itsmyid said:
Eliminate regulations that remove the credit given to international students for half of the time that they spend in Canada and regulations that require new citizens to sign a declaration that they intend to reside in Canada. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-immigration-refugees-and-citizenship-mandate-letter#sthash.vgNcsbwp.dpuf
So the pre-PR credit is only for students only, thank you Mr PM, for nothing!
Quote from mandate letter to Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship John McCallum:
"-- Eliminate regulations that remove the credit given to international students for half of the time that they spend in Canada and regulations that require new citizens to sign a declaration that they intend to reside in Canada."
I cannot say for certain, but my strong bet is that the wording of the mandate letter, as to this item, is an oversight, and that
if and when this particular item is addressed in an actually tabled Bill in Parliament, it will include credit for temporary workers as well.
Again, both
IF this is actually included in tabled legislation, and
when (2016? 2018? ? ? ? ?)
All the Ministers, thirty of them (PM Trudeau is the 31st member of Cabinet), are receiving a respective
mandate letter. This within just days after the Ministers were appointed and took office. Less than a month since the election itself, and weeks prior to when Parliament will reconvene. That there are some oversights and minor errors is virtually certain.
In sum, in just days the new government has issued these
mandate letters outlining priorities numbered, literally, into the
HUNDREDS! (Just the itemized priorities for the new Minister of Finance totaled 27!)
The particularly itemized priorities are largely (albeit not precisely) reiterations of what was itemized in the Liberal platform during the campaign.
As to restoring pre-PR time, the Liberal platform referred to
both students and temporary workers. It did not specifically refer to the
intent-to-reside clause. My strong sense is that this item itself, while a
"priority" item overall, is not, say, among the top dozen or two dozen or even three dozen priorities the new Liberal government intends to tackle sooner rather than later. I believe the wording of this item in the mandate letter was composed in some haste, and as just one more item among, again, a list of
priorities numbered, literally, into the
hundreds. IF and
when this item is actually tabled in Parliament, it is likely to more closely reflect what was in the Liberal Platform and will include credit for temporary workers.
The
IF and
when aspect of this should not be understated.
It is clear from the mandate letters themselves that these are priority items for the
next FOUR years. Not for next two years, let alone real soon, but for the full four year term.
Overall (context):
If someone says they have forty or fifty priorities, that stretches the meaning or significance of what is meant by identifying something as a
"priority." Indeed, in the context of the numerous mandate letters sent to the respective Ministers in Trudeau's Cabinet, it is clear that they are using the term "priority" more or less to enumerate particular items the Liberal government intends to address and accomplish
in the course of the next FOUR years! That is a rather soft sort of "priority" if even, really, a priority (personally I would identify these as
task items not priorities, and then I would hope to see the government actually identify which among its long, long lists of task items are actual
priorities).
Many (most) of the itemized
priorities are phrased in terms of broad objectives, and even those more particularly stated are nonetheless fairly general, at the best relatively imprecise. Sure, most people will understand what is meant by: "Eliminate
regulations" removing the pre-PR time credit. But to be clear, the credit for pre-PR time was removed by
statute not the regulations, and to restore the credit, the
Citizenship Act itself, not just the
Citizenship Regulations will need to be revised. And revising the
Citizenship Act is a far bigger task than amending or adding
regulations.
Critics might jump on such nuances and rip apart the significance of these mandate letters, emphasizing their substantive weaknesses, finding fault with technical discrepancies (such as the failure to specifically include temporary workers in reference to restoring credit for pre-PR time), and otherwise quibbling with the particulars as if these mandate letters had formal, substantive effect. That would be a wasted exercise, largely if not entirely distraction, and
not constructive.
Which brings up a key element, a very, very important charge in the mandate letters, including in particular that sent to the Minister of
Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship: the instruction to the Minister to engage in
"constructive dialogue with Canadians, civil society, and stakeholders . . . "
In other words, to the extent the item as described fails to meet what Canadians think should be done,
this government (at least ostensibly)
is committed to consulting with virtually everyone to "find solutions." This means for those who feel that the credit for pre-PR time should extend to temporary workers, or even visitors (such as sponsored spouses living in Canada while the sponsored PR visa application is pending), there should be a
meaningful opportunity to engage in the dialogue about what the change will actually be. Not everyone will get what they want. But this government, at least ostensibly, is saying it is dedicated to reasonably, openly, honestly considering what anyone and everyone has to say about what specific changes are to be made.
