Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship

[dpenabill]

How much hint was there about C-24 in the 2011 Harper campaign?

Make no mistake, there were explicit promises to "strengthen" Canadian citizenship both BEFORE and DURING the 2011 campaign. (To be fair, however, it warrants noting that there were major flaws in how the grant citizenship requirements were structured, under the law prior to Bill C-24, and their revision was badly needed, literally begged for by many Federal Court Justices going back more than a decade. Virtually everyone agreed changes were necessary. Big disagreements at the time over the nature and extent of what those changes should be.)

Harper's government actually had tabled a Bill containing changes to the Citizenship Act several YEARS before tabling and adopting Bill C-24, but was a minority government at the time and the Bill was not adopted. Explicit promises (no mere "hint") to carry through on earlier promises to make changes to "strengthen" Canadian citizenship were a key part of the 2011 Harper campaign. Over the course of the next TWO YEARS then CIC Minister Jason Kenney gave multiple speeches promising the government would soon table the Bill with promised changes to citizenship. Then when Chris Alexander became CIC Minister he reiterated the Bill to strengthen Canadian citizenship was coming.

As noted before, Bill C-24 was tabled in February 2014, well over two years AFTER explicit campaign promises to "strengthen" Canadian citizenship. It was adopted and received Royal Assent June 19, 2014. Nonetheless, no citizenship application made prior to June 11, 2015 was subject to the change in requirements.

At the time this and other similar forums were rife with the same sort of distortions and misinformation as has been presented here. Which really was a disservice because it was a huge distraction and confused many affected. There were real, serious issues with Harper's Bill C-24 (many of which were subsequently rolled back by Bill C-6 adopted under the Liberal government) but efforts to responsibly address those issues was sidetracked by the exaggerated and misleading rhetoric dominating discussions, which led to a great deal of unnecessary anxiety, more than a little confusion, and thus had the effect of making things more difficult for more than a few.

Which is precisely why I have continued to push back here. Effective advocacy requires a RESPONSIBLE approach to addressing the issues.

Current delays in citizenship processing are indeed a REAL ISSUE. This is an issue worth addressing. Seriously. Responsibly. Intelligently. Appropriately. Tangling this very real problem with totally unfounded threats of an impending change in citizenship requirements that would result in the "return" of pending applications is a DISTRACTION. So much so, which should be so obvious, it warrants questioning the motives of those pushing this agenda.

The fact someone has the "right" to spout nonsense and lies and distortions does not justify polluting public discourse about important subjects.

The scenario I did is ONE POSSIBILITY. You admitted it yourself, it is a possibility. The question is the possibility or not, not the degree of probability. This outcome no one can guess, unless they have a crystal ball (ironic ... the truth is, it's impossible, all you say will be speculation).

It appears clear you continue the effort to elevate mere possibility to the status of a feasible prospect as a tool in fear-mongering.

Yes, the realm of politics is tangled in speculation and surprises. Like Erin O'Toole becoming the Conservative party leader. But no crystal ball is necessary to map much if not most of what and where and how various political groups will approach many issues.

It is, after all, *possible* an Erin O'Toole government will revise the Citizenship Act to eliminate testing for knowledge of Canada. But we can dismiss that *possibility* as FAR-FETCHED without much research into either the history of the Conservative Party or O'Toole's personal views, let alone needing a crystal ball. No "guess" necessary.

In particular, this "no one can guess" line is another conflating distraction.

Do you want to forbid people to be careful and worry about the indefinite delay?

As I have made a concerted effort to illuminate, there is a real concern about continuing lengthy delays. And, again, as anyone with a real background in advocacy and activism knows well, it is important to identify the REAL ISSUES, and to address THOSE REAL ISSUES.

To my view your bogeyman distortions are what is counter-productive. And a big reason for pushing back.

Again, freedom of speech does not justify spouting nonsense, particularly when it is a distraction from the real issues.

 

[piotrqc]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/federal-public-servant-699-leave-with-pay-1.5657743

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pbo-report-699-leave-during-covid-1.5661696

 

[rafzy]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/federal-public-servant-699-leave-with-pay-1.5657743

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pbo-report-699-leave-during-covid-1.5661696

I really need to get this type of public service job where people are lazy

 

[EUK]

I really need to get this type of public service job where people are lazy

Public sector jobs require citizenship and bilingualism.

 

[Copingwithlife]

I really need to get this type of public service job where people are lazy

Public sector jobs require citizenship and bilingualism.

Which you don’t have

 

[Nebm31]

Moreover, it appears that the U.S. prefers an ignorant populace, which is not a model most Canadians are interested in emulating

What do you mean of this 'U.S. prefers an ignorant populace". That those applications by Foreign Nationals are ignorant as what you described them.
Do you have a problem with the US Citizenship that you address them ignorant Foreign Nationals. What a shame to be a Canadian for a insulting comments.

