Changes to Citizenship Process in 2014

Rayman wrote: bjones wrote: Looks like there's gonna be some news this week... Tweet [link] "@MinChrisA will be detailing our proposed reforms to Canada's #CitAct this week." You think they will be pushing for 2nd reading soon?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/chris-alexander-balances-his-portfolio-and-power/article16906880/?service=mobile&utm_content=buffer2f207&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

bjones wrote: in_cdn wrote: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/chris-alexander-balances-his-portfolio-and-power/article16906880/?service=mobile&utm_content=buffer2f207&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer ""It is absurd to suggest that making applicants declare their “intent to reside” in Canada will be later used as an excuse to strip them of their citizenship if they work abroad."" Hard to believe this will happen. Is it mentioned anywhere in the bill? I think people are just overreacting to this "intent to reside" clause...

It is a waste of time to spend your time reading media articles. These don't contain any facts that you can't get from official sources such as the bill itself or the parliament website.

Indeed, media articles are nothing more than opinions written by people sitting in offices, who get paid to write them. Your last quote is an example of that: journalist opinions. They are in no way an indication of any specific details about how the new law is going to be implemented when it takes effect. If anything, I would keep checking the official CIC website for that, but at this point it's too early to expect specifics, even from CIC.

Also, people who say they're worried about whether they'll be able to apply this year before the new law coming into force  should just ... cut the crap. The new law will not come into force this year, probably not even in the first half on next year. It took a year from passage to the coming into force of the last citizenship bill (April 18, 2008 to April 17, 2009). The government is usually given months to prepare for any new law implementation, especially laws such as this one that bring substantial changes.

I won't be eligible to apply until June 2, 2015 and even I am hopeful that my application package will reach CIC before the new law takes effect.

in_cdn wrote: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/chris-alexander-balances-his-portfolio-and-power/article16906880/?service=mobile&utm_content=buffer2f207&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer bjones wrote: ""It is absurd to suggest that making applicants declare their “intent to reside” in Canada will be later used as an excuse to strip them of their citizenship if they work abroad."" Hard to believe this will happen. Is it mentioned anywhere in the bill? I think people are just overreacting to this "intent to reside" clause...

There is nothing in Bill C-24 indicating any new ground for revocation of citizenship based on a naturalized citizen's place of residence or work once he has become a citizen.

There is currently, and will continue to be if and when Bill C-24 becomes law, a statutory ground for revoking citizenship based on fraud or misrepresentation, the new provisions modifying the procedure (though a Federal Court declaration will still be necessary, and indeed will be necessary even it the affected citizen does not request it -- under current law, the affected citizen must request a referral to the Federal Court) and in some respects clarifying what constitutes fraud or misrepresentation -- this is mostly clarifying that misrepresentations made in the course of applying for and becoming a Permanent Resident is grounds for revoking citizenship.

In any event, there is nothing in particular in the new legislation about revoking citizenhip based on living or working abroad. There is a topic specifically devoted to revocation of citizenship, which is linked here: Revoking Citizenship - Currently & Proposed. In addition to discussing the affect of changes the new legislation will have regarding revocation, that topic would seem to be the better place to discuss how changes to the qualifications for citizenship might collaterally affect revocation proceedings, including for example what may be considered to be a misrepresentation which will justify revocation.




Timeline to date new law will take effect

Part I: Becoming Law
The big caveat is whether or not Bill C-24 will actually become law. For example, other Bills to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the residency requirement, tabled by the Conservatives while the Conservatives held the government, have failed to become law.

That said, all signs tend to indicate this Bill will be adopted and become law.

In terms of timeline itself, while predicting how long it will take is largely speculation, most indications are that this Bill will proceed promptly through the process, and the more salient question is whether Harper will even allow full debate (he has already truncated debate for the more controversial and in some respects more far reaching Fair Elections Act).

Thus, while this Bill could become law significantly sooner, even if it proceeds on an ordinary trajectory, the date of adoption could easily be by early fall and at the least most likely before the December holidays.

