Effective date of Bill C24
- Thread starter SherifEF
- Start date
Actually here I'm expecting a similar scenario as another big Bill like this one.
I'm referring to the Bill about eTA. The electronic Travel Authorisation. I was following that Bill closely because in the future most probably I will come back to Canada by using it.
It was expected as a tentative date sometime in April this year. April started to approach and no official news have been released, meanwhile several times I've asked the border agents when I was travelling when the eTA system will be enforced because April was very close.
So long story short, last week in The Gazette the Governor decided that this eTA system will be enforced from August 1st.
Here I see a repeating of the very same scenario.
There is a big difference between a tentative date and the actual final date.
The actual effective date will come from the Governor. When they are finally ready with all the background work.
The people can be sure that there will be enough notice in advance.
I'm referring to the Bill about eTA. The electronic Travel Authorisation. I was following that Bill closely because in the future most probably I will come back to Canada by using it.
It was expected as a tentative date sometime in April this year. April started to approach and no official news have been released, meanwhile several times I've asked the border agents when I was travelling when the eTA system will be enforced because April was very close.
So long story short, last week in The Gazette the Governor decided that this eTA system will be enforced from August 1st.
Here I see a repeating of the very same scenario.
There is a big difference between a tentative date and the actual final date.
The actual effective date will come from the Governor. When they are finally ready with all the background work.
The people can be sure that there will be enough notice in advance.
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Here is a recent article on eTA.MUFC said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/many-visitors-to-canada-will-pay-7-fee-beginning-next-year-under-security-plan/article19279346/?service=mobile
Exactly , It was expected to be enforced in April... Feb and March have approached and there was still no official information when actually it will be enforced as an effective date.
Last week the Governor decided August 1st. Four months procrastination.
Here the middle steps of the process like the comment period, the proposed new law for sharing personal info they came a little too late to say that they are following the tentative plan strictly.
The expected other parts to be enforced before the main portion are also not enforced yet.
The official updated information is also missing.
I'm a trader and I make my living based on similar reading between the lines and for me all that leads that this Law will not be enforced in the next 2 months.
For me is clear that they are not ready yet.
Last week the Governor decided August 1st. Four months procrastination.
Here the middle steps of the process like the comment period, the proposed new law for sharing personal info they came a little too late to say that they are following the tentative plan strictly.
The expected other parts to be enforced before the main portion are also not enforced yet.
The official updated information is also missing.
I'm a trader and I make my living based on similar reading between the lines and for me all that leads that this Law will not be enforced in the next 2 months.
For me is clear that they are not ready yet.
Aquib
Hero Member
- Apr 19, 2011
- 128
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- London
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- Jan 2010
- Doc's Request.
- March 2010
- AOR Received.
- JULY 2010
- IELTS Request
- SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION
- File Transfer...
- FEB 2010
- Med's Request
- 09 FEB 2012
- Med's Done....
- 27 Feb 2012
- Interview........
- Medical received 12 March
- Passport Req..
- 15 April 2012
- VISA ISSUED...
- 30 April 2012
- LANDED..........
- Sep 18 2012 Shuker Allah.
MUFC said:
Lets see what changes coming after election. if Toris came back in power then none, but if Labour or NDP then we will definitively see some changes.
I. Observations in regards to the delays incurred in implementing the eTA for visa exempt FNs traveling to Canada:
Yes, indeed, the implementation of this program has been delayed by nearly a full year.
Note the Globe & Mail article published nearly a year ago (June 2014) reported that the eTA would begin in April 2015.
I do not recall the precise date, but the proposed regulatory changes were also published in the Gazette last year.
Other government sourced information late last year continued to indicate that this program would be implemented sometime in the first half of 2015.
While the revised and new regulations for this come into force on August 1, 2015, the actual implementation date for requiring FNs with visa-exempt passports to obtain the eTA is now scheduled for March 15, 2016 (see IRPA Regulation section 7.1 (1) as added). So yes, this reflects a delay nearly a full year beyond what was initially indicated by the government.
