na123 said:
I am getting confused with the intent to reside clause now. So you are saying when I apply I can't visit the US for a week or two for work or tourism purposes?
I have every intention to live in Canada, I have been living here for 6 years and I am hoping to buy a house next year but you can't tell me that if I apply and while my application is in process I can't leave Canada for just a week as a vacation from work or for a week for work related purposes?
I know everyone is interpreting the new law because the government hasn't made it clear for the exact cases that they are looking for, but thank you everyone for the feedback.
There is virtually no likelihood that ordinary holiday travel abroad while an application is pending will be a problem. Suggestions to the contrary are largely hyperbolic.
While the application of statutory provisions typically involves a range of discretion, that is tempered by well-established principles of law, including of course the right to a fair procedure guaranteed by the Charter.
The intent clause is actually fairly simple and straight-forward, even if its impact is far-reaching.
Bottom-line, though, is that this provision was specifically aimed at applicants who, as one Federal Court justice described it,
apply-on-the-way-to-the-airport. The applicant who moves abroad to work in another country while the application is pending, for example, is a specific target of this legislation.
It's application will go beyond that, of course, but there is little prospect this provision will be arbitrarily applied to capriciously deny otherwise qualified applicants.
In contrast, the applicant who still owns a residence abroad, whose spouse and children are living abroad, and whose long-term ties to Canada are weak or tenuous, and who goes abroad for extended periods of time while the application is pending, sure, that applicant is at elevated risk for running into problems . . . and the intent to continue residing in Canada clause gives CIC the tools for making in-depth, probing inquiries relative to comparing continuing ties abroad with continuing ties in Canada.
Applicants who are well-settled in Canada and who do not have circumstances suggesting that the Canadian passport is the real object, rather than becoming a citizen in fact not just status, have little or nothing to worry about in regards to this provision.
As for challenges to the removal of credit for time in Canada on work-permit or study permit or such:
Opposition to this part of Bill C-24 has little to no chance of being effective. This is, as some have noted, a
fairness issue. Time to challenge it was when the Bill was before Parliament. Sure, opposition then was futile because the Conservative Government was not going to be swayed. But that was the venue for opposing this.
It is a done deal. This part of Bill C-24 will come into effect and that will be the end of that. No more credit for time prior to becoming a
Permanent Resident. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be of no avail.
And, again, even with a change in government following the Federal election this coming year, this is not something which will be revisited by Parliament in the foreseeable future.
