Authored by Andy J. Semotiuk, U.S. and Canadian immigration Lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto.
Canada prides itself on being a country of laws—but also a country of fairness. Yet today, thousands of people live in a quiet contradiction between those two ideals. They work, pay taxes, raise families, and build communities here for a decade or more—yet remain legally temporary, or worse, invisible. They are, in every meaningful sense, Canadians already. The law simply hasn’t caught up.
It is time for Canada to restore a modern version of a de facto residence policy: a clear, statutory pathway to permanent residence for individuals who have lived in Canada for ten years or more, regardless of their current immigration status.
Start with a simple, human reality. Imagine someone who arrived in Canada in their twenties. They worked—sometimes on permits, sometimes not. They paid rent, then bought a home. Their children go to Canadian schools. They file taxes. They volunteer. They shovel snow for neighbours. Ten years later, their life is here—entirely.
Yet legally, they remain a “temporary” presence.
At some point, the distinction becomes artificial. After a decade, we are no longer dealing with a visitor or even a worker—we are dealing with a resident in fact. The law should recognize that reality, not deny it.
Canada once understood this. Earlier immigration frameworks acknowledged “ordinary residence” or establishment as something that could, over time, crystallize into legal status. That practical wisdom has faded, replaced by rigid categories and discretionary relief mechanisms that are slow, inconsistent, and often arbitrary.
Today, the closest equivalent—humanitarian and compassionate applications—functions more like a lottery than a rule. Decisions can take years, outcomes are unpredictable, and similarly situated individuals receive different results. That is not a system grounded in fairness or transparency.
A de facto residence provision would fix that.
Under such a policy, eligibility could be straightforward and objective: proof of continuous physical presence in Canada for ten years, a clean criminal record, and evidence of economic and social integration—such as tax filings, employment, or family ties. Meet the criteria, and permanent residence follows. Not by discretion, but by law.
The arguments in favour are compelling.
First, fairness. Critics often argue that permanent residence should be based on merit—education, language ability, or economic potential. But this overlooks a simple truth: time itself is a form of merit. Ten years of lawful or tolerated presence, contribution, and community involvement is not trivial—it is evidence of commitment. If someone has lived and contributed to Canada for a decade, they have demonstrated, in practice, what immigration programs attempt to predict on paper.
Second, integration. People who have been here for ten years are not outsiders waiting to integrate—they are already integrated. They are, in effect, “de facto Canadians.” Denying them status does not preserve the integrity of the system; it undermines it by maintaining a class of people who belong in every way except legally.
Third, economic sense. Long-term residents fill real gaps in Canada’s labour market—caregiving, construction, agriculture, retail—sectors where shortages are persistent. Many already pay taxes, formally or informally. Regularizing their status would increase compliance, boost tax revenues, and allow individuals to fully participate in the economy—investing, starting businesses, and advancing their skills without fear.
Deporting such individuals is not only costly; it is economically irrational. It discards years of human capital already embedded in Canadian society.
Fourth, administrative efficiency. Canada currently spends significant resources managing temporary permits, extensions, enforcement actions, and discretionary applications. A clear, rules-based de facto pathway would reduce backlogs, lighten the burden on immigration officers, and bring predictability to the system.
Fifth—and perhaps most important—public safety and the rule of law. Keeping people in the shadows does not make a country safer. It does the opposite. Individuals without status are more vulnerable to exploitation, less likely to report crimes, and more easily drawn into underground economies.
Bring them into the legal system, and the dynamic changes entirely.
With legal status, people comply. They report abuse. They cooperate with authorities. They move from cash economies into regulated ones. In short, regularization strengthens—not weakens—the rule of law. It replaces invisibility with accountability.
Of course, opposition would come swiftly.
The first objection is fairness to those waiting in line. Why should someone who followed the rules wait years abroad while another gains status through time spent in Canada?
It’s a fair question—but it rests on a false comparison. Long-term residents are not “jumping the queue.” They are already inside the country, already contributing, already established. Their situation is fundamentally different from that of an applicant abroad. Immigration policy has always distinguished between these categories, and rightly so.
Second, critics will argue that such a policy undermines the merit-based system. But a de facto provision would not replace existing programs; it would complement them. Canada would still select new immigrants based on skills and economic needs. The de facto pathway simply addresses a separate reality: people who are already here and have proven their value over time.
Third, concerns about incentivizing overstays or unauthorized entry will arise. Yet a ten-year threshold is not an invitation—it is a filter. Few people will uproot their lives on the speculative hope of qualifying a decade later under strict conditions. Moreover, Canada’s border controls today are far stronger than in past decades. The greater policy challenge is not uncontrolled entry, but how to deal with those already deeply embedded in society.
Fourth, labour market concerns will be raised—fears that regularization could distort temporary worker programs. In practice, the opposite is likely. Employers would have less incentive to rely on precarious, temporary labour if workers had access to stable status. This would improve working conditions and reduce exploitation.
Finally, there is the “slippery slope” argument—that granting status to one group will lead to demands from others. But policy is not made in fear of hypotheticals. It is made in response to real conditions. And the condition here is clear: a substantial population of long-term residents living in legal limbo.
At its core, the debate comes down to a simple question: should the law reflect reality, or ignore it?
Canada’s strength has always been its pragmatism. It has never been a country that clings rigidly to rules when those rules no longer serve the public good. A de facto residence policy is not radical. It is practical. It is humane. And it is consistent with Canada’s traditions.
After ten years, a person is no longer passing through. They are part of the fabric of the country. Recognizing that fact does not weaken the immigration system—it strengthens it by aligning law with lived experience.
Call it what you like—regularization, earned residency, or de facto status. The principle is the same: if someone has built a life in Canada over a decade, the law should acknowledge that life.
Anything less is not just inefficient. It is unjust.
Canada can do better. And it has, before.
Andy J. Semotiuk is a U.S. and Canadian immigration Lawyer with Pace Law Firm in Toronto. A former United Nations correspondent stationed in New York, Mr. Semotiuk is a Senior Advisor to the Centre for Eastern European Democracy and a contributor to Forbes. A former member of the Tribunal Panel of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Semotiuk has written five books and is a human rights activist.
