C-6 not great for some of us

[screech339]

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.

Just because a person stayed for example in US with a house in Canada can guarantee that that person is forced to declare him/herself as a resident of Canada. I had significant residential ties in Canada while working in US. ie. Bank accounts, Mail, Car registration, House and yet I can declare myself as “non-resident” of Canada because I spent less than 183 days in Canada. This means not everyone is treated equally in being declared “deemed” resident of Canada. What is the one thing that will force me or anyone to declare resident of Canada? Oh look, 183 days in Canada, regardless of whether one has residential ties or not. As soon as one person has the option of declaring “non-resident” of Canada or "resident of Canada" with no factual physical days inside Canada, CRA’s “residential ties” rules become subjective. No difference from the 3/4 rule. 1095 days = objective; “basic residency” = subjective. 1095 days = objective. “residential ties” = subjective. Adding 183 minimum days removes the “subjective” CRA’s residential ties and at same time, forces one to file income tax as “deemed resident” in which CIC sees you as a "resident" of Canada along with 183 days proving that you were in Canada 50% +1 in any 3 or more calendar years to qualify.

 

[Natan]

Just because a person stayed for example in US with a house in Canada can guarantee that that person is forced to declare him/herself as a resident of Canada. I had significant residential ties in Canada while working in US. ie. Bank accounts, Mail, Car registration, House and yet I can declare myself as “non-resident” of Canada because I spent less than 183 days in Canada. This means not everyone is treated equally in being declared “deemed” resident of Canada. What is the one thing that will force me or anyone to declare resident of Canada? Oh look, 183 days in Canada, regardless of whether one has residential ties or not. As soon as one person has the option of declaring “non-resident” of Canada or "resident of Canada" with no factual physical days inside Canada, CRA’s “residential ties” rules become subjective. No difference from the 3/4 rule. 1095 days = objective; “basic residency” = subjective. 1095 days = objective. “residential ties” = subjective. Adding 183 minimum days removes the “subjective” CRA’s residential ties and at same time, forces one to file income tax as “deemed resident” in which CIC sees you as a "resident" of Canada along with 183 days proving that you were in Canada 50% +1 in any 3 or more calendar years to qualify.

You continue to mix apples and oranges. People are recognized by a country as "resident" for many different purposes. There are tax purposes, health insurance purposes, voting purposes, car driving licence and registration purposes, etc.

The residence requirement in regards to naturalizing as a Canadian citizen: 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over the past five years.

Previous to C-24, there was a residency requirement that included the subjective "life centred in Canada" option. This was done away with, with passage of C-24 and has not been restored in C-6. Now there is certainty and an objective requirement to reside in Canada for 1,095 days in the past five years. Residential ties are no longer relevant to naturalizing, only the number of days physically present in Canada. Thus, an applicant is no longer required to be classified as a "resident" in Canada to become a citizen.

Another point, "residency" is not an issue determined by simple mathematics, but by a more nebulous basket of considerations. It is possible to be physically present in Canada for all 365 days of a year and still not be "resident" in Canada but be "resident" in another nation.

You maintain that an additional day or two a year (to get from 181 to 183 days a year) makes ALL the difference on whether someone should become a citizen. I consider such requirements wholly superficial -- the ability to predict worthy citizens who will integrate into, and contribute to, Canadian society based on a couple of extra days' presence a year is dubious at best.

 

[mats]

Just because a person stayed for example in US with a house in Canada can guarantee that that person is forced to declare him/herself as a resident of Canada. I had significant residential ties in Canada while working in US. ie. Bank accounts, Mail, Car registration, House and yet I can declare myself as “non-resident” of Canada because I spent less than 183 days in Canada. This means not everyone is treated equally in being declared “deemed” resident of Canada. What is the one thing that will force me or anyone to declare resident of Canada? Oh look, 183 days in Canada, regardless of whether one has residential ties or not. As soon as one person has the option of declaring “non-resident” of Canada or "resident of Canada" with no factual physical days inside Canada, CRA’s “residential ties” rules become subjective. No difference from the 3/4 rule. 1095 days = objective; “basic residency” = subjective. 1095 days = objective. “residential ties” = subjective. Adding 183 minimum days removes the “subjective” CRA’s residential ties and at same time, forces one to file income tax as “deemed resident” in which CIC sees you as a "resident" of Canada along with 183 days proving that you were in Canada 50% +1 in any 3 or more calendar years to qualify.

