David_Parker said:
Hi All
I am new to Canada Visa forums. Please guide me, when can I apply for my Citizenship
Came to Canada in July , 2007........Got PR (took 39 months due to closer of Buffalo office---Injustice 1) in SW on March, 2013.......out of country for 57 days only.
Residence calculator say July 7, 2015
I will be punish by Canada Immigration without any reason (Injustice 2 ), due to their problem by taking longer for PR. My friends who applied PR 2 months before me already Citizens in 2013 (not jelous just unfair). If bill C-24 applied before my application, i will not be able to apply till July , 2017. Considering 0 out of country days.
Plz guide me , what can do
"Injustice" is a big word, about big stuff. I realize people throw this word around these days for just about any unfair, abusive, or wrongful treatment. Someone gets cutoff on the highway and they think they've been done an injustice.
But there are real, serious injustices in the world, people oppressed, people wrongfully imprisoned, people held down by poverty, people deprived of adequate food or medical care. That's injustice. Perhaps it is my
old man, been around the block a lot, perspective, but I prefer to see allegations of injustice reserved for the big stuff.
Which is not to say excessive delays in processing bureaucratic applications are not serious wrongs. They can be. The delays in citizenship application processing imposed on scores of those who applied in 2011 and 2012 was so excessive as to, indeed, be an injustice.
To describe your experience as "unfair" is probably warranted, but as an "injustice" seems at least a little over the top.
And of course you realize there was
no wrong in either of the allegations of injustice. No every unfairness is a wrong.
Regarding the path to PR: There is no right to Permanent Resident status. As a Foreign National, you had limited expectations rooted largely in fair procedure with minimal promises as to the timeline. Apparently fair procedure was afforded and you were granted PR status. The length of time for you in particular may have been unfair but not a legal wrong, and hardly an injustice.
Regarding qualification for citizenship: Canada is a democracy. It has an elected Parliament which determines, within the scope of the Constitution and Charter Rights, what the laws of Canada are. While many may disagree with the provisions adopted in the
SCCA (I take issue with a few for example), there is nothing legally, constitutionally, or procedurally wrong in either the process followed in adopting the law (reason to criticize the process, yes, given the lack of debate and failure to seriously consider some of its harsher elements) or in the revised qualifications for a grant of citizenship. (I side with those who think there are other, at least potentially constitutional or Charter issues with the
SCCA, but there is no substantive constitutional or Charter problem with the revised qualifications for the grant of citizenship.)
In a democracy, so long as the rule of the majority does not breach the Constitution or the Charter Rights of individuals, the fairness of the legislation is for Parliament to decide. It is perfectly legal for the government to adopt unfair laws (again, so long as they are not unconstitutional and do not violate Charter Rights). This can be tough for those whose views oppose the majority, but that is the nature of a democracy.
What recourse is there for such unfairness?
The main recourse was to engage in the democratic process prior to the adoption of the allegedly unfair legislation. Once the legislation is introduced ("tabled" in the First Reading), that is when those in opposition need to really get game on and marshal all their resources to either oppose adoption of the legislation or to lobby for amendments to eliminate its unfair elements. Of course the Conservatives offered minimal opportunity for debate, did not seriously consider amending or otherwise modifying the legislation, and deliberately pushed Bill C-24 through the process as quickly as the Canadian system legally allows. The key here, though, is that they did it as the system
legally allows.
After the fact, the recourse is to support those who will amend the law to fix those parts which are unfair.
Problem with the
SCCA, however, is that it is difficult to see any of Canada's political parties trying to walk this one back . . . not even as to its more controversial provisions let alone the broadly supported changes to the residency qualifications for the grant of citizenship.
Well, sure, of course you can join the chorus of those who rant and curse.
The ranting and railing and cursing tends to reflect more on those who engage in it than it does anyone or anything else. Image I get is of bleating sheep. (Are the bleating sheep any more commanding their destiny than those not bleating?)
The
SCCA is what it is, and mostly a done deal. There are many nuances of it which will demand judicial interpretation and application, but that will take years and years to sort out. And that is not at all likely to result in any invalidating of the key provisions which many find so unfair: the loss of credit for time in Canada prior to becoming a PR, or the increased residency threshold for PRs who landed before the new law was adopted.
Thus, if you are genuinely looking for suggestions about how to best navigate going forward:
Focus on what your own priorities are and make decisions which will best serve the life you are trying to live, taking into account what the law currently is, recognizing that laws can (and often do) change over time. Avoiding going abroad at all, even for reasons important to oneself, just to qualify for citizenship two months or a year sooner, seems counter productive. Our lives are driven by many priorities. We often have to choose, with consequences. And of course the more homework we do, so as to make informed choices, the better choices we tend to make. (Note, in this regard, that Jason Kenney had been talking about revising the residency requirements for citizenship for two years before Bill C-24 was tabled, and most commentators were suggesting a significantly longer residency requirement based on physical presence
after becoming a PR was on the table . . . so you should have been fairly aware before you even became a PR that the path to citizenship in Canada was soon to get longer and tougher . . . and for sure, by the time you decided to actually become a PR in 2013, there were scores and scores of examples about this government imposing additional hurdles on that path.)
Do not get me wrong:
There is much to criticize about how CIC has treated its clients. There is a great deal to criticize about how the Conservative majority has rammed its majority status down the throats of Canadians, limiting debate on important legislation (not just Bill C-24), using the budget unfairly to advance its agendas at the expense of real needs in Canada. There are flaws in the
SCCA beyond the policy choices made.
For those of us who are not among the sheep, bleating or not, there are all sorts of ways to make a difference, to contribute to more progressive approaches and policies, to help those otherwise disadvantaged. Bleating (ranting, cursing) is largely a waste of time, and there is always, always, so much to do, so much which can be done.
If you are genuinely concerned about real injustice, get yourself into the fray, do what you can to make a difference for the many, many people of this world who suffer profound injustice. There are many battles to wage. Pick one, or two, and do your part to make this a better world, and Canada a better Canada.
