The reference in the Star article, to when the revised residency (presence) requirement will "come into force," not until June, is a very general statement, and without reference to a source. It is likely no more informative than what we already know. Pursuant to which we really do NOT know, except that it will almost certainly be no sooner than the end of April (given notice for proposed regulatory changes in the February 28 and March 14 issues of the Canada Gazette, which is an official source of information) and almost certainly by some time in August. Oddsmakers tend to still give July 1st the best odds, but June 1st looms a very close second (and is my bet, just a bet), with May 1st and August 1st being the long shots, and June 19th a more or less distant long shot. All just guesses, except as to the range itself, which again is highly likely May 1st to August 1st.
It is worth noting that this reference is really more or less a passing observation in an article focused on the evolotion of citizenship grants in the last decade or so, suggesting that many aspects of this government's policies and practices have made the path to citizenship longer and more difficult.
I have not personally examined the underlying data, but it is clear that the article is misleading in many respects. Comparing the percentage of immigrants who came to Canada in 2000 who have become citizens, for example, with the percentage of those who came in 2008, to support the conclusion that the number of immigrants becoming citizens has declined dramatically (displaying a graph and emphasizing in the text the difference between the 79% of 2000 immigrants who have become citizens and the 26% of 2008 immigrants who have), is largely misleading even though the article quotes the former Citizenship director acknowledging that the "permanent-resident-to-citizen conversion rate does generally rise the longer immigrants have been in Canada." That individual goes on, to be quoted, stating "But an 18 per cent decrease between the 2008 and 2007 cohorts is alarming."
That would be true if that is a persisting difference, but given the length of time for processing applications, and in particular the profound delays in processing incurred by a high percentage of applicants who applied between mid-2011 and the end of 2012, it is actually more surprising to me that it is that close (suggesting, to me, that the median timeline between date of landing and date of applying for citizenship is longer than I had previously anticipated).
What would be far more informative would be a comparison of how many 2007, 2008, and 2009 immigrants became citizens as of ten years later.
That said, I expect that the former director (Griffith) is generally right that the percentage of immigrants becoming citizens has been declining. But the data is insufficient to discern by how much.
The path to citizenship has indeed grown longer (even before the revised residency provisions come into force) and more difficult. There is little doubt that CIC has:
-- increased fees by more than five fold (with a profoundly differing impact on single skilled workers in higher income brackets versus families with lower incomes)
-- made the knowledge test more challenging
-- has been more strictly enforcing the language requirement (and for more than a couple years has required upfront proof of language)
-- has dramatically curtailed the number of grants to shortfall applicants (those with less than 1095 days actual presence in Canada)
-- has dramatically increased scrutiny of residency
-- has imposed hurdles to those who leave Canada while the application is pending, and
-- generally has been taking considerably longer to process applications
At the same time, the mobility of immigrants has been increasing in the last decade, with more immigrants traveling abroad more often, more having career or employment that takes them abroad more often, which in conjunction with the reduction in shortfall applicants being approved and granted citizenship (increased strict application of the actual presence test), means a significant percentage of immigrants have to wait longer before they apply (and more confronting the 3/4 presence requirement as a difficult if not impossible hurdle . . . for many of the latter the 4/6 rule should actually benefit them since it only requires presence in Canada two-thirds of the time rather than the current three-quarters requirement).
Former director-general Griffith is probably right to raise the alarm in the sense that there is indeed a risk that Canada's immigration system, in which the path to citizenship is an integral element, is evolving toward one that is more or less exclusive rather than inclusive, particularly relative to its increasing emphasis on higher end skills and experience. In contrast, Canada very much needs inclusive, broad-based, and rather robust immigration to sustain necessary growth.
My sense of Harper's governing approach overall is that it suffers greatly from tunnel-vision, from focusing on specific objectives and agendas with inadequate consideration for collateral consequences. Much of what I listed above reflecting the increased difficulty PRs encounter in pursuing citizenship, for example, derives from the Harper government's efforts to discourage (preclude to the extent possible) citizenship of convenience and fraud, and to emphasize/encourage more high-end skilled labour immigration, but the impact of these policies profoundly affects nearly all immigration, all immigrants . . . so, for example, to reduce the number of those obtaining citizenship of convenience by a few thousand (probably a very few) annually, and the number of fraudulently obtained citizenships by perhaps a few hundred annually, two hundred thousand or so immigrants are subjected to the elevated scrutiny, stricter requirements, and longer processing times. I suspect that what Griffith is concerned about is the overall impact of this.
