question about "intent to reside" in c-24

[bigben3]

Hear it from the man himself...YOU CAN LIVE ANYWHERE YOU WANT ONCE YOU BECOME A CITIZEN

https://youtu.be/uMoa1vbxRWk

 

[mra123]

This topic has strayed far from my original question which was about who this section of the law actually pertains to. For those interested in the answer, I'm re-posting dpenabill's excellent, clear and concise response from earlier in the thread:

"The intent to reside provision has NO application to anyone who has taken the oath. It is not about citizens. Does not matter when they took the oath. It does not apply.

The intent to reside provision does not apply to any applicant for citizenship who has an application pending or who submits a complete application before the provision comes into force . . . even if it takes another year plus or more for the application to be processed.

It will only apply to Permanent Residents who submit an application for citizenship after the provision comes into force, and it will only apply to them while the application is pending. Once they take the oath, once citizenship has been granted, the provision will no longer apply to them."

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Not really.

The international argeement/treaty, to which Canada is a party and is bound, does not cover revocation of citizenship for fraud. Renouncing other citizenship will not save a person who could have his Canadian citizenship revoked for fraud.

That is, revocation for fraud is for any citizen who obtained PR or citizenship by fraud . . . no dual citizenship necessary.

As neutral, it is comparable to other types of fraud which essentially voids whatever was obtained by fraud.

I wasn't talking about fraud- of course if you commit fraud you'll have your citizenship revoked.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

My point is clear. This clause is not put in the law redundantly, and hence it will be used as a basis for actions to be taken against some individuals who are deemed "problematic" by this government (AKA: Canadians of convenience), even if they are not technically breaking any law. As I reiterated earlier, the government may invoke legal actions based on this clause even if they lose the case in the court, just for the sake of "harassing" these "problematic" individuals and keeping the threat active for everyone else.

Personally, I'm not planning to move anywhere abroad after getting the Canadian citizenship. I just don't like the idea of staying under a constant threat for the rest of my life of getting involved in legal problems every time I spend some time abroad because of this stupid clause. I want to live my life "carefree" like any other single-citizenship, "by-birth" Canadian citizen. Am I asking for too much?

You're reading waaaaay too much into this clause. The clause targets people who leave Canada the moment they submit an application. It is preposterous to suggest they will revoke citizenships from people simply because they choose to live or work abroad eventually. It is a violation of international law and would get the government in trouble. I watch Chris Alexander's video and it is clear- they are trying to avoid situations where people waiting for their citizenships simply leave. I can understand the misinterpretation the wording might cause, but it would not stand to reason to just revoke citizenships from people who have not committed fraud, not committed treason, and not harmed Canada's interests.

 

[CanadianCountry]

People who have reported foreign property(-ies) on their tax returns by filing T1135, may need to prepare themselves to answer on their "intent to reside". Why keep property(-ies) in home country when you permanently want to live in Canada?

http://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/foreign-income/declaring-foreign-property-on-your-tax-return.jsp

 

[wd1]

People who have reported foreign property(-ies) on their tax returns by filing T1135, may need to prepare themselves to answer on their "intent to reside". Why keep property(-ies) in home country when you permanently want to live in Canada?

http://turbotax.intuit.ca/tax-resources/foreign-income/declaring-foreign-property-on-your-tax-return.jsp

For example , rental, your family, place for vacation etc. It's totally legal to own properties abroad.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Nobody says its illegal. But some may have to explain.

For example , rental, your family, place for vacation etc. It's totally legal to own properties abroad.

 

[wd1]

Nobody is its illegal. But some may have to explain.

Well, then you are helically wrapped around an inclined plane !!!

 

[CanadianCountry]

Your stupidity goes beyond your words.

Well, then you are helically wrapped around an inclined plane !!!

 

[dpenabill]

If you look at this webpage:
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=985259&tp=1

It says:

"Adult applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship."

English is not my first language, but it sure seems to me "ONCE they become citizens" means AFTER becoming citizens?

But what does this have to do with the intent requirement for qualified PRs applying for citizenship?

Reminder: section 5(1)(c.1(i) provides that, to be qualified for the grant of citizenship, a person "intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada"

The language is straight-forward, refers to a PR applying for citizenship (not a citizen), and is about that individual's intentions during the whole of the application process, right up to the taking of the oath.

Anyway, just to eliminate the possibility of "red herring", let's have a small bet -- I say that if this government stays in power for another 4 years and if this clause is not removed, it will be used by the government to retrospectively question the citizenship status of some individuals.

Put my smiley into the pot. Without hesitation. There will be no revocations of citizenship based on the fact the citizen decided, after becoming a citizen, to leave Canada.

Just to exclude having to sort out the liars, cheaters, and other frauds, from those who had the required intent, I will extend this to bet that there is not even an investigation of a citizen triggered by an individual actually leaving Canada a year or more after becoming a citizen.

As I have noted before, there will continue to be revocations for fraud, for those who for example during the application process conceal they have an ongoing business enterprise or employment abroad and which they return to after the oath. I may have referred to such scenarios with a sophisticated DUH!

As for the question oft raised, how soon is too soon to leave Canada after becoming a citizen . . . there is no confusion about what this question is about. But sure, someone who leaves Canada so soon as to suggest the plan was to do so . . . and that individual concealed a property interest, business interest, job interest, he had abroad . . . again, DUH!

