Bill C-6: Senate stage

[screech339]

My question was regarding whether people were free to move during the application process before this "intent to reside" was introduced by the Harper government. I am quite familiar with current process.

You are free to move within Canada. You are not free to "move" outside Canada during citizenship process. Moving outside Canada implies leaving and residing outside Canada. You are, however, free to leave Canada temporarily such as a vacation during citizenship process.

 

[itsmyid]

I have no issues with "when" a person qualifies. Some of the people seems to think the qualification period is the same as citizenship processing period. I happen to favour longer / tighter qualifications. The 4/6 rule seems to be a fair compromise. Citizenship processing timeline and Qualification timeline are two completely difference subject matter. If a person qualifies for citizenship whether it is 3 years, 4, years or even 10 years to qualify for citizenship, I do expect the citizenship process timeline to be reasonable and fair for everyone, regardless of when one "qualifies" for citizenship. So yes, I still stand by the following statement: "It is still true that it doesn't matter how long one person has to wait to "qualify" for citizenship when one person intends to make Canada his/her home." So it is not self serving or hypocritical as some may claim.

It is funny that those who wanted 3/5 rules to come into effect, now wants it delayed (to avoid the floodgate) since they would qualify under current rules and enjoy shorter processing time that the new rule brought in. Now that's ironic and perhaps hypocritical.

Yeah, "qualify", I am sure that's what you meant back then

 

[screech339]

Yeah, "qualify", I am sure that's what you meant back then

Yes I did. The discussion was about going from 3/4 to 4/6, hence "longer qualification period". Nothing to do with citizenship processing time.

 

[Joshua1]

Yes I did. The discussion was about going from 3/4 to 4/6, hence "longer qualification period". Nothing to do with citizenship processing time.

It really doesn't matter what we think in this forum. We have no control over anything. So relax!
Everyone wishes that things will turn into their favour. That's human nature.

 

[itsmyid]

Yes I did. The discussion was about going from 3/4 to 4/6, hence "longer qualification period". Nothing to do with citizenship processing time.

Spin it all you want
What's the difference if you qualify now but have to wait for 10 years for processing vs qualify in another 9 years then a year for processing ? The point is to get the citizenship sooner no matter what stage is taking the time. Either way your wife will live with all the rights citizens have except for voting like you repeatedly claimed while dismissing other people who wanted 3/5 rule - and now you are calling people hypocrite for it... well whatever helps you sleep at night !

 

[SufferInCan]

Yes I did. The discussion was about going from 3/4 to 4/6, hence "longer qualification period". Nothing to do with citizenship processing time.

People like you are the main motive for delaying C-6. You are just concerned about delaying YOUR applications when opening the gate for floods of applications as you claim. You don't care about others being screwed for just pushing your files fly smoothly.

 

[itsmyid]

People like you are the main motive for delaying C-6. You are just concerned about delaying YOUR applications when opening the gate for floods of applications as you claim. You don't care about others being screwed for just pushing your files fly smoothly.

To be fair, I don't think he has anything to do with the motive of delaying C-6 - the delay is caused by power struggle of politicians that none of us have any control over. He is definitely going to benefit from the delay - which is fine , I don't have any problem with it and it is perfectly understandable to look out for the benefit of our own family - What's ridiculous is, this guy who wants fast processing for his wife so she could get citizenship sooner , is no different from anyone who wants 3/5 rule so to get citizenship sooner, yet he's been acting like he is the high and noble one, and condescendingly calling some people hypocrites for wanting the same thing as he does

And even funnier is, he is now arguing that he didn't care how long his wife have to wait to qualify , since it wouldn't make a difference to her, but he obviously cares about how long the processing time would be - what happens to "she as a PR has all the rights as citizen (except for voting)? So once she qualifies, all of sudden things are different and she is no longer ok with being a PR any longer while having all the rights other than voting?

If you want to spin that you need to try harder or don't do it at all

And just to be clear here: at this point I don't care when or whether it will pass : since given my timeline and given how slow it is progressing in senate , it no longer matters to me - I will either qualify under the old rule in less than a year with fast processing time, or qualify right away when it passes with longer processing time , and would most likely get it around the same time either way

 

[zorroo]

Guys, please calm down!