It may also be worth noting that the new regulations were registered April 1st, but not published in the Gazette until April 22nd. This delay is of no import since the coming-into-force date is not until August, and the actual implementation date not until March next year. However, this illustrates the extent to which there is often a gap between the official date of an action and the date it gets officially published in the Gazette.
II. Observations as to significance of the eTA delays relative to the coming-into-force date of SCCA revised requirements for grant citizenship:
A. Reminder; already has been a big delay in implementing grant citizenship requirement changes:
Changes to the grant citizenship requirements were promised by the government in October 2011 but actually adopting the changes, as we all know, was delayed. Previous Minister Kenney, and subsequently the current Minister Alexander, both promised the changes to be implemented before the end of 2013. So, actual adoption of changes was nearly a year late, and their implementation is, as of now, a year and a half late. Thus, if the eTA example is comparably applicable to the revised grant citizenship requirements, the latter would already be in effect.
Moreover, the revised regulations for the eTA program were just registered April 1st, to come into force August 1 (four months after adopted), and to be effectively in force as of March 15, 2016 (slightly less than a year after regulations adopted).
Compare that with the SCCA, which was adopted (received Royal Assent, roughly comparable to registration of revised regulations) June 19, 2014. If a comparable timeline was followed, then the revised grant citizenship provisions would have come into force by October 19, 2014, and the actual implementation date would be . . . perhaps June 1, 2015!
I do not offer this as actually illuminating or illustrating much about when the revised requirements for grant citizenship will actually come into force, but rather to illustrate that extrapolating from the eTA implementation would imply, if extrapolating was valid (it isn't), that either the SCCA changes should already be in effect or would be by early June . . . not a later date.
But actually not much should be extrapolated from the timeline for the eTA regulatory changes.
B. eTA totally separate from Citizenship Act revisions:
Foremost, there is no indirect let alone direct connection between the eTA program and changes to grant citizenship requirements, so the relevance of this delay is merely that it is an example of how long it can sometimes take the government to actually implement programs like this, and that the timeline for implementation can be longer than planned.
This delay does NOT imply anything about the implementation schedule for provisions of the SCCA.
In particular, the background and process for implementing this program derives from agreements Harper made with U.S. President Obama clear back in 2011, in what was touted as the "Beyond the Border perimeter security agreement," and is but one part of a far larger plan with many complicated parts. Which is to say it is part of a wide range of other border-securing measures long in planning and totally unconnected to the revision of the Citizenship Act. In fact, intentions to develop and implement this eTA program were announced in February 2011.
Note as well that the eTA coming into force decision was in regards to regulatory changes, that is changes to the IRPA Regulations, not statutory provisions adopted into law by Parliament. There are very formal and stringent requirements for adopting new regulations including required detailed cost and benefit analyses, and a comprehensive assessment of impact, since this is done by agency or departmental action not Parliament. In contrast, statutory provisions adopted in a legislative enactment, such as the SCCA, are presumed to have been subject to any necessary analysis as part of the legislative process before the Act is adopted and given Royal Assent.
C. eTA actually a much larger and more complicated project:
While the eTA only affects air travelers who are visa-exempt FNs (other than U.S. citizens), the scope of this program is absolutely huge.
(Note: while there are other exceptions, the only significantly large group of visa-exempt FNs not affected are U.S. citizens; thus, my references here to FNs also will exclude U.S. citizens.)
While I do not know the breakdown of non-resident FNs traveling by air to Canada who are visa-exempt versus not visa-exempt, I am quite certain that the vast majority of these FNs are indeed visa-exempt. Overall, Statistics Canada reports that in 2014 the number of non-residents traveling to Canada by air was well over FOUR MILLION.
In contrast, in 2014 the number of applications for citizenship was well less than a quarter million.
Timeline for processing citizenship applications for less than a quarter million is many months.
Timeline for processing the etA application: MINUTES!
