Effective date of Bill C24

[na123]

I think in April/May we should call CIC again and try to get some information from them in terms of when the law will be applied. I mean it might not be official, but for sure they should know by then as they will have probably be given the required training and informed of when to expect the implementation of the new law to start.

 

[OhCanadiana]

Hello, everyone.

I have a situation, which may well be one of first impression, but it represents a crucial distinction.

Situation: A p.r. citizenship applicant crosses border from Canada into U.S. at 22h08 on Monday, and returns at 00h12 on Tuesday, and remains in Canada.

Although he has spent 23 hours 48 minutes in Canada on Tuesday, and 22 hours 8 minutes on Monday,
the Residence Calculator will subtract a day.

However, the official requirement is, as stated:

"Each day you lived in Canada after you became a permanent resident counts as one day"

My question is:

DOES ANYONE KNOW THE STATUTORY, OR OTHERWISE OFFICIAL DEFINITION OF "LIVING IN
CANADA FOR ONE GIVEN DAY"? (I refer to for citizenship, not permanent residency!)

At the risk of repetition, the official RC is not citable as legal authority, of itself. I am searching
for the legal basis.

Thanks for any insight.

Cheers!

The FAQs may help...

Q4: When I try to calculate my absences, I get different numbers than the residence calculator. How does the residence calculator determine the number of days for each absence?

A4: The calculator uses the following rules to determine the number of days absent for each absence declared:

When calculating an absence, either the day you leave Canada or the day you return is considered an absence, but not both. For example, an absence between July 1, 2003 and July 15, 2003 equals 14 days of absence.
If you leave Canada and come back the same day, you do not have to declare an absence.
An absence on February 29 (leap day) is not counted as an absence, nor is it credited as a presence. See Question 5 for more information on leap days.
Total residence days ending in .5 are rounded up in your favour.
The total number of days absent includes all absences from Canada within the four-year period immediately preceding the date of your application. Because the time spent in Canada before you became a permanent resident is only credited as half-time, absences from Canada before you obtained permanent resident status are divided by two before they are included in the total number of days absent.

https://eservices.cic.gc.ca/rescalc/redir.do;jsessionid=F0B4E63DA1F3AFFB306C909CC2C58E94?redir=faq#Q4

For the legal basis itself, you're looking for the Citizenship Act: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-3.html#docCont

 

[MUFC]

I think in April/May we should call CIC again and try to get some information from them in terms of when the law will be applied. I mean it might not be official, but for sure they should know by then as they will have probably be given the required training and informed of when to expect the implementation of the new law to start.

Don't waste your time calling the ordinary call agents, they don't know.
The cut off date will come from a completely different place, but definitely will jump out from the Harpers inner circle.
CIC call agent are very low in the chain, they don't know internal information. The only thing they will say is just their personal guess.

 

[Suin]

Hello guys,
do you know weather the years of living in Canada before becoming PR will count towards the required residence time for the citizenship application?
Thank you

 

[MUFC]

Soon when the new law will be effective the days before PR will not be counted anymore.

 

[dpenabill]

More Notices in Gazette Re Changing Regulations to Implement Bill C-24

In particular:
Notice requesting comments on a proposal to amend the Citizenship Regulations to implement provisions of the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act and to make other regulations as a result

See the March 14 issue of the Gazette

Proposed regulations are not included in this notice, unlike the proposed regulations included with the regulatory impact analysis statement in the February 28 issue (discussed here some pages back).

I am not sure why the difference or what it means. Others may better know the procedures for adopting amendments and additions to regulations.

I suspect (but if someone knows differently, please let me know) that some types of regulations must be published in advance, while for others only a notice of intent to amend the regulations is required. I further suspect the latter has to do with regulations more or less derived directly from the governing statutory provisions.

What does this mean relative to the subject of discussion here, the expected date when the revised residency requirements will come into force?

