Nomenclature suggestion:
For reference, going forward it may be helpful to distinguish the different laws as such:
-- pre-Bill C-24 law as the
old law or the
3/4 Rule
--
Citizenship Act as revised by Bill C-24 as the
current law or the
4/6 Rule
-- proposed law per Bill C-6 as the
proposed law or the
new law or the
3/5 Rule
While there are numerous changes proposed by Bill C-6, beyond the high profile repeal of subsection 10.(2) and related provisions (repealing the provisions pursuant to which citizenship could be revoked for criminal acts committed while a citizen, eliminating what many have described as
two-tiered citizenship), the main focus of interest in this forum, it is apparent, has to do with the changes affecting qualification for the grant of citizenship. In this respect, what distinguishes the old law, the current law, and the proposed law, is readily recognized and thus may be conveniently labelled the
3/4 Rule (old law), the
4/6 Rule (current law), and the
3/5 Rule (proposed new law).
In the meantime; some timeline observations:
There is no rush to interpret what the changes actually are.
Some interpretation is fairly straight-forward, even elementary (such as observations about how the 3/5 rule basically would work). Beyond the straight-forward, however, casual speculation without analysis is unnecessary and mere distraction. (There was way, way too much of that in response to the tabling of Bill C-24 two years ago, with the result that important discussions were sidetracked while
red herrings sucked all the oxygen out of the room.)
It will be
months before Bill C-6 goes to the second reading.
It seems highly unlikely that Bill C-6 will be adopted before the fall. For Bill C-6 to be adopted before the summer recess, this Bill would have to proceed through
both the Parliament and Senate
significantly faster than Bill C-24 did in 2014. Remember, Bill C-24 was rammed through the process about as fast as legislation can be pushed through. Consultations and committee study were truncated. Debate was limited. There was no allowance for proposing amendments. Bill C-24 went from the second reading to the Senate and to its third reading in Parliament in
less than three weeks . . . it was only referred to committee on May 29, 2104, and fully adopted including receiving
Royal Assent just three weeks later on June 19, 2014. How much study was done in the referral to committee?
In contrast the Liberals have vowed to fully engage in the democratic process. I cannot begin to guess how long this will take, but it is a safe bet that it will take at least as long and probably longer than it took the Conservatives to advance Bill C-24 through the process. Thus, for example, if Bill C-6 was fast-tracked to a second reading as quickly as Bill C-24 was, it would only reach the Second Reading stage in mid-June this year, no where near enough time for the committee consultations to be done before the summer recess.
In this regard it warrants noting that a number of the provisions proposed in Bill C-6 are merely
fixes (see proposed amendments listed as the last three in the comparative view), matters which were, it is my impression, more or less intended to be done in Bill C-24 but were missed . . . except they probably were only overlooked in the drafting stage, not during the actual pending before Parliament stages. In order to get the legislation through as quickly as Harper could, however, Harper shut down consideration of any and all amendments . . . which meant even the Conservatives could not propose amendments to make any such fixes. For example, the prohibition affecting only post June 11, 2015 applicants was most likely a oversight in the relevant transitional provision in Bill C-24. But to get the Bill through without opening the door to procedural processes addressing any proposed amendments, which would have opened the door to dealing with proposed amendments by the opposition or even individual members, even such a small fix could not be done.
(Some fixes to Bill C-24 were done in subsequent Bills; again, this came about in large part because Harper precluded making any changes to Bill C-24, so any needed fix had to be made later, by subsequent legislation; and to some extent, there are elements in Bill C-6 continuing this process, ntoing again that this process was made necessary due to Bill C-24 being rammed through more quickly.)
I go into detail about the above because it is my strong impression that the approach the Liberals have vowed to take will inherently take much longer to get through the legislative process than it took to push Bill C-24 through. Thus, it seems likely it will be, at the soonest, late in the year before this Bill reaches the Senate, a Third Reading, and finally Royal Assent.
