Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[marcus66502]

I'm going to be quite honest here, there are participants in this forum who have their wits about them and know what kind of information they're looking for, and then there's the rest, who don't understand what this forum is for and don't understand that we cannot provide the info they're looking for. To the second kind, I say the best way to prevent them from taking over the forum is to ignore them consistently. It's not wise to spend your time even acknowledging someone who posts questions that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Only after being ignored consistently would there be a chance they'd understand that this is not the thread to ask what color of pen you should use to fill out the application forms or how to answer a certain question on the form (maybe for some people a lawyer is really necessary).

I also don't think it's worth dealing with anyone who

(1) Reads some writer's opinion on a news article and then comes here and states it as fact;
(2) Does not understand that any lawyer's statement about the future of Bill C-24 is nothing more than a guess; or
(3) Cannot tell the difference between personal opinion and official information;

In spite of the argumentative nature of my numerous posts in this thread, I believe I have given more in the way of information from personal experience and my inquiries at CIC than most posters in here. I have been disappointed at times by its cold reception, the latest case of this being the dismissal of the info I shared from my last Friday's conversation with a CIC call centre agent. She said clearly that the new residency provision of Bill C-24 would take effect on July 19, 2015. I shared this info in this thread and what do I get? Comments like thepolestars' to the effect that we cannot rely on CIC's Call Center (as if I claimed this was official information).

Hey buddy, I've got a suggestion for you: if you don't like the quality of the info I share, feel free to ignore it and look for better quality info yourself!

 

[Kaplan]

I hope that my sarcastic attempts to humour adherence to the topic C-24 has not been misunderstood as with bad faith motivation.

Of the several serious, conscientious contributors to this forum, three come to mind: Marcus, sicko, Empiral Scientist, et al. It is to them, and others that I express my gratitude. Sicko's sage advice and Marcus' tireless efforts to elicit meaningful information from the call centre have been a source of assurance, in this hithertofore uncertain situation. (Incidentally, this list is far from exhaustive!)

I have an observation to ponder. It is my informed understanding that unlike PR card renewals, EITHER the day of entry (return) OR the day of departure from, Canada, may be counted toward residency requirement (2012 leap year is not counted as presence or absence). Thus, logic would dictate that an applicant is at liberty to claim the day of entry (not of departure) for one period of absence, BUT the day of departure (not of entry) for another period of absence.

It is always perilous to employ logic, but my interpretation happens to be crucial to a friend's application and totally consistent with CIC rules, as I understand them to be. In my exhaustive research, I have not come upon any rule which might require that an election of either entry or departure day be consistent throughout all periods of absence.

Thanks in advance to those who might be interested in "kicking this thought around", as it might well lead to other constructive information.

 

[CanV]

I hope that my sarcastic attempts to humour adherence to the topic C-24 has not been misunderstood as with bad faith motivation.

Of the several serious, conscientious contributors to this forum, three come to mind: Marcus, sicko, Empiral Scientist, et al. It is to them, and others that I express my gratitude. Sicko's sage advice and Marcus' tireless efforts to elicit meaningful information from the call centre have been a source of assurance, in this hithertofore uncertain situation. (Incidentally, this list is far from exhaustive!)

I have an observation to ponder. It is my informed understanding that unlike PR card renewals, EITHER the day of entry (return) OR the day of departure from, Canada, may be counted toward residency requirement (2012 leap year is not counted as presence or absence). Thus, logic would dictate that an applicant is at liberty to claim the day of entry (not of departure) for one period of absence, BUT the day of departure (not of entry) for another period of absence.

It is always perilous to employ logic, but my interpretation happens to be crucial to a friend's application and totally consistent with CIC rules, as I understand them to be. In my exhaustive research, I have not come upon any rule which might require that an election of either entry or departure day be consistent throughout all periods of absence.

Thanks in advance to those who might be interested in "kicking this thought around", as it might well lead to other constructive information.

Are you an english teacher? Or you must be into creative writing lol

 

[samjohns22]

Canv , you are right , I could not understand any thing

 

[zardoz]

Are you an english teacher? Or you must be into creative writing lol

Your question is answered in his previous posts. (Lawyer)

 

[RAY2112]

guys sorry to ask again but could some explain again about 4 of 6 residency. and the 183 days does it means that I have to be physically 183 days in each of the four years and after the 4th year I can apply if i have reside 183 days in each of the four years.

 

[Desert Lion]

Whats the difference in Basic Residency & Physical residency ?
I live in Ottawa but travel abroad for business ( Canadian Corporation ). I assume any day spent outside wont be counted. Correct ?

