Will implementation of bill C-6 open flood gates of applications?

[hfinkel]

[QUOTE="Bs65, post: 6159467, member: 605103"
Anyway my answer and others can comment the date of application should be November 1 or later else any date before that would be subject to 4/6 based simply on the application date.[/QUOTE]

We don't yet know when this will begin, but does anyone know who makes the decision when 3/5 rule begins? Is this just an administrative IRCC decision at this point or will somone in the judicial or executive branch of government make this determination?

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

Reasons for becoming a citizen:

Some of us lead such righteous, law-abiding lives, certain all our business dealings are so above-board there is no chance of trumped-up criminal charges let alone there being a risk of being guilty of crimes for which six months or more of imprisonment might be imposed, there is no worry about potential inadmissibility and loss of PR status. But many of us, in contrast, are not so righteous, and almost all of us can slip at some point in our lives, a driving while impaired resulting in a serious injury accident for example, a dispute or conflict with someone leading to accusations, exaggerated or otherwise, for another.

But those who have children should be particularly cognizant of the risks of inadmissibility for criminality. The IAD decisions are rife with sad, sad tales. PR came to Canada as a young child with immigrating parent. For whatever reason, parents did not go through the process of getting the child citizenship. In his mid to late teens the child has some minor criminal entanglements, ends up on probation. Once on probation, a grant of citizenship is prohibited and the time does not count toward presence. Years pass before the PR becomes eligible for citizenship, and the PR slips again, still something minor, but if there is a period of probation of two years, that will mean the PR has to wait two more years before starting over for time to begin to count toward being eligible for citizenship. The number of PRs who end up perpetually prohibited from citizenship because of occasional, and often rather minor criminality, who came to Canada as a child, who have never really known any life other than that as a Canadian, is remarkably high. And then there is a more serious slip. Maybe it does not happen until they are in their 30s or even 40s, and in the published cases I have seen some older than 50. Sill not exactly a major crime. But with a history of minor offences, a medium-level offence can mean a formal sentence of six months or more. Then IRCC issues an inadmissibility report. There is a hearing. A real lot of these cases have very sad outcomes.

Unfortunately, those mostly affected tend to have some learning or mental health problems, autism appears all too often involved, and those suffering from bi-polar depression, or anxiety disorders.

Immigrants with non-citizen children should seriously take into account the risks their children could face long-term if they fail to take the steps toward getting them citizenship. In this regard, at least Bill C-6 has opened a path to citizenship for children which is not totally dependent on the eligibility of the child's parent.


Otherwise, there is the hassle of applying for a new PR card every five years:

Note that Canada has made the application for new PR cards almost as onerous as applying for citizenship. I am associated with some long, long term PRs (PRs for decades) who recently decided it was time to become a citizen because of the inconvenience involved in having to periodically re-apply for a new PR card. This has become an issue particularly with the eTA requirements making it more inconvenient for PRs with visa-exempt passports (the long term PRs I know are mostly UK and European passport holders).

Hello dpenabill,

You are indeed a champion forum member! You message are detailed and thorough... You have listed many reasons which were the factors which motivated me to citizenship application.

Most people are law abiding and think that they will not end up with a criminal record or any other disqualifications. As you rightly said, even a nice person can end up with a criminal taint, DUI is a good example. Even a minor altercation can lead to some criminal records. Many people don't realize this....

I lived and worked in six countries, Canada has the most liberal immigration and naturalization process, and I am glad I made the right decision by coming to Canada....

Thanks,
Raj

 

[dpenabill]

does anyone know who makes the decision when 3/5 rule begins? Is this just an administrative IRCC decision at this point or will somone in the judicial or executive branch of government make this determination?

Formally it is the "Governor in Council." Practically this means the Prime Minister decides who decides, that is, the PM says who is a decision-making member of the "in Council" making the decision which the Governor in Council formally issues in an official Order (which is then published in the Gazzette). Many expect that the Minister of IRCC will be at least a key member, if not the member with overriding influence, in the council's membership. But who is part of the decision-making is really up to the Prime Minister. PM Harper, for example, tended to be in total control. Ministers could make recommendations, and obviously they were at least consulted, but Harper tended to have a small group very close to him making all these decisions. Note, for example, many believe that for a good while, during Harper's time as PM, Benjamin Perrin was actually making a lot of the decisions affecting CIC, even though Perrin was not a MP, let alone a member of cabinet, but just a member of the PMO.

For this government, it is indeed most likely that IRCC will have the biggest say in when to actually implement the changes. But the formal decision-making is largely behind closed doors, and again it is the PM who says who makes the decision.

