C-6 not great for some of us

[picklee]

The Liberals fell for it, hook line and sinker in believing something that isn't there. The removing the "intend to reside" clause, including removing 183 minimum calendar year requirement will make citizenship too easy. Now under 3/5 rule, a person can reside in Canada for 2 years straight and leave and come back for 4 months / year for the following 3 years to qualify for citizenship. In other words you can qualify for citizenship by being a resident of a foreign country for 3 years out of 5. Gee where's the logic in qualifying 3 years when you only resided in Canada 2 years. Perhaps Canada is the only country whereby you can get citizenship by being outside the country more than 50% of the time. I guess the Liberals didn't think that through either.

Your math doesnt quite add up. You still need to reside in Canada for 3 years out of 5 (60% of time).

It was similar under the old 4/6 rule: spend 2 years in Canada and then come back 6 months a year for the next 4 years.

I'm failing to understand why this is a liberal vs conservative problem?

I agree it's quite generous compared to some other countries. The reality though is that many immigrants will have familial ties with Canada, have previously worked or studied in Canada, or otherwise have previously contributed to the Canadian society.

 

[cempjwi]

Stop crying. It's unbecoming. Be happy for other people. Quit this memememe attitude. This is a great bill that fix the oversights of the old one.

And you are commenting on here because you've been a PR for how long?

 

[cempjwi]

If you examine the C-24 law closely, you will see that it only applies to PR. Never to Naturalized Canadian or Canadian born. Thus "intend to reside" clause has no impact on Canadians at all. Never did, never will.

Actually, you are wrong about this. The intend to reside was very clear and it said on the form: "I intend, if granted citizenship...", meaning that it did apply after you were granted citizenship. After you are granted citizenship (and take the oath, of course) you are a Canadian citizen and no longer a PR.

 

[screech339]

Actually, you are wrong about this. The intend to reside was very clear and it said on the form: "I intend, if granted citizenship...", meaning that it did apply after you were granted citizenship. After you are granted citizenship (and take the oath, of course) you are a Canadian citizen and no longer a PR.

You were signing it as a PR. This only applied at PR stage. Once you become Canadian, you are no longer PR. The "intend to reside" contract is no longer valid.

 

[screech339]

Your math doesnt quite add up. You still need to reside in Canada for 3 years out of 5 (60% of time).

It was similar under the old 4/6 rule: spend 2 years in Canada and then come back 6 months a year for the next 4 years.

I'm failing to understand why this is a liberal vs conservative problem?

I agree it's quite generous compared to some other countries. The reality though is that many immigrants will have familial ties with Canada, have previously worked or studied in Canada, or otherwise have previously contributed to the Canadian society.

Yes, under the 4/6 rule, spending 6 months (183 days) a year is considered to be a resident of Canada. That is why 183 minimum per calendar makes sense. So yes, technically the applicant has resided in Canada for 6 years. Anytime you spend 6 month plus 1 day, you are deemed a resident of Canada, in which I have no issues with. Even if you only spent 2 full years and 6 month plus 1 day for next 4 years, you still actually spent more than 50% inside Canada despite it being marginally.

BTW: My math doesn't add up? Here is the math that would allow you to reside in Canada for 2 years, spend more than 50% outside Canada and still qualify under 3/5.

Option 1: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.
Option 1: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.

Enforcing the 183 minimum day per calendar year would remove this loophole.

Even you admitted that you need to reside in Canada for 3 years to qualify.

You still need to reside in Canada for 3 years out of 5 (60% of time).

Enforcing the 183 minimum days would result in the following option at minimum:

365 + 183 + 183 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Official Residence of Canada 3 years - Residence of foreign country 2 years. 3/5 year met.

 

[Natan]

Yes, under the 4/6 rule, spending 6 months (183 days) a year is considered to be a resident of Canada. That is why 183 minimum per calendar makes sense. So yes, technically the applicant has resided in Canada for 6 years. Anytime you spend 6 month plus 1 day, you are deemed a resident of Canada, in which I have no issues with. Even if you only spent 2 full years and 6 month plus 1 day for next 4 years, you still actually spent more than 50% inside Canada despite it being marginally.

BTW: My math doesn't add up? Here is the math that would allow you to reside in Canada for 2 years, spend more than 50% outside Canada and still qualify under 3/5.

Option 1: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.
Option 1: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.

Enforcing the 183 minimum day per calendar year would remove this loophole.

Even you admitted that you need to reside in Canada for 3 years to qualify.



