-making, the Harper government had strategically buried this major policy change in the last budget bill. Given that budget bills are typically several hundred pages in length and deal with a vast array of issues, this move ensured there would be little debate on the merits of the proposed policy change.
This particular instance of sweeping immigration reform is unique neither in terms of its controversial substance nor in its lack of meaningful democratic engagement. In fact, the changes to immigration policy enacted over the past four years have been unprecedented not only in their pace and scope, but also in their blatant disregard for long-standing democratic processes.

In the past, major immigration reform has typically been the result of parliamentary deliberation. Reforms were passed after an extended process of comprehensive consultation with major societal groups and experts, committee hearings, and parliamentary debate. Often, major legislative reform was preceded by a "green paper" that outlined the government's vision for reform and detailed the empirical evidence on which the proposed changes were based.

Few of these markers of what constitutes meaningful democracy apply when looking at the long list of changes in immigration policy since 2008. Major changes to Canada's immigration system have been buried in budget and omnibus bills. Both types of bills lump together multiple unrelated issues and are voted on in their entirety. This means specific proposals attract little attention and, even when they do, are unlikely to be opposed because voting against the bill can threaten to bring down the government, especially in times of minority rule. Even more problematic than the government's choice of budget and omnibus bills over stand-alone immigration bills has been its heavy reliance on "ministerial instructions."

Passed under the Harper minority government as part of the 2008 Budget Implementation Act, ministerial instructions grant the immigration minister enormous discretion over the processing of immigrant applications. Ministerial instructions render legal policy reforms that bypass parliament and, since 2012, can even be applied retroactively.


The changes that have since been effected through ministerial instructions include the contested two-year moratorium on the sponsoring of parents and grandparents. Instead of being placed on the path to permanent residency, these family members now receive a "super visa" that allows them to visit - but not to remain in - Canada for up to two years, provided their families can afford the cost of private health insurance.

Canada has long been internationally admired for its open, transparent, and fair immigration and refugee policy and the absence of the kind of political polarization and popular xenophobia that marks immigration politics in the United States, Australia, and much of Europe. The sweeping policy changes of the past four years, and the way in which they were enacted, threaten to undermine these enormous accomplishments.

While good faith efforts at consensus-building and parliamentary debate cannot guarantee thoughtful public discussion and good policy, it is hard to imagine either to occur in the absence of these democratic processes. To the extent that our government uses its executive powers to pass controversial reforms without consulting with societal interests and by strategically sidelining parliament, it will endanger the democratic legitimacy of Canada's immigration system.

Should Canada's long-standing bipartisan consensus on immigration fall apart, immigration will become the kind of divisive issue it is elsewhere. Politicians will face incentives to exploit immigration issues for political gains.

The government is right that our immigration system can be made more efficient. But let us not sacrifice its legitimacy and fairness in the process.

Dr. Antje Ellermann is a faculty associate at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia. She is also an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at UBC, focusing on the comparative politics of immigration and the ethics of immigrant selection.

上面是温哥华的报纸的报道

还有一篇印度国内的英文报道:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...laws/articleshow/18091769.cms?intenttarget=no

Les Paradis : 2013-01-26#101
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

奇怪这段时间怎么只有告CIC的律师们上媒体发动舆论进攻,康尼的人马怎么全部失语了?

Oldman : 2013-01-26#102
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

奇怪这段时间怎么只有告CIC的律师们上媒体发动舆论进攻,康尼的人马怎么全部失语了?

现在的证据充分, 并揭露了种族歧视, 谁还敢狡辩呢. 越狡辩, 越早下台... CIC现在采取拖延了,只好死猪不怕烫...

Les Paradis : 2013-01-26#103
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

.....

bhbsunyi : 2013-01-26#104
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

:wdb9::wdb9::wdb9:

Oldman : 2013-01-26#105
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

哈哈:wdb6:,我在那个帖子要你请咖啡的事情怎么没见你回复,Gary Oldman?

请我喝咖啡啊, 哈哈,,, 我怎么没有看到这么重要的信息啊. 很荣幸, 不过我只喝酒, 等咱们胜利了咱们喝酒去, 快了.

Les Paradis : 2013-01-26#106
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Fairness+lost+immigration+reform/7864538/story.html

Fairness lost in immigration reform

Never before have sweeping changes to policies been undertaken with so little public debate or consultation


Last week, the Federal Court of Canada was asked to strike down legislation that terminated the applications of 280,000 foreign skilled workers and their families for being in breach of the Charter of Rights and the rule of law. The government's 2008 decision to eliminate its vast visa processing backlog for the Federal Skilled Worker program by simply legislating away the files of thousands of individuals who had been waiting in good faith for years stands in stark contrast to an immigration system that had long been internationally recognized for its procedural transparency and fairness.