It is safe to say, I think, that this means there is virtually no chance the revised residency requirements will come into force before mid-April. The notice period, for submitting comments, is 30 days beginning March 14. So these changes to the regulations, which will affect things like what is to be included with the application regarding the residency requirement, including "upfront evidence" that the applicant has "met the tax filing requirement," will not be in place for at least 30 more days.

Gut check: Beyond forecasts derived from hard analytical evidence (like given these recent notices, I feel confident in predicting it will not happen before the end of April), my track record for predictions based on intuition is not good. Cannot help, however, having a gut feeling this is coming down sooner than when most have predicted. My bet is still on June 1st, but as I hinted recently, May 1st seems to be a better bet than merely one of the possibilities, coming up hard from behind on the outside one might say at the race track.

Still, we do not know. We do not know. I suppose that July 1st will remain the odds-makers best bet. But given the way this government operates, these notices are largely pro forma and to my view signal the government is ready to move ahead on this. Submitted comments have near zero chance of being considered seriously. And given the scheduling modus operandi of this government, tending to give as little notice it legally can, pro forma or otherwise, to me this signals the coming-into-force-date will not be very far behind.

The question I cannot answer is whether this March 14 notice is sufficient, or will a regulatory impact statement have to be published, and time after that to comment? the proposed regulations themselves published with time following that to comment? My sense is this is it, this is all the notice necessary before these regulations can be published.

How soon can they take effect once published? or "registered?" That's another question for anyone who understands the regulation adoption and amendment process better. I suppose the question is can they be "registered" without being previously published? I know regulations can be made effective as of the date they are registered, so if they can be registered without prior publication of the proposed regulation itself, well then this is all the notice we may see.

This is relative to notice of the regulations implementing the changes.

Notice of the date the Governor-in-Council orders the revised residency provisions to come into force is a separate thing. The real thing one might say. We do not know if there will be any advance notice (like there was not for the provisions ordered to come into force as of August 1, 2014), but some notice seems likely, even if it is only a mere week or three.

 

[MUFC]

It looks like this might be the notice in advance, because I see all the big changes mentioned in it.
So Harper is ready to pull the trigger anytime when March is over.

One day in April, May, June, July or August we might just open the CIC website and confirm that the new law is already effective without anymore notices, because for me this notice is absolutely enough that when March is over it might be effective anytime after that.

 

[na123]

They will give 30 days for comments. Meaning that May 1st, June 1st, and July 1st seem the most likely date, and I would bet in would be sooner rather than later.
I always thought it might be on Canada Day on July 1st, but if I had to bet I will say it will now be on June 1st. 30 days from now will be April 14, so May 1st just seem very soon, as they have to "show" that they at least considered the comments of the public and they can't say that they did that in just 2 weeks in order for the new regulations to start on May 1st.

So dpenabill, I would bet on June 1st. But as MUFC it really can be ANY day after April 14.

Honestly I will be eligible on May 24, and I will apply on May 27 in order for my file to reach there on Friday, May 29 .If i can

 

[CanadianCountry]

Silliest thing ever heard, to qualify under old laws the application should reach CIC office before cutoff date.

Dont know which idiot comes up with these laws. In all fairness only the application date should matter.

They will give 30 days for comments. Meaning that May 1st, June 1st, and July 1st seem the most likely date, and I would bet in would be sooner rather than later.
I always thought it might be on Canada Day on July 1st, but if I had to bet I will say it will now be on June 1st. 30 days from now will be April 14, so May 1st just seem very soon, as they have to "show" that they at least considered the comments of the public and they can't say that they did that in just 2 weeks in order for the new regulations to start on May 1st.

So dpenabill, I would bet on June 1st. But as MUFC it really can be ANY day after April 14.

Honestly I will be eligible on May 24, and I will apply on May 27 in order for my file to reach there on Friday, May 29 .If i can

 

[Prospective Canuck]

Thank you Oh Canadiana

The statutory (official) definition of physical presence, in terms of days, does differ from the way
the residency calculator has been programmed.

The law, to which you referred me, states:


(c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and has, within the four years immediately preceding the date of his or her application, accumulated at least three years of residence in Canada calculated in the following manner:

.............

