Effective date of Bill C24

[gammabeta79]

I did called CIC and agent I spoke to doesn't seem to have creditable information. But unusually, he sounded very very confident. This is what he said to me:

1. Though theoretically Bill C24 could be imposed anytime after 30 days notice period its highly unlikely that it will be before July/August 2015. His argument was there is lot of preparation or background work that needs to be completed before CIC could impose the rule (Though I did not cross-question him on this, how does he know at what stage CIC is in terms of background preparation. I am certain CIC agents do NOT have this information).

2. He asked me when I became PR or my PR application is still in process? Then, he argued that this new rule will be applicable ONLY to those who becomes PR after rule comes into force. This is very contrary to what I have been hearing on this form. However his logic was, when all those people who got PR before law will be enforced, knew that they need only 3 years after PR to get citizenship. That's why they chose to come to Canada because, it allows to get Citizenship quickly. If we impose the rule on them, certainly its unfair to them. Going ahead he said "rest assure we definitely cannot impose it on guys who became PR before June 2014 as they were NOT even aware that such rule is going to be enforced". I just hanged up after thanking him.

I am posting it here just for the info, though I do not personally believe, it what I heard. Any thoughts guys?

 

[CanadianCountry]

Yes I agree. To control this it's very simple but the govt has to go to extreme lengths to criminalize these people.

A simple mandatory foreign registry should be made. Canadian in other countries mandatorily be made to register with their nearest Canadian consulate/embassy. Once these people register, the govt can their entry information whether they entered with Canadian or foreign passport.

Then limit rescue or other benefits as per the updated list.

I have no issues with dual Canadians using their native passports to enter their country just I expect them to be denied Canadian consular services or Canadian help or benefits if trouble comes their way. If the person wants to stay longer under a Canadian national, they can apply for permits or extension in their home country and still get the Canadian privileges associated with it.

 

[screech339]

I did called CIC and agent I spoke to doesn't seem to have creditable information. But unusually, he sounded very very confident. This is what he said to me:

1. Though theoretically Bill C24 could be imposed anytime after 30 days notice period its highly unlikely that it will be before July/August 2015. His argument was there is lot of preparation or background work that needs to be completed before CIC could impose the rule (Though I did not cross-question him on this, how does he know at what stage CIC is in terms of background preparation. I am certain CIC agents do NOT have this information).

2. He asked me when I became PR or my PR application is still in process? Then, he argued that this new rule will be applicable ONLY to those who becomes PR after rule comes into force. This is very contrary to what I have been hearing on this form. However his logic was, when all those people who got PR before law will be enforced, knew that they need only 3 years after PR to get citizenship. That's why they chose to come to Canada because, it allows to get Citizenship quickly. If we impose the rule on them, certainly its unfair to them. Going ahead he said "rest assure we definitely cannot impose it on guys who became PR before June 2014 as they were NOT even aware that such rule is going to be enforced". I just hanged up after thanking him.

I am posting it here just for the info, though I do not personally believe, it what I heard. Any thoughts guys?

I don't believe that the new 4/6 rule will only apply to those who land after the date. The bill as written does not spell out any exemptions. If there was any, it would have been spelled out like the new citizenship by descent law. Once the new 4/6 rule kick in, every PR regardless of when they land will have to follow the new rule.

 

[mathlete]

@ Mathlete,
You still didn't answer my question. As per you if a naturalized Canadian takes job abroad he is a criminal, but a born Canadian can. I agree govt should not be in the business of controlling people's life's and stop them from moving.

Why the onus is more on naturalized Canadian than born Canadians towards contributing towards Canadian economy. Aren't they equal under law and should have equal responsibilities. Let's not conveniently leave Canadian born from the equation as you have.

I think the same rules should apply both to naturalized Canadians as well as native Canadians. The problem is that you cannot legally take away the citizenship of someone who only has 1 citizenship and make the individual stateless.

Really it boils down to intent. A born Canadian had no way of deciding their citizenship, a naturalized Canadian decided to acquire citizenship and should only do so with the intent to reside. I don't think you should "criminalize" anybody who takes citizenship and then decides to leave the country, you should be able to revoke said citizenship however if they do not meet certain criteria.

 

[nadeem55]

I did called CIC and agent I spoke to doesn't seem to have creditable information. But unusually, he sounded very very confident. This is what he said to me:

1. Though theoretically Bill C24 could be imposed anytime after 30 days notice period its highly unlikely that it will be before July/August 2015. His argument was there is lot of preparation or background work that needs to be completed before CIC could impose the rule (Though I did not cross-question him on this, how does he know at what stage CIC is in terms of background preparation. I am certain CIC agents do NOT have this information).

