New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[torontosm]

Because they are applying for a benefit that is based on residency (or intent to reside) -- just like a Canadian has a right to mobility, but not a right to be covered by a provincial health insurance program (if they move away). There's a difference between a service and a right.

Is citizenship not a benefit based on residency as well? No one is saying that you have to live in Canada once you become a citizen, just during the process.

 

[on-hold]

Is citizenship not a benefit based on residency as well? No one is saying that you have to live in Canada once you become a citizen, just during the process.

Yes, you're correct -- but the obligation to live here vanishes when you receive citizenship. My point is that this is not actually legal, one of the finer aspects of citizenship is that all citizens are equal to each other. If some citizens have signed away their right to not reside in Canada, then you have a two-tiered Canadian citizenship. Since the Charter defines the rights of citizens, and the Charter is higher than this law (assuming it passes), that will be void.

The revocation of citizenship for terrorism is another example of this. Basically, it sets up two punishments, one for citizens and one for naturalized citizens (banishment from Canada). Will that stand? Banishment is not considered a 'modern' punishment.

(Note, people with only Canadian citizenship cannot have it revoked, since Canada is party to international law that forbids making someone stateless. Or something thereabouts.)

 

[torontosm]

Yes, you're correct -- but the obligation to live here vanishes when you receive citizenship. My point is that this is not actually legal, one of the finer aspects of citizenship is that all citizens are equal to each other. If some citizens have signed away their right to not reside in Canada, then you have a two-tiered Canadian citizenship. Since the Charter defines the rights of citizens, and the Charter is higher than this law (assuming it passes), that will be void.

The revocation of citizenship for terrorism is another example of this. Basically, it sets up two punishments, one for citizens and one for naturalized citizens (banishment from Canada). Will that stand? Banishment is not considered a 'modern' punishment.

(Note, people with only Canadian citizenship cannot have it revoked, since Canada is party to international law that forbids making someone stateless. Or something thereabouts.)

My understanding of the new Bill is that the intent to reside clause is only applicable until citizenship is granted. You are correct that any attempt to force citizens to reside in Canada thereafter would be a violation of their Charter rights. So, this would only be binding on PR's seeking to gain citizenship.

The citizenship revocation rules are interesting, and I'm curious to see what happens in the case of a naturalized citizen who has voluntarily abandoned citizenship of his/her birth country. Would they have the same rights as a person born in Canada?

 

[ramsfe]

What about others who are applying today?

As long as you apply before the bill becomes law, I guess you will be fine...unless they do a kind of an administrative blockage

 

[2_of_5]

If this passes Assent I don't know what I'll do. I feel sick. The removal of the half-time provision while a temporary worker and the extension to four years has moved me back two more years. Instead of applying next July 2015, I have to wait until 2017 now? I'll be 54 years old then. :'(

They need to make a fast-track for US citizens so that we can hurry up and renounce our poisonous US citizenship (due to FATCA and FBARs) and get on with our lives. At this rate I will never be able to open a retirement account, save money or own a business. The US government wants to know every minutiae of our lives, and it's hampering us in unimaginable ways. If I'm trapped as a US subject, I might as well move back into the gulag.

 

[on-hold]

If this passes Assent I don't know what I'll do. I feel sick. The removal of the half-time provision while a temporary worker and the extension to four years has moved me back two more years. Instead of applying next July 2015, I have to wait until 2017 now? I'll be 54 years old then. :'(

They need to make a fast-track for US citizens so that we can hurry up and renounce our poisonous US citizenship (due to FATCA and FBARs) and get on with our lives. At this rate I will never be able to open a retirement account, save money or own a business. The US government wants to know every minutiae of our lives, and it's hampering us in unimaginable ways. If I'm trapped as a US subject, I might as well move back into the gulag.

I have good news for you! Just yesterday they announced that Canada had negotiated a treaty that removes TFSAs, RRSPs, and RESPs from their bizarre reporting requirements. Go file your FATCA, which is just an annoying form, and start saving.

 

[scylla]

I have good news for you! Just yesterday they announced that Canada had negotiated a treaty that removes TFSAs, RRSPs, and RESPs from their bizarre reporting requirements. Go file your FATCA, which is just an annoying form, and start saving.

Really? Can you provide a link? That's fantastic!

 

[on-hold]

Really? Can you provide a link? That's fantastic!

I know, that and this entirely non-onerous citizenship bill have taken me by surprise . . .

Here's the link, the last paragraph says, as I understand, that the special savings accounts have been normalized, but you might still have to report them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-deal-with-u-s-takes-some-heat-off-canadian-banks-1.2524444

Yes, you do still have to file US taxes, which is aggravating, but RESPS, for example, are not the nightmare they were before. If the CBC is correct, of course.