 

[hfinkel]

Formally it is the "Governor in Council." Practically this means the Prime Minister decides who decides, that is, the PM says who is a decision-making member of the "in Council" making the decision which the Governor in Council formally issues in an official Order (which is then published in the Gazzette). Many expect that the Minister of IRCC will be at least a key member, if not the member with overriding influence, in the council's membership. But who is part of the decision-making is really up to the Prime Minister. PM Harper, for example, tended to be in total control. Ministers could make recommendations, and obviously they were at least consulted, but Harper tended to have a small group very close to him making all these decisions. Note, for example, many believe that for a good while, during Harper's time as PM, Benjamin Perrin was actually making a lot of the decisions affecting CIC, even though Perrin was not a MP, let alone a member of cabinet, but just a member of the PMO.

For this government, it is indeed most likely that IRCC will have the biggest say in when to actually implement the changes. But the formal decision-making is largely behind closed doors, and again it is the PM who says who makes the decision.

Thank you for the detail. Is it safe to assume that they will decide after the summer recess of who makes the call for the effective date of 3/5?

 

[uncomfortable]

... This has become an issue particularly with the eTA requirements making it more inconvenient for PRs with visa-exempt passports (the long term PRs I know are mostly UK and European passport holders).

I am not sure I understand how the increasingly difficult process of renewing PR is related to the eTA requirements. Permanent residents are not allowed to request eTA. Can you explain?

 

[dpenabill]

I am not sure I understand how the increasingly difficult process of renewing PR is related to the eTA requirements. Permanent residents are not allowed to request eTA. Can you explain?

I am quite sure this is NOT related to whether Bill C-6 changes will open the flood gates of applications, and I likewise do not see how the increasingly difficult process of renewing PR is related to the eTA requirements. Not sure why you are asking this and quoting a reference to my explanation as to why a number of long-term PRs are recently deciding to apply for citizenship.

In any event:

The eTA requirements are related to why PRs with visa-exempt passports now need to obtain a PR card.

The increasingly difficult process of applying for a new PRC is an incentive for PRs to apply for citizenship rather than periodically apply for a new PRC.

Which, again, was part of an explanation of reasons for PRs to apply for citizenship rather than simply remain PRs. Itself a tangent from the OP's query. But rather straight-forward: need for PR card (in part due to effect of eTA) plus increased hassle obtaining a new PR card, equals a reason to apply for citizenship.

 

[uncomfortable]

I am quite sure this is NOT related to whether Bill C-6 changes will open the flood gates of applications, and I likewise do not see how the increasingly difficult process of renewing PR is related to the eTA requirements. Not sure why you are asking this and quoting a reference to my explanation as to why a number of long-term PRs are recently deciding to apply for citizenship.

In any event:

The eTA requirements are related to why PRs with visa-exempt passports now need to obtain a PR card.

The increasingly difficult process of applying for a new PRC is an incentive for PRs to apply for citizenship rather than periodically apply for a new PRC.

Which, again, was part of an explanation of reasons for PRs to apply for citizenship rather than simply remain PRs. Itself a tangent from the OP's query. But rather straight-forward: need for PR card (in part due to effect of eTA) plus increased hassle obtaining a new PR card, equals a reason to apply for citizenship.

I still don't understand - if you are a PR, you need a PR card if you want to travel outside Canada, regardless of your passport.
The fact that it was easier before eTA to circumvent the law doesn't mean it was ok not to have a PR card.

 

[dpenabill]

I still don't understand - if you are a PR, you need a PR card if you want to travel outside Canada, regardless of your passport.
The fact that it was easier before eTA to circumvent the law doesn't mean it was ok not to have a PR card.

Fact is scores of PRs with visa-exempt passports used to travel without a PR card. Even Air Canada's posted information about necessary travel documents indicated PRs with visa-exempt passports could travel without a PR card. This was so common many thought it was actually the rule.

Now those PRs need a PR card to travel. In fact they need the PRC as well as pursuant to what the rules prescribe.

By the way, they were not all circumventing the law. PRs are not required to have a PR card, as such, and while the airlines are subject to regulations prescribing that the only travel documents acceptable for boarding a flight to Canada, for PRs, is the PR card or a PR TD, it was entirely up to the airlines to verify travelers had proper travel documents for boarding flights. And the airlines routinely allowed PRs to board using a visa-exempt passport without presenting a PR card or PR TD (and prior to eTA it would have been impractical if not impossible to enforce the rules otherwise).

Still is the airlines decision, except the IAPI system now gives the airlines a "board" or "no board" response when the traveler's API is submitted (and PRs without a PR card or PR TD get a "no board" response, except U.S. citizens and other exceptions). The airlines are not bound by that response, but most probably determine whether to issue a boarding pass based on it. Thus, for example, there have been isolated reports of some PRs being allowed to board a flight using a visa-exempt passport despite not having eTA or a PR card.

