Intend to reside

[mumbai1985]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

 

[itsmyid]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

Nobody here knows... unless someone can come back from the future to tell us

 

[Quink]

Nobody here knows... unless someone can come back from the future to tell us

I just went to the future to check... we should be fine until 2043, but after that things get a little weird for a few years. Luckily, Prime Minister Xavier Trudeau sorts it all out again in 2047.

 

[zardoz]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

Yes, a future bill certainly could bring it back. It's almost impossible to think that it would affect applications that are already in progress or complete.

 

[foodie69]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

Another relatively useless question. Anything and nothing can happen, no one knows, hence no point discussing it.

 

[dpenabill]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

As others have observed, forecasting future changes in the law is a more or less useless exercise.

But, a repealed provision of law can be added again by a later government, of course.

Attempting to forecast the transitional provisions for some imagined future change in the law is even more speculative. Generally, however, substantive changes to the law are given prospective effect, NOT retroactive effect. In contrast, some but not all procedural changes will often take effect for applications already in process.


-- Substantive changes --

As I noted, generally substantive changes to the law are given prospective effect, NOT retroactive effect. Thus, changes to the requirements for a grant of citizenship are far more likely to have effect on applications made after the effective date of the change, NO EFFECT on applications submitted before that date. Again, even applications made after the change in law has been adopted, but submitted BEFORE the changes take effect, are usually governed by the previous law, usually BY THE LAW IN EFFECT AS OF THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS MADE (noting, however, that the transitional provisions phrase this differently, but this is the effect they have).

It is POSSIBLE, meaning mostly it could meet constitutional requirements, for Parliament to adopt provisions which have retroactive effect. There are enough reasons why this is NOT at all likely for any change to the substantive requirements for citizenship to NOT BOTHER giving this possibility any attention, at least none beyond simply admitting that it is possible.

Note, for example, that the changes made by Bill C-24 which implemented the 4/6 rule and the intent-to-reside rule was adopted June 19, 2014 but ONLY AFFECTED applications made after June 10, 2015; that is, those changes did NOT affect any application made BEFORE the date the changes actually took effect. THIS IS HOW IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS DONE FOR THESE KINDS OF PROVISIONS. There are many, many reasons for this. Again, deviation from this is possible, NOT LIKELY, and NOT AT ALL LIKELY except in very limited situations, in a narrow range of ways.

There are groups of contrary examples, which are almost always readily distinguishable and regarding which the distinctions can be explained, but it does get complicated. Many of the changes to the substantive provisions about WHO is a citizen, for example, have had retroactive effect. But even with such changes, Canada ordinarily makes an effort to NOT take away substantive rights or status (with some isolated exceptions) individuals already have. Thus, for example, there have been some changes in Citizenship laws which made individuals a citizen who were previously NOT a citizen, but provisions like those excluding citizenship by descent from the second-generation born abroad ONLY had a prospective effect in that this did not take away citizenship from anyone who was already a citizen (there are some wrinkles in this, but this is the gist of it).

There is also the example of the Bill C-24 provision which allowed the government to revoke citizenship for individuals convicted of certain crimes, which was adopted with RETROACTIVE effect. The constitutionality of this provision, which allowed the revocation of citizenship for even Canadian-born citizens, was subject to constitutional challenges which were never fully litigated, never fully resolved. It illustrates, however, just how narrow and extreme such retroactively applicable substantive laws would be.

SUMMARY: Generally substantive changes to citizenship requirements will ONLY be prospective, and thus NOT apply to any application already in process.


-- What are Substantive Changes versus Procedural Changes --

As noted, in contrast to the prospective application of substantive changes, some but not all procedural changes will often take effect for applications already in process.

Distinguishing substantive changes from procedural changes can be complicated, convoluted, and a vehemently contested issue, and is often not all that easy for experienced lawyers to sort out let alone those of us outside the jurist fold. Fortunately, the Canadian Parliament ordinarily makes an effort to include transitional provisions which clearly prescribe when certain provisions take effect and HOW the changes will apply, so there is usually little disagreement or confusion about what law applies or when.

Example of a Bill C-24 procedural change which took effect and governed applications already in process: the provisions allowing Citizenship Officers, rather than Citizenship Judges, to make the decision whether to grant citizenship or not (except for certain issues, like residency or presence). As soon as this provision took effect (that was August 1, 2014) it applied to all applications regardless of the date the application was made.

Generally procedural laws govern the PROCESS, not the requirements. Process changes will often govern all applications regardless when the application was made.