I lost my pre pr days too

Unfortunately that is correct

 

[zardoz]

guys sorry to ask again but could some explain again about 4 of 6 residency. and the 183 days does it means that I have to be physically 183 days in each of the four years and after the 4th year I can apply if i have reside 183 days in each of the four years.

Only if you ALSO have accumulated 1460 days of physical presence in Canada within the six years period.
Note that it's CALENDAR years as well.

(c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has, subject to the regulations, no unfulfilled conditions under that Act relating to his or her status as a permanent resident and has, since becoming a permanent resident,
(i) been physically present in Canada for at least 1,460 days during the six years immediately before the date of his or her application,
(ii) been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application, and
(iii) met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of four taxation years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application;

 

[2_of_5]

If the new residency requirements DO go into effect on July 19, 2015, then it looks like I will miss the "physical presence" requirement by FOUR days if I sign and express my application the day before. :'( I have more than enough basic residency.

Any opinions on whether I would be better off submitting anyway, and hoping to get a chance to explain to a CJ? Or would it probably just lead straight to a RQ, and extend the processing time by another year or more? Or just flat-out be rejected?

Would getting my MP involved help?

 

[Msafiri]

If the new residency requirements DO go into effect on July 19, 2015, then it looks like I will miss the "physical presence" requirement by FOUR days. :'( I have more than enough basic residency.

Any opinions on whether I would be better off submitting anyway, and hoping to get a chance to explain to a CJ? Or would it probably just lead straight to a RQ, and extend the processing time by another year or more?

To support the physical presence aspect of both the new Citizenship Act and also the current Act (which most FC judges are effectively advocating as the true residence test) my take is that CIC will not only drag out any basic residence applicant (with long haul RQ to CJ hearing) applying before the 4/6 year section of C-24 are implemented but must appeal all such applications to the FC where granted by the CJ. There are several FC cases of applicants bounced with 1094 days so yours is nowhere close to the 'lets feel sorry' margin - but its only 400 bucks or whatever the fee will be then (higher) and you can always re-apply when you get 1460 days and the other application is still in line (you will be needlessly adding to the inventory but I guess you gotta look after number 1 eh!)

 

[zardoz]

If the new residency requirements DO go into effect on July 19, 2015, then it looks like I will miss the "physical presence" requirement by FOUR days if I sign and express my application the day before. :'( I have more than enough basic residency.

Any opinions on whether I would be better off submitting anyway, and hoping to get a chance to explain to a CJ? Or would it probably just lead straight to a RQ, and extend the processing time by another year or more? Or just flat-out be rejected?

Would getting my MP involved help?

I suspect, given the quote that I provided in my previous post, that you will get an absolute rejection if you don't meet the Physical Residency. Looks like there is no longer any discretion available. MPs have no authority to change the rules, only to chase up applications.

 

[alphazip]

If the new residency requirements DO go into effect on July 19, 2015, then it looks like I will miss the "physical presence" requirement by FOUR days if I sign and express my application the day before. :'( I have more than enough basic residency.

Any opinions on whether I would be better off submitting anyway, and hoping to get a chance to explain to a CJ? Or would it probably just lead straight to a RQ, and extend the processing time by another year or more? Or just flat-out be rejected?

Would getting my MP involved help?

Have you sent for your entry records from CBSA? Remember that they only show entries and day trips to the U.S. don't count as absences. Perhaps you're taking too much time off for trips to the U.S.

 

[proudcan12341234]

Hey guys, 2 questions:

1) Will the legal challenges that bill c-24 might face have an impact on the residency requirements or date of implementation (July 19th, 2015 supposedly)? Or will it only affect the other controversial aspects of the bill?

2) Have the new streamlined decision-making model - where citizenship officers decide all aspects of a citizenship application (instead of the old three-step process) - already started? If not, does anybody when it will? And would it be affected by the potential legal challenges?

Thanks!

 

[sanlitun]

Have you sent for your entry records from CBSA? Remember that they only show entries and day trips to the U.S. don't count as absences. Perhaps you're taking too much time off for trips to the U.S.

How to apply for entry records from CBSA? Does CBSA record land entry from US (don't remember they did that...)? Thanks!

 

[alphazip]

How to apply for entry records from CBSA? Does CBSA record land entry from US (don't remember they did that...)? Thanks!

Yes, they do. They're free to request under the Privacy Act. They go by name and license plate number, so be sure to supply the numbers for any vehicles you used.

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/reports-rapports/pia-efvp/atip-aiprp/req-dem-priv-eng.html

Beginning in July, CBSA is supposed to be hooked into American border records, so they'll have a record of exits and entries. As with most government projects, though, I wouldn't doubt there will be a delay.

U.S. records can be requested here: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/request/publicPreCreate For the U.S., supply name and passport number.