While there are numerous factors which played a significant role in how long it has taken Canada to roll this program out, two which are particularly significant have no comparable bearing in the factors which affect the implementation of new grant citizenship requirements:
-- widespread concern over impact on the 2015 summer tourist season; one of the specific reasons for delay was the expressed need for an enrollment period (which is now the reason for the August 1, 2015 coming into force date but the enforcement date is March 15, 2016) and an implementation schedule which would have minimal impact on summer tourist travel to Canada, recognizing that a high percentage of the 4 million or so (+/- some year to year) annual travelers to Canada (more than 8 million if U.S. citizens are counted) come during the summer months . . . thus the delay so that there would be time well in advance of the summer tourist season for dissemination of information about the program and experience with actual enrollment, implementation, and enforcement, again to minimize the potentially disruptive impact on summer travel.
-- the huge task of developing, testing, and implementing the requisite technology. This program will require admissibility decision-making in just MINUTES for MILLIONs of travelers a year, and requires coordination with all airlines with flights to Canada, including connecting flights through Canada, in a system which will provide immediate access to a board/no board status for all boarding visa-exempt FNs on every flight which is destined for or will otherwise land in Canada.
Note: while of course the revisions to the grant citizenship requirements will necessarily involve extensive technology modifications, other than the rebuilding of a very different online residency calculator this mostly involves modifying existing software, such as changing and adding some fields in the GCMS, editing the File Requirements Checklist and File Preparation Analysis Template, editing some operational manuals and practice instructions. This is no where near on a par with attempting to build a program largely from scratch which will process Millions of applications in minutes.
D. But sure, delays in the implementation of big government projects are common:
The extent of delay in implementing the eTA is indeed a good example of how much delay there can be when the government attempts to implement big changes.
And this is clearly happening relative to some parts of the SCCA, recognizing that the provisions governing changes to grounds for revoking citizenship and the procedure for revoking citizenship were, the government announced, supposed to be implemented by now. But these particular provisions are also distinguishable. It is not often discussed, but there was a private members Bill (Bill C-425 if I recall the number correctly) tabled years before Bill C-24 which Harper and Kenney (CIC Minister at the time) supported, with some amendments, and which was planned to go through the legislative process and become law (private members' Bills rarely get through to adoption, but this one was backed by the Conservative government), and that was supposed to implement grounds to take away citizenship for treason or terrorism. So, it was not as if this part of the SCCA was brand new and indeed this was something both Kenney and Nicole Gerard had been working on long before Bill C-24 was tabled. And yet, there is still something holding this up and delaying it. But it is that something which distinguishes these provisions from those changing the requirements for grant citizenship, and while Galati's challenge last year was unsuccessful, elements underlying that challenge were a large part of why the private member's Bill did not proceed, and I suspect may indeed be underlying ongoing concerns. There are both substantive issues (revocation of citizenship for acts committed after becoming a citizen may not be constitutional) and procedural issues (these big time in my view). These issues are not implicated in the revised grant citizenship requirements.
So some of those on-the-cusp may indeed harbour some hope of further delay, delay beyond July or even longer. But I would not be banking on this. It is a long shot at most. Possible, but not much if at all likely.
If there is a delay I doubt it will be because of hurdles in implementing the grant citizenship changes, but rather will be tied to issues underlying changes to the grounds and procedure for revocation of citizenship. I do not know if the Governor in Council can separately order the coming-into-force date for those provisions of the SCCA prescribed in section 46.(2) of the SCCA, but in any event the latter groups together the sections revising the grant citizenship requirements and those changing revocation grounds and procedure. If there is a delay related to this, it could indeed be a rather long delay. This is why I have said (at least when I was being careful, perhaps not always) that a coming into force date this year was virtually certain rather than absolutely certain. Frankly, however, there is very little reason for those on-the-cusp to cling to much hope based on this possibility . . . it is merely a possibility and a very unlikely one at that.
By the way note:
Regarding Minister Alexander's scheduled appearance at the Canadian Bar Association's National Immigration Law Conference next week, I believe it was questions he answered at this conference in 2013 for which he was quoted as promising revised requirements for grant citizenship by the end of the year (again, 2013), following up previous Minister Kenney's earlier similar promise (that, again, there would be new grant citizenship requirements by the end of 2013). Bill C-24 did not even get tabled until the following year (February 2014).
