Bill C-6: Senate stage

[mrwestjet]

There has been a petition calling on Liberals to remove language proficiency testing requirement from all eligible citizenship applicants. The reasons cited as follows:

- Citizenship applicants must pass knowledge tests about Canada (the bar of pass mark is set high at 15 correct answers out of 20 questions), and also oral examinations with citizenship officers in either one of two official languages before they can take oaths of citizenship. Requiring applicants to provide evidences of language proficiency is an duplicated effort;
- Government-funded language-training classes are already overloaded to accommodate new immigrants with language training needs, plus those only attend solely for language requirements for citizenship; and
- Some classes of immigrants are not assessed against language proficiency when they first come. Most are still employable and integrate without the needs to prove upfront language-proficiency. It does not make sense the government will ask them to prove their motivations to speak English or French from a language requirement for citizenship. If the person need to upgrade his employability through language skills, it should be at his own-will.

https://petitions.parl.gc.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-550

If you want to support this petition, please sign and ask yours to help sign it. The petition requires 550 signatures by June 2017 for the Liberals to consider this change.

 

[SufferInCan]

There has been a petition calling on Liberals to remove language proficiency testing requirement from all eligible citizenship applicants. The reasons cited as follows:

- Citizenship applicants must pass knowledge tests about Canada (the bar of pass mark is set high at 15 correct answers out of 20 questions), and also oral examinations with citizenship officers in either one of two official languages before they can take oaths of citizenship. Requiring applicants to provide evidences of language proficiency is an duplicated effort;
- Government-funded language-training classes are already overloaded to accommodate new immigrants with language training needs, plus those only attend solely for language requirements for citizenship; and
- Some classes of immigrants are not assessed against language proficiency when they first come. Most are still employable and integrate without the needs to prove upfront language-proficiency. It does not make sense the government will ask them to prove their motivations to speak English or French from a language requirement for citizenship. If the person need to upgrade his employability through language skills, it should be at his own-will.

If you want to support this petition, please sign and ask yours to help sign it. The petition requires 550 signatures by June 2017 for the Liberals to consider this change.

Let's not waste time and resources and trigger more lengthy discussions over a ridiculous matter. Definitely language requirement should be there.

 

[itsmyid]

Let's not waste time and resources and trigger more lengthy discussions over a ridiculous matter. Definitely language requirement should be there.

Don't worry about this triggering anything , most petitions don't go anywhere and are just waste of time . This will be no exception . Not too long ago there was a petition related to C6 that was discussed here, it just died peacefully after a few weeks and i don't even remember exactly what it was about

 

[screech339]

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

I wasn't trying to spin anything.

I wanted my wife to get faster citizenship processing because I supported 4/6 rules which brought down citizenship processing time. Why should my wife suffer longer processing time because some people wanted 3/5 rule which no doubt will cause backlog.

I rather everyone gets fast processing time for everyone but since some people have short term selfish reason, now will have a longer processing time due 3/5 rule floodgate. That's fine. Pay the consequences for new 3/5 rule. Since I support 4/6 rule, I rather my wife get the short processing time. I can't be a hypocrite if I support 4/6 rule and shorter processing time. A hypocrite would be someone who wants 3/5 rule but still wants shorter processing time that 4/6 rule brought in. In other words wants to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[Bargeld]

Don't worry about this triggering anything , most petitions don't go anywhere and are just waste of time . This will be no exception . Not too long ago there was a petition related to C6 that was discussed here, it just died peacefully after a few weeks and i don't even remember exactly what it was about

thank god for that..

"I want to immigrate to a country but I don't want to bother learning the language and customs"

Eff these stupid petitions.

 

[monalisa]

I wasn't trying to spin anything.

I wanted my wife to get faster citizenship processing because I supported 4/6 rules which brought down citizenship processing time. Why should my wife suffer longer processing time because some people wanted 3/5 rule which no doubt will cause backlog.

We have no other choice but just follow cic rules.

 

[itsmyid]

I wasn't trying to spin anything.

I wanted my wife to get faster citizenship processing because I supported 4/6 rules which brought down citizenship processing time. Why should my wife suffer longer processing time because some people wanted 3/5 rule which no doubt will cause backlog.

