Effective date of Bill C24

[nadeem55]

The thing is if they challenge the bill after the rest of it's provisions takes place (full Bill C-24), then the odds are they could loose the litigation.
Moreover, we need to wait atleast 6 - 8 months to see what govt. will announce.

Another update on court challenges, BC Civil liberties association informed to a query that they will surely be in courts challenging the bill c24 on charter mobility rights, but that will come next year.

 

[dpenabill]

The thing is if they challenge the bill after the rest of it's provisions takes place (full Bill C-24), then the odds are they could loose the litigation.
Moreover, we need to wait atleast 6 - 8 months to see what govt. will announce.

The way the legislation is composed, a successful Charter or constitutional challenge will only impact the particular provisions determined to offend the Charter or otherwise be unconstitutional. There is no hope that any of the challenges raised so far (and there is only one actually made so far as I am aware, Galati's challenge that Parliament does not have the power to implement laws revoking citizenship otherwise validly obtained) will have the result of generally invalidating other provisions implemented by Bill C-24.

There will be litigation over particular provisions for years to come. There were more than three decades of strident challenges to how the previous Section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act (the residency, knowledge of Canada, and language requirement provisions for the grant of citizenship) should be interpreted, applied, or limited (including constitutionally or per the Charter), some marginally successful, most not except to the extent that the courts fashioned various standards, including qualitative tests, for determining residency.

While the language in the grant citizenship requirement provisions as adopted in Bill C-24 is more specific and less open to conflicting interpretations, it too is likely to be litigated over and over again for a long time. But that litigation will not result in the law being generally invalidated. That is not going to happen.

Moreover, even the most controversial part of the new section 5(1), the oft-called "intent to reside" provision, is most likely to withstand any challenge to its validity. The courts are likely to rule on how it is to be interpreted and applied, but there is virtually no chance it will be invalidated. (And again, even if it was, that would not affect the validity of the remaining provisions in section 5(1) as amended by Bill C-24.)

It has been a number of months since I last read the comments and criticism published by the coalition in B.C. which objected to several aspects of Bill C-24, but as I recall the "intent to reside" clause was not part of the challenge. I have seen no credible source suggesting that there is any real objection to Bill C-24 based on Charter mobility rights. That was always a red herring, one which unfortunately distracted much of the discussion (before the Bill was adopted) away from the many truly serious issues, issues warranting a genuine and in-depth public discussion before adopting the law, which should have been addressed before the Bill was voted on and given Royal Assent. That, however, is now water long, long gone under the bridge.

 

[MUFC]

Another update but this time from the immigration office in Mississauga that the cut off date is expected to be September or even October 2015. This report has the same information about the cut off date like the immigration centre in Scarborough.

So the conclusion I can make is that definitely the Federal elections will be the factor which will determine the cut off date.

 

[tiarachel85]

I THINK THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT THE DATE.

MR. ALEXANDER HAS STATED IT WILL BE SUMMER 2015. NOW GOING BY THE LOGIC FIRST DAY OF SUMMER IN 2015 IS JUN 21, WHICH IS A SUNDAY AND ALSO APPROX 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF BILL PASSAGE.

SO I AM QUITE SURE IT WILL BE 22 JUN 2015 (NEXT WORKING DAY)

 

[nadeem55]

Wait @tiarachel85

Don't shout on this forum, if Alexander has stated that the rest of provisions will take effect in Summer 2015 that doesn't mean the very first day of the summer, summer season starts from 21 Jun - Sep 23, 2015, so it could be any day between these dates or may be later as MUFC said. There's no need to spread panic and stop yelling on, keep yourself calm, we are exchanging our ideas/views depending on the information we're getting.
I hope you understand.

I THINK THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT THE DATE.

MR. ALEXANDER HAS STATED IT WILL BE SUMMER 2015. NOW GOING BY THE LOGIC FIRST DAY OF SUMMER IN 2015 IS JUN 21, WHICH IS A SUNDAY AND ALSO APPROX 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF BILL PASSAGE.