 

[Nebm31]

This is blatantly false. You referenced a process that does NOT in any way involve the Citizenship Act or processing grant citizenship applications.

I know that this is not related to Citizenship Act and far cry to happen to our Citizenship Application as what i written on the last part of my post.
What I mean that every time CIC/IRCC has a backlog changes happen.

Do you have better idea about Citizenship Test aside from those Google terminology highlighted and long explanation.

 

[dpenabill]

Do you have better idea about Citizenship Test aside from those Google terminology highlighted and long explanation.

Frankly, in a forum setting like this, I find the proffers of ideas for how to test applicants to determine they meet the statutory requirements for knowledge of Canada, to be largely silly. A distraction in itself. But that's largely harmless. If that is the subject of interest for some, I see no reason to disrupt their efforts to discuss these things.

In contrast, the exaggerated threat of changes in law terminating qualified applications already in process is clearly abusive fear-mongering. There is no practical prospect of anything approaching that happening. Without some push back, it is likely to frighten those who should have no need to be frightened.

Moreover, the effort here seems to be largely about making noise, to be disruptive (engaging in daily emailing for example), to cause trouble. As I noted, we've been round that way before when over-the-top and unfounded alarms about Bill C-24 took over and dominated the opposition. Distraction. Diversion. Divisiveness. I cannot say the opposition to Bill C-24 would have succeeded if the public discussion had managed to stay focused on the real issues. That would require a crystal ball, to know how it would have gone otherwise. But having been around activist movements and personally involved in various advocacy efforts for more than a half century, plus some, no crystal ball needed to forecast how much damage exaggerated claims can do to an otherwise legitimate cause.

Some might dismiss my input because I have little skin in the game. I took the oath of citizenship more than a half dozen years ago. But I have invested a lot of time and effort trying to help PRs and citizenship applicants better navigate the process, doing so for more than a decade now, which began in large part to pay forward some astute suggestions I got in this and another forum which greatly helped me in my application for a PR visa a dozen plus years ago.

Which brings this back around to knowledge of Canada testing. And the current situation. As I have previously stated, this is almost entirely a LOGISTICAL problem. NOT a policy issue. Takes expertise to solve logistical problems. A different kind of expertise than that required for effective advocacy.

So, my suggestion is not to try to tell IRCC how to do its job, but to encourage IRCC to do its job.

Sometimes bureaucracies, including IRCC, need some pushing to more diligently do the job. So I agree with those who favour actions which will, or so the hope is, encourage IRCC to push getting citizenship application processing back on track, employing whatever logistical tools and means that are appropriate and effective.

Regarding this, let's be clear, a whole lot of noise about a bogus threat is not the way to encourage IRCC to do its job. That's a way to clutter the discussions, obfuscate genuine concerns, and weaken the effort to get IRCC moving faster.

Unfortunately, however, bureaucracies do not tend to swiftly respond to changing conditions. AND the fact that current applicants are likely to be facing a rather long delay in getting through the process now is another reason to push back the fear mongering agenda here. For many, if not most, it is going to be slow going from here. But that is NO REASON to WORRY about what the outcome will be, NO REASON to worry that applications will be lost, set aside, returned, or otherwise fail to be processed until citizenship is granted and the oath taken.

What do you mean of this 'U.S. prefers an ignorant populace".

In general. Testing standards generally for all sorts of things. No surprise they would have lower threshold of knowledge to qualify for citizenship. Just a glimpse of their political scene reveals a widespread preference, for a leader, for the dude it would be OK to share a beer with (or, in the case of the current administration, someone to accompany to a brothel) over someone well informed and educated. Those with an inclination to approach problem-solving rationally, let alone applying scientific principles, need not apply.

But yes, yes indeed, the U.S. is a great market. A vibrant, powerful force in commerce. Indeed, I sell what I do there. That's where my livelihood comes from. Beholden to satan.

Nonetheless, there is very little about how the U.S. government does things that is worth emulating. Least of all the U.S. approach to immigration or attitudes toward immigrants.

I will confess, I harbour more than a few prejudices and a substantial amount of deeply rooted antipathy toward much that is branded "American." So when I see the U.S. referenced as a good example for . . . well just about anything other than making a lot of money . . . my fingers will occasionally let the negative side of my vocabulary spill a bit.

 

[Nebm31]

Moreover, it appears that the U.S. prefers an ignorant populace, which is not a model most Canadians are interested in emulating.

Can you explain this on 2 sentence. You move yourself away from our discussion by your long explanation that sense not related. Where is the ignorant populace.

 

[Mustafa100]

Frankly, in a forum setting like this, I find the proffers of ideas for how to test applicants to determine they meet the statutory requirements for knowledge of Canada, to be largely silly. A distraction in itself. But that's largely harmless. If that is the subject of interest for some, I see no reason to disrupt their efforts to discuss these things.