(ii) for every day during which the person was resident in Canada after his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence the person shall be deemed to have accumulated one day of residence;
[emphasis added]

Notwithstanding a residency calculator, which would perfunctorily defeat a day's physical presence in Canada, for an absence of 11 minutes, the statutory authority seems unequivocal.

Do any members have any impressions about this?

Thank you.

 

[dpenabill]

Prospective Canuck, regarding what counts as a day present in Canada:

You make a fair observation about the language of the statute itself.

But I have seen no more than one or two cases (one that I can recall in particular, even though I do not recall its name and do not have a link . . . somewhere in this forum, in the last several months I have mentioned and linked it) in which it was argued that every day in which a PR was present during that day should be counted.

In contrast, over the last decade at minimum, there have been hundreds of cases addressed by the Federal Court, and well over a million actual decisions regarding citizenship applications by Citizenship Judges, in which the approach taken by CIC (which effectively counts the number of midnights spent in Canada) has been applied and assumed to be the correct approach to calculating the number of days present in Canada.

In the one case I recall somewhat clearly, while the Federal Court acknowledged the argument, the court did not rule on it since there was another, overriding issue which dictated (in the opinion of the Federal Court justice of course) the result.

This particular issue can indeed be a matter of much import to many PRs on-the-cusp, those who are looking at applications for which the precise number of days is critical, right at or very very close to the 1095 days threshold. So it is indeed an issue of much relevance to many concerned with what will be the effective date the revised residency provisions take effect.

Mostly, though, there is little doubt about how CIC approaches the question, essentially counting midnights, and that CJs and Federal Court justices are likely (by a lot) to go along with that mode of calculating days present. So the online residence calculator remains the one best method of calculating actual presence, and only if the applicant meets the 1095 day threshold as calculated by the online residenc calculator, is it prudent to apply.

But some may feel compelled to test the law, notwithstanding the hurdles that will be faced. I could see, for example, a PR who has been driving truck for a living, who has had to make fifty or more overnight trips to the U.S. in the relevant four years, who will be short of 1095 days based on a calculation done using the online residency calculator by just a week or so as the end of May approaches (or if the coming into force date is not June 1st, as the end of June approaches), wrestling with whether to use the hard copy form and entering days present based based on every day during which he was in Canada at all, whether it was a full day, a day exiting, or a day entering. Such an applicant could, literally, add fifty or more days (one for each overnight trip) to the calculation. That's a big deal . . . if only CIC, or a CJ, or ultimately the Federal Court agreed with that approach.

Thus, it is probably a question worth further consideration for a very select few of prospective applicants.

But it probably should be discussed in a separate topic. So, to that end I will try to post further observations about this in another topic specifically devoted to the issue of what counts as a day resident in Canada.

 

[dpenabill]

More about effective date speculations:


tiarachel85 posted a link to a student paper in a topic titled: "Law society of BC expects July 2015 for C-24."

I already posted a response in that topic:

What gets me is that people are banking on the deadline as if it is the end of the world. It is not like CIC is removing the naturalization of Canadian citizenship away permanently. That I can see people panicking over when the deadline is.

You will get your citizenship when the time comes when you qualify and apply regardless if it under the 3/4 year rule or 4/6 year rule, regardless of when the deadline actually kick in or how much advanced notice they give.

Indeed, for many PRs there really is little or no rush.

In contrast, waiting an extra year plus for some PRs will make a big difference in their lives, careers on hold (Canadian passport can make a big difference in career opportunities even if the work is predominantly based on Canada), educational plans can be disrupted (many times critical graduate programs are only practically available abroad, such as in the U.S. or the UK), immigrants with aging and ailing parents in their home country can find themselves balancing spending some near-end-of-life time with a parent versus incurring a long delay in completing their path to a full life in Canada (by becoming a Canadian citizen).

