+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

will citizenship rule change in 2020?

fr72

Hero Member
Jan 6, 2017
376
253
So from this page:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/act-changes/infographic-2017-2018.html

It took liberals around 2 years to pass the bill and make it a new law:

On June 19, 2017, Bill C-6 passed Parliament. Some immediate changes include:
  • Requirement to intend to live in Canada once granted citizenship was repealed
  • Citizenship revocation provisions only applying to dual citizens were repealed
  • Minors can qualify on their own without the need to have a Canadian parent

As of October 11, 2017, new changes include:
  • Required physical presence in Canada reduced to 3 out of 5 years
  • Days spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident, within 5 years of applying for citizenship, count as half days (up to 365 days) towards physical presence requirements
  • Age range for language and knowledge requirements reduced to 18-54 years old
  • Time required for applicants to file income taxes before applying for citizenship is reduced to 3 out of 5 years


So the idea about rules changing in 1 day is simple bogus.
Sure, but look up how long it took Cons to pass C-24 with the ridiculous 'intent to reside' thought policing. It took some time in the Commons, but they rammed it through their puppet senate within days, whereas the Liberal appointed independent senators actually took months to deliberate C-6 and made changes to the law.

I suspect the Cons will ram the changes through the Commons. The only saving grace can be the fact that the Senate is now majority Independent with some Liberal bias and 0 vacancies. They might hold it up, but not for too long as they are not directly elected.

Lets hope for a minority government if Cons do come to power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k.h.p.

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
Will grant citizenship requirements change in 2020?

Forecasting changes to citizenship requirements is, at the very best, speculative. Mostly an uninformed guess. Uninformed because there is NO real information available which would reliably indicate what changes might be presented let alone actually adopted.

That said, historically the Canadian Parliament has been very reluctant to tackle major changes to grant citizenship requirements. Even when some important changes were very badly needed. Prior to Harper's Bill C-24, in 2014, there had been no major change to the grant citizenship requirements (distinct from other elements of Canadian citizenship law) for several DECADES despite widespread recognition of very serious flaws in those requirements and Federal Court justices repeatedly and emphatically urging the Parliament to fix, in particular, the utterly flawed residency requirement, which had led to decades of confusion, uncertainty, and oft times grossly disparate outcomes and egregious miscarriages of justice. Legislative Bills were tabled but rarely got pass even a first reading.

Grant citizenship requirements have, simply, historically, been an area of law the Parliament is reluctant to meddle with.

But sure, more recent immigrants who are not students of history see the changes wrought in 2014 per Bill C-24, and then the changes adopted per Bill C-6 in 2017, and apprehend a change in government portends another round of changes in grant citizenship requirements. Failing to recognize that Harper had been Prime Minister for nearly 8 years before he pushed through Bill C-24 . . . in the THIRD year after he obtained a majority government. It took nearly FOUR years from when Harper obtained a majority government for changes to the presence requirement to actually be implemented. And he was the sort of tyrannical PM to abuse the rules and democratic processes to push through legislation he wanted as quickly as he practically could (sometimes even faster). And again, that was when virtually anyone with any experience with the grant citizenship law recognized major revisions were very badly needed.

For many, most I'd venture, Harper's changes were extreme. Adopting provisions which would allow the revocation of citizenship, on grounds of committing certain types of crimes, for a person BORN in Canada (not just naturalized citizens), for example, was viewed to be particularly extreme. Thus the fact that the Liberal government promptly undertook legislative action to, in effect, FIX some of the more extreme provisions adopted in Bill C-24 made perfect political sense . . . notwithstanding, again, the fact that historically the Canadian Parliament is reluctant to tackle big changes in grant citizenship requirements.

So, overall, the odds are high that there will be NO attempt to make major changes to the grant citizenship requirements. If the next government is a majority Conservative government, for example, there are many other more pressing issues their constituents are anxious to see addressed, other aspects of what the Trudeau administration has done that the Conservatives are eager to roll back.

