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his citizenship revoked when the Liberal government stopped applying this provision (and it was eventually outright repealed in Bill C-6).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.