2. He asked me when I became PR or my PR application is still in process? Then, he argued that this new rule will be applicable ONLY to those who becomes PR after rule comes into force. This is very contrary to what I have been hearing on this form. However his logic was, when all those people who got PR before law will be enforced, knew that they need only 3 years after PR to get citizenship. That's why they chose to come to Canada because, it allows to get Citizenship quickly. If we impose the rule on them, certainly its unfair to them. Going ahead he said "rest assure we definitely cannot impose it on guys who became PR before June 2014 as they were NOT even aware that such rule is going to be enforced". I just hanged up after thanking him.

I am posting it here just for the info, though I do not personally believe, it what I heard. Any thoughts guys?

Wow , that's highly deceptive and confusing information, if I were you, I must record the officer name and any ID assign to that officer, obviously recording that type of call would be highly informative when someone applying for citizenship and denied.

I haven't seen any oddity in Canadian gazette where they publish authentic information for public, since there's no legitimate written proof for this, the statement would automatically voided.

 

[CanadianCountry]

@mathlete,
As a solution, Govt can lean on these born Canadians who have only Canadian citizenship and force them to apply and take the citizenship of the country in which they are currently living.

For example, if a Canadian goes to work in Australia or Uk and lives their continuously for 5-10 years, he should be forced to give up Canadian and take up Australian or UK citizenship. Now that is a fair policy. Not that I'm promoting this, I don't like govt telling and controlling people's lives.

As far as intent to reside, who decides the intent of an applicant. The intent decision is a personal decision should stay with the individual and not with CIC.

I think the same rules should apply both to naturalized Canadians as well as native Canadians. The problem is that you cannot legally take away the citizenship of someone who only has 1 citizenship and make the individual stateless.

Really it boils down to intent. A born Canadian had no way of deciding their citizenship, a naturalized Canadian decided to acquire citizenship and should only do so with the intent to reside. I don't think you should "criminalize" anybody who takes citizenship and then decides to leave the country, you should be able to revoke said citizenship however if they do not meet certain criteria.

 

[MUFC]

I did called CIC and agent I spoke to doesn't seem to have creditable information. But unusually, he sounded very very confident. This is what he said to me:

1. Though theoretically Bill C24 could be imposed anytime after 30 days notice period its highly unlikely that it will be before July/August 2015. His argument was there is lot of preparation or background work that needs to be completed before CIC could impose the rule ...

That scenario is absolutely possible, because nobody can tell at what stage are all the technical changes at this very moment.
If they are almost done with them, then noting can stop them to implement the new rules after Mid-April.

But on the other hand if all those changes are about to get started as organisational process I don't think that the cut off month and date will be before July or even after, simply because it seems a lot of work to be done from now on.

The confusing part is that the message from the gazette it seems that all those changes haven't started yet...
But on the other hand from the last issue it seems that they are ready to pull the trigger very soon.

It is really confusing what to expect.

 

[asaif]

If you think about it without prejudice you'll find that Canada is better-off when its jobless citizens find a job abroad and pay taxes without costing the treasury a penny on education, health care, welfare, etc. (other than the rare requests of consular assistance in case of an emergency). Isn't that better than staying home, living on social assistance, and competing for the scarce job opportunities?

Again, the only business the government needs to have with its citizens abroad is taxes. If they pay their taxes they should be entitled to all citizenship privileges, no questions asked. It doesn't matter if they choose to live in the US, the Caribbeans, South Africa, or Lebanon, just like citizens of any another country living abroad. Dual citizenship has nothing to do with this issue. There is only one class of citizens in Canada: Canadians.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Absolutely right.

Let's a person who is underemployed or unemployed, his choices are:
1. Work underemployed and be dissatisfied
2. Apply for welfare and stay
3. Seek the best opportunity wherever he may need to go and take that opportunity

The most rational would be choice 3, but many will say choice 1 is fine. Don't limit the choices of people.

If you think about it without prejudice you'll find that Canada is better-off when its jobless citizens find a job abroad and pay taxes without costing the treasury a penny on education, health care, welfare, etc. (other than the rare requests of consular assistance in case of an emergency). Isn't that better than staying home, living on social assistance, and competing for the scarce job opportunities?