THAT SAID . . . there are lots of ways in which a different government can have a significant impact on grant citizenship applicants. During the Harper government, for example, the number of applicants issued RQ was huge . . . at one phase, for a period of months, maybe as many as one in every four applicants was being issued a Pre-test RQ (several thousands every month for a period of time). Routine processing times approached TWO years, and scores and scores of applicants had applications wallowing in non-routine processing for THREE and FOUR years. No change in the rules necessary, let alone the law.

In the past, Conservative governments have, in particular, tended to focus on and be very tough toward applicants who were perceived to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise perceived to be seeking-a-passport-of-convenience.

So there is reason to apprehend that a change in government could have a significant impact on some or many grant citizenship applicants. Unlike changes to the law modifying the requirements, which technically could but are not at all likely to have any retroactive effect, changes in administrative policy or practices can indeed be implemented without notice and be applied to any application still in process. For example, the government can just unilaterally, without notice, begin issuing RQ to any applicant who appears to spend, after applying, an extended period of time outside Canada.

The Harper government did indeed do such things. OB-407 was implemented in April 2012 WITH NO NOTICE to the public . . . it was MONTHS later, when forum participants were noticing a draconian increase in the issuance of RQ, including scores issued pre-test RQ, before we became aware of the major policy and practice changes implemented in OB-407 . . . and while many of us made a concerted effort through the ATI process to obtain a copy of OB-407 and internal memos related to it, we never got more than a heavily redacted version (supplemented later by a copy of the File Requirements Checklist, which was apparently accidentally leaked and then shared online).

At another time, the Harper government changed the citizenship application form to require that applicants provide proof of ability in an official language WITH the application. This is taken for granted today. But before that change, applicants only needed to demonstrate language skills in the test and interview; many applicants applied for citizenship expecting to improve their language skills by the time of the test and interview. This change was implemented WITHOUT any advance NOTICE (popped up on the CIC website the day it took effect), and applied as of a particular date, and applications signed before that date on the previous version of the application not including proof of language, but which did not arrive at CIC until after that date, were returned as incomplete. Harper government did a similar increase in fees as well, resulting in scores of applicants having their application returned due to insufficient fees paid.

Talk about the exceedingly remote technical possibility of grant citizenship legislation getting done in less than six months (let alone a month or week or less), if you like, but even if not bogus that approaches trying to count the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. IN CONTRAST, those applying now or expecting to apply in the next months or year or so, YEP, KEEP YOUR EYE ON WHAT HAPPENS in the coming Federal Election, and be aware some significant changes could happen EVEN IF THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN THE LAW, THE REQUIREMENTS THEMSELVES.

Especially those who are so confident they can live abroad while their application is in process. That could prove to be a more trying experience than anticipated.

I had also addressed related issues recently in another topic, including some observations about the so-called intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement adopted in Bill C-24 and repealed in Bill C-6:.

The formal requirements for a grant of citizenship cannot be changed without adopting and implementing formal statutory amendments. . . .

Thus, for example, the next government cannot implement an intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement without tabling formal legislation, going through the legislative process, getting the Bill passed in Parliament and the Senate, and then implementing the changes.

It should also be noted that there was a great deal of misunderstanding about the so-called intent-to-reside-in-Canadarequirement. With the exception of an otherwise extremely REMOTE possibility (applicant obtains employment abroad and purchases home residence abroad BEFORE taking the oath, and has otherwise expressly stated, again BEFORE taking the oath, an intent to NOT reside in Canada after becoming a citizen), that provision totally ceased to have any effect once a person took the oath. IT WAS, ESSENTIALLY, A WAY FOR CIC (this was prior to change to IRCC) TO JUSTIFY DENYING CITIZENSHIP TO APPLICANTS WHO MOVED ABROAD BEFORE TAKING THE OATH. It was specifically aimed at applicants-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, as more than a few in the Harper government described those they believed were seeking-a-passport-of-convenience.

That is, the so-called intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement really had NO effect except for those applicants who would move abroad while the application was pending.