So, while like many I am very interested to learn what Chris Alexander says nest week about the coming-into-force date for the revised grant citizenship requirements, there is no guarantee he will say anything definite, and even if he does say something, what he does say will be no guarantee either.
Yes, indeed, the implementation of this program has been delayed by nearly a full year.
Note the Globe & Mail article published nearly a year ago (June 2014) reported that the eTA would begin in April 2015.
I do not recall the precise date, but the proposed regulatory changes were also published in the Gazette last year.
Other government sourced information late last year continued to indicate that this program would be implemented sometime in the first half of 2015.
While the revised and new regulations for this come into force on August 1, 2015, the actual implementation date for requiring FNs with visa-exempt passports to obtain the eTA is now scheduled for March 15, 2016 (see IRPA Regulation section 7.1 (1) as added). So yes, this reflects a delay nearly a full year beyond what was initially indicated by the government.
It may also be worth noting that the new regulations were registered April 1st, but not published in the Gazette until April 22nd. This delay is of no import since the coming-into-force date is not until August, and the actual implementation date not until March next year. However, this illustrates the extent to which there is often a gap between the official date of an action and the date it gets officially published in the Gazette.
II. Observations as to significance of the eTA delays relative to the coming-into-force date of SCCA revised requirements for grant citizenship:
A. Reminder; already has been a big delay in implementing grant citizenship requirement changes:
Changes to the grant citizenship requirements were promised by the government in October 2011 but actually adopting the changes, as we all know, was delayed. Previous Minister Kenney, and subsequently the current Minister Alexander, both promised the changes to be implemented before the end of 2013. So, actual adoption of changes was nearly a year late, and their implementation is, as of now, a year and a half late. Thus, if the eTA example is comparably applicable to the revised grant citizenship requirements, the latter would already be in effect.
Moreover, the revised regulations for the eTA program were just registered April 1st, to come into force August 1 (four months after adopted), and to be effectively in force as of March 15, 2016 (slightly less than a year after regulations adopted).
Compare that with the SCCA, which was adopted (received Royal Assent, roughly comparable to registration of revised regulations) June 19, 2014. If a comparable timeline was followed, then the revised grant citizenship provisions would have come into force by October 19, 2014, and the actual implementation date would be . . . perhaps June 1, 2015!
I do not offer this as actually illuminating or illustrating much about when the revised requirements for grant citizenship will actually come into force, but rather to illustrate that extrapolating from the eTA implementation would imply, if extrapolating was valid (it isn't), that either the SCCA changes should already be in effect or would be by early June . . . not a later date.
But actually not much should be extrapolated from the timeline for the eTA regulatory changes.
B. eTA totally separate from Citizenship Act revisions:
Foremost, there is no indirect let alone direct connection between the eTA program and changes to grant citizenship requirements, so the relevance of this delay is merely that it is an example of how long it can sometimes take the government to actually implement programs like this, and that the timeline for implementation can be longer than planned.
This delay does NOT imply anything about the implementation schedule for provisions of the SCCA.
In particular, the background and process for implementing this program derives from agreements Harper made with U.S. President Obama clear back in 2011, in what was touted as the "Beyond the Border perimeter security agreement," and is but one part of a far larger plan with many complicated parts. Which is to say it is part of a wide range of other border-securing measures long in planning and totally unconnected to the revision of the Citizenship Act. In fact, intentions to develop and implement this eTA program were announced in February 2011.
Note as well that the eTA coming into force decision was in regards to regulatory changes, that is changes to the IRPA Regulations, not statutory provisions adopted into law by Parliament. There are very formal and stringent requirements for adopting new regulations including required detailed cost and benefit analyses, and a comprehensive assessment of impact, since this is done by agency or departmental action not Parliament. In contrast, statutory provisions adopted in a legislative enactment, such as the SCCA, are presumed to have been subject to any necessary analysis as part of the legislative process before the Act is adopted and given Royal Assent.
