Changes to Citizenship Process in 2014

The value of analytical stories in newspapers typically range widely, although those based on minimal sources tend to range heavily on the uninformative side leaning toward misleading. This story is particularly uninformative. To what extent it may be misleading is not so easily discerned. But at least some of this story clearly falls into the no real information leaning toward misleading end of the range.

Hard to say, though, if the worst parts also characterizes the part about Minister Alexander's rather vague allusion to increasing the residency threshold necessary to be qualified for citizenship. The statement attributed to the Minister is consistent with other statements from both this Minister and his predecessor, Jason Kenney, but in that the consistency includes this same insinuation going back years, so it is not clear that any real changes are imminent.

There is minimal context given for the Minister's vague statements. (Contrast the assertion that the government is "poised" to make changes with the quote attributed to Minister Alexander, that it is "time to consider . . . " which imparts the opening of discussions not the precipice of tabling legislation.)

It is worth noting that the lawyer quoted offered a speculative what should be residency requirement, with no hint that the four-in-six year standard, which he suggests "would be suitable," is something anyone in the government is so much as talking about. (There are, for example, not even any attributions to unnamed sources as to any actual legislative proposals, let alone quoted sources referring to any specific legislation to be tabled any time soon.)

I give the prospect that a four-in-six years requirement will be implemented this year no better odds than a guess. An increase to four years is, of course, well within what might be thought a reasonable modification. So it is a fair guess. The real question, though, is what other elements will be part of the residency assessment, and in particular to what extent will it be strictly a physical presence standard.

In any event, the opening statement of the article is a restatement of something being said almost verbatim for more than two years now, and which was at the least a strong insinuation for years prior to that: That is, the statement "The federal government is poised to deliver on what’s been dubbed the 'first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act in more than a generation.'" The federal government has been so poised for years.

Perhaps 2014 is the year it will really happen.

But that was precisely the sentiment, the anticipation, back in late 2011. I had exceeded the 1095 days of actual physical presence threshold by then, and was otherwise qualified for citizenship, and more than a few strongly suggested I apply sooner rather than later, and the rationale was, emphatically, because it was expected that that government would soon change the Citizenship Act including introducing a more stringent, probably longer and more strict, residency requirement. At that time I decided I did not want to rely on time I had spent in Canada with temporary status and would wait to rely entirely on presence after landing.

Then, by mid 2012, when I was already well over the 1095 days of actual presence threshold counting only time in Canada after landing, again the consensus was to not wait, apply sooner rather than later. I elected to wait longer, until after having been landed at least four years; I did so for other reasons, reasons related though to what RQ would entail combined with a recognition that I was at high risk for RQ (a risk I recognized even before OB 407, which became more salient by May 2012 when the reports of pre-test RQ were streaming into all the forums about immigration and citizenship, and then my elevated risk was clearly indicated when a copy of the File Requirements Checklist surfaced here).

The point, though, is that going back to 2011, the consensus was the government was poised to implement changes including a more strict residency requirement. Still poised it seems.

Nonetheless, reforming the Citizenship Act has been one of the more salient promises if not priorities of the Conservatives for many years, and time is running out (they have to apprehend that at most they might obtain a minority government in the 2015 elections), so 2014 could be the year they get it done.



Some Notes:

-- There have been major amendments to the Citizenship Act within the last generation, so the article's reference to the first "comprehensive reforms . . . in more than a generation" is at the least hyperbole. What has not changed in well over a generation, and which many have been clamouring is in desperate need of reform, is the part of the Act governing the grant of citizenship, the requirements for naturalization, and this is mostly about the residency requirement itself.

-- While there are often recurring rumblings about "passport babies" or "anchor babies," or "birth tourists," the prospect of major restrictions on who is a Canadian citizen based on birth in Canada seems highly unlikely. Perhaps the government could implement some restrictions, such as no automatic citizenship for children who are born to mothers without status, but even that seems like a long shot. Major obstacles: Charter Rights; Canada's treaty commitments (including in particular relative to rendering persons "stateless"); logistics (complicating rules for ascertaining citizenship tend to be highly problematic).   

-- Objectives/agenda in play; these stories have tended to gloss over the real motives underlying much of the rumblings about prospective changes to the residency requirement, and they tend to totally ignore that the current residency requirement is a quagmire of contention and confusion, not practically workable, and resoundingly criticized by numerous Federal Court justices, some of whom have overtly called on Parliament to fix the mess. While fraud is the more visible aspect, and is of course a significant concern in this government, it does not require all that much insight into the machinations of CIC in the last two years, in conjunction with the cryptic but sufficiently telegraphic utterances from Harper, Kenney, and now Alexander, to recognize that a huge, huge concern (in this government and administrative/management levels of CIC) is the extent to which the Canadian system is being exploited, manipulated, for the purpose of obtaining the Canadian passport rather than in becoming Canadian citizens. Minimizing the extent of this is probably as big a priority as addressing outright fraud.

-- Inclusion of tax returns with application: not likely. Perhaps CRA Notices of Assessment, but not copies of "tax returns." Not sure if this was the article's author misstating what the lawyer said, or the lawyer being sloppy, but even RQ'd applicants are not asked for copies of their tax returns (not usually). CRA Notices of Assessment are sufficient to show whether or not the applicants filed a tax return as a resident for the respective year, and to reflect income. Moreover, this would not be something implemented by a change to the Citizenship Act, since this could be adopted and incorporated into the application form itself without any changes to current law. But yes, in the last couple years the trend has been for CIC to add more documentation to be included with the application, and the application for a new PR card already includes a request for CRA Notices of Assessment.

I think the main question for us as applicants who are trapped in CIC's unreasonable processing times is what happens to our delayed applications, should the law change before a decision is made on our case. Would we have to reapply and stand in the back of line again?

The Federal government threw away all Federal Skilled Worker made prior to 2008 a while ago, and they even won the suit filed against them in the Superior Court of Canada. 

Edited by RobertB - 29 Dec 2013 at 12:45am

I am not dpenabill, but I would like to respond with the whole quote:

Edited by kisunja85 - 29 Dec 2013 at 1:58pm

Thanks depenabill....SO....

Based on your comments could one say that, all things considered - and given how controversial and ambitious the whole undertaking of reform itself is to begin with- that the discussions and debates themselves (which are central to the elaborate failsafe legislative process comprising multiple readings in both the Commons and Senate) will take up quite a good chunk of time (and rightly so when a complex document with ramifications in the future is being debated) before one can even begin to envisage Assent at a much later stage in the game.

Also, isn't something as big as this going to be open to a mandatory period of extensive public consultation ? Failing which one could well see irate PRs and their reps giving Parl. an earful