Effective date of Bill C24

[dpenabill]

"Needs to run smoothly . . . "

That's a good one. This government concerned about how smoothly its innovations will run?

Remember OB 407 anyone? Less than three years ago, citizenship application processing nearly brought to a standstill. Thousands and thousands of sincere, legitimate, qualified applicants dragged into the mire of RQ and long delays, many applicants waiting over two years to even be scheduled for the test, a large number of applicants dragged into the third and some even a fourth year of processing. The handling of the backlog that created is still, largely, merely a promise, next-year."

Internal CIC memos from 2012 (released in response to various ATI applications) revealed deep frustrations within the CIC staff. OB 407 and its instructions did not even get the respective positions and roles and functions of many at all right. Harper, Perrin, Kenney, were all far more interested in stopping a few thousand alleged frauds than they were in implementing the changes in a way that would not totally disrupt the processing for, literally, a quarter million or so applications in process. It was a total disaster.

I have little doubt that good intentions flow strong in most of CIC, but CIC is one of Canada's biggest bureaucracies, probably its most litigated government body, probably its most cumbersome and also the one charged with some of the most difficult tasks a government body in Canada deals with. And money is tight.

The only reason a major disaster is not likely is that as of the day after the revised provisions come-into-force, the in-flow of new applications is likely to decline to a trickle, since a whole year of new immigrants (mostly those in 2012 and into 2013)) will suddenly have to wait an extra year to apply. CIC will have a significant amount of leeway to adapt in applying the new law and new regulations.

But just like this government has a history of doing it first and giving notice after the fact, this government also has a history of doing it first and figuring out how to do it right later. This is not to say this is done without reason or cause. Harper and company have their reasons. And their priorities.

Odds are they had a date certain in mind a long while ago and that will be the date it happens, regardless of how ready, or not, CIC is.

 

[vinaypuri]

Very detailed postings depanabill . I am considering re-applying in a hope that CIC won't penalize with RQ on re_apply.

I am approaching 6 years of residency this year

 

[Niette]

Are there any chances that when this new law will come into force , it will still leave an option for onces who landed before June 2014 apply according to the old rules?

 

[bkara]

bkara,

The official notice is "... These provisions will come into force in approximately a year."

This statement leaves room for manoeuvre +- some amount of time.

If the statement was like you said "within a year" it would have been much more clearer that there is a deadline.

But from the official statement there is no clarification because there is no deadline.

Different people have different understandings about the timeframe as a scope from "Approximately".

They will push that to be effective before the elections because they will have a campaign before the elections in which they will definitely use that law as one of their positive accomplishments from their mandate, hence positive impression for their voters in order to attract more votes on their side.

you write 5 sentences unrelated to my question and just focus on some random words in order to correct them my friend.

and still do not answer my question briefly and clearly.

Thanks.

 

[dpenabill]

Are there any chances that when this new law will come into force , it will still leave an option for onces who landed before June 2014 apply according to the old rules?

No. The law is already adopted as is. It is readily accessible both at the Parliament website and in the Justice Laws Website, currently at a link for "amendments not in force", with the applicable transition provision (section 31 of the SCCA) linked as Related Provisions.

Section 31 of the SCCA is the one that specifies the law which will apply to this or that application. It clearly specifies that the new residency requirements (in revised section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act) will apply to all applications made the day or after the day the revised provisions come into force. CIC will have no discretion in which laws govern the application.

Thus: date of becoming a PR is not relevant. What matters is the date the a complete application is made. Those applications made before the coming into force date of the new law will be subject to the current version of section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act (the 3/4 rule), and those applications made after that will be subject to the new provisions (the 4/6 rule plus intent to continue residing in Canada).

 

[bkara]

No. The law is already adopted as is. It is readily accessible both at the Parliament website and in the Justice Laws Website, currently at a link for "amendments not in force", with the applicable transition provision (section 31 of the SCCA) linked as Related Provisions.

Section 31 of the SCCA is the one that specifies the law which will apply to this or that application. It clearly specifies that the new residency requirements (in revised section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act) will apply to all applications made the day or after the day the revised provisions come into force. CIC will have no discretion in which laws govern the application.

Thus: date of becoming a PR is not relevant. What matters is the date the a complete application is made. Those applications made before the coming into force date of the new law will be subject to the current version of section 5(1) of the Citizenship Act (the 3/4 rule), and those applications made after that will be subject to the new provisions (the 4/6 rule plus intent to continue residing in Canada).

people applying for PR in the same category get their COPRs in different times.Sometimes even with 1 year difference.

if A office in ontario is slow and B office in QC is processing the applications fast.What is the applicants fault? why would he be punished because of some stupid decision of some people in the parliament? There is nothing called tough luck when it comes to rights and equality.

Would you explain me this? because these people apply in the same time period but get PRs in different times.This is my question.