Again, the only business the government needs to have with its citizens abroad is taxes. If they pay their taxes they should be entitled to all citizenship privileges, no questions asked. It doesn't matter if they choose to live in the US, the Caribbeans, South Africa, or Lebanon, just like citizens of any another country living abroad. Dual citizenship has nothing to do with this issue. There is only one class of citizens in Canada: Canadians.

 

[dpenabill]

2. He asked me when I became PR or my PR application is still in process? Then, he argued that this new rule will be applicable ONLY to those who becomes PR after rule comes into force. This is very contrary to what I have been hearing on this form. However his logic was, when all those people who got PR before law will be enforced, knew that they need only 3 years after PR to get citizenship. That's why they chose to come to Canada because, it allows to get Citizenship quickly. If we impose the rule on them, certainly its unfair to them. Going ahead he said "rest assure we definitely cannot impose it on guys who became PR before June 2014 as they were NOT even aware that such rule is going to be enforced". I just hanged up after thanking him.

I concur with others who have observed that the call centre representative was clearly in error about which PRs will be affected.

This is clearly set out in section 31 of the SCCA (Bill C-24 as adopted), which is a bit convoluted because of its cross-references to the various provisions of the Citizenship Act, but it is very clear that what determines whether an application is subject to the current provisions or to the provisions as revised, is the date of application and NOT date PR status was obtained. Only applications made before the revised provisions come into force will still be processed based on the current (3/4) requirement. Only applications made before the revised provisions come into force will allow credit for time in Canada prior to landing as a PR.

The explanation offered by the rep echoes an earlier post citing promissory estoppel as an argument why the revised requirements should not be applied to those who became a PR prior to June 19, 2014 (date Bill C-24 received Royal Assent), or at least those who landed prior to February 6, 2014 (date Bill C-24 was tabled, effectively giving notice of increase in presence requirements to become a citizen). The problem with this argument is that there is NO promise of citizenship included in the grant of PR status. While many applying for and becoming a Canadian Permanent Resident may have had an expectation of what they needed to do to become a Canadian citizen based on the law at the time they became a PR, there is no reasonable expectation that precludes changes in the law. It is, quite simply, not reasonable (in the view of law) to rely on current law as applying to future events, no reasonable expectation that the current law will not change in the future.

One can indeed argue that morally any such changes should not detrimentally affect those who have acted in reliance on the current law as of when they made the investment in immigrating to Canada, that indeed it is NOT fair, but of course that was an argument to be made in Parliament, an argument that the law should have been written differently than it was. More than a few of those speaking to members of Parliament about these changes did indeed make that argument. Parliament chose to pass the law as tabled. No surprise really.


About the prospective date:

We still do not know much, not much other than, indeed, the most probable date is no sooner than the end of April, no later than sometime in August. Four top bets remain July 1, June 1, May 1, or August 1, probably in that order -- my personal bet is on June 1st, and I'd venture that August 1st is a real long shot. Some are still betting on June 19th, but no one is picking up that bet in our office pool.

While a great deal of preparation is needed, most of it is probably done. Remember, by the time this government posts notices for anything, including regulatory changes, it has already decided what the changes will be . . . so the new regulations are now, almost certainly, written very much as they will be registered. The likelihood of any suggestions made in comments being seriously considered is remote, at best.

 

[zardoz]

I did called CIC and agent I spoke to doesn't seem to have creditable information. But unusually, he sounded very very confident. This is what he said to me:

1. Though theoretically Bill C24 could be imposed anytime after 30 days notice period its highly unlikely that it will be before July/August 2015. His argument was there is lot of preparation or background work that needs to be completed before CIC could impose the rule (Though I did not cross-question him on this, how does he know at what stage CIC is in terms of background preparation. I am certain CIC agents do NOT have this information).

2. He asked me when I became PR or my PR application is still in process? Then, he argued that this new rule will be applicable ONLY to those who becomes PR after rule comes into force. This is very contrary to what I have been hearing on this form. However his logic was, when all those people who got PR before law will be enforced, knew that they need only 3 years after PR to get citizenship. That's why they chose to come to Canada because, it allows to get Citizenship quickly. If we impose the rule on them, certainly its unfair to them. Going ahead he said "rest assure we definitely cannot impose it on guys who became PR before June 2014 as they were NOT even aware that such rule is going to be enforced". I just hanged up after thanking him.

I am posting it here just for the info, though I do not personally believe, it what I heard. Any thoughts guys?

2.) is complete garbage. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that supports this view. Therefore, he is not a reliable witness for 1.) either.

