OTTAWA — The notion that newcomers must be physically present in Canada for three of the previous four years to become citizens is an inaccuracy the government continues to perpetuate, say experts who are now raising concerns it may try again to entrench the idea in a sweeping new citizenship bill.
The government tried to clarify the rule in 2010, but that bill died on the order paper. At least one government insider said there’s a good chance it will arise again in upcoming legislation, however, experts say it could adversely impact economic immigrants who travel regularly for business — the very group the Conservative government has targeted for immigration in recent years.
While the government has cracked down on thousands of citizens believed to have lied about residency on their citizenship applications, forced many to fill out detailed questionnaires about their travel history and started tracking the entry and exit of permanent residents from Canada as per a new agreement with the United States, University of Ottawa professor Elke Winter noted in a recent study that physical residency and citizenship are not mutually exclusive.
“The Citizenship Act does not define residence as physical presence and the Federal Court has made various decisions on this issue over the years,” she wrote, citing a Citizenship and Immigration operational manual, even though the government’s website still lists physical presence among the criteria for citizenship eligibility.
“It is the responsibility of the citizenship judge to determine if an applicant meets the residence requirement despite absences from Canada.”
Toronto citizenship lawyer Sheldon Robins agrees.
He said the government has been “lying to everybody” about the rules as obtaining citizenship is about proving a strong connection to Canada and a certain level of establishment, not counting the days on a calculator. A person who returned to his or her homeland to care for a relative, or left the country on business shouldn’t have difficulty obtaining citizenship because of the trip, he said.
The offer of citizenship is part of Canada’s “competitive advantage,” Winter added. While some of the best and brightest might be deterred by tougher citizenship requirements, she said the bigger concern is whether Canada will still “get the fullest potential of the people we attract.
“If you want to have the best of the best in terms of the best brains, these are the people who will be moving around,” she said. “Innovators and entrepreneurs who will use their cultural capital to open up business opportunities for Canadians.”
Vancouver immigration lawyer and policy analyst Richard Kurland said the government needs to be honest — either there is “discretion” for legitimate absences or there isn’t.
He believes the mathematical route — that one is physically present for at least 1,095 days in the last four years — is the most cost-effective since it doesn’t require lengthy interviews to establish one’s connection to Canada. But, he said, it penalizes business people, pilots and those studying abroad. A solution, he said, is to have two fees — one for those who meet the physical residency requirement and a “substantially higher fee” for those who need to exercise discretion.
As Parliament resumed Monday after a lengthy Christmas vacation, government House Leader Peter Van Loan promised that legislation to “strengthen Canadian democracy through a first-in-a-generation update of the Citizenship Act” would indeed be coming this year. Immigration Minister Chris Alexander has already said the bill will likely increase the residency threshold from the current norm of three in four years, though he has not commented on making it a legal requirement as was previously attempted in Bill C-37.