THAT SAID . . . yes, a Conservative government could implement changes in policy and practice which might have a significant impact on this group of applicants, that is applicants perceived to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, just in terms of elevating the scope of scrutiny, leading to lengthy delays, issuing RQ and requiring stronger proof. Which is essentially the way it was before Bill C-24 included the so-called intent-to-reside-in-Canada requirement . . . which policy, many seem to overlook, was to some extent originally implemented under a Liberal government in a 2005 Operational Bulletin, which subsequently was included as an appendix in the operational manual CP-5 Residence (which was in effect until at least 2012 when OB-407 implemented even more strict practices), specifically made circumstances indicating living abroad, while the application was in process, a reason-to-question-residency.
 
Last edited:

Copingwithlife

VIP Member
Jul 29, 2018
4,432
2,225
Earth
Sure, but look up how long it took Cons to pass C-24 with the ridiculous 'intent to reside' thought policing. It took some time in the Commons, but they rammed it through their puppet senate within days, whereas the Liberal appointed independent senators actually took months to deliberate C-6 and made changes to the law.

I suspect the Cons will ram the changes through the Commons. The only saving grace can be the fact that the Senate is now majority Independent with some Liberal bias and 0 vacancies. They might hold it up, but not for too long as they are not directly elected.

Lets hope for a minority government if Cons do come to power.
That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it . I live in voter rich Greater Toronto , my riding went Liberal by only 1000 votes. I was planning on moving out west, I am postponing my move so I can cast my vote in this area. All based upon “ Fool me once, shame on you , fool me twice , shame on me “, I won’t be fooled again
We have some of THE most generous r/o & citizenship rules, and some people still manage to complain or attempt to game the system . I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the legislation is modified. Remember the parties are constantly taking surveys trying to gauge the voters opinion on various topics, immigration I’m sure is one of them
 
Last edited:

zardoz

VIP Member
Feb 2, 2013
13,298
2,167
Canada
Category........
FAM
Visa Office......
London
App. Filed.......
16-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
31-07-2013
LANDED..........
09-11-2013
I suspect that there may be other, low-hanging, fruit for a future PC government to pick, that would be of more interest to the average "interested" Canadian. Here are three to get you started.

PGP
Birth tourism
Refugees
 
  • Like
Reactions: k.h.p.

zardoz

VIP Member
Feb 2, 2013
13,298
2,167
Canada
Category........
FAM
Visa Office......
London
App. Filed.......
16-02-2013
VISA ISSUED...
31-07-2013
LANDED..........
09-11-2013
Also,

OWP
PR residency obligation
Other family sponsorships
The reason that I selected those three is that there is a perception, (right or wrong), that they draw much needed resources/services away from Canadian citizens (who are the target demographic for federal elections).

What's the rationale for your selection? I'm just curious...
 

fr72

Hero Member
Jan 6, 2017
376
253
That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it . I live in voter rich Greater Toronto , my riding went Liberal by only 1000 votes. I was planning on moving out west, I am postponing my move so I can cast my vote in this area. All based upon “ Fool me once, shame on you , fool me twice , shame on me “, I won’t be fooled again
We have some of THE most generous r/o & citizenship rules, and some people still manage to complain or attempt to game the system . I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the legislation is modified. Remember the parties are constantly taking surveys trying to gauge the voters opinion on various topics, immigration I’m sure is one of them
Generous now. C-24 was anything but generous. If a citizenship can be revoked simply on 'intention' and if it is lesser than a natural born citizenship, then it's not really citizenship. I don't find anything wrong with applying on the way to the airport. A lot of natural born citizens live all their childhood in Canada, sucking up tax dollars for education, health and fly off to Silicon Valley - why no talk about revoking their citizenship?

If I cant do everything that a natural born can do, then what you have given me is not really citizenship, it's an extended visa. Which is fair enough - each country should decide their policies, but then I have an issue with it being advertised as 'citizenship'.

If the yellow vests come to power and have their way, we will go from citizenship to applying for a visa, which can be easily revoked based on the whims of a Trump like PM in the future.
 