SO I AM QUITE SURE IT WILL BE 22 JUN 2015 (NEXT WORKING DAY)

 

[tiarachel85]

Wait @ tiarachel85

Don't shout on this forum, if Alexander has stated that the rest of provisions will take effect in Summer 2015 that doesn't mean the very first day of the summer, summer season starts from 21 Jun - Sep 23, 2015, so it could be any day between these dates or may be later as MUFC said. There's no need to spread panic and stop yelling on, keep yourself calm, we are exchanging our ideas/views depending on the information we're getting.
I hope you understand.

First of all, I am not shouting at all. I think you should learn some politeness.

Secondly, Do you really understand the meaning of word "approximate"???

Is date like sep 23, 2015 an approximate date of an year from bill passage???

 

[MUFC]

tiarachel85,

Maybe you know the time limits of the word "Approximately"... How can you measure something which is not definitive as an expression.

For everybody "Approximately" means different time frames.... and that's why, the only official statement from them is using that word, because is convenient for them.

 

[jazibkg]

Bill C-24 is depressing. Makes me want to move elsewhere. Its probably going to have the reverse effect of what they intended.

 

[dpenabill]

For a clue about interpreting vague statements from CIC, it is worth remembering that Minister Alexander's predecessor , Jason Kenney, referred to a two year, minimum, suspension of the parent sponsorship program as a "brief pause" in processing. It was really a termination of that program (to be replaced more than two years later by a far more restrictive program), not a suspension let alone a brief pause in processing.

When this government uses imprecise language it is deliberate, intended to deliberately leave the door open, wide, wide open.

For Minister Alexander, who may have a big future in the Conservative Party (it appears he is indeed being groomed) but who for now is little more than a minion for Harper, Kenney, and a few others within the very close-knit circle of power brokers in this government, "approximately a year" could mean anytime between now and the end of 2015 . . . or, what it really comes down to, whatever Harper decides (probably has already decided).

Moreover, CIC personnel probably have little more knowledge than the rest of us as to when the section 5(1) amendments will take effect, so anything that someone in a local CIC office says should be taken to be about as definitive as what anyone in the forums say. Harper and company keep this sort of information very, very close to the vest. As I said, Harper probably already has a firm date planned. It is not certain that even Minister Alexander knows what that is, but if he does, that knowledge will not extend very far at all into the hierarchy at CIC.

As it gets closer to the actual date itself, when from the top down in CIC there will be a rollout of new forms, guidelines, instructions, and so on, then the local CIC personnel will have a better idea that it is coming soon, but that is not likely to be apparent until just before the Governor in Council orders the provisions to come into force . . . and CIC personnel will undoubtedly be issued a mandatory script dictating what they can say . . . and with this government that will most likely be less than informative if not outright equivocation.

 

[dpenabill]

Should temper what I just posted with the observation that of course this is not occurring in a vacuum. So there are some indicators as to the probable range. There is, however, no for sure date.

While it is still largely reading tea leaves, summer 2015, or a month before summer, or into early fall, seems to be the likely range of dates this will happen . . . that is, between May 1st and October 1st. Those who like to bet in pools would probably put their money in the June 1st to September 1st range.

And sure, June 19, the one-year anniversary of the date the Bill was given Royal Assent and CIC announced the new presence requirements would likely come into force in "approximately" a year, is as good a bet as most other days, although I would be inclined to bet on the 1st of the month, be that July 1st, or June 1st, or August 1st (probably in that order, odds wise).

But the reality is this government is not past accelerating this. It could happen anytime, literally, almost anytime.

There are suggestions that Harper may be contemplating calling the Federal election early, and if that happens, you can bet these provisions will come into force before he calls the election. Harper could call for an election any time after the first of year. Anytime. That is one wild card definitely in play.

 

[MUFC]

Ever since I saw the word "Approximately" I knew it, that it will be a fishy and strange story onwards...

Exactly they are choosing this kind of words in order to have a huge range of time to implement the changes.

The fact that there is no official statement after the old one which was 6 months ago, just confirms that they will use the cut off date as a joker for future political benefits.

The fact that they made this to happen for the federal elections year is not an accident

 

[PMM]

Hi

Should temper what I just posted with the observation that of course this is not occurring in a vacuum. So there are some indicators as to the probable range. There is, however, no for sure date.