This clause is not put in the law redundantly

There are indeed specific reasons for including the intent provision, multiple reasons, but those all have to do with targeting certain types of applicants. These have been discussed at length. The main objective is to eliminate applicants-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. This has been a pet peeve of the Tories. This provision specifically addresses this concern. And probably is overly broad in doing so, as this example illustrates:

While some people in this forum have been arguing about whether people have to reside while their application is being processed in order not to become citizens of convenience, there are also other people who might leave the country while their citizenship is being processed for good reasons. I am going to the UK for a year to do my master's degree and my citizenship application is still in process, therefore under the new law, my citizenship can be revoked without appeal. However, how can they separate people who leave because they have to from people who want citizenship as a convenience? I find this law absurd in that people who work in businesses or study to better themselves would benefit more Canada's economy than people who have to stop their ambition to stay. Why should people fear that they might be denied citizenship based on misunderstandings with no appeal based on a suspicion? While I understand the feeling behind lawmakers to discourage people who take advantage, making a law too broad could have consequences on people who are not taking advantage of the system.

The good news is that if you already have a citizenship application in process, the intent to continue to reside in Canada requirement does not apply.

The bad news is that indeed, for several years now (under old law) CIC has targeted applicants who have gone abroad to live while the application is pending. For those CIC recognizes as abroad for a temporary purpose (a temporary job assignment, a university program, a terminally ill parent abroad, and so on), even if they become subject to elevated scrutiny CIC appears to facilitate, rather than oppose, the grant of citizenship. The applicant must be certain to make all scheduled appointments and respond timely to all requests.

But overall, I agree with your criticism. And under the new law, this is indeed likely to unduly burden a significant number of people who have immigrated to Canada, made Canada their home, want to complete the process of making it fully their true home by becoming a citizen, but who will now face a special burden because they have to choose between their job and delaying citizenship, or a master's program and delaying citizenship.

I suspect that CIC will still accommodate those going abroad for temporary purposes, but it is likely to be far more difficult to be on the favourable side of such decision making. This will unfairly disadvantage more than a few.

According to the Canadian Bar Association:

This is a quote from the Bar's submission of comments in April 2014. The parts criticizing the allegedly potential impact (of the intent reuirement) on citizens were debunked, discussed in committee, and rightfully dismissed. The Bill proceeded to the Third Reading and was adopted. There has been only one lawyer I have seen raising this criticism since then . . . she was the co-author of the article and I suspect the continued inclusion of this criticism in her article was actually authored by the student co-author (since the language used was almost verbatim from the earlier criticisms, which again were subsequently dismissed). There is one other substantive source which repeated (literally repeated) this criticism, a Continuing Legal Education article published by CARL . . . but it was authored by a student. Neither of these sources even discussed the actual language of the provision at all.


Regarding evidence of property ownership abroad:

Not only might CIC come across information indicating an applicant has property abroad, and consider this in evaluating the applicant's qualifications for citizenship, but those who are RQ'd will almost certainly be required to disclose all property or business interests abroad.

Nothing illegal about continuing to own property abroad. But ties abroad are most definitely evidence which is relevant in evaluating qualification for citizenship, particularly under the new law. (RQ's applicants under old law were asked to disclose this information as well.)

And sure, the applicant who conceals such property or business interests, and particularly one who omits disclosure if given RQ, is making a material misrepresentation. Best case scenario, takes the oath and spends the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, wondering if someone close to him might turn him in and take the evidence to CIC.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Meh, that's kinda what I thought. Then intent is declared at the point of citizenship application by a PR, and it can be changed (or becomes irrelevant) once citizenship is granted.

But still, their wording surely sounds like a requirement to reside inside Canada once citizenship is granted... It's at the minimum misleading, at the maximum intentionally put there to open abuse opportunities. No wonder some lawyers are nit-picking it.

Look, there are 2 things here. One is that this is only for Permanent Residents and second, you have to declare TODAY, NOW that you intent to reside in Canada after you become Canadian, but the intention is made TODAY, at present.
Of course we're talking about the future when we become Canadian, they are not going to ask you to have intentions about your teen ages, is about the future but the intention, the compromise is made TODAY.

And in fact you have to read the whole sentence, not half of it.

"Adult applicants must declare NOW their intent the intent they have NOW to reside in Canada once they become citizens and meet their personal income tax obligations in order to be eligible for citizenship in order TO BE ELEGIBLE, so it's the future and it's talking about Permanent Residents only as Canadians are not eligible for citizenship, they already have the citizenship ."

Briefly, today that you're Permanent Resident and you apply for citizenship, today you have to have the intention to live in Canada IN ORDER to be eligible for citizenship. Once you are Canadian, it's too late because you can't be eligible for something you already are.

 

[neutral]

Meh, that's kinda what I thought. Then intent is declared at the point of citizenship application by a PR, and it can be changed (or becomes irrelevant) once citizenship is granted.

But still, their wording surely sounds like a requirement to reside inside Canada once citizenship is granted... It's at the minimum misleading, at the maximum intentionally put there to open abuse opportunities. No wonder some lawyers are nit-picking it.

No, because they are not going to start revoking Citizenship of every Canadian who is retired living abroad, that is impossible.

 

[keesio]

But still, their wording surely sounds like a requirement to reside inside Canada once citizenship is granted... It's at the minimum misleading, at the maximum intentionally put there to open abuse opportunities. No wonder some lawyers are nit-picking it.

It has always been one of those vague clauses that is more for PR (Public Relations) purposes. Judging from the reaction on this forum, it looks like it worked.

 

[MUFC]

It has always been one of those vague clauses that is more for PR (Public Relations) purposes. Judging from the reaction on this forum, it looks like it worked.

Exactly

 

[MUFC]

It is really funny for me when I see a worried person asking " Will Intend to reside affect me??? I've applied before that."