Just go back and check again those sections which will be applied one year later. As another member mentioned, these sections are all about the new amendments and don't have any relationship with the PRE PR and 3/5 Residency Requirements which were initially introduced by the bill.

Thanks buddy for your good news

 

[septimius]

This is part of the amendment:

“(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”


Which part are they referring to for the one year entry into force?!!!!

 

[MUFC]

And just to be clear here: at this point I don't care when or whether it will pass : since given my timeline and given how slow it is progressing in senate , it no longer matters to me - I will either qualify under the old rule in less than a year with fast processing time, or qualify right away when it passes with longer processing time , and would most likely get it around the same time either way

Hi
Keeping in mind that CIC will continue to operate under the 80/20 internal standard with regards to the processing times it is also in your interest to apply under the current 6/4 rule since the volume of applicants is still low.

 

[dpenabill]

This is part of the amendment:

“(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”


Which part are they referring to for the one year entry into force?!!!!

This only has to do with when certain provisions (in a proposed amendment), regarding procedures in revocation of citizenship cases, will come-into-force, and it basically requires these provisions to take effect within a year.

Has nothing to do with other parts of Bill C-6, and in particular nothing to do with when the new 3/5 rule would come into force. Might be good if there was a similar provision for the 3/5 rule, since that would mean the changes would have to take effect no later than one year after Royal Assent. Currently the coming-into-force provision governing the 3/5 rule changes is open-ended, to take effect on a date ordered by the Governor in Council.

All of which is explained above, by others including me:

Regarding proposed amendments to Bill C-6 and the addition of the following in subsection of Section 27 in Bill C-6 in particular:

“(3.1) Subsections 3(2) to (4), subsections 4(1) and (3) and section 5.1 come into force one year after the day on which this Act receives royal assent or on any earlier day or days that may be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”

. . . the observations by tyl92 and Viva2014 were correct . . .

. . .

This has NOTHING to do with when the amendments to the physical presence requirements will come into force.

Subsection 27(3.1) (if the motion is carried and these amendments to Bill C-6 are added) refers to the coming-into-force of the proposed additions to Bill C-6 which will specify procedures governing the revocation of citizenship, which changes are about including important due (fair) process protections, in effect fixing one of the worst elements adopted by the Harper government in its Bill C-24.

 

[__jack_br__]

Hi
Keeping in mind that CIC will continue to operate under the 80/20 internal standard with regards to the processing times it is also in your interest to apply under the current 6/4 rule since the volume of applicants is still low.

If not being sarcastic or joking, could you please elaborate "80/20 internal standard"?

 

[MUFC]

If not being sarcastic or joking, could you please elaborate "80/20 internal standard"?

The 80-20 rule basically means that CIC has a target to process at least 80% of the applications within 12 months.
So 12 months is their Service Level Agreement , and 80% is their Key Performance Indicator. If they do not hit 80%, it means they are missing their deadlines.
it is interesting to note that once an application has breached the 12 months mark, there is no real intensive for CIC to fasten it's processing.
Because Key Performance wise, it makes no difference if an application took 13 months, or 30 months, as long as it has already breached the Service Level Agreement.

 

[asifmehmood]

Those who believe that if the C-6 approve and applied soon then there will be an influx of new applications, I am not convinced, because the cost of applying is too high for families, specially when the economy is down and people loosing jobs and those who have it are facing salary cuts.
This is purely my assumption that applications will still be processing fast due to few applicant and single IO processing the applications, I am hopeful that the bill shall be dealt with in few sittings before April break.

 

[razerblade]

Self-serving, aren't we all?

Bill C-24 was basically designed to screw over folks who became PRs during or close to its royal assent, and Bill C-6 is ironically screwing over the same folks if it delays processing times once it reaches royal assent.

But hey, at least it's a step in the right directions for everyone. I'm focusing on the big picture in general at this point.

This. I landed one day after you lol