I rather everyone gets fast processing time for everyone but since some people have short term selfish reason, now will have a longer processing time due 3/5 rule floodgate. That's fine. Pay the consequences for new 3/5 rule. Since I support 4/6 rule, I rather my wife get the short processing time. I can't be a hypocrite if I support 4/6 rule and shorter processing time. A hypocrite would be someone who wants 3/5 rule but still wants shorter processing time that 4/6 rule brought in. In other words wants to have their cake and eat it too.

how is supporting 4/6 for a fast processing time any different from wanting 3/5? The intention for end result is the same: (hoping to)get citizenship sooner. Just because you want it a different way doesn't make what you want any better than any others. You are calling people wanting 3/5 for selfish reason, yet you want other people to wait longer so YOUR wife gets faster processing time, did you even read what you just wrote? Not to mention you claimed yourself that as long as your wife lives as PR she would have all the rights except for voting so it doesn't matter how long she would wait to get citizenship... since she apparently has happily waited for some time already and has no problem with it, why all of sudden the processing time becomes so unbearable?

it's just funny how you want to spin it as the 'wait time before qualify' and 'wait time for processing', no matter what time it is and how long it takes, a year, 2 years... until you get the citizenship, that time is spent waiting.

Your argument reminds me of a TV shows from a while ago, in which a lawyer was arguing that his client was not a prostitute, by focusing on whether the payment was made before or after the act

 

[_MK_]

I wasn't trying to spin anything.

I wanted my wife to get faster citizenship processing because I supported 4/6 rules which brought down citizenship processing time. Why should my wife suffer longer processing time because some people wanted 3/5 rule which no doubt will cause backlog.

I rather everyone gets fast processing time for everyone but since some people have short term selfish reason, now will have a longer processing time due 3/5 rule floodgate. That's fine. Pay the consequences for new 3/5 rule. Since I support 4/6 rule, I rather my wife get the short processing time. I can't be a hypocrite if I support 4/6 rule and shorter processing time. A hypocrite would be someone who wants 3/5 rule but still wants shorter processing time that 4/6 rule brought in. In other words wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Wait 4 years to apply and get citizenship processed in 6 months. Total time after PR: 4 + 0.5 = 4.5 years.
Wait 3 years to apply and get citizenship processed in 12 months. Total time after PR: 3 + 1 = 4 years.

Which do you think lets everyone attain it faster? The bill is supposed to be fair to everyone and that includes all current and "FUTURE" immigrants.

Also talking about only caring about your wife's process while calling everyone else selfish. Talk about pot calling kettle black...

 

[monalisa]

Wait 4 years to apply and get citizenship processed in 6 months. Total time after PR: 4 + 0.5 = 4.5 years.
Wait 3 years to apply and get citizenship processed in 12 months. Total time after PR: 3 + 1 = 4 years.

Which do you think lets everyone attain it faster? The bill is supposed to be fair to everyone and that includes all current and "FUTURE" immigrants.

Also talking about only caring about your wife's process while calling everyone else selfish. Talk about pot calling kettle black...

There will be no delay in process, many friends i know had received their passports withing 2 to 3 months

 

[screech339]

how does supporting 4/6 for a fast processing time any different from wanting 3/5? The intention for end result is the same: (hoping to)get citizenship sooner. Just because you want it a different way doesn't make what you want any better than any others. You are calling people wanting 3/5 for selfish reason, yet you want other people to wait longer so YOUR wife gets faster processing time, did you even read what you just wrote? Not to mention you claimed yourself that as long as your wife lives as PR she would have all the rights except for voting so it doesn't matter how long she would wait to get citizenship... why can't she wait a bit longer for processing time since she apparently already has happily waited for some time already and has no problem with it?

it's just funny how you want to spin it as the 'wait time before qualify' and 'wait time for processing', no matter what time it is and how long it takes, a year, 2 years... until you get the citizenship, that time is spent waiting.

Your argument reminds me of a TV shows from a while ago, in which a lawyer was arguing that his client was not a prostitute, by focusing on whether the payment was made before or after the act

I support short processing time for everyone. But I would not believe that the 3/5 rule will add an additional 6 months to 1 year processing. To me that laughable and naive. I would expect 12 month average time for 4/6 as stated on their website. If anyone finish it less than 12 month good for them. I don't think CIC will be able to finish a 3/5 rule in 12 months time. I would expect it increase it to perhaps 24 months. It will drop back down once the backlog is cleared.