How can we account for the Harper government's drastic departure from the well-established principle of non-arbitrariness in immigrant admissions?

These legislative changes were not the result of thoughtful legislative deliberation, far from it. Rather, reflecting a broader pattern of tightly controlled decision-making, the Harper government had strategically buried this major policy change in the last budget bill. Given that budget bills are typically several hundred pages in length and deal with a vast array of issues, this move ensured there would be little debate on the merits of the proposed policy change.
This particular instance of sweeping immigration reform is unique neither in terms of its controversial substance nor in its lack of meaningful democratic engagement. In fact, the changes to immigration policy enacted over the past four years have been unprecedented not only in their pace and scope, but also in their blatant disregard for long-standing democratic processes.

In the past, major immigration reform has typically been the result of parliamentary deliberation. Reforms were passed after an extended process of comprehensive consultation with major societal groups and experts, committee hearings, and parliamentary debate. Often, major legislative reform was preceded by a "green paper" that outlined the government's vision for reform and detailed the empirical evidence on which the proposed changes were based.

Few of these markers of what constitutes meaningful democracy apply when looking at the long list of changes in immigration policy since 2008. Major changes to Canada's immigration system have been buried in budget and omnibus bills. Both types of bills lump together multiple unrelated issues and are voted on in their entirety. This means specific proposals attract little attention and, even when they do, are unlikely to be opposed because voting against the bill can threaten to bring down the government, especially in times of minority rule. Even more problematic than the government's choice of budget and omnibus bills over stand-alone immigration bills has been its heavy reliance on "ministerial instructions."

Passed under the Harper minority government as part of the 2008 Budget Implementation Act, ministerial instructions grant the immigration minister enormous discretion over the processing of immigrant applications. Ministerial instructions render legal policy reforms that bypass parliament and, since 2012, can even be applied retroactively.


The changes that have since been effected through ministerial instructions include the contested two-year moratorium on the sponsoring of parents and grandparents. Instead of being placed on the path to permanent residency, these family members now receive a "super visa" that allows them to visit - but not to remain in - Canada for up to two years, provided their families can afford the cost of private health insurance.

Canada has long been internationally admired for its open, transparent, and fair immigration and refugee policy and the absence of the kind of political polarization and popular xenophobia that marks immigration politics in the United States, Australia, and much of Europe. The sweeping policy changes of the past four years, and the way in which they were enacted, threaten to undermine these enormous accomplishments.

While good faith efforts at consensus-building and parliamentary debate cannot guarantee thoughtful public discussion and good policy, it is hard to imagine either to occur in the absence of these democratic processes. To the extent that our government uses its executive powers to pass controversial reforms without consulting with societal interests and by strategically sidelining parliament, it will endanger the democratic legitimacy of Canada's immigration system.

Should Canada's long-standing bipartisan consensus on immigration fall apart, immigration will become the kind of divisive issue it is elsewhere. Politicians will face incentives to exploit immigration issues for political gains.

The government is right that our immigration system can be made more efficient. But let us not sacrifice its legitimacy and fairness in the process.

Dr. Antje Ellermann is a faculty associate at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of British Columbia. She is also an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at UBC, focusing on the comparative politics of immigration and the ethics of immigrant selection.


这篇报道比较有深度的回顾了哈勃政府08年以来的移民政策出台的背景。每次康尼出新政都是偷偷摸摸的在当年的预算案里和不相干的东西打包蒙混得到通过,而且一次比一次变本加厉,2012年达到了顶峰----用新的立法回溯之前的案子。前半部分描述了在08年之前,移民政策的制定都会在国会展开充分的辩论,哈勃政府却与传统背道而驰,不容许新政策有辩论的空间。作者最后得出加拿大的民主程序和移民政策会被损害的结论,并呼吁移民政策的改革不能牺牲公平和法制。

chaoszr : 2013-01-26#107
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

现在的证据充分, 并揭露了种族歧视, 谁还敢狡辩呢. 越狡辩, 越早下台... CIC现在采取拖延了,只好死猪不怕烫...
这种事情没法狡辩,对各领事馆的处理差距CIC辩称是效率的问题。可是效率是个很模棱两可的问题,我想问问是亚非领事馆的案子多VO人少还是亚非领事馆的486的电脑不给力,或者那些VO们不适应亚非的食品长期营养不良没劲儿干活。总之,CIC无法自圆其说,再往深里挖,都是人的问题,终究要和歧视沾边儿的。

没空在媒体上“辟谣”了,专心致志的准备上诉的事儿了。

Oldman : 2013-01-26#108
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

上诉也没有用了,CIC必输. CIC没有任何数据说明这是为了加拿大和申请人好. 他们只有几个个别案例说是有博士在开出租车等, 这也太什么空洞了... 哪个国家都有博士开出租车...

