Bill C-6: Senate stage

[screech339]

Question wasnt for me but I will answer regardless. The government doesnt make laws that only affect a select few thousands. Their job is to make policy that affects everyone. So if anyone wants this bill to only affect those who lands after this bill, how is it fair to all those who have been living and contributing to Canada for years?

Does this mean you support 4/6 rule since it effects everyone regardless of when one landed. That is the premise of your argument since it is fair to everyone. So I am being "selfish" for wanting those who landed after the rule to follow new law and those who landed before 4/6 rule to follow 3/4 rule. This premise is no difference from those getting citizenship based on when they were born. Thanks.

 

[Konan1982]

Is 3/5 in effect ?
Or still 4/6?

 

[screech339]

Is 3/5 in effect ?
Or still 4/6?

Still 4/6

 

[MUFC]

I completely understand and support the concern of screech339, because indeed the current 4/6 rule brought in controlled low number of applicants which of course brought short processing times and it will indeed be very unfair those people to get hit twice in a negative way increasing their wait times more and more.

 

[screech339]

I completely understand and support the concern of screech339, because indeed the current 4/6 rule brought in controlled low number of applicants which of course brought short processing times and it will indeed be very unfair those people to get hit twice in a negative way increasing their wait times more and more.

Thanks MUFC. +1 for your post.

 

[MUFC]

You are welcome

Thanks MUFC. +1 for your post.

My sense here is that most of the people are thinking in a naive way, expecting only good consequences from that Bill C6, without being aware of the logistical difficulties CIC will encounter once the 3/5 kicks in.

Here most of them care only when they will apply... they don't think when it will finish.
They just want to be together once again in a clogged CIC backlog.

But frankly there is a very good chance that your wife will become Canadian before the effective date of the 3/5 rule.

 

[screech339]

First of all, I don't think it would matter if I support it or not, since there's no chance that will happen

My sentiment towards C-6 has shifted from "support" to "indifferent" - If C-6 didn't take this long to pass I would have still supported it, but now whether it passes or not won't really affect my waiting time+processing time anymore, so I simply don't care anymore, and I am just curious about all the drama about it

BTW:

This is no difference from spousal PR sponsorship. The spouse cannot sponsor a spouse for PR unless he/she qualifies first. The sponsor could end up having to wait a long time to qualify first to sponsor (live together one year to establish common law as oppose to sponsoring the next day after marriage.) Once the spouse qualifies to sponsor, do you agree that the sponsorship process should be reasonable the same regardless of how long the spouse/common law has to wait to qualify for spousal sponsorship? PGP is another example. PGP was changed to "REDUCE" PGP processing time by introducing annual cap and 3 year LICO requirement. You must meet 3 years LICO to qualify for PGP (some wait 4 years or longer, some wait less than 1 year like Sponsored PR spouse using spouse as co-signer), however Quebec only requires 1 year to qualify (wait up to 2 years) but once a person can apply for PGP, the processing time should remain the same regardless of where one lives in Canada. Guess what! It works. We are seeing PGP parents getting PR much faster under the new PGP program than the 10 plus years under the old system. This is the premise of my argument. The processing period should be fair and reasonable to everyone, regardless of when one qualifies for citizenship or spousal PR sponsorship or PGP.

 

[tyl92]

there's a lot of people that have become indifferent to the 3/5 , that will apply under c24 and were affected by it .
They would be following by certain clauses of c6 ( Revocation , appeal process , intend to reside etc.)

Anyone who would qualify in 2017 , shouldn't place too much hopes on the 3/5 or pre-pr credit .

What would be bad is people being affected two times , by c24 at first and after that by massive processing times under c6.

 

[razerblade]

...What would be bad is people being affected two times , by c24 at first and after that by massive processing times under c6.

Sad, but true. I fall in this bucket of people who are getting ****** twice. Thrice if you count the PGP screw up.

