Time you have lived in Canada

[rauf12]

Are liberals gonna count time spent as a non-permanent resident in Canada for citizenship application?

 

[dpenabill]

Are liberals gonna count time spent as a non-permanent resident in Canada for citizenship application?

The current Citizenship Act does NOT allow credit, toward citizenship requirements, for time in Canada prior to becoming a PR.

CIC must apply this as it is currently constituted unless and until the law is properly amended to change it. That takes time.

The Liberal platform stated that they would restore this credit. But, to do that they must go through the appropriate legislative process. Again, this takes time. And there are undoubtedly other more pressing priorities for the Liberals to deal with in the next several months to a year or more.

If they follow through on this promise (many campaign promises are not kept, for various reasons), first they have to draft the proposed legislation, table it in the House of Parliament, put it through the second and third reading procedures (which includes not just voting on it but submitting it to committees for consultations and subjecting it to debate in the House). Bill C-24 took just four months to go through this process, but it was 16 months from the date it was tabled to the date the changes took effect. Takes time. And, significantly, that was with Harper ramming Bill C-24 through the process minimizing consultations and restricting debate, and not allowing consideration for proposed amendments . . . this is an approach to governing Justin Trudeau has emphatically criticized and promised to not repeat. Thus, the timeline for the changes is likely to be longer than it took the Conservatives to make them.

Also note that the Conservatives promised the changes made in their 2011 campaign, but did not table Bill C-24 until February 2014, nearly three years later. Takes time.

All of which tends to indicate that the changes, if and when made, are not likely to much benefit anyone who is currently a PR, but will be more about restoring this going forward.

 

[Msafiri]

dpenabill did you ever look into the voting record for Bill C-24? Amending it as per the Liberal promise is premised on having all Liberals support this. I'm curious if there are any Liberal rebels from the Bill C-24 process whom if added to the Conservatives who presumably will vote no plus NDP rebels they may deny an amendment. Its useful to note too that the residency requirement actually went down from 5 to 3 years under the previous Citizenship Act before going up to 4 under SCCA. Various standing committees including those for the Liberals in the mid 90s had started reviewing/ driving forward the concept of residency as being physical presence but typically politics of the day got in the way. I concur that the Liberals will likely deal with the IRPA initially (backlogged) and then deal with citizenship later/ and or resolve the citizenship intent to reside/stripping aspects as a priority. The non PR time residence issue can be easily delayed and dealt with later without causing the Liberals too much pain - they don't need the votes eh!!

 

[dpenabill]

dpenabill did you ever look into the voting record for Bill C-24? Amending it as per the Liberal promise is premised on having all Liberals support this. I'm curious if there are any Liberal rebels from the Bill C-24 process whom if added to the Conservatives who presumably will vote no plus NDP rebels they may deny an amendment. Its useful to note too that the residency requirement actually went down from 5 to 3 years under the previous Citizenship Act before going up to 4 under SCCA. Various standing committees including those for the Liberals in the mid 90s had started reviewing/ driving forward the concept of residency as being physical presence but typically politics of the day got in the way. I concur that the Liberals will likely deal with the IRPA initially (backlogged) and then deal with citizenship later/ and or resolve the citizenship intent to reside/stripping aspects as a priority. The non PR time residence issue can be easily delayed and dealt with later without causing the Liberals too much pain - they don't need the votes eh!!

I recently revisited the Parliament website information about Bill C-24 and noted that all Liberals present voted "nay" for both the second and third reading of Bill C-24 (and as I recall, similar for the NDP). Several were not present. Justin Trudeau, for example, was not present. This is common (and, indeed, there is an informal practice whereby members of opposing parties can agree to pair absences or abstentions, so that in close votes an MP's absence can be offset so as to not effect the outcome; also, for example, more than a couple dozen Conservative MPs did not vote for Bill C-24 at the third reading, due to absence).

But the votes in 2014, it seems to me, are no indicator of what priority this issue has for the current Liberal government.


Do not forget the Senate, and its Conservative majority:

I neglected in my previous post to note the role of the Senate. While it would be very unusual for the Senate to entirely block legislation adopted by the House of Parliament, the Senate can and oft times has taken a long while to do its "study" of the legislation, and sometimes has overtly imposed a significant delay on the progress of the legislation. Harper did not have this issue with Bill C-24 because he had a Conservative majority in the Senate, and indeed they rammed the legislation through there very quickly compared to norms. In contrast, the Conservatives continue to have a majority in the Senate and could indeed stall much of what the Liberals attempt to adopt, including significant amendments to the Citizenship Act.

I do not know about the residency requirement going from 5 years to 3, but my research has focused on the modern Citizenship Act which was initially adopted in 1977 (and I believe that is when the problematic 3/4 rule came in, based on residency but calculated based on presence, leading to deeply entrenched problems for over three decades and despite repeated calls for amendment, including consultations in committee along the way and various bills tabled to do so but failing, and which did not finally get amended until Bill C-24).

I see no suggestions of any dissent on this issue among either the NDP or the Liberals, but that does not necessarily mean such legislation would have smooth sailing. Harper rammed Bill C-24 through, totally relying on the power of the Conservative majority and his power over the caucus. Trudeau has vowed to not govern this way (for very good reasons, and I hope he stays true to this commitment).

And not only is citizenship law complicated, prone to potential unintended consequences, but in many respects Bill C-24 (including a number of things which have gotten little attention) has many flaws or pitfalls which have yet to reach the realm of litigation. Ordinarily a government will not address isolated pieces of legislation like this, but do the research and analysis necessary to cover all aspects requiring overhaul. So, rather than see a specific Bill to only repeal the so-called two-tier citizenship (sections 10.(2) and 10.4), it is more likely they would take the time to deal with most of the problems identified in the Citizenship Act as adopted per Bill C-24.

The amending of Bill C-24 could really take a long while and is probably a far bigger endeavor than many appreciate.