Some were doing this to circumvent obtaining a PR Travel Document to minimize scrutiny of their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, particularly before the Harper government escalated screening and enforcement. Back then visa-exempt travelers were often, if not typically waived into Canada without being examined as to PR status or PR RO compliance. But those who applied for a PR TD were, as a matter of course, subject to a Residency Determination, and one which typically was more strictly done and enforced than what would typically happen at a PoE if the PR (with a visa-exempt passport and no PR card) happened to be questioned about PR when entering Canada.

Most PRs with a visa-exempt passport can still circumvent having to show a PR card or PR TD by simply traveling via the U.S. and crossing into Canada at a land crossing. This is inordinately inconvenient for most PRs who can readily obtain a new PRC or citizenship. And it no longer is as easy to avoid a PR RO compliance examination this way, given the extent to which Canada has increased screening, scrutiny, and enforcement.

 

[uncomfortable]

Fact is scores of PRs with visa-exempt passports used to travel without a PR card. Even Air Canada's posted information about necessary travel documents indicated PRs with visa-exempt passports could travel without a PR card. This was so common many thought it was actually the rule.

Now those PRs need a PR card to travel. In fact they need the PRC as well as pursuant to what the rules prescribe.

By the way, they were not all circumventing the law. PRs are not required to have a PR card, as such, and while the airlines are subject to regulations prescribing that the only travel documents acceptable for boarding a flight to Canada, for PRs, is the PR card or a PR TD, it was entirely up to the airlines to verify travelers had proper travel documents for boarding flights. And the airlines routinely allowed PRs to board using a visa-exempt passport without presenting a PR card or PR TD (and prior to eTA it would have been impractical if not impossible to enforce the rules otherwise).

Still is the airlines decision, except the IAPI system now gives the airlines a "board" or "no board" response when the traveler's API is submitted (and PRs without a PR card or PR TD get a "no board" response, except U.S. citizens and other exceptions). The airlines are not bound by that response, but most probably determine whether to issue a boarding pass based on it. Thus, for example, there have been isolated reports of some PRs being allowed to board a flight using a visa-exempt passport despite not having eTA or a PR card.

Some were doing this to circumvent obtaining a PR Travel Document to minimize scrutiny of their compliance with the PR Residency Obligation, particularly before the Harper government escalated screening and enforcement. Back then visa-exempt travelers were often, if not typically waived into Canada without being examined as to PR status or PR RO compliance. But those who applied for a PR TD were, as a matter of course, subject to a Residency Determination, and one which typically was more strictly done and enforced than what would typically happen at a PoE if the PR (with a visa-exempt passport and no PR card) happened to be questioned about PR when entering Canada.

Most PRs with a visa-exempt passport can still circumvent having to show a PR card or PR TD by simply traveling via the U.S. and crossing into Canada at a land crossing. This is inordinately inconvenient for most PRs who can readily obtain a new PRC or citizenship. And it no longer is as easy to avoid a PR RO compliance examination this way, given the extent to which Canada has increased screening, scrutiny, and enforcement.

All very well explained, however the part regarding airlines' seemingly lax attitude only provides a partial view of the picture. There is no indication in a passport whether the individual is a PR or not, so as far as the airline is concerned, this could be just a tourist going to Canada. Personally, as a PR with a visa-exempt passport, I have always been asked the duration of my stay in Canada and/or proof of my status. Virtually every airline has document-check procedures for flights to Canada, it's not that easy to circumvent the rules. Especially because if a passenger is refused at the Port of Entry, the airline is responsible for returning them to their country and for paying a fairly hefty fine.

 

[dpenabill]

Personally, as a PR with a visa-exempt passport, I have always been asked the duration of my stay in Canada and/or proof of my status. Virtually every airline has document-check procedures for flights to Canada, it's not that easy to circumvent the rules.

If you peruse much older discussions in the PR obligations discussions you would likely come across many posts in which I cautioned that despite how common it was for a PR to be allowed boarding without a PRC, the rule was that a PRC was required and boarding could be denied despite having a visa-exempt passport. More than occasionally I was criticized for unnecessarily raising this concern, that PRs with visa-exempt passports did not need to worry about this. My effort was to make PRs aware of the risks, which I often described as "significant" risks, regarding which some quibbled, some at length, as if quantifying such risks is practical.

Nonetheless, the reports about how common it was, particularly in conjunction with Air Canada essentially stating it as a rule, indicated that it was more often the practice than not.

The bigger, more pertinent point now, is that most visa-exempt PRs must now in fact comply with the same rules as other PRs. And that for some, this means having to either renew the PRC periodically or become a citizen (and then need to renew their Canadian passport periodically . . . the same rules now applying for those with dual citizenship, with a citizenship in a visa-exempt country).

