Effective date of Bill C24

[Martin29]

The problem I see is that even if the government didn't decide any dates but this date(19th June) might get their attention because almost everybody is ready and prepared to accept it.

May be I am paranoid.

 

[MUFC]

The government will decide the real cut off date according to other factors.

There is no way a normal person from the public to take such high level information from a regular call centre clerk.

The Governor will publish the real date.

 

[ari5323]

Basically you and depeabill are arguing. You are so sure that nothing will be before CANADIAN day. And he clings to June first. He fricks me out

 

[MUFC]

This is what I'm doing for living when I'm day-trading similar unknown news.

I respect dpenabill ( Only from the fact that he also doesn't give credit to the call centre clerks is enough for me to see that he has experience )

To be honest the only date that worries me in June is June 30th.

The major danger is Canada day.


But don't forget guys I have another bet... That the Minister will not say any definite cut off date on Friday!

 

[jazibkg]

There are so many other pressing matters in life, you guys should stop worrying about some future threat to your 'citizenship' - all they are are pieces of paper. Get a US visa. Get a Schengen visa. Live your life instead of waiting on some magical piece of paper to somehow set you free of your misery.

 

[sinpguy]

There are so many other pressing matters in life, you guys should stop worrying about some future threat to your 'citizenship' - all they are are pieces of paper. Get a US visa. Get a Schengen visa. Live your life instead of waiting on some magical piece of paper to somehow set you free of your misery.

You said it...

 

[screech339]

There are so many other pressing matters in life, you guys should stop worrying about some future threat to your 'citizenship' - all they are are pieces of paper. Get a US visa. Get a Schengen visa. Live your life instead of waiting on some magical piece of paper to somehow set you free of your misery.

+1 for your post.

 

[FR]

I couldn't have said it any better Jazi...If we are loyal honest Permanent Residents who have entered Canada Legally and have all the necessary requirements to become Citizens of Canada, then no matter how difficult the rules will become, or how long it will take us to apply and process our files, at the end of the day, CIC will have to give us the rights to become citizens , therefore, let's live our lives in this beautiful country that we chose to be our New Home & Country, while we are waiting for a group of people to decide when we can apply or how we should apply...life isn't about holding a Canadian Passport as if it will bring magic! life is about Today and where we live today and what we can do for our communities and societies, that's all that matters...Let us worry about Tomorrow when it comes...

 

[ZingyDNA]

No, CIC don't have to. Citizenship is not a right. They can cancel PR to citizenship anytime they want, without breaking any laws I think

.....
then no matter how difficult the rules will become, or how long it will take us to apply and process our files, at the end of the day, CIC will have to give us the rights to become citizens , therefore, let's live our lives in this beautiful country
.....

 

[MUFC]

For me is also funny how they say that the Canadian citizenship is a privilege. It is just another piece of paper which requires very easy steps to be granted.

For the very same reasons I've decided to give priority to my personal plans and to skip the Canadian citizenship story.

Live and enjoy your live people.

Have Fun.

One day when you get your Canadian passports you will ask yourselves ... "Why did I put so much nerves back in the days for something so ordinary?"

 

[screech339]

No, CIC don't have to. Citizenship is not a right. They can cancel PR to citizenship anytime they want, without breaking any laws I think

They can only cancel the citizenship application if CIC believes that the applicant didn't qualify for citizenship in the first place, or applicant didn't go through the motions, ie write test, or recite the oath, or under the new rule, did not maintain residency during process.

 

[neutral]

For me is also funny how they say that the Canadian citizenship is a privilege.

Of course it's a privilege. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[MUFC]

Privilege with very easy requirements.

For me privilege means tough rules to get it on order someone to have that real sense of success at the end.

Here that privilege is like give away.

 

[ari5323]

My thing is thst I want to get this bloody papers, and that is because I have to travel a lot for business. I don't like to chase my own tail. You guys are right, it's not healthy to fall in an obsession mode

 

[dpenabill]

While there continues to be no news:


Sidebar regarding citizenship as a privilege or a right:

There is no doubt what the law says. Numerous members of the Canadian judiciary have expressly ruled, in official decisions, that the GRANT of citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

What that means, however, is a source of much confusion, misperception, and unnecessary disputation.