C. eTA actually a much larger and more complicated project:
While the eTA only affects air travelers who are visa-exempt FNs (other than U.S. citizens), the scope of this program is absolutely huge.
(Note: while there are other exceptions, the only significantly large group of visa-exempt FNs not affected are U.S. citizens; thus, my references here to FNs also will exclude U.S. citizens.)
While I do not know the breakdown of non-resident FNs traveling by air to Canada who are visa-exempt versus not visa-exempt, I am quite certain that the vast majority of these FNs are indeed visa-exempt. Overall, Statistics Canada reports that in 2014 the number of non-residents traveling to Canada by air was well over FOUR MILLION.
In contrast, in 2014 the number of applications for citizenship was well less than a quarter million.
Timeline for processing citizenship applications for less than a quarter million is many months.
Timeline for processing the etA application: MINUTES!
While there are numerous factors which played a significant role in how long it has taken Canada to roll this program out, two which are particularly significant have no comparable bearing in the factors which affect the implementation of new grant citizenship requirements:
-- widespread concern over impact on the 2015 summer tourist season; one of the specific reasons for delay was the expressed need for an enrollment period (which is now the reason for the August 1, 2015 coming into force date but the enforcement date is March 15, 2016) and an implementation schedule which would have minimal impact on summer tourist travel to Canada, recognizing that a high percentage of the 4 million or so (+/- some year to year) annual travelers to Canada (more than 8 million if U.S. citizens are counted) come during the summer months . . . thus the delay so that there would be time well in advance of the summer tourist season for dissemination of information about the program and experience with actual enrollment, implementation, and enforcement, again to minimize the potentially disruptive impact on summer travel.
-- the huge task of developing, testing, and implementing the requisite technology. This program will require admissibility decision-making in just MINUTES for MILLIONs of travelers a year, and requires coordination with all airlines with flights to Canada, including connecting flights through Canada, in a system which will provide immediate access to a board/no board status for all boarding visa-exempt FNs on every flight which is destined for or will otherwise land in Canada.
Note: while of course the revisions to the grant citizenship requirements will necessarily involve extensive technology modifications, other than the rebuilding of a very different online residency calculator this mostly involves modifying existing software, such as changing and adding some fields in the GCMS, editing the File Requirements Checklist and File Preparation Analysis Template, editing some operational manuals and practice instructions. This is no where near on a par with attempting to build a program largely from scratch which will process Millions of applications in minutes.
D. But sure, delays in the implementation of big government projects are common:
The extent of delay in implementing the eTA is indeed a good example of how much delay there can be when the government attempts to implement big changes.
And this is clearly happening relative to some parts of the SCCA, recognizing that the provisions governing changes to grounds for revoking citizenship and the procedure for revoking citizenship were, the government announced, supposed to be implemented by now. But these particular provisions are also distinguishable. It is not often discussed, but there was a private members Bill (Bill C-425 if I recall the number correctly) tabled years before Bill C-24 which Harper and Kenney (CIC Minister at the time) supported, with some amendments, and which was planned to go through the legislative process and become law (private members' Bills rarely get through to adoption, but this one was backed by the Conservative government), and that was supposed to implement grounds to take away citizenship for treason or terrorism. So, it was not as if this part of the SCCA was brand new and indeed this was something both Kenney and Nicole Gerard had been working on long before Bill C-24 was tabled. And yet, there is still something holding this up and delaying it. But it is that something which distinguishes these provisions from those changing the requirements for grant citizenship, and while Galati's challenge last year was unsuccessful, elements underlying that challenge were a large part of why the private member's Bill did not proceed, and I suspect may indeed be underlying ongoing concerns. There are both substantive issues (revocation of citizenship for acts committed after becoming a citizen may not be constitutional) and procedural issues (these big time in my view). These issues are not implicated in the revised grant citizenship requirements.
So some of those on-the-cusp may indeed harbour some hope of further delay, delay beyond July or even longer. But I would not be banking on this. It is a long shot at most. Possible, but not much if at all likely.