至于很多人找不到工作, 那是别的问题造成的, 再减少移民, 将来连服兵役的人都不够了.... 这叫什么为了加拿大好啊. 你说是不是有人故意想让加拿大亡国啊...

frankpenn : 2013-01-26#109
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

谢谢moi总是及时的给大家提供信息。 过去加拿大政府只称呼自己为Canadian Government. 只有Harper开始叫自己的狗屎队伍叫做The Harper Government. 就是把自己凌驾于国家之上的一伙独裁者。

chaoszr : 2013-01-26#110
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

奇怪这段时间怎么只有告CIC的律师们上媒体发动舆论进攻,康尼的人马怎么全部失语了?
Cic那边确实静的可怕,敢于睁眼说瞎话的部门还有什么龌龊事儿做不出来。总之,虽然官司挺乐观,心里依然不淡定,隐隐感觉这届保守党政府从上到下挺偏执的。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-27#111
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

温哥华太阳报那篇专栏评论文章说一刀切法律和别的大量不相干的法律一起打包成C38通过,根本不敢在国会辩论一刀切的真正价值,这让我想起5月份的时候,TIM一边忙6月的开庭,一边到处活动游说保守党议员。他游说保守党MP不是让他们投反对票,而是要求这些MP去要求总理把一刀切法案分离出来,在国会给予充分的讨论。TIM不愧是外交官转型的律师(他是来自美国Detroit的移民)。那段时间他很累,每天工作12个小时以上,他的工作狂热情和康尼有的一比!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-27#112
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScgNhrp7qE&list=UUtjG6IfgsBQeT-DESlg6PmQ&index=1

上面是Bellissimo律师最新发布的视频讲话,我不知道怎么在帖子里贴youtube视频(David教教我)。那里还有好几个与这次违宪诉讼有关的视频。

Bellissimo这次成为违宪诉讼律师里的主导,可以看出他把所有律师团结起来了,这次开庭辩论的主要观点和策略也是他几个月前在他网站发布的:证明CIC的一刀切政策是国别歧视,违反了加拿大人权和自由宪章的第15部分。

想当初我们为2003年的集体诉讼律师“招魂”,没想到这次的主导是Bellissimo这位很年轻的律师!

我是流氓我怕谁 : 2013-01-27#113
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

视频看过了. 上周一21日录制的, 其中谈到DoJ是上周末的Due Date提供回应, 不知道这个回应有没有出人意料的地方...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScgNhrp7qE&list=UUtjG6IfgsBQeT-DESlg6PmQ&index=1

上面是Bellissimo律师最新发布的视频讲话,我不知道怎么在帖子里贴youtube视频(David教教我)。那里还有好几个与这次违宪诉讼有关的视频。

Bellissimo这次成为违宪诉讼律师里的主导,可以看出他把所有律师团结起来了,这次开庭辩论的主要观点和策略也是他几个月前在他网站发布的:证明CIC的一刀切政策是国别歧视,违反了加拿大人权和自由宪章的第15部分。

想当初我们为2003年的集体诉讼律师“招魂”,没想到这次的主导是Bellissimo这位很年轻的律师!

我是流氓我怕谁 : 2013-01-27#114
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

视频看过了. 上周一21日录制的, 其中谈到DoJ是上周末的Due Date提供回应, 不知道这个回应有没有出人意料的地方...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScgNhrp7qE&list=UUtjG6IfgsBQeT-DESlg6PmQ&index=1

上面是Bellissimo律师最新发布的视频讲话,我不知道怎么在帖子里贴youtube视频(David教教我)。那里还有好几个与这次违宪诉讼有关的视频。

Bellissimo这次成为违宪诉讼律师里的主导,可以看出他把所有律师团结起来了,这次开庭辩论的主要观点和策略也是他几个月前在他网站发布的:证明CIC的一刀切政策是国别歧视,违反了加拿大人权和自由宪章的第15部分。

想当初我们为2003年的集体诉讼律师“招魂”,没想到这次的主导是Bellissimo这位很年轻的律师!

katharine : 2013-01-27#115
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

真没想到这事要托到过年,不过还好离过年也没几天了,真是等不住了,2013年准备考A类,前半年若仍无结果,9月就留学去~,啥也不想了~

Les Paradis : 2013-01-28#116
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Cic那边确实静的可怕,敢于睁眼说瞎话的部门还有什么龌龊事儿做不出来。总之,虽然官司挺乐观,心里依然不淡定,隐隐感觉这届保守党政府从上到下挺偏执的。


CIC还是有了一点反应,这是26号官网发布的声明:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/statements/2013/2013-01-26.asp

