I am NOT in a position to evaluate the relative needs of individuals. There are many in the government who are in that position.
As I noted, sure, some people will disagree with particular triage decisions. You and @piotrqc do not agree that asylum hearings should be given priority over routine citizenship application processing. The government has decided to contrary. To my view that is an easy call. Not my call. But in conjunction with other factors, like what adjustments would allow the asylum hearings to resume, and what is on the line, whether or not these individuals should be provided the protection of the Canadian government, probably an easy call.
But I am curious how it is you so emphatically assert that "Everyone is equally affected by these delays . . . " and at the same time assert I should do more research (even though I am not the one in a position to make these decisions) to recognize how some, like yourself, may be more affected than others.
Noting, nonetheless, that a PR card will meet your needs, and further noting that the process for issuing a new PR card is generally much faster than processing citizenship applications, has far less at stake, and the criteria is significantly easier to judge, and in routine cases requires no in-person contacts at all.
And as for those who otherwise have travel-abroad issues, without suggesting whether or not it is the way it should be, my perception is that the Canadian government may tend to give the need to travel abroad lower priority, lower than a wide range of other factors that those who are in a position to assess, as to who is affected more, are most likely weighing. The change in law in 2012 I referenced, for example, meant that a whole class of Canadian Permanent Residents not only could no longer travel to their home country to visit a dying parent, but could lose their status in Canada altogether, resulting in the denial of their citizenship application in process and being issued a Removal Order, based on having gone to their home country in the past before the law changed.
Assessing priorities is an important part of many government functions, and especially so during times like this. I do not pretend to have the information or knowledge, let alone the wisdom, to second-guess those decisions. I trust the Liberals or the NDP to be more humane and compassionate and otherwise good-reason-driven than the Conservatives, by a big margin. Generally the best we can do is make an effort to put the better government in power, and then whoever is in power, to the extent we are involved in this or that specific matter, or cause, to engage in advocacy for that cause. So again, I am all on board with encouraging the government to address the problem.
To my view, again, I suspect the more extreme rabble-rousing here is NOT genuinely interested in addressing the real issue. The fear-mongering aspect is what looms largest in this regard.
As a practical note: the resumption of processing anywhere near the pre-covid level will almost certainly be UNEVEN, affecting some far more than others. Many are going to encounter rather long delays. Encouraging IRCC to get back on track could, and should help. But for many the timeline going forward from here is going to go long. As I noted, the downstream impact tends to be greater, for many, than the initial delay. But again, UNEVENLY. I applied in the latter stages of the big slowdown a decade or so ago, and like me there were many whose applications were completely processed, the oath taken, in six to eight months after applying, even though at the time the routine processing timeline was 18-24 months, with many routine cases going well beyond two years, and any non-routine processing at all could tip the scales toward 3 to 4 years.
This problem is not going away anytime soon. Nowhere near that. Again, reasonable efforts to encourage the government to do better are worthwhile and should help . . . but at best they will only help some.
Otherwise the honest message is 'yeah, be prepared, it is likely going to take a long while more.'
This actually leads to another reason why it seems obvious that ALARM broadcast by @piotrqc strikes me as NOT genuine. There is NO WAY, none, that any more than an isolated few, if any at all, who have not taken the test yet will be taking the oath of citizenship before a fall election, if there is a fall election. Regardless the scope of mobilization. No special insight into Canadian politics or processing citizenship applications necessary to see this very clearly. Obviously, "taking to the streets" now is NOT going to avoid whatever consequences there are from a fall election, if there is one (might happen, the government must prepare for it, but so far most informed insiders are still betting it will not happen). It appears rather obviously disingenuous to urge what will so clearly not make a difference.
