Some clarifications:
Repealing the provisions which introduced grounds for revoking citizenship based on criminal convictions, for specified crimes, is at least a big part of why Bill C-6 is important. The two classes of citizenship criticism is much overstated but, indeed, these provisions severely compromise the value and integrity of what it means to have citizenship, by introducing what are, in effect, conditions for retaining citizenship (not engage in criminality). The question is not whether some people deserve to lose their citizenship (surely some do), but whether citizenship itself should be conditional. (Compare, for example, imposition of a death penalty: even most of us who oppose a death penalty will acknowledge some people engage in acts so horrendous as to deserve the death penalty, but whether the State should take away the life of a human is about a lot more than whether that human deserves to have his life taken, and in Canada the consensus is no, the State should not take away the life of even those who deserve to lose their life.)
By the way, the two classes of citizenship created by the revocation-for-criminality provisions is NOT the distinction between immigrants who acquire citizenship versus those born sole Canadian nationals, but rather is between those who are solely a Canadian citizen versus those Canadian citizens who also have a right to citizenship in another country. While the latter disproportionately includes naturalized immigrants, it does not include all naturalized immigrants but does include a large number of Canadian citizens who are citizens by birth in Canada. In fact, as I understand it the only person who has actually lost his citizenship under these provisions (my understanding is that the proceedings to revoke citizenship against a number of others was suspended, following the 2015 election, and remains suspended pending the outcome of Bill C-6) was a born in Canada citizen with no citizenship elsewhere (but under the Harper government it was determined he had an alleged right, as I recall, to claim citizenship in Pakistan), and who remains incarcerated in Canada for terrorism crimes.
There was no previous 3/5 rule.
It is not accurate to say that under the previous 3/4 residency rule application processing time was about 2 years for normal applications. Prior to 2009, and again for applications made after early 2013, the typical routine processing timeline, for most routinely processed applications, was well less than a year. Timelines started to increase beginning in 2009 attendant a broad-based Harper government effort to interdict what was perceived to be widespread fraud in the Canadian immigration system. Relative to the processing of citizenship applications, those efforts peaked in the summer of 2012, in the wake of dramatic changes made in screening citizenship applicants. By mid-2013 the processing timeline for new applications had again dropped considerably (I applied, a 3/4 rule application, early summer 2013 and took the oath in barely eight months, and my timeline was longer than those sitting next to me at the oath ceremony), but overall the system still had a very large backlog of 2011 and 2012 (and some even older) applications with scores of those tangled in the RQ process for very minor technicalities.
In general terms, under the old 3/4 rule, processing time lines gradually went from a range of six to ten months for most applicants, to over a year, in the course of a couple years, then dramatically shot up to nearly two years for those who applied in 2011 and 2012. Otherwise, again under the old 3/4 rule, timelines for the majority of applicants fluctuated between six months and a year.
Reminder: like IRCC now, going back to around 2012, CIC publishing of timelines was based on how long it took to process 80% of routinely processed applications. That timeline was typically nearly twice as long as the timeline for most applicants (better indicated by looking at how long it took for a median number of applications to be processed).
But a huge difference between the old 3/4 rule and what will be the new 3/5 rule, is that the 3/4 rule was a residency requirement versus the physical presence requirement which will apply for the 3/5 rule (as it does currently for the 4/6 rule). The impact of this difference is huge and should not be underestimated.
Not only did scores of PRs apply under the old 3/4 residency rule even though they had NOT been physically present for 1095 days, many were eventually granted citizenship despite being hundreds of days short, some having spent far, far more time abroad than they did in Canada (some cases in which applicants won their appeal involved applicants who spent very little time actually in Canada, and a significant percentage of appeals by CIC, won by CIC, were cases in which CJs had granted approval for citizenship to applicants who had spent no more than five or six hundred days total in Canada, some less than a couple hundred days even). Processing these applications necessarily involved the difficulty of applying qualitative criteria. That demanded more resources, more funding, more work, more time.
Make no mistake, the old 3/4 residency rule was a total mess and Federal Court justices had been railing, some even ranting, about the need to revise the requirements for decades before the Harper government finally did. While the Liberal's Bill C-6 proposed 3/5 rule walks back the more draconian elements in the Conservative Bill C-24 changes, it keeps a strict physical presence requirement. This will avoid many of the pitfalls that besieged the process under the old 3/4 residency rule while at the same time allow what should be sufficient flexibility for new immigrants pursuing a path to becoming Canadian citizens.
In any event, there should be NO fear that the new 3/5 rule will inordinately increase application processing times, not for long anyway. Which is not to dismiss the possibility that other things can happen which could dramatically affect how long it takes to process routine applications. We live in volatile times, far more so than many seem to appreciate. There are, for example, no reliable roadmaps for even the near future of North America given the Trump ascendancy to our south. Stuff happens, and it sure looks like stuff is going to happen going forward.