Statement — Minister Kenney issues statement recognizing the Republic Day of India

康尼庆祝印度的共和日。

上次康尼访问印度,那里的prec50组织联系了他们国家的public relation总理为他们请愿,转达了一些问题。康尼当时表态会给他们回复,可是这么多天过去了根本无回音,印度的prec50很不满:

Friends during our protests at Amritsar Minister Jason Kenney promised to review his immigration policy through his agent Tim Uppal, secretary Chris and two other Canadian officials and also promised to contact us regarding this but till date nothing has been done and we have heard nothing from his side. It seems that as always he was lying and said this only to escape the situation. I propose a strong reminder through the consulate at Chandigarh and/or a protest in front of the consulate. What you suggest? are you ready?

Friends Just managed a chance to meet MP Devinder Shorey from Calgary North East riding. He is also a lawyer by profession and we had a very intense discussion regarding our ongoing protests and the unconstitutional and inhuman law 87.4. I also apprised him of the promise that Jason Kenney made at Amritsar to review his policy and to contact us but has failed till now. I put up our case very strongly and he consented on some points and disagreed on some. He promised to remind Jason Kenney about the promise he made at Amritsar and also assured to convey our concern to him. Let us see and hope for the best.

chaoszr : 2013-01-28#117
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

从来只有新人笑,有谁听到旧人哭。糠萝卜的印度之行报导弄得和天朝一样,光捡好听的写了。

annie9988 : 2013-01-28#118
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

上诉也没有用了,CIC必输. CIC没有任何数据说明这是为了加拿大和申请人好. 他们只有几个个别案例说是有博士在开出租车等, 这也太什么空洞了... 哪个国家都有博士开出租车...

至于很多人找不到工作, 那是别的问题造成的, 再减少移民, 将来连服兵役的人都不够了.... 这叫什么为了加拿大好啊. 你说是不是有人故意想让加拿大亡国啊...

:wdb37::wdb45:

zs79 : 2013-01-28#119
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

和LIANG一起的130多个227的全部得到了CIC给的180天结案的待遇。227的代表案例本身的mundamus被驳回,是因为她的案件当时正在处理中,无需再给强制令。但剩下的227全部被justice Rennie要求CIC即时审完。

说得对,我已经要求TIM为后来新加入的227重新申请mundamus。依据就是当时的判决里已经明确了CIC不正当拖延的事实。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-29#120
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

视频看过了. 上周一21日录制的, 其中谈到DoJ是上周末的Due Date提供回应, 不知道这个回应有没有出人意料的地方...


Bellissimo的更新:

On Friday January 25th, the Department of Justice responded by providing comments with respect to the statistics we presented relating to applicants’ country of national origin and residence as part of the section 15 Charter submissions. They also provided their response to the proposed certified questions to the Federal Court of Appeal. All materials are now with the Honourable Justice Rennie for a decision.

Given the sheer volume of materials and the number of applicants’ issues that have been raised it will take some time for a decision.

We will update you as soon as we hear anything from the Federal Court.

Mario D. Bellissimo

Les Paradis : 2013-01-29#121
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言



见到你很:wdb6:,你参加起诉了吗?

这几位潜水很勤快的同学:diy_ca,znuna,沸腾,你们什么情况?上来冒个泡吧!

Les Paradis : 2013-01-29#122
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

说得对,我已经要求TIM为后来新加入的227重新申请mundamus。依据就是当时的判决里已经明确了CIC不正当拖延的事实。


关于MI1:

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2012/2012fc758/2012fc758.html

[51] ...... In light of the fact that this is a representative case, and that the parties evidently expect some guidance on how to address the remaining MI1 applications, the Court makes the following findings: the Minister established a policy pursuant to the MI1 whereby those applications would be prioritized and would be processed within 6-12 months, and therefore the delay (ranging from 24-52 months) has prima facie been longer than that which might reasonably be expected to arise.

如果227的剩余案子被代表案例Ms. Grung引导,那就全部败诉了,可惜Justice Rennie不同意Ms.Grung的mundamus被驳回代表其他的227也被驳回,所以单独给出上面这部分解释,并要求剩余的227即时审完。

CIC不接受614后加入的227的和解,连300天结案的条件都不给,就是在拖延时间而已,他们心里很清楚继续打官司必败无疑,但他们在乎的不是胜败,而是时间拖得越长越好。这个政府真的很坏、很阴险、很狡猾!

2013年的移民配额上限是26.5万,这几年都差不多,可是最终签证都只发了25万,有一万多的配额故意浪费掉。如果不打官司,申请人只能继续任由CIC摆布。CIC只能在法庭强制的状况下才会增加配额。

znuna : 2013-01-29#123
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

见到你很:wdb6:,你参加起诉了吗?