Last edited:

k.h.p.

VIP Member
Mar 1, 2019
8,801
2,249
Canada
The reason that I selected those three is that there is a perception, (right or wrong), that they draw much needed resources/services away from Canadian citizens (who are the target demographic for federal elections).

What's the rationale for your selection? I'm just curious...
Compliance matters. A lot of the IRB/IAD time is tied up in adjudicating RO and sponsorship cases and it's easy to portray them as cheats and etc. OWP can be seen as taking jobs away from Canadians.
 

fotkifolkslove

Hero Member
Dec 7, 2011
240
9
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
So a Trump like PM could easily strip all naturalized citizens from their citizenship in the future?
Generous now. C-24 was anything but generous. If a citizenship can be revoked simply on 'intention' and if it is lesser than a natural born citizenship, then it's not really citizenship. I don't find anything wrong with applying on the way to the airport. A lot of natural born citizens live all their childhood in Canada, sucking up tax dollars for education, health and fly off to Silicon Valley - why no talk about revoking their citizenship?

If I cant do everything that a natural born can do, then what you have given me is not really citizenship, it's an extended visa. Which is fair enough - each country should decide their policies, but then I have an issue with it being advertised as 'citizenship'.

If the yellow vests come to power and have their way, we will go from citizenship to applying for a visa, which can be easily revoked based on the whims of a Trump like PM in the future.
Very True and well said.
 

dpenabill

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2010
6,427
3,173
C-24 was anything but generous. If a citizenship can be revoked simply on 'intention' and if it is lesser than a natural born citizenship, then it's not really citizenship.
Bill C-24 did NOT have provisions which allowed the government to revoke citizenship "simply on 'intention' . . ." while more than a few criticized it for this, that was NOT a valid criticism. The so-called "intent-to-reside-in-Canada" provision HAD NO EFFECT on any citizen, regardless when the citizen took the oath. It only applied to Permanent Residents while they were in the process of applying for citizenship.

And similarly, the view that somehow Bill C-24 made naturalized citizens "lesser" than a natural born citizen, was also a distortion. In fact, Bill C-24 included provisions for which a natural born citizen, that is a person born in Canada and born to Canadian citizen parents, could have his or her citizenship revoked for grounds based on the commission of certain crimes. Those provisions did NOT distinguish between natural born and naturalized citizens. And, there was indeed at least one person born in Canada whose citizenship was in the process of being revoked, for having committed certain crimes, when the change in government took place and the new Liberal government ceased those proceedings.

It is true that as a matter of demographics and background, that provision could potentially apply to a larger number of naturalized citizens than natural born citizens, because more naturalized citizens inherently have either another country's citizenship or a right to citizenship in another country, which was a requisite for revocation on the grounds of certain criminal convictions (this was mandated by international treaty restricting participating governments from making individuals stateless). But make no mistake, natural born citizens could, under those provisions, have their citizenship revoked, and again there was at least one natural born Canadian who was in the process of having his citizenship revoked when the Liberal government stopped applying this provision (and it was eventually outright repealed in Bill C-6).

That said, overall the approach implemented pursuant to the provisions adopted in Bill C-24 did indeed amount to dramatically raising the bar to becoming a citizen, especially for those who immigrate to Canada via a temporary worker or student path. It appeared to be clearly motivated or fueled by a significant degree of xenophobia or otherwise anti-immigrant animus. Moreover, as I have addressed elsewhere, the manner in which the government actually interprets and applies the laws and rules can make a huge difference, and under a Conservative government there was, unquestionably, a virtually draconian approach.



REGARDING applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport:

There is NO right or wrong view about this.

Many Canadians strongly feel that a GRANT of the rights and privileges of citizenship should be reserved for those who are invested in being actual citizens of Canada, in practice, in fact, and thus more than just in terms of status. And they have certain ideas about what that means.

Moreover, it is clear that most Canadians are NOT in favour of granting citizenship to those who are seeking-a-passport-of-convenience.

