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

[piotrqc]

. On the other side of the coin, though, many people migrating here are better off IN SPITE of the racism so they are coming to US/Canada completely aware of the drawbacks.

I totally agree on this last point.

Personally, I love this welcoming country, and I can't wait to be able to say “my country” without any ambiguity, by power of law, de jure. (Although currently, I already consider it as such, de facto).

What I said before was certainly not to denigrate, on the contrary ... We love this country, we work there, our children were born here, and our colleagues, friends, and neighbors are very friendly, respectful Canadians. , and adorable, for the most part.

My point is that the ideology hostile to immigrants is nevertheless existing, latent, and unfortunately increasingly visible. This element should not be overlooked.

To be even clearer and more explicit: My specific point, given the subject of our discussion here, is that we should not be discouraged by the derogatory, negative, or disheartening comments from some commentators in relation to our claim to repeat citizenship tests: We must be able to make discernment, we must be able to remain lucid in these circumstances.

Even more clear: That people bring arguments that may seem logical to justify the refusal of IRCC employees to return to work, even with the health precautions, does not necessarily mean that it cares about the health of the employees. ... Maybe he's just annoyed that more immigrants have the right to vote, for example. It can be, it is very possible.

Ultimately, this whole experience is, in itself, a way of living and '' tasting '' the pleasures of Canada before their time. It's still great to be able to enjoy rights as extensive (which most of us have not known in our country of origin) as the freedom of speech, of association, of demonstrations, of the press. , etc., etc...

The fight of the people who demand the resumption of citizenship tests is a way to fully experience Canada before its time. No one will be able to take this right away from you ... Besides, that's exactly what is happening. All our detractors will see it for themselves very soon ... (I can not say more here, because of the rules of this forum).

Even if that does not work, there will always be a way to address the justice... But I hope that we will not arrive there, I remain confident ... The example of spousal sponsors has shown us that 'It is possible to achieve results just by lobbying the press, and demonstrations.

, Piotr.

 

[dpenabill]

To the extent it is suggested, let alone argued, that ideology or racism underlie most of the comments here challenging grossly exaggerated characterizations of what is at stake, comments opposed to rather obviously counter-productive make-noise campaigns, or otherwise pointing out well-founded balancing-priorities factors influencing what are largely logistical matters at IRCC, that is total horse-pucky. And offensive. Those are ad hominem insults. And as noted before, reflect far worse on those pushing them than they may recognize or be willing to accept.

Apart from that, it warrants noting and emphasizing, the attempt to characterize (mischaracterize) dissenting views posted in this forum about how to best address the problem of getting citizenship application processing back on track as ideological or racist is especially offensive and as such tends to alienate and is counter-productive.

Apart from the above I have been attacked for, allegedly, not addressing "the main arguments that are being brought up." (See post by @Parnian1988 Friday October 23). So I will address at least some of these:


Knowledge of Canada Testing:

One of the more common and vehement "main arguments" asserted here is that IRCC should cease knowledge of Canada testing. I specifically addressed the utter futility of this, multiple times, most recently again reiterating (here) the simple fact that IRCC does NOT have the authority to simply ignore the law's mandate requiring knowledge of Canada verification. NO point arguing for something that cannot be done. And no, there is not the slightest prospect of Parliament changing the law so as to grant such power to IRCC. Not a chance.

While advocating that knowledge of Canada testing cease is probably not overtly counter-productive, it is totally futile and thus at least tends to be more a distraction, diffusing more pertinent arguments, tending to divert discussion rather than help.


Effect on PR International Travel:

Among various arguments posed here regarding why citizenship application processing should be given priority, some of the "main arguments" revolve around individual international travel needs. This too I have addressed multiple times. The structure of Canada's immigration and PR policies and practices tends to give LOW PRIORITY to PR international travel. This is most saliently illustrated by the explicit distinction in the Charter of Rights, Section 6, where PR travel rights are limited compared to Canadian citizens. In general, while Canadian law allows for and does not restrict a PR's international travel (subject to the Residency Obligation limit), it does NOT support PR international travel. Generally, PRs are dependent on their home country passport for international travel.

It is difficult to discern to what extent pushing the needs-related-to-international-travel arguments for giving citizenship application processing priority may or may not be counter-productive. After all, the more Canada is part of the global community, the more international travel is integral to the lives of Canadians, both Canadian PRs as well as citizens. So highlighting this personal interest or personal need is not overtly in conflict with Canada's approach to immigration policy and practice generally.

BUT as I have attempted to illuminate, this issue tends to push a hot-button concern among a large percentage of Canadians (including Canadians working in IRCC and more than a few MPs regardless of party affiliation). Just because the Liberals have rolled back the more drastic measures implemented when Harper was the PM does not mean that concerns about and opposition to those perceived to be passport-shopping or obtaining a passport-of-convenience is not of much concern to many if not most Canadians. On the contrary, and as more than a few comments triggered in this topic illustrate, this argument tends to trigger a negative reaction among many who see those focused on the need for a Canadian passport for traveling abroad as likely to be about passport-shopping or obtaining a passport-of-convenience.

Bottom-line, regarding individual international travel needs as an argument for giving citizenship application processing priority, it is NOT likely to have much positive weight, while in contrast it for sure risks triggering a negative reaction among many.

Here's a clue: if an argument tends to cause a more negative response than it helps, better for the cause to focus on other reasons, other arguments.