这几位潜水很勤快的同学:diy_ca,znuna,沸腾,你们什么情况?上来冒个泡吧!

一直在关注,你的努力会使你心想事成的。

佩服你,在强者面前我选择无语。

luo-ai-wen : 2013-01-29#124
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

关于MI1:

这个政府真的很坏、很阴险、很狡猾!

2013年的移民配额上限是26.5万,这几年都差不多,可是最终签证都只发了25万,有一万多的配额故意浪费掉。如果不打官司,申请人只能继续任由CIC摆布。CIC只能在法庭强制的状况下才会增加配额。

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-29#125
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

January 17, 2013Updated: January 17, 2013 | 6:31 pm
Adjust Text Size

Canada’s immigration backlog wipeout illegal, lawyers argue

By Staff Torstar News Service
Share this Article



FRED CHARTRAND Prime Minister Stephen Harper takes part in a question and answer session at the Canadian American Business Council in Ottawa on Monday, November 19, 2012. Harper is ending the year by listing his government's achievements in 2012, but the Opposition is pointing to several low-lights.In a statement, Harper says Canada will enter 2013 with some of the strongest economic growth among the Group of Seven richest nations. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Fred Chartrand Related:

The Federal Court has been asked to strike down legislation passed by the Conservative government last year to wipe out immigration backlogs because it breaches the Charter of Rights and the rule of law.
Lawyers representing 1,000 people affected by the move to toss out nearly 98,000 immigration applications allege that the Tory government had discriminated based on the national origins of the applicants.
While Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has the power to set priorities and policies, he must apply the rules equally, consistently and fairly, argued lawyers for the litigants, some of whom had waited in the immigrant queue for as long as eight years.
Related:

The court heard this week that 81.4 per cent of the files in the skilled worker backlog that were tossed out by Ottawa under the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act were from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
“The backlog was not a function of volume (of applications),” said Mario Bellissimo, one of nine lawyers on the case. “It was a policy choice.”
On Feb. 28, 2008, Kenney launched so-called “ministerial instructions” to restrict eligibility for the skilled worker program to candidates in specific occupations. The new and old files were to be processed simultaneously. The backlog then was 229,457 files, representing 640,813 people.
In June, when the move to wipe out the backlog took effect, the remaining 97,715 cases, representing 278,391 people — all of them in the queue before Feb. 28, 2008 — were simply thrown out.
Government lawyer Keith Reimer argued that the lawsuit boiled down to “who gets to control Canada’s immigration program.”
“The government is entitled to change the law and control Canada’s immigration program,” said Reimer, adding that eliminating the backlog was crucial to a “just-in-time” system that responds to Canada’s labour market needs.
Instead of long delays, skilled immigrants can benefit from quicker processing and better prospects from new, targeted selection criteria, he noted.
However, Justice Donald Rennie questioned why the backlog and just-in-time approach had to be “mutually exclusive” and warned Reimer to focus his arguments on the new law’s benefits to Canada.
“I hope you are not taking a paternalistic approach to immigrants,” Rennie said.
Lawyer Matthew Jeffery said Kenney must follow the rule of law and cannot use his ministerial power to shield “arbitrary state action.”
“Ethically, he’s in the wrong,” Jeffery told Rennie. “There is a clear and obvious unfairness here.”
Immigration department flip-flops on backlogs did not help, lawyers said.
Kenney initially ordered that all applications in the backlog would be terminated as of March 29, 2012, when the plan was announced. The cutoff was changed to June 29 after a legal challenge, because the bill had not become law at that time.
Lawyer Lorne Waldman said processing of the “terminated” applications had been inconsistent, with some being processed even when they did not have a selection decision before the old cutoff, and others offered permanent resident visas on humanitarian grounds.
The affected applicants were entitled to the right of notice, or they should be granted exemption on humanitarian grounds, Waldman said

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-29#126
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

attack
Site C creates instant lake, impacts wildlife

Bodyguard in Gadhafi plot ordered deported

PM dismisses concerns about enviro merger

Caisse says it supports SNC-Lavalin

John Baird defends PM Stephen Harper’s million-dollar limo tab

Cybercrime backlog plaguing RCMP: audit

Belize, Canada co-operating in drug war

N.W.T. town’s gas heat supply restored

Ontario man charged after 155 dead cats found

Frustration mounts after visa office shut

Ottawa teachers defend school trip actions

May 7, 2012Updated: May 7, 2012 | 2:27 pmAdjust Text Size


Immigration applications to Canada drop in Asian countries

By Staff Torstar News Service
Share this Article



Torstar News Service Ratna Omidvar, president of the Maytree foundation, says, "Without being part of a public consultation, we’ve drastically changed not only the way we do immigration, but the immigrants who come in." Related:

Immigration applications from key Asian countries have dropped by more than half since 2006, when the Conservative government began transforming its migrant selection.
Critics say the disproportionate declines from China, India, the Philippines and Pakistan could be an indication of how Ottawa’s policy changes favour some immigrant countries over others, and would have an impact on the immigrant mix.
“Without being part of a public consultation, we’ve drastically changed not only the way we do immigration, but the immigrants who come in,” said Ratna Omidvar, president of Maytree Foundation, which has a mandate to build strong civic communities.
Related:

“Immigration selection is not simply about headhunting, but about nation-building. Immigration policy is too important to be made in a piecemeal manner.”
Statistics obtained by the Star show a significant drop in the annual number of Chinese, Indians, Filipinos and Pakistanis applying for permanent residency between 2006 and 2011.
Applicants from China fell 45 per cent from 55,647 to 30,507; India by almost 51 per cent from 61,559 to 30,283; the Philippines by 32 per cent from 37,132 to 25,378; and Pakistan by 65 per cent from 31,330 to 11,066.
While the number of applications fell overall for the top 10 source countries from 227,689 to 140,712 during the period — a reflection of policy changes to control immigration intake and backlog — the declines of the top four countries were bigger than English- or French-speaking countries.
According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the number of immigration applications from the United States has dropped by only 10 per cent from 8,352 in 2006 to 7,546 in 2011 while applicants from France fell by 7 per cent from 5,141 to 4,795.
Since coming into power in 2006, Ottawa has made significant changes to the immigration system, tightening language requirement, restricting eligibility to limited occupations in demand, and capping the applications it processes each year.
It plans to have applicants’ credentials pre-assessed prior to arrival and give Canadian employers more power in selecting immigrants through employments.
However, Omidvar said many of the changes have been made in the form of the so-called “ministerial instructions” issued by Kenney with little public discussion.
Although some changes are on the right track, she said, “What is missing is any type of public discourse and debate.”
Canada’s diversity provides links to new markets and new products, Omidvar said, and changes to the mix of source countries could have an implication on trades with new economies in Russia, India, China and Brazil.
Kenney said he did not anticipate fundamental changes in primary immigrant source countries, but he expected to see “an increase in the capacity of immigrants from those countries to succeed.”
“I really don’t care where people come from as long as they are able to succeed in Canada. I think more employers have the same attitude,” Kenney has told the Star.
“One issue here is language proficiency. All of the data says the primary reason why foreign trained professionals are not hired in Canada is language proficiency, which is an indicator of people’s soft social skills,” he added.
“Even if they have a book smart about the job, but if they don’t understand the cultural context, that can be a barrier.”

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-29#127
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Court rules against would-be immigrants

By Staff The Canadian Press
Share this Article



Related:

OTTAWA – A federal court judge has quashed the hopes of hundreds of would-be immigrants seeking to force the government to review their files.
Over 800 skilled workers have seen their applications languish in a massive backlog that’s set to be eliminated by the federal budget bill.
They are suing the government over the delay in processing their files and had sought an injunction that would force the immigration minister to keep their applications open while the case is before the courts.
Related:

That’s because the budget bill is likely to pass before the case is over, meaning they would lose their applications.
But in a decision released Wednesday, the judge said he can’t force the immigration minister to keep the files open.
He called their request devoid of merit in part because the bill hasn’t passed and the courts can only get involved once legislation is enacted, not before.
He also ruled that the law as it stands doesn’t give the minister power over the affected files so the courts can’t stop the minister from doing something he doesn’t have the power to do.
The case is still expected to be heard in court next month.
The lawsuit is one of two currently pending against the government over its decision to erase the files of 280,000 people and return their application fees.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says they were pleased and not surprised by the ruling.
Ana Curic says the government believes the bill will withstand any legal challenges and she called the backlog a roadblock to Canada’s ability to respond to labour market needs.
The case at hand involved skilled workers who had applied to come to Canada prior to 2008, when the government made major changes to the immigration program.
As a result, their applications sunk to the bottom of the pile and they allege that’s violated a promise to them that their files would be reviewed in a timely fashion.
In his decision, the judge says that there may be an issue with how long it has taken to process the files but he says it’s unclear that a contractual obligation was created.
And he says even if there was, there’s no legal reason Parliament can’t extinguish such a right.

shaohaiyue : 2013-01-29#128
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

Views on immigration shifting: survey

By Stephanie Levitz The Canadian Press
Share this Article



The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick Instructor Nathan Brinklow writes in Mohawk as he teaches a Adult Language Immersion Program on the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Ontario. Related:

OTTAWA – Canadian hearts are hardening slightly towards the country’s immigrants, particularly when it comes to their impact on the economy, an internal government survey suggests.
The latest results of the Citizenship and Immigration tracking survey — conducted every year since 1996 to gauge public opinion on immigration — suggest that national attitudes towards both the number and the value of Canadian immigrants are shifting.
The 2012 survey, obtained under access to information laws, found the number of Canadian respondents who said they felt immigration was having a positive effect on the economy was 56 per cent — a decline of 10 percentage points from the 2010 survey.
Related:

The number of respondents who said they believe immigration has a positive impact on Canadian culture came in at 40 per cent, a decline of between 16 to 18 per cent from 2010 levels.
“Findings from the 2012 tracking study suggest that attitudes towards immigration levels and the impact of immigration are somewhat tightening up,” says an analysis of the results done by the department.
The survey itself was carried out in two separate sessions in February by a company called Corporate Research Associates.
The first session involved 1,500 respondents and carried a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The second session, with 1,200 people, is considered accurate to within plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
On Wednesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is set to release targets for the number of immigrants Canada will accept next year. Kenney said he takes the results of the government’s internal tracking polls seriously.
“I keep a very close eye on public opinion with respect to immigration,” Kenney said in an interview. “We want to avoid the disconnect between popular opinion and policy on immigration that we’ve seen in Western Europe.”
Support for current immigration levels has hovered around 50 per cent since 2004, the survey suggests. When respondents weren’t aware of the actual number of immigrants being allowed into the country, they felt the levels were about right.
Once informed of the government’s target figures, however, opinions changed.
“When informed of the actual number of immigrants to Canada, between nine per cent and 14 per cent of Canadians shift from the ‘right amount’ to ‘too many,’” the survey found.
Canada’s annual target number for new immigrants has been set at 250,000 for the last few years and is unlikely to change much, despite pressure from labour groups.
During public consultations on immigration levels, for instance, the St. John’s Board of Trade begged for more people to be let in.
“The federal government must act on this most grave challenge to economic growth and prosperity,” the board’s submission said.
“We would encourage government to place employer needs at the centre of decision making about immigration policy and levels. Labour shortages in Newfoundland and Labrador are unique, acute and immediate.”
A recent analysis by TD Bank suggested that just to offset the impact of an aging population, Canada’s annual immigration numbers need to rise to at least 350,000 after 2016.
But there are other issues at play, the bank said.
“The more pressing concern is the poor economic outcomes of newcomers to Canada,” the analysis said.
“Much effort has been made by the federal and provincial governments to improve this situation and until these reforms bear fruit, it is likely counterproductive to raise the current 250,000 target.”
It’s the economic outcomes that partially drive public opinion about the value of immigration to the economy, Kenney said.
“The rate of unemployment and underemployment amongst immigrants is too high,” he said.
“We’re bringing a lot of newcomers here only to face unemployment or underemployment in an economy with skills shortages which doesn’t make much sense.”
Since 2008, the Conservatives have carried out major reforms to immigration policy, eradicating backlogs, overhauling the federal skilled worker program and changing the refugee system, among others.
This has been accompanied by a public campaign against those the government feels are abusing the system via human smuggling, crooked consultants or marriage fraud.
Kenney said it’s about gradually repairing a broken system.
“Our efforts to reinforce the integrity of the immigration system will, in the long run, increase public support for legal immigration and well-managed refugee protection,” Kenney said.
But critics have said the consequences of that campaign are a backlash against immigration.
“Canada’s ability to successfully maintain and increase immigration levels depends in part on the level of public support. The federal government, in turn, plays an important leadership role in ensuring that Canadians support the immigration and refugee resettlement programs,” said a submission by Canadian Council on Refugees to the consultations on immigration levels.
“The government must promote positive newcomer contributions and avoid discourse that feeds misconceptions and prejudice against immigrants and refugees.”
The survey analysis suggested the government needs to continue marketing efforts.
“Communications on immigration should continue to accentuate the positive impact of immigration on the economy and Canada’s labour market needs vis-a-vis the need for skilled immigrants,” it said.
“…Notwithstanding the fact that perceptions expressed in this survey may not be based on concrete knowledge or experience, they will continue to drive public acceptance of immigrants and immigration policy.”

Les Paradis : 2013-01-30#129
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

楼上的几条新闻都是去年五六月份的,过时了

Les Paradis : 2013-01-30#130
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

这里有一篇1月24的报道:

http://www.workpermit.com/news/2013...-for-immoral-termination-of-visa-applications

Mr Kenney argued that the FSWP backlog had made the entire program unmanageable. He wanted to make the FSWP a 'just-in-time' immigration system where potential immigrants would register an expression of interest (EOI) in emigrating to Canada. If they were deemed suitable, they would then be invited to apply for permanent residence under the FSWP.