In contrast, many other Canadians including many immigrants recognize the nature and scope of a global economy and global society, and recognize that once a person becomes a citizen there is NO restraint on where they live or work in the world (none under Canadian law . . . obviously Canadians can only live or work in countries which allow Canadians to live or work there), so once a Permanent Resident is qualified and properly makes an application for citizenship, they do NOT support restraining them to live in Canada until the oath is taken.

That is, this is a policy choice. Neither view is any more legitimate or right than the other. An element of xenophobia probably underlies more than a few of those who harbour the view that citizenship should NOT be granted to people living outside Canada, that is, those who have chosen to leave Canada BEFORE they are actually citizens. But the opposite view also tends to be held by more than a few of those who are not all that invested in being a contributing member of the Canadian community but are more interested in having a passport which offers opportunities their home country passport does not.

But it is simply up to Parliament to make the policy decision. Either way.

Remember, applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport is about whether or not to grant citizenship to someone who NO longer even lives in Canada. It has NOTHING to do with where someone lives AFTER they have taken the oath and are a citizen.


THAT SAID, THERE IS ALSO THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR QUESTIONING THE PRESENCE/RESIDENCY OF APPLICANTS LIVING ABROAD

Getting into the issue of PROVING qualification for citizenship is a big and complicated tangent all its own. On the surface, though, it should be easy to recognize that if a person sitting in front of a total stranger bureaucrat is currently living OUTSIDE Canada (having applied-on-the-way-to-the-airport, so to say), that person clearly has substantial ties to a life outside Canada, so a reasonable decision-maker may very well request MORE evidence, more proof, that this individual was actually living and present in Canada when they claim they were. Again, this gets complicated. This is about why extended periods of time outside Canada AFTER applying were long considered a reason-to-question-residency . . . a reason to issue RQ and to more skeptically evaluate the applicant's evidence of presence in Canada. As I have previously observed, this was precisely a listed reason-to-question-residency pursuant to guidelines adopted under a Liberal government a decade and a half ago.

There are some who also generally feel that when a person comes to Canada and CLAIMS to be in Canada just barely long enough to meet the qualifications for citizenship, then applies for citizenship, and goes abroad again to live or work elsewhere, that in-itself suggests a reasonable suspicion that individual is playing the Canadian immigration system . . . enough of a reasonable suspicion to approach their applications with more skepticism and employ a substantially elevated degree of scrutiny . . . making it tougher for such individuals to meet their burden of proof that they are legally qualified for a grant of citizenship.


AND ALL THAT SAID . . . in the real world there is great variability in circumstances. Situations differ and can differ by a lot. Individual intent . . . as in, for example, those whose intent is to simply exploit the Canadian immigration system, versus those with the intent to become an IN-FACT Canadian citizen even if they nonetheless also intend to pursue global opportunities . . . discerning a person's "intent" can be very difficult. Requirements based on "intention" are notoriously difficult to apply . . . which is in large part why Canada has eliminated "intent" elements in much of its immigration law (the PR Residency Obligation is a prime example; the PR's intent is totally NOT relevant, unlike, for example, U.S. requirements for Green Card holders).

Very few Canadians appear to be in favour of giving immigrants carte blanche freedom to exploit the system. Few support the grant of citizenship to those who are seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. The difficulty comes in how to fairly identify those who are gaming the system versus those genuinely seeking to become a Canadian citizen IN-FACT. Moreover, there tends to be a wide divide among Canadians as to how important this is . . . Conservatives, historically, have tended to want a more strict, severe approach to make it more difficult for those who are seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. Liberals, and to some extent the NDP, again historically, have tended to favour a more flexible, generous approach giving immigrants the benefit of the doubt; most nonetheless think the government should not make it easy to exploit the system, and should NOT make it easy for those who are seeking-a-passport-of-convenience, but they prefer to not impose high hurdles to enforce this.
 
