CIC incompetent

[nmclean]

what are FTEs? are you saying that 2016 will be slower than the previous year?

FTE = Full-Time Equivalent. Basically the number of full-time employees, although 2 part-time employees could make up 1 FTE. A higher number should mean faster processing.

 

[flx2015]

FTE = Full-Time Equivalent. Basically the number of full-time employees, although 2 part-time employees could make up 1 FTE. A higher number should mean faster processing.

i'm freaking out here. i filed my app in december 2015 and it's been in process since february 2016.

we have less FTEs compared to 2014/2015 for the year of 2016, does that mean this year will be slower? i am referring to the 2015/2016 plan below.

From the 2015/2016 Plan:
2016/2017 planned spending - $21,164,097
2016/2017 FTEs - 181

 

[S_and_C]

It's a bit generous to even call that a 1.8% increase, considering the first one was a planned decrease from last year's $21.4mil. It looks even worse when you compare it to 2014-15:

2016/2017 planned spending - $26,452,999
2016/2017 FTEs - 235

All three documents show that the plan over the next 3 years is a steady decrease. Yet according to this CBC article...

"The Liberals have budgeted an additional $25 million to reduce application processing times in 2016-17, followed by an additional $50 million a year for the next three years."

I can't see what this could be referring to.

I think this is just a case of "planned" spending vs. "actual spent". If you look in the main section for planned expenditures here, some of the actual spending numbers are higher than the planned spending estimates.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/rpp/2016-2017/index.asp#a1.3

So maybe this fact isn't captured in this report, and that the actual spending and resource allocation going on in real-time will be different.

...

 

[nmclean]

i'm freaking out here. i filed my app in december 2015 and it's been in process since february 2016.

we have less FTEs compared to 2014/2015 for the year of 2016, does that mean this year will be slower?

Well, we went from 249 in 2014-15, to 186 in 2015-16, and back up to 231 this year. In theory, I think the changes should affect the overall speed of everything currently in process, regardless of when it was first filed. So you should expect speed to pick up this year compared to last.

 

[S_and_C]

Well, we went from 249 in 2014-15, to 186 in 2015-16, and back up to 231 this year. In theory, I think the changes should affect the overall speed of everything currently in process, regardless of when it was first filed. So you should expect speed to pick up this year compared to last.

I'm also of the opinion that simply throwing more people at a problem doesn't necessarily mean it will automatically be faster. Many optimizations within a process can be done to make things more efficient and result in better utilization of each FTE. Things are moving along faster than before, as I remember when they first updated the processing times page, the Philippines processing time for spouses outland showed 17 months, whereas now it show 13. Given the fact that if they calculate that based on say 6 months to a years worth of data (however skewed that might be), it means the last few months have affected the average significantly. I just hope that once we submit ours it will be quick, but I'm more concerned at this point in getting a TRV approved for the interim...

 

[nmclean]

I think this is just a case of "planned" spending vs. "actual spent". If you look in the main section for planned expenditures here, some of the actual spending numbers are higher than the planned spending estimates.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/rpp/2016-2017/index.asp#a1.3

So maybe this fact isn't captured in this report, and that the actual spending and resource allocation going on in real-time will be different.

...

Since this extra spending was part of the liberal platform all along, I would expect that it would be included in the "plan" by now. Especially considering that statement to CBC was in March and this page says it was last modified in April.

I'm also of the opinion that simply throwing more people at a problem doesn't necessarily mean it will automatically be faster. Many optimizations within a process can be done to make things more efficient and result in better utilization of each FTE.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, in government, optimization is usually a last resort.

 

[flx2015]

Well, we went from 249 in 2014-15, to 186 in 2015-16, and back up to 231 this year. In theory, I think the changes should affect the overall speed of everything currently in process, regardless of when it was first filed. So you should expect speed to pick up this year compared to last.

ah ok, that's good to hear.

this may be a silly question, but how do we interpret the date ranges in their reports? i.e. does "2015-2016" mean January 2015 to January 2016?

 

[Bunintheoven]

i agree with the original Poster as we are in a similar situation where they 'contacted' us but we never got it and now rejected

it would be easier for us and them to attempt to contact us properly and let us submit any missing info instead of redoing everything!

the processing times are completely unacceptable too!! making families wait 1 year ++ to wait for approval?? cmon

 

[nmclean]

ah ok, that's good to hear.

this may be a silly question, but how do we interpret the date ranges in their reports? i.e. does "2015-2016" mean January 2015 to January 2016?

I'm pretty sure it's April 1 2015 - March 31 2016 (government fiscal year).