 

[MarceauBletard]

What would be bad is people being affected two times , by c24 at first and after that by massive processing times under c6.

Sad, but true. I fall in this bucket of people who are getting ****** twice. Thrice if you count the PGP screw up.

Ditto. I could be affected twice as well.
Still hopeful the Bill could become implemented before the end of 2017 though.
We'll see.

 

[MUFC]

Ditto. I could be affected twice as well.
Still hopeful the Bill could become implemented before the end of 2017 though.
We'll see.

It doesn't matter when it will be implemented anymore, because the potential maximum of instantly eligible people is already reached since we are close to the second year of the currently enforced 4/6 rule.

The potential backlog inflated to the max is already waiting for the start signal.

 

[_MK_]

Does this mean you support 4/6 rule since it effects everyone regardless of when one landed. That is the premise of your argument since it is fair to everyone. So I am being "selfish" for wanting those who landed after the rule to follow new law and those who landed before 4/6 rule to follow 3/4 rule. This premise is no difference from those getting citizenship based on when they were born. Thanks.

I am more indifferent about it that most people. Passing this bill means I can apply now. If they dont, I apply next year. Doesnt make a whole lot of difference, although like everyone else I would like to be done with all this immigration business once and for all. So sooner the better. I like that it gives credit to people who have already been living here for a while on a valid temp resident visa. I would have been fine if they kept 4/6 with credit.

I do not care if the processing time goes from average 4-6 months in the best case scenarios now (based on the spreadsheets available in the other threads) to 12 months since at the end of the day you still get it sooner rather than later.

Secondly, the main reason for faster processing now is because C24 in 2015 made a lot of people ineligible suddenly. So the number of people applying suddenly dropped (by about 50%). You can check CIC for the numbers. These people will start to be eligible this year and next year and eventually the numbers would rise again regardless of Bill C6 passing or not. The drop in application number is temporary.

As an example:
Pre June 2015 : say a 100 people apply every year (2 year + 1 yr credit applicants and 3 year applicants).
Post June 2015 : 50 people apply. new rules mean some have to wait longer (temp residents who would have used credit + people who have 3 years cant apply this year, only people with 4 years).
Pose June 2016 : 60- 70 people apply (some 3 year applicants who couldnt last year are now eligible.)
Post June 2016 : 80-90 ( all the temp residents who could not use credit start applying this year and onwards)

Eventually the number of applications will reach equilibrium/terminal velocity. My numbers are guesstimates to illustrate my point. Take them with a grain of salt.
I expect the 4/6 rule is tougher to meet for some applicants compared to 3/5 with credit. So if they dont pass the bill, there will eventually be a reduction of 10-20% applications once we reach terminal velocity.

Unless you are applying for your wife this year, it wont make much of a difference in processing times in a few years with or without this bill. Processing times are going to go up. The only thing I am not sure is the effect of the higher fees. It doesnt affect me much but it might to larger families.

 

[screech339]

I am more indifferent about it that most people. Passing this bill means I can apply now. If they dont, I apply next year. Doesnt make a whole lot of difference, although like everyone else I would like to be done with all this immigration business once and for all. So sooner the better. I like that it gives credit to people who have already been living here for a while on a valid temp resident visa. I would have been fine if they kept 4/6 with credit.

I do not care if the processing time goes from average 4-6 months in the best case scenarios now (based on the spreadsheets available in the other threads) to 12 months since at the end of the day you still get it sooner rather than later.

Secondly, the main reason for faster processing now is because C24 in 2015 made a lot of people ineligible suddenly. So the number of people applying suddenly dropped (by about 50%). You can check CIC for the numbers. These people will start to be eligible this year and next year and eventually the numbers would rise again regardless of Bill C6 passing or not. The drop in application number is temporary.