Last edited:

fr72

Hero Member
Jan 6, 2017
376
253
It appeared to be clearly motivated or fueled by a significant degree of xenophobia or otherwise anti-immigrant animus. Moreover, as I have addressed elsewhere, the manner in which the government actually interprets and applies the laws and rules can make a huge difference, and under a Conservative government there was, unquestionably, a virtually draconian approach.
The rest of your answer means nothing. This paragraph says everything. C-24 opened up the possibility of an interpretation that would lead to mass revocation of citizenships of naturalized citizens. It's very easy to see that the law would be interpreted to allow for revocation based on intent prior to applying for citizenship. The government could dig up an email in which I talk about moving to India to take care of parents in old age, or working in Singapore for a few years and use it to prove my intent to not reside. You are being very naive if you think Cons wont do this, given the chance.

As for passport of convenience, what is wrong with that? This citizenship is a give and take deal. We all know why we are here - to pay for the healthcare of baby boomer Canadians. Immigrants pay fees, come in due to their skills, pay taxes for at least 3 years and get the passport in return. What they do after this is immaterial. If you feel that this is not a good deal, make the citizenship requirement 5 years or 10 years. If you feel that they are using passport to just come back when they are old and sick, impose residency or tax requirement on healthcare, just like there is for CPP. But revocation smells of xenophobia and nothing else.

Also, this matter of leaving BEFORE or AFTER getting the citizenship to me is immaterial. If you are person who believes in restricting freedoms of naturalized citizens, this 1 yr or so gap hardly makes a difference and is merely a technicality.

I wish more immigrants become aware of the realities in Canada and realize that they are one election away from exile no matter what their status, and plan accordingly. Ironically, this would mean investing less in Canada and diversifying globally.
 
Last edited:

spyfy

Champion Member
May 8, 2015
2,055
1,417
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
LANDED..........
26-08-2015
I wish more immigrants become aware of the realities in Canada and realize that they are one election away from exile no matter what their status, and plan accordingly.
You reeeaaaallly need to scale down on the hyperbole. The reality in Canada is that of the rule of law, of the separation of power, of an independent judiciary, of a charter of rights and freedoms, of a written constitution (unlike the UK), and of the fact that democracy does not imply the dictatorship of the majority.

In fact, simply check out the Supreme Court Case in 2017 regarding revocation of citizenship, which is a superb example how an overstepping legislature and government was stopped by the highest court and specific parts of the Citizenship Act regarding revocation of citizenship were repealed. That is, by the way, exactly what "separation of power" and "independent judiciary" means.

So no matter the election outcome (which no one can predict), rest assured that Canada can't just exile citizens, no matter if naturalized or born in Canada. So let's all take it down a notch, shall we? :)

This isn't the wild west, this is Canada.

Edit: Source regarding the Supreme Court Case that I mentioned:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-court-voids-canadian-citizenship-revocation-for-312-people/article35675424/
"The Federal Court has nullified government attempts to strip Canadian citizenship from more than 300 people after an earlier judgment struck down key provisions of the Citizenship Act introduced by the former Conservative government under Stephen Harper."
 
Last edited:

keesio

VIP Member
May 16, 2012
4,795
396
Toronto, Ontario
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
09-01-2013
Doc's Request.
09-07-2013
AOR Received.
30-01-2013
File Transfer...
11-02-2013
Med's Done....
02-01-2013
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...
15-08-2013
LANDED..........
14-10-2013
Scheer might win and he will certainly revert the citizenship rules.
The Conservatives have a decent chance of winning the most seats. But a majority government is unlikely IMHO. Without a majority government, it is unlikely that any major changes to the current rules will be made
 

spyfy

Champion Member
May 8, 2015
2,055
1,417
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
LANDED..........
26-08-2015
Scheer might win and he will certainly revert the citizenship rules.
Scheer might win. If or if not, nobody knows.

However the statement "he will certainly revert the citizenship rules" is wrong. At the moment the CPC has not indicated that this is a priority for them. Most importantly, the election platform hasn't been published yet. So any claim that a CPC government would "certainly" do anything is, at the moment, incorrect.

Certain = "Able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case."