The most notable changes in the draft of the new law, called Bill C-24, include a proposal to increase the residency requirement for Canadian citizenship from 3 years (out of 4) to 4 years (out of 6). It clarifies that during this entire period, the applicant must live in Canada for at least 183 days per year and file a tax return each year. Essentially, the residency period for permanent residents planning to apply for citizenship increases from 3 to 4 years.
The rules regarding the language proficiency exam in one of Canada's official languages (English or French) will also be tightened. Currently, all applicants aged 18-54 take the exam. After Bill C-24 is passed, those aged 14-64 will have to take it. Obtaining citizenship will become more expensive, as the application processing fee increases from $100 to $300.
Another change involves significantly expanding the powers of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and transferring many operational functions to immigration officials. In particular, the minister will have the sole authority to revoke or grant citizenship. Currently, such matters are handled by immigration judges.
Judges will also be removed from reviewing citizenship applications; these functions will be transferred to immigration officials. According to the drafters of Bill C-24, the current three-tier system should be replaced by a single-tier system, with all application processing and decision-making functions transferred to ministry employees. Overall, the role of judges will be significantly reduced, and their numbers will be cut. Currently, about 30 judges handle citizenship applications, and their shortage is often cited as the reason for long processing times. Under the new law, officials will take over application processing, while immigration judges will be relegated to a ceremonial role—mainly conducting citizenship ceremonies where applicants take the oath.
The change in the review process, according to the authors, should reduce processing times to one year. Currently, the process takes an average of about three years, with a backlog of over 320,000 applications.
Requirements for criminal background of citizenship applicants will also be tightened. In particular, individuals charged with or convicted of crimes will lose the right to obtain Canadian citizenship. Penalties for deceiving immigration authorities during the citizenship process will increase. Previously, they could be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to one year; under the new law, penalties will be up to $100,000 in fines and up to five years in prison.
Another initiative is the creation of a licensed profession of citizenship consultant, with the formation of an association and membership (despite the fact that the licensed immigration consultant profession and its corresponding organization have long been in existence).
Finally, the new version of the law discusses the possibility of revoking Canadian citizenship from dual citizens and those who have engaged in espionage, participated in military actions against Canada, or been involved in terrorist activities. The authority to revoke citizenship from such individuals would be transferred to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Comments
The impending changes have been discussed for a long time, so the introduction of Bill C-24 did not come as a big surprise. However, objectively assessing the information, no drastic changes are anticipated in the new law, except that the application review process becomes more formal, as decision-making functions are transferred to officials subordinate to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, while immigration judges are removed from this process. In my view, this is the most important aspect of the reform.
The increase in residency requirements for citizenship applicants or the expansion of the age range for the language exam can hardly be considered significant changes. They do not affect the overall picture and are clearly not revolutionary; rather, they are technical aspects that do not warrant serious attention.
The same can be said about changes regarding granting citizenship to individuals with a questionable past and transferring to the Minister the power to revoke citizenship from those involved in terrorism or activities hostile to Canada. These cases are so rare that the vast majority of residents applying for Canadian citizenship will not be affected by these innovations.
The tightening of penalties for fraud in obtaining citizenship appears quite serious. Apparently, fraud in this area has become widespread, and the government is seeking ways to block it. The most common case is when applicants claim they resided in Canada for the required time while actually being outside the country.
For example, it was reported that as of October 2013, police were investigating several major fraud cases in obtaining citizenship, with about 8,000 people under investigation, of which 5,000 were Canadian citizens and 3,000 were permanent residents. During the checks, about 2,000 people withdrew their citizenship applications.
Now for the main thing – will the processing times for applications be reduced? For now, the government hopes to confine application processing to fixed time frames (up to a year) by 2015-2016. Undoubtedly, this sounds optimistic, and one wants to believe it. However, to date, the entire experience of the Conservatives' reforms in immigration has not brought much improvement – promises have mostly remained unfulfilled, and attempts to improve things have resulted in the opposite effect. As a result, the intake of applications for practically all federal immigration programs has been suspended, and there is less and less belief that any positive changes in this area will occur from 2015.
For example, the application intake for sponsoring parents, which opened in early January 2014, was closed literally a month later, as the quota of 5,000 applications was filled in the first weeks of the year. Now everyone who wants to sponsor their parents will have to wait until next year, with no guarantees that their application will fit within the allocated quota.
Another example – despite the tightening of rules for granting refugee status, obtaining entry visas to Canada continues to be not the easiest thing, and people still receive refusals. In other words, the problems do not disappear despite all the tightening measures. Therefore, there is definite skepticism about whether the new citizenship law will change anything for the better.
What did Bill C-24 overlook?
As already noted, the new law contains no fundamental changes. In particular, it does not address such an important issue as obtaining citizenship by birth on Canadian territory. As is known, there are several principles of acquiring citizenship, one of which is the right to citizenship "by right of soil," that is, by birth on the country's territory. This rule is observed, including in Canada, even though it is considered extremely archaic and other countries are abandoning it.
The operation of this principle in Canada creates loopholes for obtaining citizenship. There is a whole trend of "citizenship tourism," which consists of pregnant women from all over the world coming to developed countries, including Canada, to give birth there so that their children obtain citizenship. Most often, these children will never live in Canada, yet they are considered Canadian citizens and receive a Canadian passport. Naturally, this situation is fundamentally wrong and needs to change.
If the government has finally become concerned with increasing the value of Canadian citizenship (which in itself is very correct), then it should start by solving such problems, rather than increasing the residency period and fees. Apparently, the question of why this topic is not reflected in Bill C-24 has occurred to many. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander, virtually immediately after the bill was introduced in Parliament, announced that he was beginning broad consultations with Canada's provinces and territories to develop a common approach for making a decision on so-called "citizenship tourism."
Also completely untouched is a topic that has been raised many times before, concerning Canadian citizens who acquired citizenship through naturalization but have no intention of living in Canada. It is no secret that many immigrants come to Canada solely to obtain citizenship of this country, but do not intend to live in Canada. After obtaining permanent resident status, they serve the required time in Canada, receive citizenship, and leave either permanently or for a long period. Naturally, such a situation discredits the value of Canadian citizenship, and if reforms are to begin, one should think about mechanisms that could "attach" such naturalized Canadian citizens to Canada. Moreover, it is not difficult to develop them, maintaining a balance between the right of Canadians to live abroad and the need for those who have obtained citizenship to show seriousness of intention to live in Canada.
If one looks at the situation objectively, the issue of citizenship, as well as the issue of integration into Canadian society, are quite acute in Canada, and there is a wide field for reforms. And for now, what the Conservative government proposes can hardly be called reforms. Therefore, Bill C-24 can hardly be called revolutionary – it is rather a technical adjustment of the current law to solve pressing accumulated problems. Those who are planning to apply for citizenship need to take into account the planned changes, as they will soon become law, according to which your case will be considered.
Elena Ryabinina,
"Russian Toronto."