In contrast, the exaggerated threat of changes in law terminating qualified applications already in process is clearly abusive fear-mongering. There is no practical prospect of anything approaching that happening. Without some push back, it is likely to frighten those who should have no need to be frightened.

Moreover, the effort here seems to be largely about making noise, to be disruptive (engaging in daily emailing for example), to cause trouble. As I noted, we've been round that way before when over-the-top and unfounded alarms about Bill C-24 took over and dominated the opposition. Distraction. Diversion. Divisiveness. I cannot say the opposition to Bill C-24 would have succeeded if the public discussion had managed to stay focused on the real issues. That would require a crystal ball, to know how it would have gone otherwise. But having been around activist movements and personally involved in various advocacy efforts for more than a half century, plus some, no crystal ball needed to forecast how much damage exaggerated claims can do to an otherwise legitimate cause.

Some might dismiss my input because I have little skin in the game. I took the oath of citizenship more than a half dozen years ago. But I have invested a lot of time and effort trying to help PRs and citizenship applicants better navigate the process, doing so for more than a decade now, which began in large part to pay forward some astute suggestions I got in this and another forum which greatly helped me in my application for a PR visa a dozen plus years ago.

Which brings this back around to knowledge of Canada testing. And the current situation. As I have previously stated, this is almost entirely a LOGISTICAL problem. NOT a policy issue. Takes expertise to solve logistical problems. A different kind of expertise than that required for effective advocacy.

So, my suggestion is not to try to tell IRCC how to do its job, but to encourage IRCC to do its job.

Sometimes bureaucracies, including IRCC, need some pushing to more diligently do the job. So I agree with those who favour actions which will, or so the hope is, encourage IRCC to push getting citizenship application processing back on track, employing whatever logistical tools and means that are appropriate and effective.

Regarding this, let's be clear, a whole lot of noise about a bogus threat is not the way to encourage IRCC to do its job. That's a way to clutter the discussions, obfuscate genuine concerns, and weaken the effort to get IRCC moving faster.

Unfortunately, however, bureaucracies do not tend to swiftly respond to changing conditions. AND the fact that current applicants are likely to be facing a rather long delay in getting through the process now is another reason to push back the fear mongering agenda here. For many, if not most, it is going to be slow going from here. But that is NO REASON to WORRY about what the outcome will be, NO REASON to worry that applications will be lost, set aside, returned, or otherwise fail to be processed until citizenship is granted and the oath taken.





In general. Testing standards generally for all sorts of things. No surprise they would have lower threshold of knowledge to qualify for citizenship. Just a glimpse of their political scene reveals a widespread preference, for a leader, for the dude it would be OK to share a beer with (or, in the case of the current administration, someone to accompany to a brothel) over someone well informed and educated. Those with an inclination to approach problem-solving rationally, let alone applying scientific principles, need not apply.

But yes, yes indeed, the U.S. is a great market. A vibrant, powerful force in commerce. Indeed, I sell what I do there. That's where my livelihood comes from. Beholden to satan.

Nonetheless, there is very little about how the U.S. government does things that is worth emulating. Least of all the U.S. approach to immigration or attitudes toward immigrants.

I will confess, I harbour more than a few prejudices and a substantial amount of deeply rooted antipathy toward much that is branded "American." So when I see the U.S. referenced as a good example for . . . well just about anything other than making a lot of money . . . my fingers will occasionally let the negative side of my vocabulary spill a bit.

Say it again please

 

[EUK]

Say it again please

We should have some word limit similar to twitter

 

[vegasIndian]

We should have some word limit similar to twitter

Yeah. guess your history will also fit in twitter word limit

 

[Dana.D]

Most people lives are not dramtically changed by having to wait for citizenship. You'll need to show how it is negatively affecting people in Canada and who are planning on remaining in Canada for it to be effective lobbying. If you want your citizenship to be able to get a visa to go to the US for example you won't get a lot of sympathy.

This is where you are wrong. Some people lives are negatively affected. My job requires me to travel and my PR card is expiring soon and renewing it is taking ages. If i can't travel, i will be fired.
Moreover, it is no one's right to ask what anyone needs the citizenship for. If someone is eligible then they are eligible and that's their right as tax paying residents. It is no one's right to decide whether their reason for wanting the citizenship is valid or not.

 

[deadbird]

I don't think this has been said enough. But, one of the things I really care about is being able to vote. My entire adult life has been spent in countries where I did not have that right. I am really looking forward to exercising my civic duty. Especially with a fresh federal election looming.

 

[fr72]

This is where you are wrong. Some people lives are negatively affected. My job requires me to travel and my PR card is expiring soon and renewing it is taking ages. If i can't travel, i will be fired.
Moreover, it is no one's right to ask what anyone needs the citizenship for. If someone is eligible then they are eligible and that's their right as tax paying residents. It is no one's right to decide whether their reason for wanting the citizenship is valid or not.

Some people here are like - "I am good, therefore everyone is good."