While it is still largely reading tea leaves, summer 2015, or a month before summer, or into early fall, seems to be the likely range of dates this will happen . . . that is, between May 1st and October 1st. Those who like to bet in pools would probably put their money in the June 1st to September 1st range.

And sure, June 19, the one-year anniversary of the date the Bill was given Royal Assent and CIC announced the new presence requirements would likely come into force in "approximately" a year, is as good a bet as most other days, although I would be inclined to bet on the 1st of the month, be that July 1st, or June 1st, or August 1st (probably in that order, odds wise).

But the reality is this government is not past accelerating this. It could happen anytime, literally, almost anytime.

There are suggestions that Harper may be contemplating calling the Federal election early, and if that happens, you can bet these provisions will come into force before he calls the election. Harper could call for an election any time after the first of year. Anytime. That is one wild card definitely in play.

I would put my money on July 1st.

 

[dpenabill]

Hi

I would put my money on July 1st.

For betting in a pool, that is indeed probably the best bet in the pool.

But it is just a bet.

For tens of thousands of PRs, however, this is not merely about odds-making, not an academic exercise.

It may be worth reviewing some contextual background into what this means for tens of thousands of PRs.

For those on the cusp in 2015 there are real stakes, real consequences in play. I tend to swing with those who emphasize patience, and feel that there should be no rush to make the application for citizenship, but the difference this coming year, for many thousands of PRs, could be a year or up to nearly two years. It is one thing to be patient and give it an extra month or two, but to have to wait an additional year plus, that is a lot. And the change-over will have that impact on thousands of PRs. No matter what date the section 5(1) amendments take effect, the change will suddenly extend the earliest eligibility date by a full year for thousands of PRs.

Thus, for those on the cusp in 2015, for those who could end up waiting, if they fail to get an application made prior to the amendments taking effect, an extra year or even two (the latter being those who could get credit for time in Canada prior to landing if they apply before the amended section 5(1) comes into force), it will be better to not make any bet now, but to watch the news closely. As the actual date approaches there should be some signs it is coming. Thus, for example, toward the middle of the month come May, and likewise in June (and so on), there will be many (in the hundreds if not thousands) who will want to be prepared to get the application sent off well in time to be actually received at CIC before the last day of the month. (Date application arrives and is received at CIC is the critical date, even though date application is signed is ultimately the date of application.)

This is a crazy transition. It is undoubtedly having an impact on intermediate travel plans -- recognizing, for example, for many a two week trip home for the end of the year holidays could mean the difference between getting an application submitted with at least a full week margin before June 30th, versus not being in a position to apply until it is too late to get the application in before July 1st, and that could mean not being eligible until some time in 2016 or even 2017.

If the Governor in Council has not ordered the amendments to come into force on July 1st, another batch of PRs, again probably in the hundreds if not thousands, will be on a similar cusp in July, approaching the August 1st date.

And so on.

I personally waited an extra year to apply for citizenship, and then procrastinated some, delaying applying by a few months more beyond that. But I had a visa-exempt passport, no plans to pursue career opportunities for which a Canadian passport would make a difference, and no travel plans which would be affected. Many, many others do not have the luxury of waiting a long time. For many, a long wait will entail significant inconvenience or even have a major impact on finances.

There is some irony, though, in that for some PRs the amendmended version of section 5(1) will accelerate the date they become eligible, and for some even make the difference in being eligible altogether. Long-haul truck operators with routes into the U.S. for example, some off-shore oil workers, some academics with temporary placements abroad, PRs whose actual presence in Canada was falling short of the 3/4 ratio imposed under the current version of section 5(1) but whose portion of time in Canada does meet a 2/3 ratio. These PRs (whose overall time residing in Canada is six years) will become eligible when the amendments take effect. While they are undoubtedly not few in number, the impact of the amendments will heavily weigh in the other direction, the number of PRs suddenly having to wait a lot, lot longer will vastly exceed the number who benefit from more liberal 2/3 ratio requirement.