Once a person is a citizen, any changes to the requirements for the grant of citizenship have NO EFFECT. CANNOT have any effect.

. . . Intend to reside clause . . . applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

This part of the query is the main reason why I am posting a response.

Let's be clear: if by "finalized" you mean the person has taken the oath and is a citizen, any change to the requirements for citizenship CANNOT have any effect whatsoever on that citizen.

For further clarity, a citizenship application is NOT finalized until the applicant actually becomes a citizen, until the applicant has taken the oath and been issued AND delivered a certificate of citizenship.

Once a person becomes a citizen, they are a citizen.

Once a person is a citizen, any changes to the requirements for the grant of citizenship cannot possibly affect them.

Intent-to-reside provision in Bill C-24: It also warrants some emphasis that this provision NEVER had any application to any one who became a citizen. It was a requirement to be granted citizenship and had no effect, none whatsoever, on anyone who took the oath and became a citizen . . . even those individuals who were required to meet this requirement to be granted citizenship, it NEVER had any effect or application to them after they became a citizen. If there was NO change in the law, if for example Bill C-6 did not repeal the intent-to-reside requirement, it still would have NO RELEVANCY to anyone after they took the oath. None.

I recognize there was a lot of nonsense blather and blabber otherwise. It was all nonsense.

Thus, even if a future government reintroduced such a provision (there is probably a fair chance of this happening in the future, not in the near future however), it would NOT have any effect on any finalized application EVEN if the application is made AFTER that provision is implemented . . . . it is NOT likely to be applied to applications in process even, when such a change is made, BUT it would have NO effect for anyone who is a citizen, again regardless of when the application is made.

Thus, for example, even when the intent-to-reside was still a requirement for the grant of citizenship, once the individual became a citizen there was NO further requirement, NONE at all, that they continue to have an intent to reside in Canada. Babble to the contrary was malarkey.

 

[Jayson]

As others have observed, forecasting future changes in the law is a more or less useless exercise.

But, a repealed provision of law can be added again by a later government, of course.

Attempting to forecast the transitional provisions for some imagined future change in the law is even more speculative. Generally, however, substantive changes to the law are given prospective effect, NOT retroactive effect. In contrast, some but not all procedural changes will often take effect for applications already in process.


-- Substantive changes --

As I noted, generally substantive changes to the law are given prospective effect, NOT retroactive effect. Thus, changes to the requirements for a grant of citizenship are far more likely to have effect on applications made after the effective date of the change, NO EFFECT on applications submitted before that date. Again, even applications made after the change in law has been adopted, but submitted BEFORE the changes take effect, are usually governed by the previous law, usually BY THE LAW IN EFFECT AS OF THE DATE THE APPLICATION WAS MADE (noting, however, that the transitional provisions phrase this differently, but this is the effect they have).

It is POSSIBLE, meaning mostly it could meet constitutional requirements, for Parliament to adopt provisions which have retroactive effect. There are enough reasons why this is NOT at all likely for any change to the substantive requirements for citizenship to NOT BOTHER giving this possibility any attention, at least none beyond simply admitting that it is possible.

Note, for example, that the changes made by Bill C-24 which implemented the 4/6 rule and the intent-to-reside rule was adopted June 19, 2014 but ONLY AFFECTED applications made after June 10, 2015; that is, those changes did NOT affect any application made BEFORE the date the changes actually took effect. THIS IS HOW IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS DONE FOR THESE KINDS OF PROVISIONS. There are many, many reasons for this. Again, deviation from this is possible, NOT LIKELY, and NOT AT ALL LIKELY except in very limited situations, in a narrow range of ways.

There are groups of contrary examples, which are almost always readily distinguishable and regarding which the distinctions can be explained, but it does get complicated. Many of the changes to the substantive provisions about WHO is a citizen, for example, have had retroactive effect. But even with such changes, Canada ordinarily makes an effort to NOT take away substantive rights or status (with some isolated exceptions) individuals already have. Thus, for example, there have been some changes in Citizenship laws which made individuals a citizen who were previously NOT a citizen, but provisions like those excluding citizenship by descent from the second-generation born abroad ONLY had a prospective effect in that this did not take away citizenship from anyone who was already a citizen (there are some wrinkles in this, but this is the gist of it).

There is also the example of the Bill C-24 provision which allowed the government to revoke citizenship for individuals convicted of certain crimes, which was adopted with RETROACTIVE effect. The constitutionality of this provision, which allowed the revocation of citizenship for even Canadian-born citizens, was subject to constitutional challenges which were never fully litigated, never fully resolved. It illustrates, however, just how narrow and extreme such retroactively applicable substantive laws would be.