Never mind.

 

[picklee]

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.

The requirements by CRA for tax-related residency have no relation to IRCC residency requirements for citizenship. You rightfully point out that you need to file a tax return for the years you are a resident. But that condition is true regardless whether you are considered a resident for tax purposes or not. CRA (sometimes) defines tax residency based on time spent in Canada, but if you spend less than a year in Canada, there is no law that says you can't file a tax return.

 

[screech339]

You continue to mix apples and oranges. People are recognized by a country as "resident" for many different purposes. There are tax purposes, health insurance purposes, voting purposes, car driving licence and registration purposes, etc.

The residence requirement in regards to naturalizing as a Canadian citizen: 1,095 days of physical presence in Canada over the past five years.

Previous to C-24, there was a residency requirement that included the subjective "life centred in Canada" option. This was done away with, with passage of C-24 and has not been restored in C-6. Now there is certainty and an objective requirement to reside in Canada for 1,095 days in the past five years. Residential ties are no longer relevant to naturalizing, only the number of days physically present in Canada. Thus, an applicant is no longer required to be classified as a "resident" in Canada to become a citizen.

Another point, "residency" is not an issue determined by simple mathematics, but by a more nebulous basket of considerations. It is possible to be physically present in Canada for all 365 days of a year and still not be "resident" in Canada but be "resident" in another nation.

You maintain that an additional day or two a year (to get from 181 to 183 days a year) makes ALL the difference on whether someone should become a citizen. I consider such requirements wholly superficial -- the ability to predict worthy citizens who will integrate into, and contribute to, Canadian society based on a couple of extra days' presence a year is dubious at best.

With the 183 days minimum under C-24, it forces the applicant to file it as a resident if one wants to get benefits like qualifying for citizenship or child benefits. Under C-24 the applicant was forced to file income tax due to being in Canada 183 min day as a resident if one wants to apply for citizenship, CIC might as well examine the tax record while they are at it. Now that 183 minimum day is removed (no guarantee that the applicant was in Canada 50% +1) there is no requirement to file income tax. You might as well remove the filing income tax requirement from citizenship qualification.

Now that 183 days removed, income tax filing records is useless since filing "resident" status does not mean you were in Canada 50% +1 in a calendar year as C-24 does.

 

[Natan]

With the 183 days minimum under C-24, it forces the applicant to file it as a resident if one wants to get benefits like qualifying for citizenship or child benefits. Under C-24 the applicant was forced to file income tax due to being in Canada 183 min day as a resident if one wants to apply for citizenship, CIC might as well examine the tax record while they are at it. Now that 183 minimum day is removed (no guarantee that the applicant was in Canada 50% +1) there is no requirement to file income tax. You might as well remove the filing income tax requirement from citizenship qualification.

Now that 183 days removed, income tax filing records is useless since filing "resident" status does not mean you were in Canada 50% +1 in a calendar year as C-24 does.

Again, you have completely failed to understand the concepts of "resident for tax purposes" and "physical presence in Canada for naturalization purposes". It is entirely possible for someone to be a tax resident of Canada without having set foot in the country during the entire year. Just as it is possible for someone to NOT be a tax resident of Canada after spending an entire year physically present in Canada. This has absolutely nothing to do with naturalizing as a citizen. One's ability to naturalize as a Canadian citizen is not based on one's tax status in Canada, nor should it be.

 

[mats]

Again, you have completely failed to understand the concepts of "resident for tax purposes" and "physical presence in Canada for naturalization purposes". It is entirely possible for someone to be a tax resident of Canada without having set foot in the country during the entire year. Just as it is possible for someone to NOT be a tax resident of Canada after spending an entire year physically present in Canada. This has absolutely nothing to do with naturalizing as a citizen. One's ability to naturalize as a Canadian citizen is not based on one's tax status in Canada, nor should it be.

. I suggest you leave this person alone, in spite of me explaining twice, this person is stuck on the 183 days.

 

[andrewmadrid]

I'm curious if I can apply for citizenship now... when this goes into effect this fall

Tomorrow, I hit 3 years in Canada as a PR. My status is good past 2020, but my wife and I are moving to the UK at the end of the summer for two years then coming back. Can I apply while in the UK and just come back for the Citizenship Ceremony assuming that im approved?