Putting everybodyiin the same sack is the most stupid decision this parliament is making.sooner or later this will bite them.Lawmaking needs LOGIC not somebody`s personal decision.

A lot of decision-makers in this country have Arts degrees.No wonder why they are lack of logic.PM does not even have a law degree but he is PM...So yeah this explains me a lot.

 

[MUFC]

bkara,

CIC can do whatever they want with the applicants do you know why?

Try for yourself to file any complaint against them and you will see how powerless are the immigrants.

They will never publish official deadline for processing times to follow.

 

[CanadianCountry]

I agree. CIC would not care a single bit if they are ready with all the necessary preparations. They have a date in mind and will implement on that date irrespective.

Just consider, Tories limited House debates on Bill C24, didnt let Liberals and NDP to opine, didnt bring in key stakeholders to present before committee, literally STEAMROLLED the Bill C24 into law with great urgency. They made it as a NATIONAL PRIORITY as if integrity of nation is in question as if it was a WAR issue.

So i will not be surprised as the Tories are capable of anything.

"Needs to run smoothly . . . "

That's a good one. This government concerned about how smoothly its innovations will run?

Remember OB 407 anyone? Less than three years ago, citizenship application processing nearly brought to a standstill. Thousands and thousands of sincere, legitimate, qualified applicants dragged into the mire of RQ and long delays, many applicants waiting over two years to even be scheduled for the test, a large number of applicants dragged into the third and some even a fourth year of processing. The handling of the backlog that created is still, largely, merely a promise, next-year."

Internal CIC memos from 2012 (released in response to various ATI applications) revealed deep frustrations within the CIC staff. OB 407 and its instructions did not even get the respective positions and roles and functions of many at all right. Harper, Perrin, Kenney, were all far more interested in stopping a few thousand alleged frauds than they were in implementing the changes in a way that would not totally disrupt the processing for, literally, a quarter million or so applications in process. It was a total disaster.

I have little doubt that good intentions flow strong in most of CIC, but CIC is one of Canada's biggest bureaucracies, probably its most litigated government body, probably its most cumbersome and also the one charged with some of the most difficult tasks a government body in Canada deals with. And money is tight.

The only reason a major disaster is not likely is that as of the day after the revised provisions come-into-force, the in-flow of new applications is likely to decline to a trickle, since a whole year of new immigrants (mostly those in 2012 and into 2013)) will suddenly have to wait an extra year to apply. CIC will have a significant amount of leeway to adapt in applying the new law and new regulations.

But just like this government has a history of doing it first and giving notice after the fact, this government also has a history of doing it first and figuring out how to do it right later. This is not to say this is done without reason or cause. Harper and company have their reasons. And their priorities.

Odds are they had a date certain in mind a long while ago and that will be the date it happens, regardless of how ready, or not, CIC is.

 

[Niette]

No. The law is already adopted as is. It is readily accessible both at the Parliament website and in the Justice Laws Website, with the applicable transition provision .

is it legal? I do not understand how is it possible that government attracts immigrants by publishing certain rules and when those immigrants are already "in house" , government changes the rules as it wishes?
and all immigrants who are affected by this new law just surrender and swallow it ?

 

[CanadianCountry]

What can David do against Goliath? CIC is big and has more money than anybody else.

is it legal? I do not understand how is it possible that government attracts immigrants by publishing certain rules and when those immigrants are already "in house" , government changes the rules as it wishes?
and all immigrants who are affected by this new law just surrender and swallow it ?

 

[MUFC]

If they are going to announce the cut off date on the cut off date itself I hope that at least they will return the money from the processing fees from those applications which are still on their way to CIC.

At least they should see the old application forms when they open the packages and keep in mind that nobody was aware when exactly they will implement the new rules.

Nobody can be sure when the cut off date will be, because there is no official confirmation.

 

[dpenabill]

is it legal? I do not understand how is it possible that government attracts immigrants by publishing certain rules and when those immigrants are already "in house" , government changes the rules as it wishes?
and all immigrants who are affected by this new law just surrender and swallow it ?

It is adopted law, Royal Assent and all (as of June 19, 2014), so it is as legal as legal gets.

Your question is whether it is constitutional, subject to being invalidated because it violates Charter rights or other constitutional limitations.

That is, whether Parliament can change the law in a way that changes the path to citizenship for those who have already immigrated to Canada.

Short answer is that such laws are always subject to change, so there was no promise, no guarantee when you (or any other immigrant) came to Canada that the laws governing the grant of citizenship would remain the same. This is more fully discussed many pages back in this topic. Part of the rationale is rooted in the extensive jurisprudence which specifically says that the grant of citizenship is NOT a right, but a privilege. In any event, there is no doubt that the application of the new residency provisions to those who were a PR prior to 2014 will pass constitutional and Charter muster.

