Anyone stuck in Spousal PR security check over 1 year (not criminality but security background check) Please join here

[armoured]

I understand you are an immigrant and English is NOT YOUR first language.

I understand that you're an arrogant idiot and cannot understand nuance.

If you have evidence or literature available, from a reliable source, that proves MPs are obligated to or have tools at their disposal to either 'pressure' IRCC, suggest, recommend, to complete processing of an application - then please provide the link. Do you have it?

Otherwise, dont spread false information on this forum. MPs CANNOT influence IRCC in anyway, nor can they ask, request, suggest or take any action to get an application processed. PERIOD!

Most of this is not true - although some of what you're saying is responding to claims that I have not made.

What I said specifically was this: "And most frequently, I assure you, MPs asking repeated questions can influence ircc to move things along."

Government departments serve ministers. Ministers have colleagues in the house of commons, known as MPs, because the ministers themselves are also MPs. MPs speak to each other.

Now there are several mechanisms by which government departments and ministers and MPs have set up mechanisms to ensure that no IMPROPER influence is exercised. But MPs can and do ask questions.

There are, in fact, several specific mechanisms set up to allow MPs to get information and ask questions. MPs can also write to ministers - and they do. They and their staff speak to the Minister's staff and the minister directly.

And again: they cannot IMPROPERLY influence anything - ask for special treatment, etc. Ask for a particular decision to be made, for example.

But then can - and do! - ask what is up with a file and why it is taking so long. For example.

Most of the time there may not be much that comes back as a response. As I noted, if there are security issues (MPs usually stay well away from those).

But sometimes when inquiries are made from a minister's office, an actual issue (a mistake in processing) is found, and it gets quickly resolved. Or a file gets moved along because (humans are humans) repeated questions from the minister's office get noticed.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is a tracking system to keep track of MP's requests.

I have seen this in action. Personally.

As for 'obligations' and rules binding MPs, you can look it up yourself:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_04_9-e.html

From which I find: the role of an MP includes "getting action out of the government on problems of constituents."
Or: "They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems."

Or from their conflict of interest code:
"Assisting constituents.

A member does not breach this code if the member’s activity is one in which members normally and properly engage on behalf of constituents."

You can check the standing orders of the House here:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/standing-orders/Index-e.html

There is nothing barring MPs from making inquiries on behalf of constituents, including of substance, or helping to resolve their problems with government, as long as they do not attempt to improperly influence government decisions.

Evidently you did not understand the nuances of these topics.

If you cannot understand the content of these links, I suggest you get in the sea, on the basis that you're unfit to comment further on the topic.

 

[InfoSeeker12]

I understand that you're an arrogant idiot and cannot understand nuance.



Most of this is not true - although some of what you're saying is responding to claims that I have not made.

What I said specifically was this: "And most frequently, I assure you, MPs asking repeated questions can influence ircc to move things along."

Government departments serve ministers. Ministers have colleagues in the house of commons, known as MPs, because the ministers themselves are also MPs. MPs speak to each other.

Now there are several mechanisms by which government departments and ministers and MPs have set up mechanisms to ensure that no IMPROPER influence is exercised. But MPs can and do ask questions.

There are, in fact, several specific mechanisms set up to allow MPs to get information and ask questions. MPs can also write to ministers - and they do. They and their staff speak to the Minister's staff and the minister directly.

And again: they cannot IMPROPERLY influence anything - ask for special treatment, etc. Ask for a particular decision to be made, for example.

But then can - and do! - ask what is up with a file and why it is taking so long. For example.

Most of the time there may not be much that comes back as a response. As I noted, if there are security issues (MPs usually stay well away from those).

But sometimes when inquiries are made from a minister's office, an actual issue (a mistake in processing) is found, and it gets quickly resolved. Or a file gets moved along because (humans are humans) repeated questions from the minister's office get noticed.

I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is a tracking system to keep track of MP's requests.

I have seen this in action. Personally.

As for 'obligations' and rules binding MPs, you can look it up yourself:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_04_9-e.html

From which I find: the role of an MP includes "getting action out of the government on problems of constituents."
Or: "They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems."

Or from their conflict of interest code:
"Assisting constituents.

A member does not breach this code if the member’s activity is one in which members normally and properly engage on behalf of constituents."

You can check the standing orders of the House here:
https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/standing-orders/Index-e.html

There is nothing barring MPs from making inquiries on behalf of constituents, including of substance, or helping to resolve their problems with government, as long as they do not attempt to improperly influence government decisions.

Evidently you did not understand the nuances of these topics.

If you cannot understand the content of these links, I suggest you get in the sea, on the basis that you're unfit to comment further on the topic.

Dude started to change the story and also backtracking. Typical of such people - who are only fixed with their ego and ignorance based arrogance.