In any event, the anxiety if not consternation felt by those on the cusp in 2015 is well-founded. For many, especially those who were living and working in Canada for years on temporary status, who finally were given PR status, and who will suddenly find themselves on the cutoff side of the change-over next year, and who will have to wait an extra year plus, I fully understand and sympathize with the sense that this just does not feel fair.

 

[asty16]

First of all, I am not shouting at all. I think you should learn some politeness.

Secondly, Do you really understand the meaning of word "approximate"???

Is date like sep 23, 2015 an approximate date of an year from bill passage???

Hello,
When you type in all CAPS that is the equivalent of shouting in online terms. Please know that
Secondly,
When you have a range of dates (i.e. summer 2015), Please make sure you say "It might be" instead of saying"I am very sure". "I am very sure" means you have facts to support your statement. Can you provide an official proof to back that up?? Or is it only your opinion??

 

[MUFC]

For betting in a pool, that is indeed probably the best bet in the pool.

But it is just a bet.

For tens of thousands of PRs, however, this is not merely about odds-making, not an academic exercise.

It may be worth reviewing some contextual background into what this means for tens of thousands of PRs.

For those on the cusp in 2015 there are real stakes, real consequences in play. I tend to swing with those who emphasize patience, and feel that there should be no rush to make the application for citizenship, but the difference this coming year, for many thousands of PRs, could be a year or up to nearly two years. It is one thing to be patient and give it an extra month or two, but to have to wait an additional year plus, that is a lot. And the change-over will have that impact on thousands of PRs. No matter what date the section 5(1) amendments take effect, the change will suddenly extend the earliest eligibility date by a full year for thousands of PRs.

Thus, for those on the cusp in 2015, for those who could end up waiting, if they fail to get an application made prior to the amendments taking effect, an extra year or even two (the latter being those who could get credit for time in Canada prior to landing if they apply before the amended section 5(1) comes into force), it will be better to not make any bet now, but to watch the news closely. As the actual date approaches there should be some signs it is coming. Thus, for example, toward the middle of the month come May, and likewise in June (and so on), there will be many (in the hundreds if not thousands) who will want to be prepared to get the application sent off well in time to be actually received at CIC before the last day of the month. (Date application arrives and is received at CIC is the critical date, even though date application is signed is ultimately the date of application.)

This is a crazy transition. It is undoubtedly having an impact on intermediate travel plans -- recognizing, for example, for many a two week trip home for the end of the year holidays could mean the difference between getting an application submitted with at least a full week margin before June 30th, versus not being in a position to apply until it is too late to get the application in before July 1st, and that could mean not being eligible until some time in 2016 or even 2017.

If the Governor in Council has not ordered the amendments to come into force on July 1st, another batch of PRs, again probably in the hundreds if not thousands, will be on a similar cusp in July, approaching the August 1st date.

And so on.

I personally waited an extra year to apply for citizenship, and then procrastinated some, delaying applying by a few months more beyond that. But I had a visa-exempt passport, no plans to pursue career opportunities for which a Canadian passport would make a difference, and no travel plans which would be affected. Many, many others do not have the luxury of waiting a long time. For many, a long wait will entail significant inconvenience or even have a major impact on finances.

There is some irony, though, in that for some PRs the amendmended version of section 5(1) will accelerate the date they become eligible, and for some even make the difference in being eligible altogether. Long-haul truck operators with routes into the U.S. for example, some off-shore oil workers, some academics with temporary placements abroad, PRs whose actual presence in Canada was falling short of the 3/4 ratio imposed under the current version of section 5(1) but whose portion of time in Canada does meet a 2/3 ratio. These PRs (whose overall time residing in Canada is six years) will become eligible when the amendments take effect. While they are undoubtedly not few in number, the impact of the amendments will heavily weigh in the other direction, the number of PRs suddenly having to wait a lot, lot longer will vastly exceed the number who benefit from more liberal 2/3 ratio requirement.

In any event, the anxiety if not consternation felt by those on the cusp in 2015 is well-founded. For many, especially those who were living and working in Canada for years on temporary status, who finally were given PR status, and who will suddenly find themselves on the cutoff side of the change-over next year, and who will have to wait an extra year plus, I fully understand and sympathize with the sense that this just does not feel fair.

100% agree.

They just love the lack of transparency.