Much Appreciated!
Yes, for those with an interest in the subjects of this conversation, law prescribing citizenship by descent, and salient issues in complying with the PR Residency Obligation, this is worth listening to. For me the second half addressing the PR RO was likewise more interesting, but that is for personal reasons, because I have not followed citizenship-by-descent issues much at all beyond the most common elements. Beyond the basics, I have always found citizenship by descent to be a complex morass of rules/law, tangled and confusing, difficult enough to navigate (especially in the abstract) to discourage my lazy brain. Puzzles for those with more patience than I have. That and there is little decision-making at stake; generally a person either is or is not a Canadian citizen, and figuring out the citizenship by descent rules will not illuminate information that will help immigrants navigate the system (except for subsequent generations wrestling with decisions about whether they need to return to Canada for the birth of their children in order for their children to be Canadian citizens).
In contrast, I have been closely following PR RO issues for more than a decade and a half, very much engaged in how the system works and what PRs need to know to help them navigate the system (and for the last decade focused on just a narrow range of issues regarding keeping PR status and qualifying for a grant of citizenship). And as my contributions in just the topics
Who-accompanied-whom can matter for PRs living with citizen spouse abroad: UPDATE and
Working Abroad RO credit, including "business trips;" an update illustrate, I have more than a passing familiarity (one might say) with two of the big issues they discuss, the credits toward meeting a PR's RO referred to as "
exceptions" (which they rightfully point out are actually just listed, in the law itself, as credits just like days physically present in Canada is a listed credit, such that their character as
exceptions being based on agency (IRCC/CIC), IAD, and Federal Court interpretation and construction) . . . as well as dozens if not hundreds of other posts about these matters, often in far, far more depth than this discussion.
The discussion is hosted by Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff. These are two immigration lawyers in Vancouver, British Columbia. Each are the lawyer of record in around a couple dozen published immigration cases including Steven Meurrens, for example, who is lawyer for the PR in the decision by Justice Simon Noël in Bi v. Canada, 2012 FC 293,
http://canlii.ca/t/fqtsz which I have cited, discussed, and linked numerous times, including the opening post in
Working Abroad RO credit, including "business trips;" an update as one of the key FC decisions regarding the working-abroad credit.
The other lawyers participating include Lisa Middlemiss, an immigration lawyer based in Montreal, and Amandeep Hayer, a B.C. based immigration lawyer (his father, Dalwinder Hayer, is the attorney of record in scores of published IAD and FC decisions involving a wide range of immigration issues). The context is the promotion of the law book they co-authored,
Maintaining Permanent Residence Status and Acquiring Citizenship, which I believe is intended to be a resource for lawyers and other professionals (such as consultants).
So FWII (For-Who-Is-Interested) even more than FWIW.
Even though, frankly, I found much of the discussion rather shallow, there were numerous tidbits of information that are very much interesting news.
One really big one is the difference between Quebec and British Columbia in regards to needing a valid PR card to obtain health care coverage and drivers' licenses. Lisa Middlemiss specifically stated that the CoPR, whenever dated, is sufficient in Quebec, such that a valid PR card is not needed. Amandeep Hayer, in contrast, stated what many in the forum know well, that B.C. is strict about requiring a valid PR card to obtain provincial health care coverage. They both suggested that other provinces are more like Quebec than B.C., but they did not say this definitively. So now, anyway, I am interested to see what recently returned PRs in other provinces can report about this.
The first half roughly is about the current situation with citizenship-by-descent, which I found less interesting because so far not much clarity. That said, it's funny to hear lawyers complaining that the current citizenship law is almost (borderline?) incomprehensible because of the historical oddities. They also seem to think the pending amendments might create even more problems/delays because so many people will - by the letter of the law, anyway - have claims to citizenship. As a result, what will matter will be what documentation IRCC requires. (The comment made was that the biggest group with potential claims are US citizens/residents whose ancestors migrated generations ago).
While I too found the PR RO stuff more interesting, the underlying impetus for the discussion about citizenship by descent is nonetheless hugely interesting:
-- first, there is the Bjorkquist et al. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2023 ONSC 7152,
https://canlii.ca/t/k1vdj decision in which a Superior Court in Ontario ruled that the law excluding citizenship by descent to second and later generation born-abroad children (a Harper era revision of citizenship law) is unconstitutional; the effect of this ruling is currently on hold (except as to particular parties to that litigation), so for now the restriction of citizenship by descent to first-generation-born-abroad is still the law but this will change one way or another . . . leading to . . .
-- secondly, there is now a Bill pending before Parliament, Bill C-71 (see this here:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-71/first-reading ) which will very significantly revise citizenship law, which is intended to address and fix the Charter rights problem . . . but also includes other changes such as provisions which will confer citizenship on so-called
lost Canadians
Very weedy stuff. And what it is about (citizenship by descent for those born outside Canada) is not within the scope of my personal interests.
BUT . . . the discussion about how the Charter applies to claims of rights connected to citizenship almost certainly has big implications for other citizenship and immigration issues . . . the
Bjorkquist decision is long and complex, very weedy, so it is something I will need to peruse multiple times, and it is indeed plenty interesting enough to make that effort. Note: the court rejected the constitutional challenge based on the Charter Section 7 (protection of fundamental rights) of the Charter but, rather, granted relief based on Section 6 (mobility rights of the parent-citizen) and Section 15 (essentially equal protection rights of the child born to a Canadian citizen). Big differences with lots of implications, but also very weedy stuff.
And this aspect of the discussion was otherwise informative and interesting in terms of its illustration of an aspect of the Canadian judicial system I did not previously understand, including extending research to provincial court decisions.
Meanwhile, just the fact that the government elected to NOT seek review of the
Bjorkquist decision is very interesting, such that it will eventually be governing law (when the hold on its effect is lifted -- which should have been before now but . . . too weedy to wander far down that way)
unless Parliament manages to pass legislation that has rules governing citizenship by descent for those born abroad that meet the requirements of the Charter. And how this will go in Parliament, which is currently no more than a frayed thread away from a no-confidence vote triggering an election, is a story to follow (FWII anyway).
Lots to explore.