You can spin it however you want. I always supported shorter processing time regardless of however long one "qualifies" for citizenship. This is no difference from spousal PR. 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?

Yes, it is true that my wife "still" have to wait to obtain after applying. I don't care about the processing time so long as it is "reasonable". Dropping the processing time down to 12 months is a reasonable considering that the processing time was a lot longer under 3/4 rule.

So since I supported the tighter rules to bring down processing time, it is reasonable fair that I want my wife to get 12 month processing time over someone who wants 3/5 rule and longer processing time.

BTW: I do support that 4/6 rules should only affect those who landed as PR the day of royal ascent or after. I agree that 4/6 rule did sc*ew the PR's that landed before the rule change. If the bill was set up originally like that, we wouldn't have PR's calling to bring back 3/4 rule.

 

[itsmyid]

I support short processing time for everyone. But I would not believe that the 3/5 rule will add an additional 6 months to 1 year processing. To me that laughable and naive. I would expect 12 month average time for 4/6 as stated on their website. If anyone finish it less than 12 month good for them. I don't think CIC will be able to finish a 3/5 rule in 12 months time. I would expect it increase it to perhaps 24 months. It will drop back down once the backlog is cleared.

You can spin it however you want. I always supported shorter processing time regardless of however long one "qualifies" for citizenship.

Yes, it is true that my wife "still" have to wait to obtain after applying. I don't care about the processing time so long as it is "reasonable". Dropping the processing time down to 12 months is a reasonable considering that the processing time was a lot longer under 3/4 rule.

So since I supported the tighter rules to bring down processing time, it is reasonable fair that I want my wife to get 12 month processing time over someone who wants 3/5 rule and longer processing time.

BTW: I do support that 4/6 rules should only affect those who landed as PR the day of royal ascent or after. I agree that 4/6 rule did sc*ew the PR's that landed before the rule change. If the bill was set up originally like that, we wouldn't have PR's calling to bring back 3/4 rule.

I respect and understand people's right to support whatever they believe, I only laugh at people for calling others selfish for wanting the same thing as they do

 

[screech339]

I respect and understand people's right to support whatever they believe, I only laugh at people for calling others selfish for wanting the same thing as they do

You are right. I shouldn't call some people selfish. After all everyone naturally selfish. I am being selfish for wanting 4/6 rule which brought down processing time. In fact I support any bills that reduces processing time. That includes pgp, express visa, spousal sponsorship. If that is not being unselfish, I don't know what is. While others are selfish for wanting 3/5 rule so long as they are okay with longer processing time. That's fine. To each their own. It is not selfish of me to want my wife to get shorter processing time that I wanted not only for my wife but for everyone since everyone will get the benefit of shorter processing time in the first place.

Let me ask you this: Do you support 3/5 rule to be only applies to those who landed after the bill received royal ascent or C-6 applies to every PR's regardless of when one lands.

 

[itsmyid]

You are right. I shouldn't call some people selfish. After all everyone naturally selfish. I am being selfish for wanting 4/6 rule which brought down processing time. In fact I support any bills that reduces processing time. That includes pgp, express visa, spousal sponsorship. If that is not being selfish, I don't know what is. While others are selfish for wanting 3/5 rule so long as they are okay with longer processing time. That's fine. To each their own. It is not selfish of me to want my wife to get shorter processing time that I wanted in the first place.

Let me ask you this: Do you support 3/5 rule to be only applies to those who landed after the bill received royal ascent or C-6 applies to every PR's regardless of when one lands.

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

 

[_MK_]

Let me ask you this: Do you support 3/5 rule to be only applies to those who landed after the bill received royal ascent or C-6 applies to every PR's regardless of when one lands.

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?

 

[MUFC]

The potential number of applicants who will qualify immediately is already inflated to the max since we are approaching the second year since the new 4/6 rule is in effect.

It will be indeed very interesting how much the processing timelines will jump and as we know CIC will NOT increase the number of staff.

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

I think that you are well aware that if CIC doesn't manage to process your application in time it will be considered as Non-routine and as you also know there is simply no deadline once an application is shifted to the slow line.
The issue is that everything with your application might be OK , but if CIC is unable to process it on time it will be considered as Non-routine.

It is reasonable to expect that many applications will be dumped in the black hole once the flood gate become open.