The timeline for the Bill which amended parts of the Citizenship Act which was adopted in 2009 does not offer much insight into how long Bill C-24 will take to proceed. While that Bill was going through the legislative process the Conservatives did NOT have a majority, which has a dramatic impact on every step of the process beyond the First Reading (which is merely the tabling of the Bill), including not just how extensive the Bill may be debated on the floor of the House of Commons, but how long it spends in committee. My recollection is a bit fuzzy, but I think the Liberals may still have had a majority in the Senate at that time, and in any event many of the Conservative's Bills were spending more time than ordinary there as well, particularly in committee. Without the capacity to compel additional amendments to a Bill, which neither the official opposition (NDP) nor the Liberals have, even if they act in concert, the timeline for the Bill to progress through the legislative process will be significantly if not greatly faster than what the previous Bill to amend the Citizenship Act went through . . . and, actually, again, if Stephen Harper wants this Bill to be fast-tracked (as they do the Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23), there is little the opposition parties can do to slow it down.

While there is likely to be some vigorous debate offered by the opposition parties, there will be no real debate. At best the NDP and Liberals will have alloted time to make statements which the Conservatives will most likely totally ignore. And again, given the Conservative majority and the manner of governing by this Prime Minister, there will be little time spent wrangling over proposed amendments from any of the opposition parties (this is where Bills tend to get bogged down), as here again the opposition parties will get their minimum alloted time to propose amendments and then the Conservatives will most likely summarily shut those down.

Acknowledging that I have only sporadically followed the legislative process generally, it nonetheless seems very likely to me that this Bill will become law before the end of the year, with a significant chance that it will be law well before the end of the year (late fall?), and some chance it could become law significantly sooner. (For those who believe that a major incentive underlying this Bill is to increase the residency obligation with the intended impact of dramatically reducing the in-flow of new applications, to help the government dramatically reduce the backlog before elections in 2015, to accomplish that this Bill needs to be pushed through promptly -- and while I tend to think that the proposed residency obligation is mostly a reflection of this government's view about what should be required, I think this motive is also part of the equation and thus a likely incentive for the Conservatives to not dally with the adoption of Bill C-24.)



Timeline to date new law will take effect

Part II: Actually Taking Effect
If Bill C-24 becomes law in the fall, for example, there is still the question as to when the Governor in Council will specify various provisions to take effect, to "come into force."

It is indeed common for legislation of this nature to be given a future effective date; that is, for some or many of the legislation's provisions, the date they are put into effect is not necessarily the date the law is adopted. Sections 31 through 46 of this Bill, for example, are provisions which largely are about what specific subsections of the Bill will take effect when, in many respects the effective date being tied to the effective date of other provisions, but eventually all leading to the "Coming into Force" provision, section 46 of the Bill, which is almost entirely dependent on dates to be fixed by the Governor in Council. (Some subsections of section 2 of the Bill excepted, regarding who is a citizen, which will be deemed to have come into force on April 17, 2009 -- these are provisions to, in essence, fix provisions that were part of the amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2009.)

And, yes, here again an effort to predict what coming-into-force-dates will be established by the Governor in Council, relative to when the provisions actually become law, is largely speculation.

I think we have some salient clues however.

The day this Bill was tabled CIC increased the citizenship application fee by three hundred percent (tripled it), and that took effect immediately, and at least the CIC website asserts that it took effect even if an application was already in the mail before there was any notice of the fee increase. That, seems to me, is a rather distinctive signal as to this government's intentions regarding this legislation.

Moreover, there is again the apprehension that this Bill is at least in part motivated by a scheme to dramatically reduce inventory, to reduce the backlog of citizenship applications pending. This is probably at least a significant enough of a factor to motivate this government to implement (put into force) these provisions as soon as practically feasible, so that the impact on the inventory can be measured and publicized before the election in 2015.

Moreover, the transitional provisions are noteworthy, or, rather, the lack of any transitional provisions which will vest current PRs with any advantage over future PRs. When the Australians amended their citizenship requirements to increase the residency period (2007? 2006? I forget the date, at least six or eight years ago anyway), for example, they implemented temporary requirements for those who had come to Australia to live before that change in law.

There is no similar transitional provisions in Bill C-24. Its transitional provisions instead reflect a hard and fast change-over. Applications "made" before the date the law comes into force to be processed (with some exceptions) in accordance with the current law (technically the law on the day before the new law comes into force). Applications made on the day the new law comes into force, or after, will then be processed in accordance with the new law.