You initially suggested that yes MPs can 'pressure' the IRCC - because you refuted my response to the person who was making it.
Your response required so much explanations & backtracking - Dude, why bother to respond...Oh ic! you have to prove you are Mr. Know it all on this forum, right?

Now you are changing the story to ....MPs cannot influence....."And again: they cannot IMPROPERLY influence anything - ask for special treatment, "......So that's why I said that you really need to read couple of times to read a post and then respond back. Relax!! Take few deep breaths...yes..hold it.....a little more...yes now let it go...and let go of your ego & hate too.

Stop responding based on how badly your ego is bruised. Be objective when responding back on this forum.

Simple way is to let go the post, which you dont know a thing about. You are not a know-it all which is proven by backtracking in your responses. Its ok to not know some things, or in your case, most things.

 

[armoured]

Dude started to change the story and also backtracking.

Nonsense and gibberish. I wrote "MPs asking repeated questions can influence ircc to move things along."

That is the extent of the use of the word 'influence' in my post.

That said, the House itself says (quoted above):

the role of an MP includes "getting action out of the government on problems of constituents."
Or: "They act as ombudsmen by providing information to constituents and resolving problems."

What is "getting action out of the government" and "resolving problems" if not influence?

Now you are changing the story to ....MPs cannot influence....."And again: they cannot IMPROPERLY influence anything

"Improperly" is absolutely the distinction between something ethical and not ethical - and indeed, often legal and illegal.

You are not a know-it all which is proven by backtracking in your responses.

I do not claim to know it all. But I did provide sources, which you have not. Anyone who wishes to check this and compare can see who brought actual useful sources, and who did not.

As you've not contributed anything of use, and are an aggressive, disagreeable sod to boot, I'm just going to block and move on.

I suggest others who see the difference in content do the same.

 

[UDON55fai]

There are no ethics restrictions on MPs asking questions on behalf of their constituents.

They can do considerably more than just get file info.

And most frequently, I assure you, MPs asking repeated questions can influence ircc to move things along.

I am not saying this always works. And they give ircc a wide berth when it comes to security related.

But that does not mean it never helps, nor that the ethics commissioner pursues them for doing constituency service.

(Where did this ethics commissioner idea come from anyway? I've seen one claim that had a source - but they cited a document addressed clearly to ministers)

If that's the case surely my file would have been finalized by now since I have had my local MP involved for months. My understanding is they can not tell you who is actually doing the final security check which has held up approval of our file for months. I ended up sending an ATIP request to the CBSA to see if I can get any info. on this. Seriously, how does it take six plus months in this day and age to finalize a background check on one individual?

 

[armoured]

If that's the case surely my file would have been finalized by now since I have had my local MP involved for months. My understanding is they can not tell you who is actually doing the final security check which has held up approval of our file for months. I ended up sending an ATIP request to the CBSA to see if I can get any info. on this. Seriously, how does it take six plus months in this day and age to finalize a background check on one individual?

I don't believe I said that MPs' involvement always fixes things. They can try. They cannot ask, and they will not get IRCC to do things in contravention of policy.

And read again: specifically I said that MPs give a wide berth on security-related questions - that is, they stay out of the way. (Keep in mind, if this is not already obvious - not all constituents' claims and requests are 'valid' in the sense that there is something going wrong - and since they have limited ability to guess which cases are which, they have to be careful too, sometimes).

I think I've been pretty clear: I did not claim that MPs can always help, even when they try. Sometimes their assistance does help, but not always. (Sometimes their requests to move things along may still end up as a refusal).

But there are no ethics restrictions on them asking. As they seem to have done in your case.

I have seen your multiple posts (although haven't tried to follow all or in detail), don't know what's going on with your file. Have you seen a lawyer?

 

[rashieda]

We are in month 19 of application, 14 of those in security check. When we applied timeline was 12 months processing. I know that IRCC has moved the goalpost to try to lessen the amount of Writs of Mandamus filed, but one has to prepare. There is some pre-exisiting duty is there not?

Did gate update from security screening background?

 

[rashieda]

Hoping to find anyone in a similar situation who has been stuck in the security part of the background check for over a year. My file was passed to CBSA by CSIS 14 months ago and I am still waiting. "security in process with CBSA" Have nowhere to turn.

Pls I am weiting for 15 months in security screening I don't no who is handled my application. Did you gate anny updated pls ?

 

[UDON55fai]

Appears the IRCC can get away with these ridiculous timelines by labelling applications as non-routine. Ours has been stuck as well on one background check, how on earth it takes multiple months or even years to accomplish this in this day and age is anyone's guess. Without a doubt the most inept, inefficient federal department I have ever dealt with. Ancient IT, no accountability, and lack of communication are guaranteed with this outfit.