 

[mathlete]

Absolutely right.

Let's a person who is underemployed or unemployed, his choices are:
1. Work underemployed and be dissatisfied
2. Apply for welfare and stay
3. Seek the best opportunity wherever he may need to go and take that opportunity

The most rational would be choice 3, but many will say choice 1 is fine. Don't limit the choices of people.

I don't think anyone is "limiting" choices. The government is talking about intent. They are saying don't take citizenship if you never INTEND on staying. The world is not a perfect place. There are MANY useless born-Canadians who leach off the social welfare system and don't pay into the system. At the same time there are millions of people who can't get into Canada who want to work and help improve the country because there place is given to others who have no desire to remain in Canada. The system needs to balance these issues given obvious constraints.

 

[screech339]

@ mathlete,
As a solution, Govt can lean on these born Canadians who have only Canadian citizenship and force them to apply and take the citizenship of the country in which they are currently living.

For example, if a Canadian goes to work in Australia or Uk and lives their continuously for 5-10 years, he should be forced to give up Canadian and take up Australian or UK citizenship. Now that is a fair policy. Not that I'm promoting this, I don't like govt telling and controlling people's lives.

As far as intent to reside, who decides the intent of an applicant. The intent decision is a personal decision should stay with the individual and not with CIC.

What you propose in forcing a Canadian to take up another citizenship if they stayed at foreign country after so many years is ludicrous. The thing is the Canadian doesn't have to take up another citizenship of a foreign country, regardless of how long he/she stayed in foreign country. It’s a personal choice. If and when a Canadian wants to take up citizenship of a foreign country, he/she usually do it because he/she intends to reside there permanently. Again a personal choice. Not take it up and only take off back to Canada as soon as he/she gets citizenship. If a Canadian did that, it would mean he/she had an ulterior motive to obtaining foreign citizenship, (a back-up plan, to obtain EU citizen status to live/work anywhere in EU). He/she would be called, EU of Convenience. Sounds familiar?

 

[CanadianCountry]

@ mathlete.

It seems that you are taking a very narrow view (right-winged Tory stance on the topic). Lets say a person has all the intent to make Canada home and stay forever, but under certain circumstances has to leave for some years. The person has the intent to stay (till the day he dies) but can only come back after 5-10 years. Does the applicant has the "intent" or not?

And if you say No, remember that there is no way the permanent resident can renew his permanent residence when he comes back after 5-10 years, because his residence status expires because Residency obligations. And if you say apply for fresh permanent residence the applicant may not be eligible anymore due to ever changing laws.

So hence the choices get limited, dont you think?

I don't think anyone is "limiting" choices. The government is talking about intent. They are saying don't take citizenship if you never INTEND on staying. The world is not a perfect place. There are MANY useless born-Canadians who leach off the social welfare system and don't pay into the system. At the same time there are millions of people who can't get into Canada who want to work and help improve the country because there place is given to others who have no desire to remain in Canada. The system needs to balance these issues given obvious constraints.

 

[CanadianCountry]

@screech,
I'm sorry that i'm being unable to show you the different set of freedoms for naturalized and born Canadians.

The solution that i presented was to answer "govt cannot do much to control the born Canadians: 52% of the diaspora" "so lets control the 48% of the naturalized diaspora" set of statement.

Maybe i will give one last try to illustrate, lets say you upon getting the grant of citizenship get a job offer from abroad which is too good to refuse. If you take that offer, you will be categorized as citizen of convenience (never had the intent if you move). But a born Canadian can take such offer and have no issues.

Lets say you are in Alberta working as an engineer with Oil&Gas. Economy goes sour, you are laid off along with other born Canadian engineers. You look for work, you get similar work out of Canada, but you cannot take that job opportunity. Born Canadian can.

What you propose in forcing a Canadian to take up another citizenship if they stayed at foreign country after so many years is ludicrous. The thing is the Canadian doesn't have to take up another citizenship of a foreign country, regardless of how long he/she stayed in foreign country. It's a personal choice. If and when a Canadian wants to take up citizenship of a foreign country, he/she usually do it because he/she intends to reside there permanently. Again a personal choice. Not take it up and only take off back to Canada as soon as he/she gets citizenship. If a Canadian did that, it would mean he/she had an ulterior motive to obtaining foreign citizenship, (a back-up plan, to obtain EU citizen status to live/work anywhere in EU). He/she would be called, EU of Convenience. Sounds familiar?