If there is a delay I doubt it will be because of hurdles in implementing the grant citizenship changes, but rather will be tied to issues underlying changes to the grounds and procedure for revocation of citizenship. I do not know if the Governor in Council can separately order the coming-into-force date for those provisions of the SCCA prescribed in section 46.(2) of the SCCA, but in any event the latter groups together the sections revising the grant citizenship requirements and those changing revocation grounds and procedure. If there is a delay related to this, it could indeed be a rather long delay. This is why I have said (at least when I was being careful, perhaps not always) that a coming into force date this year was virtually certain rather than absolutely certain. Frankly, however, there is very little reason for those on-the-cusp to cling to much hope based on this possibility . . . it is merely a possibility and a very unlikely one at that.
By the way note:
Regarding Minister Alexander's scheduled appearance at the Canadian Bar Association's National Immigration Law Conference next week, I believe it was questions he answered at this conference in 2013 for which he was quoted as promising revised requirements for grant citizenship by the end of the year (again, 2013), following up previous Minister Kenney's earlier similar promise (that, again, there would be new grant citizenship requirements by the end of 2013). Bill C-24 did not even get tabled until the following year (February 2014).
So, while like many I am very interested to learn what Chris Alexander says nest week about the coming-into-force date for the revised grant citizenship requirements, there is no guarantee he will say anything definite, and even if he does say something, what he does say will be no guarantee either.
Great conversation, thanks for everyone’s input,
I have a little issue where I want to get your opinion. To be brief and clear here is my situation
I will meet the 1095 days mark by the end of May 2015 (got PR in April 2013) and my wife will meet it end of July 2015. My question is, can she submit her application while not meeting the physical presence? I am asking this question because it will take my wife two more years to get her citizenship and I was thinking submitting as a couple would help her get approved even if she is 60 days short or less.
Just some background, we are both working full time and we own a property, she came in 2009 and got her PR in April 2013. The only reason why she is short is because she would go back home for 20 or 25 days once a year and we did not go anywhere since we got our PR except a short trip to US for vacation. Obviously our intention is not to leave the country but getting our citizenship at the same time would mean a lot and less hassle and paperwork.
So is it worth it sending her document with mine (probably end of May or right before the cutoff date) or is it just going to slow down the process and get her an RQ?
Thank you very much everyone
I have a little issue where I want to get your opinion. To be brief and clear here is my situation
I will meet the 1095 days mark by the end of May 2015 (got PR in April 2013) and my wife will meet it end of July 2015. My question is, can she submit her application while not meeting the physical presence? I am asking this question because it will take my wife two more years to get her citizenship and I was thinking submitting as a couple would help her get approved even if she is 60 days short or less.
Just some background, we are both working full time and we own a property, she came in 2009 and got her PR in April 2013. The only reason why she is short is because she would go back home for 20 or 25 days once a year and we did not go anywhere since we got our PR except a short trip to US for vacation. Obviously our intention is not to leave the country but getting our citizenship at the same time would mean a lot and less hassle and paperwork.
So is it worth it sending her document with mine (probably end of May or right before the cutoff date) or is it just going to slow down the process and get her an RQ?
Thank you very much everyone
Hi Adam,Adam3131 said:
Don't include her application in yours. It will cause your application to get RQed and slowed down. And plus, hers will be rejected, almost guaranteed.
If you want to submit together, wait till you both meet the requirements. Otherwise, just submit your application by end of May and submit hers when she qualifies.
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 552
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
I agree with you on that advice. Plus the other risk of sending it in as a family is that if one application fail, all applications get returned or the valid application will severely be delayed.OP_POP said:
Wait until the final confirmation of the real cut off date. There is a good chance for further delay of that bill, considering the fact that we are so close to the expected zone and still nothing official to prove that something is coming in the near future.
Thank you guys, you all agreed not to submit the application short of 1095 days. I guess I need to wait for the cutoff date and if its prior to August 1st it will be great for all July applicants.
I am trying to be positive here but there is a good chance it gets delayed up to August 1st, 2015
I am trying to be positive here but there is a good chance it gets delayed up to August 1st, 2015