 

[itsmyid]

. I suggest you leave this person alone, in spite of me explaining twice, this person is stuck on the 183 days.

Lol, I gave up on him long time ago, about some other topics

 

[screech339]

Lol, I gave up on him long time ago, about some other topics

I made my point about the 183 minimum days as I do believe you are not really a "factual" resident of Canada if you are in Canada less than 183 days in a calendar year. So it is time to move on.

 

[links18]

Just a reminder that until rather recently, the processing time on even some routine cases was close to three years! That was when the 3/4 rules were in effect. This almost doubled the time to citizenship from the published legal requirements. Lets hope we don't go back there. If you have to raise my taxes a little bit to hire more agents so nobody has to experience such unreasonable delays ever again, go ahead.

 

[itsmyid]

Just a reminder that until rather recently, the processing time on even some routine cases was close to three years! That was when the 3/4 rules were in effect. This almost doubled the time to citizenship from the published legal requirements. Lets hope we don't go back there. If you have to raise my taxes a little bit to hire more agents so nobody has to experience such unreasonable delays ever again, go ahead.

Apparently many people don't feel that way... even the $600 application fee are still considered to be too high - in a perfect world people just want to get things done fast with minimum cost... Personally I would be fine paying extra to get it done sooner, but that would be 'against Canadian value'..

 

[Natan]

Apparently many people don't feel that way... even the $600 application fee are still considered to be too high - in a perfect world people just want to get things done fast with minimum cost... Personally I would be fine paying extra to get it done sooner, but that would be 'against Canadian value'..

Studies have indicated that early naturalization increases integration into society. These studies suggest that being naturalized early in the integration process tends to act as a catalyst toward participation in the society at large by giving new citizens a sense of belonging and acceptance. Countries who have longer paths to citizenship tend to integrate new immigrants with less ease.

Canada needs immigrants to keep our social systems afloat for our aging population. Without immigration, Canada's work force would shrink, severely decreasing the country's productive output over time. This would result in a lower tax base for social programs (e.g., healthcare, retirement benefits), which would have to be diminished or cut.

Considering the importance of immigration to Canada's economic well being, and the equally important rôle citizenship plays in integrating immigrants, citizen applicants should not be burdened with onerous fees to naturalize. Government should subsidize these fees as much as possible. No one should have to put off their citizenship application due to affordability issues. No one's finances should be unduly burdened by citizenship fees.

My view is that the path to citizenship should be swift, inexpensive and relatively easy.

 

[itsmyid]

Studies have indicated that early naturalization increases integration into society. These studies suggest that being naturalized early in the integration process tends to act as a catalyst toward participation in the society at large by giving new citizens a sense of belonging and acceptance. Countries who have longer paths to citizenship tend to integrate new immigrants with less ease.

Canada needs immigrants to keep our social systems afloat for our aging population. Without immigration, Canada's work force would shrink, severely decreasing the country's productive output over time. This would result in a lower tax base for social programs (e.g., healthcare, retirement benefits), which would have to be diminished or cut.

Considering the importance of immigration to Canada's economic well being, and the equally important rôle citizenship plays in integrating immigrants, citizen applicants should not be burdened with onerous fees to naturalize. Government should subsidize these fees as much as possible. No one should have to put off their citizenship application due to affordability issues. No one's finances should be unduly burdened by citizenship fees.

My view is that the path to citizenship should be swift, inexpensive and relatively easy.

And my view is there should be world peace, but that's not going to happen.... is it?

You do know money doesn't grow on trees, right? and in order for all those nice things you mentioned to happen, the government needs money to get people and resources to process all the applications, where else do you think the money should be coming from? especially when the government is already deep in debt/deficit. True, Canada needs immigrants to keep the social systems afloat, but if one can't even afford $600 to apply for citizenship, how exactly is he keeping the system afloat? If you break it down to a 3-year saving plan, it is about 50 cents per day, any cell phone plan would cost more than that - and I don't even have a cell phone plan

 

[links18]

My view is that the path to citizenship should be swift, inexpensive and relatively easy.

I wouldn't complain if they made the test a little less of a joke. In general, Canadian citizenship laws on paper seem to me to strike a fair balance between moving to integrate immigrants quickly and not giving out citizenship for free, but the implementation of these laws has tended to leave something desired, like when the processing time almost equaled the qualifying time as it tended to just a few years ago.