It will be like flipping a switch. One day, PRs are eligible for citizenship on the third anniversary of the day they landed, and the very next day PRs only become eligible after the fourth anniversary of landing plus all days of absence.

And this is the fastest timeline for which, practically, the new provisions could be implemented. Any faster approach would amount to changing the basic requirements for applications already in process, that is, to apply retroactively; and even if this would be theoretically possible (with major Charter implications looming to the contrary), there never was any realistic threat of that happening.

Again, the writing is on the wall, this government seems very much intent on getting the longer residency requirement into operation sooner rather than later.

All that still adds up to we do NOT know when the Bill will in fact become law, or when it will take effect. But, the signs are that it will be sooner rather than later as these things typically go.

For anyone who will not be eligible to apply under current law, or whose qualifications may be shaky under current law (eligible but with a large shortfall of APP for example), this year, might as well plan to apply under the new law.

And in general, probably a good idea for a PR who is approaching the 1095 day threshold to be paying close attention to the status of Bill C-24, and be ready to make the application as soon as the Bill goes to the Senate -- it could still take several weeks, even months, once it reaches the Senate, but it can go very quickly once it reaches that stage.

And remember, there is probably going to be a surge in applications as the Bill approaches its final stages. Even those who have not met the 1095 days APP threshold but who have been a PR for at least three years are going to be inclined to apply (for sure those who are at least close to meeting the 1095 APP standard) before the new law takes effect, otherwise they will be looking at waiting well longer than another year before they are even eligible to apply.





In any event, not all opinions are created equal
Not even statements of purported fact are created equal. The credibility of sources of information, including accounts of fact, including opinion, varies greatly. Anyone who asserts that everyone has an opinion and no one person's opinion is worth much more than another's, and opinions in general are not worth much, is being disingenuous if not overtly dishonest. Otherwise that person would never bother to get a doctor's opinion, or rely on an engineer's opinion about the safety of a bridge, or a mechanic's opinion about a car problem, or seek advice from a lawyer.

That said, I acknowledge that in the subject of both immigration and citizenship, the articles and opinions published by mainstream media tend to be shallow, not well-informed, not representative of much serious analysis or even research into the facts. Nonetheless, at the least the media offers some information and perspectives that anyone who seeks to be informed about the issues should read and, where available, follow references to primary or at least better sources. Critical reading skills are important. In contrast, ignoring sources of information, including mainstream media, is at the heart of classical ignorance.

dpenabill wrote: [quote=in_cdn]http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/chris-alexander-balances-his-portfolio-and-power/article16906880/?service=mobile&utm_content=buffer2f207&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer [quote=bjones]  Nonetheless, at the least the media offers some information and perspectives that anyone who seeks to be informed about the issues should read and, where available, follow references to primary or at least better sources. Critical reading skills are important. In contrast, ignoring sources of information, including mainstream media, is at the heart of classical ignorance.

While I'm complete agreement with your last analysis and observations, I'm afraid I have to disagree with the bold quotation.

Most of the content of media articles is not 'information.' To me information means 'fact' and I'm sorry but media statements such as

 "It is absurd to suggest that making applicants declare their “intent to reside” in Canada will be later used as an excuse to strip them of their citizenship if they work abroad."

are not factual knowledge. They're value judgments which are of no use whatsoever to a prospective applicant like myself who's trying to gather insight into when the new bill will take effect.

Value judgments aren't useful to me. What I'm looking for are facts and insight gathered from past events. I'm not saying media articles don't offer any of these. I'm saying that 90% of media articles are value judgments. And I dare say the dominating perspectives are highly one-sided as the parties writing these articles represent the perspectives of vested interests in the bill passing or not passing. The hard facts offered by the media are nothing I can't get myself from official sources (the bill itself).

I'm not ignoring the media. I just don't find any value in wading through tons of uninteresting value judgment garbage for a bit of analysis or insight which (at the end of the day)  itself has very low probative value as it is nothing more than pure speculation. In this respect 'analysis' offered by journalists is of no more value than the analysis offered by you or me or any ordinary person off the street with any bit of following of any past events. What really matters is where the people with real power stand on this bill (i.e. the legislators) and I'm afraid we all know that media opinion writers are no closer to those people than we are.