Without assessing which part of Bill C-6 is "the MOST important," in effect chasing shadows down a rabbit hole, as that involves a rather subjective and abstract analysis, and is more or less an academic exercise prone to comparing peanuts and bolts:CANADIANZ said:
Repealing the provisions which introduced grounds for revoking citizenship based on criminal convictions, for specified crimes, is at least a big part of why Bill C-6 is important. The two classes of citizenship criticism is much overstated but, indeed, these provisions severely compromise the value and integrity of what it means to have citizenship, by introducing what are, in effect, conditions for retaining citizenship (not engage in criminality). The question is not whether some people deserve to lose their citizenship (surely some do), but whether citizenship itself should be conditional. (Compare, for example, imposition of a death penalty: even most of us who oppose a death penalty will acknowledge some people engage in acts so horrendous as to deserve the death penalty, but whether the State should take away the life of a human is about a lot more than whether that human deserves to have his life taken, and in Canada the consensus is no, the State should not take away the life of even those who deserve to lose their life.)
By the way, the two classes of citizenship created by the revocation-for-criminality provisions is NOT the distinction between immigrants who acquire citizenship versus those born sole Canadian nationals, but rather is between those who are solely a Canadian citizen versus those Canadian citizens who also have a right to citizenship in another country. While the latter disproportionately includes naturalized immigrants, it does not include all naturalized immigrants but does include a large number of Canadian citizens who are citizens by birth in Canada. In fact, as I understand it the only person who has actually lost his citizenship under these provisions (my understanding is that the proceedings to revoke citizenship against a number of others was suspended, following the 2015 election, and remains suspended pending the outcome of Bill C-6) was a born in Canada citizen with no citizenship elsewhere (but under the Harper government it was determined he had an alleged right, as I recall, to claim citizenship in Pakistan), and who remains incarcerated in Canada for terrorism crimes.
Some increase in processing timelines probably should be anticipated when the 3/5 rule takes effect, since there will be a sudden increase, perhaps a huge increase, in the number of PRs who are eligible for citizenship. The impact of this should be temporary.CANADIANZ said:
There was no previous 3/5 rule.
It is not accurate to say that under the previous 3/4 residency rule application processing time was about 2 years for normal applications. Prior to 2009, and again for applications made after early 2013, the typical routine processing timeline, for most routinely processed applications, was well less than a year. Timelines started to increase beginning in 2009 attendant a broad-based Harper government effort to interdict what was perceived to be widespread fraud in the Canadian immigration system. Relative to the processing of citizenship applications, those efforts peaked in the summer of 2012, in the wake of dramatic changes made in screening citizenship applicants. By mid-2013 the processing timeline for new applications had again dropped considerably (I applied, a 3/4 rule application, early summer 2013 and took the oath in barely eight months, and my timeline was longer than those sitting next to me at the oath ceremony), but overall the system still had a very large backlog of 2011 and 2012 (and some even older) applications with scores of those tangled in the RQ process for very minor technicalities.
In general terms, under the old 3/4 rule, processing time lines gradually went from a range of six to ten months for most applicants, to over a year, in the course of a couple years, then dramatically shot up to nearly two years for those who applied in 2011 and 2012. Otherwise, again under the old 3/4 rule, timelines for the majority of applicants fluctuated between six months and a year.
Reminder: like IRCC now, going back to around 2012, CIC publishing of timelines was based on how long it took to process 80% of routinely processed applications. That timeline was typically nearly twice as long as the timeline for most applicants (better indicated by looking at how long it took for a median number of applications to be processed).
But a huge difference between the old 3/4 rule and what will be the new 3/5 rule, is that the 3/4 rule was a residency requirement versus the physical presence requirement which will apply for the 3/5 rule (as it does currently for the 4/6 rule). The impact of this difference is huge and should not be underestimated.
Not only did scores of PRs apply under the old 3/4 residency rule even though they had NOT been physically present for 1095 days, many were eventually granted citizenship despite being hundreds of days short, some having spent far, far more time abroad than they did in Canada (some cases in which applicants won their appeal involved applicants who spent very little time actually in Canada, and a significant percentage of appeals by CIC, won by CIC, were cases in which CJs had granted approval for citizenship to applicants who had spent no more than five or six hundred days total in Canada, some less than a couple hundred days even). Processing these applications necessarily involved the difficulty of applying qualitative criteria. That demanded more resources, more funding, more work, more time.
Make no mistake, the old 3/4 residency rule was a total mess and Federal Court justices had been railing, some even ranting, about the need to revise the requirements for decades before the Harper government finally did. While the Liberal's Bill C-6 proposed 3/5 rule walks back the more draconian elements in the Conservative Bill C-24 changes, it keeps a strict physical presence requirement. This will avoid many of the pitfalls that besieged the process under the old 3/4 residency rule while at the same time allow what should be sufficient flexibility for new immigrants pursuing a path to becoming Canadian citizens.
In any event, there should be NO fear that the new 3/5 rule will inordinately increase application processing times, not for long anyway. Which is not to dismiss the possibility that other things can happen which could dramatically affect how long it takes to process routine applications. We live in volatile times, far more so than many seem to appreciate. There are, for example, no reliable roadmaps for even the near future of North America given the Trump ascendancy to our south. Stuff happens, and it sure looks like stuff is going to happen going forward.