 

[eileenf]

My understanding of the new Bill is that the intent to reside clause is only applicable until citizenship is granted. You are correct that any attempt to force citizens to reside in Canada thereafter would be a violation of their Charter rights. So, this would only be binding on PR's seeking to gain citizenship.

This makes more sense legally.

But, without a maximum processing timeline or a citizenship ombudsman or more robust checks on CIC actions and inactions, the CIC has the discretion to string along an applicant, or certain classes or types of applicants indefinitely. Again, it doesn't pass the sniff test. CIC and the Minister are expanding their power and their discretion with few to no assurances of fair and timely processing.

 

[keesio]

I know, that and this entirely non-onerous citizenship bill have taken me by surprise . . .

Here's the link, the last paragraph says, as I understand, that the special savings accounts have been normalized, but you might still have to report them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fatca-tax-deal-with-u-s-takes-some-heat-off-canadian-banks-1.2524444

Yes, you do still have to file US taxes, which is aggravating, but RESPS, for example, are not the nightmare they were before. If the CBC is correct, of course.

If TFSA are not trusts anymore, then that is a pain to me since I closed my TFSA because I didn't want to deal with 3520/3520a forms.

There was no reason not to ever have an RRSP and RPP however. The thing was the annoying extra forms to fill out. Does this mean we don't have to do those anymore?

 

[ramsfe]

Chris Alexander gave himself and his government huge authorities, when this bill will become a law, It will be more difficult to challenge de government legally when it is wrong.

Also, he didn't talk about the measures he is taking to reduce the current backlog... everyone can guess how he is planning to do it , however, he should have said it clearly!

 

[zardoz]

You need to read the release VERY carefully... It's not saying what you are all hoping.
From http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2014/2014-02-06a.asp

Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada before citizenship is granted. This measure would signal that citizenship is for those who intend to make their home in Canada. Citizenship is not for individuals who solely want the convenience of holding a Canadian passport in order to benefit from generous tax-payer-funded benefits without contributing to Canadian society.

There is a missing comma, and it actually reads "Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada, before citizenship is granted." The intent is clear from the second sentence. This brings it into line with the working of the UK Nationality Act, which has an identical provision.

 

[torontosm]

You need to read the release VERY carefully... It's not saying what you are all hoping.
From http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2014/2014-02-06a.asp

There is a missing comma, and it actually reads "Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada, before citizenship is granted." The intent is clear from the second sentence. This brings it into line with the working of the UK Nationality Act, which has an identical provision.

Interesting! The following quote from the Canada.com article (http://o.canada.com/news/national/new-citizenship-bill-will-make-it-harder-to-become-canadian/) addresses this issue:

"In an effort to crack down on those who seek citizenship for the sole purpose of obtaining a passport, newcomers will also have to sign a form assuring the government that they intend to reside in Canada, at least until they take the oath when, like all Canadians, they’ll have the right to mobility and thus can’t be prevented from leaving the country for extended periods of time."

 

[trunorth]

Key Bill proposal that may effect us:

Requires physical presence for four years (1,460 days) out of the six years;
183 days minimum of physical presence per year in four out of six years;
Eliminate use of time spent in Canada as a non-permanent resident (non-PR);
Introduce “intent to reside” provision

Requires applicants aged 14–64 to meet language requirements and pass knowledge test;
Applicants must meet knowledge requirement in English or French

This aint gonna pass this year!!!!

 

[on-hold]

Actually, it is still a little murky as to what the actual requirements for RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs are. Here's a paragraph from the National Post: http://business.financialpost.com/2014/02/05/canada-signs-agreement-to-dull-impact-of-u-s-crackdown-on-tax-cheats/

Besides addressing privacy concerns, a senior Finance official said, a provision in the agreement exempts banks from gathering account information on certain types of saving accounts such as RRSPs, Registered Education Savings Plans, and tax-free savings accounts.

It doesn't say if the reporting is still the requirement of the individual or not.

You need to read the release VERY carefully... It's not saying what you are all hoping.
From http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2014/2014-02-06a.asp

There is a missing comma, and it actually reads "Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada, before citizenship is granted." The intent is clear from the second sentence. This brings it into line with the working of the UK Nationality Act, which has an identical provision.

As to this, I'm not sure what you're saying -- if the duty is to make a declaration that cannot be enforced, or if the sentence means that an applicant has to live in Canada until citizenship is granted. I don't know anything about UK citizenship law, but I believe that one big difference between the UK and Canada is that Canada has an explicit charter that guarantees certain rights, where these are mostly implied in the UK. Since that's the case, I still say that there is no way in which this law could compel naturalized Canadian citizens to reside in Canada -- but it might be that no one's arguing with me . . .