Notwithstanding repeated assertions of the speculative opinion that there will be, for sure, further or additional
"notice" as to the precise date the revised requirements come into force, it should be noted that CIC has indeed already given notice of the impending implementation of the revised requirements (doing so last year and in much the same way that advance notice was given for the implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which came into force in June 2002, as generally indicated the previous year . . . albeit the Liberal government gave a specific date whereas this Conservative government only gave notice of the approximate date).
There are various considerations in assessing the likelihood of more specific notice as to the precise date, but that is still about the
likelihood of some further or additional notice . . . thus it is still
speculative.
One quote among multiple reiterations above of the speculative opinion there will be, for sure, further or additional notice:
MUFC said:
There have NEVER been a case in history of CIC to say a cut off date in a mainstream immigration (Citizenship and PR programs)program regarding massive changes in the rules and therefore affecting so many people in the last moment without any final notice.
I really don't understand from where comes that Unfounded PARANOIA that this will be the first time that this will happen.
Prior to the adoption of the
SCCA, significant statuory changes to the
Citizenship Act came into force as of, at the latest, the date Royal Assent was granted (as I recall, some related back, deemed to come into force earlier . . . just as some provisions in the
SCCA are deemed to have come into force some time ago). Otherwise, prior to the
SCCA, there have been no major statutory or regulatory changes to the grant citizenship process or requirements for more than three decades, none since the
Citizenship Act as such was adopted, so there is no precedence against which to compare how CIC will implement the changes made in the
SCCA regarding requirements for naturalized citizenship.
There was a major administrative change to the processing of citizenship applications made in April 2012. This was done with
NO notice to the public, even after the changes were implemented. We only know parts of those changes due to a large number of ATI requests. Those changes had a dramatic impact on multiple aspects of the process. CIC still declines to disclose key portions of what was implemented in those changes.
The one change to the
Citizenship Act which has, so far, come into force on a date subsequent to the date of adoption, was the change regarding the decision-making process itself, described as a major change by this government and it is indeed a major change (resulting in no referral to a CJ for the vast majority of applicants). This change was part of the
SCCA adopted June 19, 2014. It came into effect on August 1, 2014. The Governor in Council's Order fixing this date as such was made July 31, 2014, just the day prior to the law taking effect. While the CIC website announced this change in its website the day of the change itself, August 1, 2014, the Order was not published until August 13, 2014 (see
Gazette Part II publication of the Order),
two weeks AFTER the order was made and nearly two weeks after the revised law came into force.
And it is not true that massive changes in immigration have all been preceded by notice in advance of the effective date; a few years ago, for example, a huge number of applicants for Permanent Residence were
cut-off RETROACTIVELY, no notice at all
until long after the applications had been submitted. CIC merely refunded their fees.
That said, again, notice of the impending implementation of the revised grant citizenship requirements, including increasing the minimum period of actual presence required,
has already been given and posted at the CIC website. See
announcement made June 19, 2014. Also see official publication of the
SCCA in
Part III of the Gazette September 3, 2014.
Any additional notice is entirely discretionary.
Note, I am NOT arguing there will or will not be some further notice. I am acknowledging we do not know if there will be further notice. No one here knows. Assertions otherwise are raw speculation.
There are practical reasons why CIC should, and one might reasonably infer probably will, be sure that the public is aware of the
precise date prior to that date.
But there is definitely
NO guarantee of this, and relative to this government, what can be reasonably inferred is far, far shy of instilling confidence that is what will take place.
And to be clear: administrative actions are routinely made without publicizing their precise date in advance. Including those affecting immigration. Establishing the coming-into-force date is merely an
administrative action (recognizing, again, that notice of the implementation of these changes has already been given).
Again, I believe there will be some further notice. But I acknowledge this is speculation.
As to how much notice there is likely to be: that is total speculation.
Again, it safe to say that there will be
some advance notice of the
precise date
ONLY IF:
-- the Governor in Council makes the Order more than a day in advance of the date fixed in the Order, or
-- CIC elects to otherwise provide advance notice (even though none is required)
One or the other, or both, seem likely. But again we do not know. Definitive assertions otherwise are, again, raw speculation.