 

[uncomfortable]

The bigger, more pertinent point now, is that most visa-exempt PRs must now in fact comply with the same rules as other PRs. And that for some, this means having to either renew the PRC periodically or become a citizen (and then need to renew their Canadian passport periodically . . . the same rules now applying for those with dual citizenship, with a citizenship in a visa-exempt country).

On an incidentally related matter, now visa-exempt PRs are not able to check in online for an international Canada-bound flight, since many airline check-in software require the PR card to be manually checked and entered by an agent. Another monumental pain in the neck, if you fly often, encouraging to get citizenship.

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

If you peruse much older discussions in the PR obligations discussions you would likely come across many posts in which I cautioned that despite how common it was for a PR to be allowed boarding without a PRC, the rule was that a PRC was required and boarding could be denied despite having a visa-exempt passport. More than occasionally I was criticized for unnecessarily raising this concern, that PRs with visa-exempt passports did not need to worry about this. My effort was to make PRs aware of the risks, which I often described as "significant" risks, regarding which some quibbled, some at length, as if quantifying such risks is practical.

Nonetheless, the reports about how common it was, particularly in conjunction with Air Canada essentially stating it as a rule, indicated that it was more often the practice than not.

The bigger, more pertinent point now, is that most visa-exempt PRs must now in fact comply with the same rules as other PRs. And that for some, this means having to either renew the PRC periodically or become a citizen (and then need to renew their Canadian passport periodically . . . the same rules now applying for those with dual citizenship, with a citizenship in a visa-exempt country).

Interesting message again! There is a tendency in the forum to criticize anybody who tries to caution others! In a span of 24 hours, I was accused of being a fear monger and a citizen with lot of free time to interfere with matters that do not affect me... All because of starting two threads that raises potential procedural issues during C-24 -> C-6 transition. Lot of people are understandably euphoric with C-6, no one wants to burst that bubble I guess...

 

[itsmyid]

Interesting message again! There is a tendency in the forum to criticize anybody who tries to caution others! In a span of 24 hours, I was accused of being a fear monger and a citizen with lot of free time to interfere with matters that do not affect me... All because of starting two threads that raises potential procedural issues during C-24 -> C-6 transition. Lot of people are understandably euphoric with C-6, no one wants to burst that bubble I guess...

haha, I am the one who mentioned the 'too much free time' part, but I wonder where you gathered all the 'fear monger' 'interfere' and 'burst bubble' parts from? With such wild imagination I am now more sure of the value (or no value) of your 'new threads' bring to the table. Like I have said before, the topics in both 'new threads' have been discussed extensively in existing threads many many times, and the conclusion has been loud and clear that whatever speculation out there has no value since nobody knows how CIC works and policies and procedures can change any time. And just to be clear, I have no doubt C-6 will see backlog and slowdown of processing, so why would you think you were bursting any bubble on me if there's no bubble to start with? And I have no fear of that since life goes on with or without Canadian citizenship in desired time frame - there would be dissatisfaction for sure but fear? there are many much bigger things to fear in life than that - so there goes your 'fear monger' theory.

I have also stated clearly that CIC doesn't have any transparency and you can't predict its future work based on past experience, including your own story of long delay in PR and speedy processing in citizenship application, but if you think that makes you an expert then go ahead and preach - however, people need to keep in mind that one individual's experience doesn't make any statistical difference, I have personally known people (all friends and coworkers) who
- Got citizenship in less than a year in 2014-2015, before the start of C-24
- Got citizenship in less than 4 months under C-24 (this year)
- Waited for citizenship for more than 2-3 years with application sent before C-24 and still waiting
- Applied for parents-sponsorship since more than 5 years ago and still waiting
- Applied for parents-sponsorship last year and landed this year
None of those people got any non-routine notice during the process

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

haha, hehe, huhu
I am the man, but I wonder where you gathered all info? Only my info is true, rest is fake .................
Yes I get irritated by you mere forum members, you will be better served if you remember the force is with me In my last press conference I stated ................ Only my threads and opinions matter,
Do you know how many people I know???
- Darth Vader, who applied from Gotham city instead of the house of force...
- Yoda, .....
- More names,.......
None of those people underwent Jedi training

OK Mr itsmyforum,
You( who wrote 650+ message in all) accusing me(who wrote only 60 and some messages) have too much time to waste, more than reveals that you are statistically challenged! Name dropping does not change the fact.... Forum is all yours!!!!

 

[HamiltonApplicant]

To quote the forum member Stef.:"
For what it is worth: I had a discussion after my interview with the nice lady at the door yesterday. They do expect a huge influx of new applicants once the new rule is implemented and she told me there was a change in paperwork they expect to have to go through. Unfortunately no new/ more employees. I assume for the time being waiting times might become longer, but then...officially they are 12 months and I had my interview after three."

Yes, it is quasi official! If possible rush your applications to CIC....