Discussion about the dichotomy privilege vs right tends to be muddled, rhetorical, and mired in personal values, and oft times the rhetoric is incoherent due to differences rooted in the use of different and incompatible meanings for these terms. The latter, the conflicts borne of inconsistent meanings, typically includes blurring without distinction moral rights, statutory rights, procedural rights, and constitutional rights, and with a tendency to totally ignore how the term "privilege" is used in legal terminology.

Throw in a left field usage of the term "privilege," such as in reference to an advantage held by persons within a certain class, and the discussion devolves into disarray if not chaos, if not simply nonsense.

In these discussions one rarely sees anyone using these terms as they are used in the law, with the meaning they bear when the Justices of the Federal Court reiterate that the GRANT of citizenship is a privilege, not a right, except to the extent the bare bones proposition is expressed as such, that is, again, that the GRANT of citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

I do not mean to offer an exegesis fully illuminating what is meant in the law when it is said that something is a privilege, is a right, or is in particular a privilege not a right. That would be too much an academic exercise even for me.



Understanding what is important about the distinction for purposes of grant citizenship:

For purposes of understanding what is important about the statement that the GRANT of citizenship is a privilege, not a right, all one really needs to know is that the burden of presenting evidence and proving qualification and entitlement is on the applicant, and thus the government does not need to show or prove anything to withhold a grant of citizenship.

The government cannot withhold or withdraw fundamental rights, those guaranteed by the constitution generally and the Charter more specifically, except when justified by an interest overriding personal rights, and the burden of proving justification to withhold or withdraw such rights is on the government. Thus, for example, unlike in some countries, people in Canada cannot be incarcerated based on mere suspicion. The government must meet prescribed procedural requirements, including the burden of presenting evidence which establishes (proves) the requisite grounds for holding an individual in custody. The individual can remain silent, and is still protected from being incarcerated unless the government follows certain procedures and sufficiently demonstrates the reasons for holding the individual in custody.

When a fundamental right is at stake, the burden of presentment and proof is on the government.

In contrast, when something is deemed a "privilege," the government can (and usually does) withhold that from an individual unless the individual makes a proper application for it, supported by the requisite information and documentation, subject to an adjudicative decision-making process in which the burden of presenting evidence and proving qualification is on the individual. The government can, in effect, remain silent, and if the individual falls short in proving the case, that "privilege" (such as the grant of citizenship) may be withheld from that individual. (The fact that CIC does not remain silent, but will conduct inquiries and assessments, perhaps even pursue an investigation, does not diminish the extent to which the burden of presenting evidence and proving qualification for the grant of citizenship remains on the applicant.)

For example, in the very recent decision rejecting an appeal by Ukaobasi , which challenged the CJ's denial of his approval for citizenship, the CJ and the Court focused on the 108 day period immediately following the date this individual became a Permanent Resident, June 22, 2006. The government presented no evidence that Ukaobasi soon left Canada, let alone immediately left Canada, following the day he became a PR, but because Ukaobasi failed to submit any documentation to show activity in Canada between then and October 6, 2006, the CJ deducted those 108 days from Ukaobasi's residency calculation, with the result that he was short of the 1095 day threshold by just 15 days. While compromised credibility was a big factor in the approach taken by the CJ and the Federal Court, ultimately the decision itself turned on simply not including those 108 days in the residency calculation because the applicant had failed to prove he was actually present in Canada during that time . . . despite the fact there was no indication he left Canada during that time . . . and frankly, given that Ukaobasi was a refugee in Canada leading up to the day PR was granted, it seems rather unlikely he would have left Canada that soon after becoming a PR.

It is in a case like this that the distinction between the grant of citizenship being a privilege, not a right, looms large. Even if it is quite likely Ukaobasi was in Canada at least fifteen days between June 22, 2006 and October 6, 2006, which is all he needed to reach the 1095 days APP threshold, his failure to actually prove he was in Canada during that time period justified the CJ's denial of citizenship.