Additionally, by the way, there was extensive notice that these changes were coming at least as far back as the election campaign in 2011, with more overt promises made by then Minister of CIC Jason Kenney in 2012 and 2013, so it is not as if anyone can honestly say there was no notice . . . sure, most of those coming to Canada then were not paying attention to such news, but it was public information. The promises of change were vague, no specifics about what the new residency requirements would be, but changes were indeed repeatedly promised, so there was actually quite a lot of notice.

 

[MUFC]

I do agree that there was far more then enough notice that something is coming, but the only thing I don't like about that cabinet is that they are not specific about the cut off date. They always implement the changes with a surprise .

Now the case is the same, nobody has a clue when exactly the cut off date will be and the people are very anxious whether they will make it or not.

 

[bkara]

It is adopted law, Royal Assent and all (as of June 19, 2014), so it is as legal as legal gets.

Your question is whether it is constitutional, subject to being invalidated because it violates Charter rights or other constitutional limitations.

That is, whether Parliament can change the law in a way that changes the path to citizenship for those who have already immigrated to Canada.

Short answer is that such laws are always subject to change, so there was no promise, no guarantee when you (or any other immigrant) came to Canada that the laws governing the grant of citizenship would remain the same. This is more fully discussed many pages back in this topic. Part of the rationale is rooted in the extensive jurisprudence which specifically says that the grant of citizenship is NOT a right, but a privilege. In any event, there is no doubt that the application of the new residency provisions to those who were a PR prior to 2014 will pass constitutional and Charter muster.

Additionally, by the way, there was extensive notice that these changes were coming at least as far back as the election campaign in 2011, with more overt promises made by then Minister of CIC Jason Kenney in 2012 and 2013, so it is not as if anyone can honestly say there was no notice . . . sure, most of those coming to Canada then were not paying attention to such news, but it was public information. The promises of change were vague, no specifics about what the new residency requirements would be, but changes were indeed repeatedly promised, so there was actually quite a lot of notice.

gimme a break you are trying to convince people to shut up and not go after their rights.It is my right to know what the implication date is as a prospective applicant]

There is nothing called privilege.When you complete your time as PR,and submit all necessary documents.Sooner or later they have to give you the citizenship.You have to be superior to me to give me something I can consider privilege.

Nobody is superior to me in this country.as long as I am not criminal,do my job,file my taxes.IT IS MY RIGHT to be a citizen of this country and it is inevitable.

stop trying to show people that some people are "superior" to others.I have not seen or heard in my life any major decision made by a company or a goverment and have not announced its implication date.

CIC is one of a kind

explain me data structures and algorithms in C then I can call u my superior take fifth derivative of any given function then YES Sir you are superior to me.Superiority can be in skills and knowledge not date of birth or where you are from I am giving 70 % chances you are a white individual because the way you look at things and express yourself indicate that.

 

[CanadianCountry]

1. Its been said recently by many that citizenship is NOT a right, but a privilege . Nothing can be more BOGUS than that and the proof is citizenship through jus soli, citizenship by birth rights . People who are born here, for them citizenship is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE.

So this statement in itself is an evidence of creation of second class citizens. As for some citizenship is a RIGHT and for some citizenship is a PRIVILEGE.

EXAMPLE:
A PR has a family with one child who is also a PR. Then they have second child who is born here in Canada. So for first child citizenship is a privilege and for second child its a right.

Oh please, dont bullsh#t.

2. Even if the changes to come were indicated in 2011 or prior, i would highly DOUBT that immigrants coming to Canada were listening to ministers like Kenney. Immigrants knew of the current laws as posted on the CIC site. So it goes without saying that these changes are UNFAIR.

It is adopted law, Royal Assent and all (as of June 19, 2014), so it is as legal as legal gets.

Your question is whether it is constitutional, subject to being invalidated because it violates Charter rights or other constitutional limitations.

That is, whether Parliament can change the law in a way that changes the path to citizenship for those who have already immigrated to Canada.

Short answer is that such laws are always subject to change, so there was no promise, no guarantee when you (or any other immigrant) came to Canada that the laws governing the grant of citizenship would remain the same. This is more fully discussed many pages back in this topic. Part of the rationale is rooted in the extensive jurisprudence which specifically says that the grant of citizenship is NOT a right, but a privilege. In any event, there is no doubt that the application of the new residency provisions to those who were a PR prior to 2014 will pass constitutional and Charter muster.

Additionally, by the way, there was extensive notice that these changes were coming at least as far back as the election campaign in 2011, with more overt promises made by then Minister of CIC Jason Kenney in 2012 and 2013, so it is not as if anyone can honestly say there was no notice . . . sure, most of those coming to Canada then were not paying attention to such news, but it was public information. The promises of change were vague, no specifics about what the new residency requirements would be, but changes were indeed repeatedly promised, so there was actually quite a lot of notice.