And, even though for me the becoming-a-Canadian-citizen was almost entirely about wanting to be a citizen, about becoming a complete member of the community in which I live, since I also carry a U.S. passport, I too felt the urge to get to the oath sooner rather than later. I was patient myself, waited nearly two years after passing the technical threshold of 1095 days APP before applying. But that was MY choice, for my reasons, for personal reasons. I definitely understand those who are far more anxious, far less patient, and for whom this huge transition in life (becoming the citizen of a country other than where one was born and raised).

And it simply is not fair that this government refuses to give Canadians (Canadian PRs) a reasonable amount of notice so that they can have a reasonable opportunity to make decisions and plan their lives.

Not everyone will make the same decision based on the same circumstances. Some will choose to fly home to spend a month or three with an aging, ailing, near-end-of-life parent even though that might entail waiting years longer before becoming a citizen. Some will put educational plans on hold in order to first complete the path to citizenship. But it is simply not fair that this government is holding off giving them the information they need to plan their lives and make these decisions.

The notices of proposed regulatory changes, at the very least, is a clear indication the timing decision is made. The refusal to share this information publicly, to inform the public when its laws will take effect, is a clear indication that this government values its own convenience over the convenience of Canadians (again, PRs are Canadians, "Canadian PRs" to be precise, explicitly and legally not foreign nationals pursuant to Canadian law).

Albert Camus once wrote "I should be able to love my country and still love justice."

Canada is my country now and I do love this country, my country. But my heart aches when its government behaves badly.

 

[Moe...]

Please keep us informed of the new rule 4 out of 6 yrs of physical presence requirement come into effect.

 

[dpenabill]

As I indicated I would, I started a new topic to address the specific issue of what counts as a day in calculating residency.

I should emphasize, though, that very few cases involve precise counting of days. Very, very few. Mostly, CIC and CJs either accept the applicant's declared presence/absences, or have questions about the extent to which the applicant has submitted sufficient proof of being in Canada when declared. Thus, it rarely comes down to whether this or that ten or twenty days is counted or not.

Thus, the significance of what precisely gets counted should not be overly inflated.

And, it warrants emphasizing that any effort to force a calculation differently than CIC does it, is foremost likely to drag the process into the mire of residency case processing, and secondly is likely to be rejected by CIC.

But I agree there is an argument for counting both days of exit and entry, and that there are many for whom this could make a big difference as the coming into force date approaches, so I have offered what I could regarding that.

New topic and more in-depth discussion is (partial quotes):

Calculating Residency: what counts as a day in Canada?

Calendar days:

I do not have citations, but I have read enough Canadian law to feel comfortable stating that there is no doubt about calculating residency based on calendar days, and thus, for example, not based on calculating 24-hour time periods.


The meaning of "resident in Canada:"

The statutory requirement is that the PR have "three years of residence in Canada," and the statutory manner of calculation is based on "every day during which the person was resident in Canada."

. . . .

In any event, I agree that the language in the statute, "every day during which the person was resident in Canada," suggests that a day should count if (1) the person was a "resident" of Canada on that day, and (2) was present during that day (without regard to whether that was a day started outside Canada, or a day which ended outside Canada, so long as the individual was in Canada during that day.

But my impression is that CIC is not going to buy that. That a CJ is not going to buy that. And it seems like a tough case to make to the Federal Court.

And usually this only adds a few days to the calculation, whereas most decisions turn on a more general, broader time span for which CIC questions the applicant's residency. In other words, in almost all cases, this difference is not going to make or break the case, especially once it gets to the Federal Court (if it does, and no one really wants to go there . . . well no sensible person wants to go there).

 

[MUFC]

I'm also very surprised in a negative way, how the government and CIC treats the future new Canadians.
All these delays in the processing times are intentionally made.
All the massive usage of RQs were also intentionally made.
All that secrecy is also in place on purpose about the cut off date.

In general it's just like they say " Yes we need you, but somehow you are not welcome."
In the recent months I am truly amazed how badly CIC is treating all future Canadians.
There is so much accumulated moral pain in the souls of all those willing to become Canadians.

I am just a neutral observer of the overall picture, but I can admit that this game the government and CIC are playing against the people is very cruel.