Enforcing the 183 minimum days would result in the following option at minimum:

365 + 183 + 183 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Official Residence of Canada 3 years - Residence of foreign country 2 years. 3/5 year met.

But this is not how residency works. There are many guidelines about resideny that differ from country to country. For example, an airline pilot with the above days present in Canada (and the rest at work) would only be a resident of Canada. Or a grandparent who spent half the year visiting with a grandchild in the US, a grandchild in Britain, and a grandchild in Ireland would still be a resident in Canada. Or a business owner who had businesses in both the US and Canada could easily qualify as a Canadian resident and NOT an American resident even if the remaining parts of the year were spent in the USA.

The hard and fast rule you propose would prevent people, whose intent it is to be and remain Canadian residents, live a life centred in Canada and integrate into Canadian society, from becoming Canadian citizens.

 

[picklee]

Yes, under the 4/6 rule, spending 6 months (183 days) a year is considered to be a resident of Canada. That is why 183 minimum per calendar makes sense. So yes, technically the applicant has resided in Canada for 6 years. Anytime you spend 6 month plus 1 day, you are deemed a resident of Canada, in which I have no issues with. Even if you only spent 2 full years and 6 month plus 1 day for next 4 years, you still actually spent more than 50% inside Canada despite it being marginally.

BTW: My math doesn't add up? Here is the math that would allow you to reside in Canada for 2 years, spend more than 50% outside Canada and still qualify under 3/5.

Option 1: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.
Option 1: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095 Resident of Canada 2 years - Residence of foreign country 3 years: 2/5 years not met.

Enforcing the 183 minimum day per calendar year would remove this loophole.

Even you admitted that you need to reside in Canada for 3 years to qualify.



Enforcing the 183 minimum days would result in the following option at minimum:

365 + 183 + 183 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Official Residence of Canada 3 years - Residence of foreign country 2 years. 3/5 year met.

I see what you did to arrive at that conclusion. But you are still in Canada the majority of the time, 3 years out of 5. That's why your math doesn't add up when you claim you can be outside Canada for more than half the time. It's simply wrong. The residency requirement is counted in days, not years.

 

[screech339]

I see what you did to arrive at that conclusion. But you are still in Canada the majority of the time, 3 years out of 5. That's why your math doesn't add up when you claim you can be outside Canada for more than half the time. It's simply wrong. The residency requirement is counted in days, not years.

Tell that to CRA. CRA says you are deemed a resident of Canada when you put in 183 days in a calendar year. If you are not a resident in a calendar year, the year should not qualify for citizenship. Since you must file income taxes as part of the citizenship requirement, it makes sense to be considered a resident of Canada to qualify 183 days per calendar year. What's the point in CIC having assess to your income tax records if you are not a resident of Canada. A non-resident does not need to file income tax. You might as well, remove the income filing requirement if a non-resident can qualify for citizenship without income filing for the remaining 3 years of 5.

 

[mats]

Tell that to CRA. CRA says you are deemed a resident of Canada when you put in 183 days in a calendar year. If you are not a resident in a calendar year, the year should not qualify for citizenship. Since you must file income taxes as part of the citizenship requirement, it makes sense to be considered a resident of Canada to qualify 183 days per calendar year. What's the point in CIC having assess to your income tax records if you are not a resident of Canada. A non-resident does not need to file income tax. You might as well, remove the income filing requirement if a non-resident can qualify for citizenship without income filing for the remaining 3 years of 5.

For CRA, a person who has ties to Canada has to file taxes irrespective of whether they lived 183 days or not

 

[screech339]

For CRA, a person who has ties to Canada has to file taxes irrespective of whether they lived 183 days or not

The only ties to file taxes as a non-resident is you have Canadian income generating while living abroad. Nothing more. In the meantime, you have not put in the minimum 183 days to file it as resident of Canada.

 

[Natan]

Tell that to CRA. CRA says you are deemed a resident of Canada when you put in 183 days in a calendar year. If you are not a resident in a calendar year, the year should not qualify for citizenship. Since you must file income taxes as part of the citizenship requirement, it makes sense to be considered a resident of Canada to qualify 183 days per calendar year. What's the point in CIC having assess to your income tax records if you are not a resident of Canada. A non-resident does not need to file income tax. You might as well, remove the income filing requirement if a non-resident can qualify for citizenship without income filing for the remaining 3 years of 5.

A person can live for five years in Canada without having left the country at all, while earning a six figure salary, and not be required to pay Canadian income tax. (Example: an employee of a US company working remotely in Canada may be able to legally avoid paying Federal and Provincial Canadian income tax.)