The IF factor:
Given the total number of so-called priority items, obviously many will not get done in the next four years. Canada is a democracy. Legislating in a democracy is a cumbersome, oft times messy, almost always time-consuming challenge. There are some leaders who make a concerted effort to short-cut the process (Harper is undoubtedly the most salient example in Canadian history) but Justin Trudeau is not likely to be among them. Indeed, the mandate letters themselves emphatically admonish the Ministers to broadly engage in collaboration, cooperation, and consultation in carrying out the government's priorities, which will inherently take longer, be more complex and difficult, and impose hurdles which, relative to many, many of the priorities, will ultimately preclude them from being accomplished during the next four years.
In other words, for many of the items listed among priorities numbered into the hundreds, for dozens, the
IF question looms large. Whether the restoration of credit for pre-PR time even gets done is thus no guarantee at all. Far from it actually. It simply might
NOT happen.
The when factor:
This goes back to the point about what does it mean to describe these items as a "priority." Again, if someone says they have forty or fifty priorities, that stretches the meaning or significance of what is meant by identifying something as a
"priority." When there are, as there is in the total number of
priorities enumerated in the many mandate letters sent to the respective Ministers, priorities numbered well into the
hundreds, it is fair to ask what will be the priorities among priorities.
As already noted, the mandate letters themselves specifically refer to the full four year term ("over the course of our four-year mandate . . .") in reference to the timeline for accomplishing the priorities this government has identified.
So there is no promise that, for example, the restoring of credit for pre-PR time will be done in 2016 or even in 2017 or 2018. This should not be understated. Again, the list of items to do within the four year term is numbered well into the hundreds. That is a lot to do. A huge, huge amount of work to do.
In separate interactions with the media, Minister McCallum has indicated (at least according to
The Star, and perhaps other media sources) that by the spring of 2016, if not sooner, the government will repeal provisions in the
Citizenship Act that give the government the right to strip citizenship from dual nationals.
Some commentators think this suggests that other changes to the
Citizenship Act are likely to be done concurrently, and thus likely to be done in 2016.
I disagree. There are many reasons why I think (this is of course just my opinion) the revocation of citizenship provisions will be tackled separately and sooner than other changes to the
Citizenship Act. These include two compelling reasons:
-- the work necessary to repeal these provisions is distinct from what would be involved in addressing the credit for pre-PR time or the
intent-to-reside issues in requirements for naturalized citizenship; in this regard, in particular, to repeal the citizenship-stripping provisions will require a cooperative effort with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
-- the commitment to repeal provisions in the
Citizenship Act that give the government the right to strip citizenship from dual nationals was far more emphasized in the Liberal platform and is, it seems clear, a higher priority
Mostly, it appears to me that among real priorities (not just task items to accomplish) for Justin Trudeau, it is important to affirm this government is committed to the ideology that
a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. So the repeal of the provisions allowing for the revocation of dual citizens is likely to be among items addressed sooner rather than later.
And sooner means in 2016.
Which leaves, in my view, the credit for pre-PR time issue to be addressed sometime later, as in not at all sooner.
Conclusion:
No one should be making plans based on getting credit for pre-PR time.
This is not said as a criticism of the Trudeau government. It is said as a practical observation that there is no guarantee this is one of the items which will actually be accomplished in the next four years. And the practical observation that if it is implemented, it is likely to be another year, minimum, more likely at least a couple years, before such a change can be implemented.
In particular, there is virtually no chance that anyone who was cut-off by the changes implemented in Bill C-24 will be eligible sooner due to restoring credit for pre-PR time. In other words, those who benefit from this,
if and
when it happens, will not be anyone who would have become eligible, under the old rules, by June 2016.