I cannot guess, let alone say, when the government will actually put the new 3/5 rule into effect (assuming this is what the adopted law prescribes), but it is not likely to happen until very late in the year
at the soonest. It will not happen concurrent with Royal Assent but be significantly later. Just as was necessary with the implementation of the 4/6 Rule, for example, there is a lot to be done within IRCC to make the transition, new forms, new physical presence calculator (which requires new or rewritten software), new internal instructions, and so on. The nearly one year delay between date of Royal Assent and the implementation of the 4/6 Rule might be the practical range for such transitions. Thus, while the change to a 3/5 rule might possibly take effect before the end of this year, it appears more likely it will be well into 2017 before it actually applies (assuming it does happen).
I can remember, in this forum, the extensive speculation, much of it wildly off, about when the 4/6 Rule would take effect. The situation is a bit different this time, there is no looming deadline which will abruptly cut off prospective applicants like the implementation of the 4/6 Rule did. In any event, even though the speculation should not be so animated with anxiety this time, the nature of the beast in forums like this will undoubtedly fuel a good deal of speculation right up to when a definite date is actually known.
As for a flood of new applications if and when the 3/5 Rule takes effect:
Politren said:
Canada received 333,860 citizenship applications in 2013
When this rule become effective you can expect similar number from all the affected people post June last year.
I cannot confirm the reported number, but I was personally among the so-called flood of applicants in 2013. I took the oath barely
eight months later. For the person sitting next to me his processing time was only
six months and he had moved from one province to another while the application was in process.
The reported timelines (both those reported by CIC and anecdotal reports in this and other forums) have always been, at best, rife with mixed signals and distorted extrapolations (just the timeline based on 80 percent is itself a distortion compared to what should be expected for the majority). How long it has taken for many is
not all that indicative of how long it took for
most. This is so in reference to both routine and non-routine processing. Applicants during one span of time were, however, overwhelmingly affected by the dramatic and disastrous impact OB 407 had on processing times, which happened on the heels of increased scrutiny for fraud and the shift in policy toward more extensively discouraging shortfall applications. Thus, yes, those who applied in 2010 through 2012 literally got hammered by processing delays. A disturbing and unfortunate number of these applicants are still in process. In contrast, my application arrived at Sydney in July 2013 and in just a few days I will be celebrating the second anniversary of my becoming a citizen.
Processing times will probably always be subject to volatile swings and considerable variability, with some percentage of applicants bogged down in excessive delay.
In the meantime, the Liberal campaign promise and mandate letter command to improve service including reducing timelines is not so much about proposing new law or changing the law, not about legislative measures, but more or less part of the executive functioning role. The main optic will simply be the outcome, how things actually go. Not easy to see this in snapshots, so it will be a good while, perhaps a very long while, before it becomes apparent how well the Liberals are keeping this campaign promise.
They'd be hard pressed to make things as bad as the Conservative had by that 2010 through 2012 period. (Ironically, well into Harper's
third term as PM, the Conservatives continued to blame the Liberals for the still growing backlogs in both immigration and citizenship.)
There is a lot to interpret.
For example, while I trust the overview and comparative view published by IRCC, regarding the extension of prohibitions to include
conditional sentences, I am nonetheless unclear about what this actually means.
"Proposed Amendments: Time spent under a conditional sentence order cannot be counted towards meeting the physical presence requirements; and those serving a conditional sentence order are prohibited from being granted citizenship or taking the oath of citizenship"
(from
comparative view chart (link))
I see no explicit reference to "conditional sentences" in Bill C-6, for example, and obviously understanding the change must require understanding certain aspects of criminal procedure law. The question for many current and prospective applicants is just who will be affected by this change. Someone said only those who are
convicted of an offence, and thus it will not affect those given a conditional discharge. Perhaps this is correct. I cannot confirm that based on comparing the text of the current version of sections 21 and 22(1) with the proposed amended versions. In fact, I have as yet to unravel the differences except that in regards to confinement versus serving a term of imprisonment . . . and perhaps this is precisely the difference, that whereas the Bill C-24 version referred to those
confined in a facility for incarceration, the Bill C-6 version refers to those serving a term of imprisonment, and perhaps the latter embraces the forms of conditional sentencing the change is intended to encompass within the prohibitions. But I am far from sure of this. And I am quite sure there are many, many applicants and prospective applicants who have had minor brushes with the law and who are concerned about what this means, for sure, relative to having been subject to a conditional term of this or that sort in the disposition of their case, including conditional discharges.