A person who has not stepped foot in Canada over the past five years may, nonetheless, be considered a Canadian Resident for Tax Purposes. (Example: someone who has a spouse living in Canada; or someone who owns a home in Canada; or someone who has ownership in a private business in Canada.)

As opposed to "alternative facts" or "double-true facts" or "type 3 facts" or whatever newspeak terminology one wishes to employ; I prefer "facts" -- the kind that are used by scientists, engineers and judges.

 

[mats]

The only ties to file taxes as a non-resident is you have Canadian income generating while living abroad. Nothing more. In the meantime, you have not put in the minimum 183 days to file it as resident of Canada.

Please get your facts right. Below is the tax filing requirements by CRA.
Step 1: Determine if you have residential ties with Canada
The most important thing to consider when determining your residency status in Canada for income tax purposes is whether or not you maintain, or you establish, residential ties with Canada.

Significant residential ties to Canada include:

• a home in Canada;
• a spouse or common-law partner in Canada; and
• dependants in Canada;

Secondary residential ties that may be relevant include:

• personal property in Canada, such as a car or furniture;
• social ties in Canada, such as memberships in Canadian recreational or religious organizations;
• economic ties in Canada, such as Canadian bank accounts or credit cards;
• a Canadian driver's licence;
• a Canadian passport; and
• health insurance with a Canadian province or territory.

To determine residence status, all of the relevant facts in each case must be considered, including residential ties with Canada and length of time, object, intent, and continuity while living inside and outside Canada.

 

[screech339]

Please get your facts right. Below is the tax filing requirements by CRA.
Step 1: Determine if you have residential ties with Canada
The most important thing to consider when determining your residency status in Canada for income tax purposes is whether or not you maintain, or you establish, residential ties with Canada.

Significant residential ties to Canada include:

• a home in Canada;
• a spouse or common-law partner in Canada; and
• dependants in Canada;

Secondary residential ties that may be relevant include:

• personal property in Canada, such as a car or furniture;
• social ties in Canada, such as memberships in Canadian recreational or religious organizations;
• economic ties in Canada, such as Canadian bank accounts or credit cards;
• a Canadian driver's licence;
• a Canadian passport; and
• health insurance with a Canadian province or territory.

To determine residence status, all of the relevant facts in each case must be considered, including residential ties with Canada and length of time, object, intent, and continuity while living inside and outside Canada.

Hence lies the problem. It is then become subjective. Just like the "basic residency" requirement was under 3/4 rule when one failed the 1095 days requirement but managed to get citizenship despite clearly not meeting the minimum days. Some gets it, some don't. When it one "REALLY" a resident of Canada when one hasn't meet 183 min days per year. Not everyone will be treated equally. By adding 183 day minimum / calendar year to the citizenship rule, it removes the subjectiveness of the above CRA's residential ties. 183 day requirement makes the rule objective. Either you are actually a physical resident of Canada or you are not since citizenship is based on the premise of "physical presence" inside Canada.

 

[Natan]

Hence lies the problem. It is then become subjective. Just like the "basic residency" requirement was under 3/4 rule when one failed the 1095 days requirement but managed to get citizenship despite clearly not meeting the minimum days. Some gets it, some don't. When it one "REALLY" a resident of Canada when one hasn't meet 183 min days per year. Not everyone will be treated equally. By adding 183 day minimum / calendar year to the citizenship rule, it removes the subjectiveness of the above CRA's residential ties. 183 day requirement makes the rule objective. Either you are actually a physical resident of Canada or you are not since citizenship is based on the premise of "physical presence" inside Canada.

FACT: Under C-6, meeting the residence requirement is not subjective, it is objective, to wit, 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada within the past five years.

 

[mats]

Hence lies the problem. It is then become subjective. Just like the "basic residency" requirement was under 3/4 rule when one failed the 1095 days requirement but managed to get citizenship despite clearly not meeting the minimum days. Some gets it, some don't. When it one "REALLY" a resident of Canada when one hasn't meet 183 min days per year. Not everyone will be treated equally. By adding 183 day minimum / calendar year to the citizenship rule, it removes the subjectiveness of the above CRA's residential ties. 183 day requirement makes the rule objective. Either you are actually a physical resident of Canada or you are not since citizenship is based on the premise of "physical presence" inside Canada.

I think you are mixing the residency part of IRCC and CRA. While for IRCC it is physical presence that is required, for CRA, you are DEEMED a resident if you have ties to Canada which could be just a furniture in your name as I pointed out. And therefore as per CRA you are expected to pay taxes even though you are not physically present in Canada for 183 days. That is what I was trying to point out to you.