In order to move to that system, Mr Kenney said it had been necessary to cut the backlog.

康尼认为28万人的积压是建成及时移民系统路上的障碍,必须全部直接废掉才有可能除旧迎新。

However, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in the Canadian Federal Court in Ottawa on 17th January 2013, that Mr Kenney had acted illegally. Mario Bellissimo, a lawyer for the plaintiffs told the court that, while Mr Kenney had the power to set immigration priorities and policies, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he was obliged to apply those rules fairly and without discrimination.

Bellissimo律师认为康尼的行为不合法,部长有权推出新政和设置优先等级,但他的行为必须遵守加拿大人权和自由宪章,推出新政策必须做到公平没有歧视。

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that this had not happened in this case. The court heard that 81.4% of the applications that were terminated by CIC were made by applicants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Mr Belissimo argued that the decision to cut the backlog had been motivated not by a desire to cut the backlog but by a desire to remove those particular applicants from the waiting list.

Bellissimo认为一刀切不是简单的一刀切,而是带有种族歧视性质的切掉某些特定族群。

The Canadian government's lawyer Keith Reimer argued that the matter that the court had to decide was 'who gets to control Canada's immigration'. He said that the government was entitled to change its policies and to take steps to control its immigration programmes. He said that it was the government's case that it was necessary to cut the backlog in order to move towards the new 'just-in-time' regime.

CIC的律师辩称法庭必须决定谁是加拿大移民政策的主宰,加拿大政府有权改变政策,有权作废积压以建立及时的移民系统。

However, the judge, Justice Donald Rennie, asked whether it would not have been possible to have moved to the new system at the same time as working to wipe out the backlog.

法官Rennie问,为什么不能一边建立及时的移民系统一边正常解决积压。

Another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Matthew Jeffery, told the judge that Mr Kenney was ethically in the wrong. He said 'there is clear and obvious unfairness here.'

另一位律师Jeffery对法官说,这里有很明显的不公正。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-30#131
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC的律师始终没有用事实和证据正面回应种族歧视的指控,他们强调的是政府有绝对的权利改变移民政策。

chaoszr : 2013-01-30#132
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

CIC的律师始终没有用事实和证据正面回应种族歧视的指控,他们强调的是政府有绝对的权利改变移民政策。
政府有权力改变移民政策并不代表其不需承担违约责任,cic始终在顾左右而言他,回避问题的实质即权力与义务是相辅相成的。

Les Paradis : 2013-01-31#133
回复: 集中整理这次开庭法官和律师们的发言

参加这次开庭的另一位律师David Cohen,刚在他的博客发布了更新:

Pre-February 28th, 2008 Applicants Have Had Their Day in Court

Earlier this month, the Federal Court heard arguments in a number of joined cases against the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in relation to the government’s plan to terminate almost 98,000 Skilled Worker permanent resident applications. Including dependents, some 280,000 people will be affected by the court’s decision.

The lawyers who appeared before Justice Rennie on behalf of the applicants were my co-counsel Mario Bellissimo as well as Lorne Waldman, Rocco Galati, Matthew Jeffery and Lawrence Wong. I commend all of them for their demeanor and persuasive presentations.

Each lawyer attacked the government’s position on separate grounds but with the common goal of striking down the legislation that permits the Immigration Minister to toss out the applications before assessing them. Bear in mind that some applicants have been waiting in line for more than seven years.

Mr. Bellissimo’s main argument, put forth on behalf of our clients, is that the enabling legislation, subsection 87.4 (I) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) violates subsection 15 (I) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter).

It is submitted that the manner in which Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) processes applications for permanent residence leads to discrimination on the basis of an applicant’s national origin, an enumerated ground under subsection 15 (I) of the Charter. This is so because applicants may only submit their application to specified visa offices for processing, depending upon either their country of legal residence or their country of citizenship.

Processing times at different visa offices vary greatly and as a result an individual’s national origin will determine the rate at which his or her application is processed. CIC prioritizes certain visa offices – and thus certain nationalities – over others and therefore termination of applications at this stage will disproportionately affect those applicants who submitted to visa offices not prioritized by CIC. Consequently, it is argued that subsection 87.4 (I) is contrary to the Charter and should be struck down as having no force or effect.

To support his position, Mr. Bellissimo relied upon statistics which indicate that visa offices in the Americas and Europe managed to process approximately 90% of their backlogged applications while visa offices in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia only processed about 40% of their backlogged inventory.

To be fair, it should be noted that the Immigration Minister, through counsel, has responded to all of the arguments raised by the applicants and has asserted the right of Parliament to pass legislation it deems proper in the circumstances.

Now we await Justice Rennie’s decision. Even that may not bring this saga to an end, as the losing side will have the opportunity to appeal.

http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-blog/