As an example:
Pre June 2015 : say a 100 people apply every year (2 year + 1 yr credit applicants and 3 year applicants).
Post June 2015 : 50 people apply. new rules mean some have to wait longer (temp residents who would have used credit + people who have 3 years cant apply this year, only people with 4 years).
Pose June 2016 : 60- 70 people apply (some 3 year applicants who couldnt last year are now eligible.)
Post June 2016 : 80-90 ( all the temp residents who could not use credit start applying this year and onwards)

Eventually the number of applications will reach equilibrium/terminal velocity. My numbers are guesstimates to illustrate my point. Take them with a grain of salt.
I expect the 4/6 rule is tougher to meet for some applicants compared to 3/5 with credit. So if they dont pass the bill, there will eventually be a reduction of 10-20% applications once we reach terminal velocity.

Unless you are applying for your wife this year, it wont make much of a difference in processing times in a few years with or without this bill. Processing times are going to go up. The only thing I am not sure is the effect of the higher fees. It doesnt affect me much but it might to larger families.

I agree that with each passing year of 4/6 rule since implementation that the processing will go back to pre 4/6 rule with one exception. The processing time will still not be as long as 3/4 rules. It is likely that due to a slower return to pre-4/6 rule, CIC is able to handle the volume much better and maintain the timeline listed for 4/6 when all those affected by 4/6 rule now qualifies. This is also due to eliminating the "subjective" basic residency qualification. This, in turn, removes the need for citizenship judges freeing up their times to dedicate more towards "citizenship oath" appointments. Along with allowing CIC access to CRA income tax records, the process will go a lot faster than 3/4 rule.

 

[itsmyid]

I am more indifferent about it that most people. Passing this bill means I can apply now. If they dont, I apply next year. Doesnt make a whole lot of difference, although like everyone else I would like to be done with all this immigration business once and for all. So sooner the better. I like that it gives credit to people who have already been living here for a while on a valid temp resident visa. I would have been fine if they kept 4/6 with credit.

I do not care if the processing time goes from average 4-6 months in the best case scenarios now (based on the spreadsheets available in the other threads) to 12 months since at the end of the day you still get it sooner rather than later.

Secondly, the main reason for faster processing now is because C24 in 2015 made a lot of people ineligible suddenly. So the number of people applying suddenly dropped (by about 50%). You can check CIC for the numbers. These people will start to be eligible this year and next year and eventually the numbers would rise again regardless of Bill C6 passing or not. The drop in application number is temporary.

As an example:
Pre June 2015 : say a 100 people apply every year (2 year + 1 yr credit applicants and 3 year applicants).
Post June 2015 : 50 people apply. new rules mean some have to wait longer (temp residents who would have used credit + people who have 3 years cant apply this year, only people with 4 years).
Pose June 2016 : 60- 70 people apply (some 3 year applicants who couldnt last year are now eligible.)
Post June 2016 : 80-90 ( all the temp residents who could not use credit start applying this year and onwards)

Eventually the number of applications will reach equilibrium/terminal velocity. My numbers are guesstimates to illustrate my point. Take them with a grain of salt.
I expect the 4/6 rule is tougher to meet for some applicants compared to 3/5 with credit. So if they dont pass the bill, there will eventually be a reduction of 10-20% applications once we reach terminal velocity.

Unless you are applying for your wife this year, it wont make much of a difference in processing times in a few years with or without this bill. Processing times are going to go up. The only thing I am not sure is the effect of the higher fees. It doesnt affect me much but it might to larger families.

It is not just the 4/6 rule that prevent a lot of people from applying, also the lower age limit for language test, 180 days each year -- for people who travel a lot for work it would probably be hard to meet., the fee probably has some impact, but not likely that much

 

[screech339]

It is not just the 4/6 rule that prevent a lot of people from applying, also the lower age limit for language test, 180 days each year -- for people who travel a lot for work it would probably be hard to meet., the fee probably has some impact, but not likely that much

You do realize that the 4/6 favours those who travels more than the 3/4 rule. As for language requirements, that makes a lot of sense. Learn the language if you want to be Canadian. Remember the famous line. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do".