SUMMARY: Generally substantive changes to citizenship requirements will ONLY be prospective, and thus NOT apply to any application already in process.


-- What are Substantive Changes versus Procedural Changes --

As noted, in contrast to the prospective application of substantive changes, some but not all procedural changes will often take effect for applications already in process.

Distinguishing substantive changes from procedural changes can be complicated, convoluted, and a vehemently contested issue, and is often not all that easy for experienced lawyers to sort out let alone those of us outside the jurist fold. Fortunately, the Canadian Parliament ordinarily makes an effort to include transitional provisions which clearly prescribe when certain provisions take effect and HOW the changes will apply, so there is usually little disagreement or confusion about what law applies or when.

Example of a Bill C-24 procedural change which took effect and governed applications already in process: the provisions allowing Citizenship Officers, rather than Citizenship Judges, to make the decision whether to grant citizenship or not (except for certain issues, like residency or presence). As soon as this provision took effect (that was August 1, 2014) it applied to all applications regardless of the date the application was made.

Generally procedural laws govern the PROCESS, not the requirements. Process changes will often govern all applications regardless when the application was made.




Once a person is a citizen, any changes to the requirements for the grant of citizenship have NO EFFECT. CANNOT have any effect.



This part of the query is the main reason why I am posting a response.

Let's be clear: if by "finalized" you mean the person has taken the oath and is a citizen, any change to the requirements for citizenship CANNOT have any effect whatsoever on that citizen.

For further clarity, a citizenship application is NOT finalized until the applicant actually becomes a citizen, until the applicant has taken the oath and been issued AND delivered a certificate of citizenship.

Once a person becomes a citizen, they are a citizen.

Once a person is a citizen, any changes to the requirements for the grant of citizenship cannot possibly affect them.

Intent-to-reside provision in Bill C-24: It also warrants some emphasis that this provision NEVER had any application to any one who became a citizen. It was a requirement to be granted citizenship and had no effect, none whatsoever, on anyone who took the oath and became a citizen . . . even those individuals who were required to meet this requirement to be granted citizenship, it NEVER had any effect or application to them after they became a citizen. If there was NO change in the law, if for example Bill C-6 did not repeal the intent-to-reside requirement, it still would have NO RELEVANCY to anyone after they took the oath. None.

I recognize there was a lot of nonsense blather and blabber otherwise. It was all nonsense.

Thus, even if a future government reintroduced such a provision (there is probably a fair chance of this happening in the future, not in the near future however), it would NOT have any effect on any finalized application EVEN if the application is made AFTER that provision is implemented . . . . it is NOT likely to be applied to applications in process even, when such a change is made, BUT it would have NO effect for anyone who is a citizen, again regardless of when the application is made.

Thus, for example, even when the intent-to-reside was still a requirement for the grant of citizenship, once the individual became a citizen there was NO further requirement, NONE at all, that they continue to have an intent to reside in Canada. Babble to the contrary was malarkey.

You deserve an applause.

 

[itsmyid]

I know that c6 has repealed Intend to reside clause. But can a future bill bring it back ? Will such bill be applicable to Citizenship applications which are finalized when c6 is in effect ?

If it happens, it would also have to apply to Keanu Reeves, Elon Musk, and a whole bunch of other celebrities that are naturalized Canadian citizens living in the US, if I were IRCC I'd go after them first to make a bigger impact to the general public

 

[Copingwithlife]

I’ll vote for anyone that even hints at fixing the mess the IRCC has become

 

[canuck78]

If you are not planning to live in Canada for more than a minimum amount of time 3-4 years or even under 5-10 years would encourage you to save more money for your retirement. Tons of things can change. You will always be able to return to Canada but whether you will have access to all the services that Canadians enjoy right when you return is still a mystery. In a more global world there will have to be some discussions on what kind of services are people entitled to if they only spend 5 years out of their life in Canada but want to retire in Canada and expect to receive all the benefits. As the baby boomers go through retirement, people live longer and healthcare gets more expensive there will have to be changes throughout many systems. If you have only lived in Canada briefly and plan to retire in Canada, I would suggest to save more because you don’t what will happen in the future. I know you only qualify for publicly funded long term care in Manitoba if you have lived there for the past 10 years. Would imagine if the Conservatives win the next federal election that there are likely to be changes throughout the immigration system.