What the Law Mandates:

To my view this is a critical argument. The critical argument. Temporary contingencies can certainly justify temporary interruptions in proceeding with what is mandated by law. And, sure, how much so, for how long, DEPENDS on the situation. So a lengthy disruption of proceeding with the processing of citizenship applications, including knowledge of Canada testing and interviews, was easily anticipated and likely justified.

BUT we are now well past this being a temporary situation. It is clearly a long-term situation. The government is no longer justified waiting for conditions to change. It is time for the government to revise the manner and means of doing what the law mandates in order to do what the law mandates, given the real-world situation that exists, given the way things are now and likely to be for a rather long while to come.

I acknowledge that this is not the easiest argument to make. It is definitely not the flashiest or most exciting or sexiest argument to make. And sure, it is an argument that could use some personal-impact, real-people and humane considerations to give it more appeal. In this regard, to my view just the emotional and psychological weight of being in limbo deserves attention and emphasis. Especially for whole families.


An Overview:

The continuing stall in processing is largely about logistical issues. Not about policy. This actually makes it more difficult for activism to successfully motivate real change. I say this NOT to discourage but to be realistic about HOW to BEST influence the government to move in a positive direction.

Attacking Canadians generally for being racist is clearly a non-starter. That is not going to help.

Grossly exaggerated threats about what is at stake will weaken not strengthen the arguments pushing the government to make the necessary adjustments to get processing going again.

Some of the arguments posed here are at best a distraction (like the argument that testing should cease), more than a few are counter-productive (like offensive and alienating comments aimed at Canadians, civil servants, or those expressing differing viewpoints), and most seem to be demanding big change sooner than is practically feasible.

The latter is more important than what it appears many of the make-noise advocates realize. The reality is that citizenship application processing is stalled and the delays are going to make the overall timeline go much longer than it was, for example, a year ago. What is mostly at stake (apart from the grossly exaggerated claims oft times made here) is HOW LONG. Will this years situation mean it take two years instead of one to process most citizenship applications? OR LONGER? It is time for the government, in general, and IRCC in particular, to address the situation head-on and get things moving taking into consideration changes that need to be made.

There is no overnight fix in sight. This is going to take time. It appears that those behind pushing IRCC to more timely process citizenship applications need to be in it for the long haul, and in doing that jettison all the BS hyperbolic nonsense and counter-productive noise-making, and focus on the basics, including steady, reasoned, and temperate efforts to persuade lawmakers and bureaucrats that this is important and importantly it is mandated by the law. That it is time to take real, concrete steps toward adapting procedures for processing applications, including conducting the required verifications of knowledge of Canada and language.

 

[piotrqc]

One of the main commentators who try by all means, an umpteenth time to discourage people has again operated ...

I beg you, ignore this kind of negative people. Please.

Despite all the reasonable requests, and the repetitive questioning to which he was the subject, he still did not want to answer the essential questions asked, and always prefers to deviate the subject in order to direct it where he wants ... In areas pessimistic, gloomy, and most often negative. A clever form of manipulation. An implacable rhetoric.

More clearly: He will never dare to give his opinion on code 699, and the abuse of the union of workers to want to attach themselves to it at all costs. He will not talk about the call to order sent to them by the secretariat of the Treasury Board of Canada, nor the legal action that the union will take to counter these adjustments.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed, I repeat. And there is no taboo subject in this framework of freedom.

Code 699 and the union's refusal to return to work is the main topic and the key to the problem. But as you can see, he will never speak about it ... It is quite curious besides, Is there any conflict of interest? ... Who knows. (I am speculating, I admit it, but it seems probable to me).


Again, to suggest that this person avoids by all means discussing the 699 code. Worse, he qualifies people who discuss it as people who insult "insults ad hominem", "bs", and other expressions contemptuous ...

I would have liked him to discuss code 699 and the refusal of employees to return to work (Their legal action by their union, against the measures of call to order of the secretariat of the Canadian treasury board proves this theft, clearly and unambiguously).

Can he give us his opinion on this conflict? ... And also, will they be able to tell us if according to him the federal employees have more values than the employees of the private sector, or self-employed workers?

If his answer is no, will he be able to explain to us what his logic is to defend the extended vacations of these people there, at the expense of the taxpayer ... But not to worry about workers in the private sector or the self-employed?

In other words, more clearly: If private sector employees and self-employed workers can resume their work following the indications of the health authorities, why federal employees cannot? ... Would they be more sensitive to the virus than the average person? ... I do not understand. Really not. Explain the logic to me?


The stakes are now very clear to me. The only issue is: How long (how many more years) will we wait?

Assuming that we have nothing to lose, making noise, alerting the press, contacting our local deputies, and above all doing demonstrations, etc ... All these actions (legitimate, legal, permitted, I would remind you: Nothing does not oppose it as long as the rule of law is respected), all these actions can not be counterproductive .. It can only be beneficial.

In other words, and this is my opinion: Being afraid and refraining from doing something will only have one impact, guaranteed: No more time (years and years) to wait. Nothing else. The stake is therefore the reduction of the delays by a kind of lobyying.

The spousal sponsors did it, why not us?


And to conclude. Ask yourself with me the question: How does it bother that people speak out, contact their local MP, contact the press, make demonstrations to make their voices heard?
Ask yourself the question ... To even suggest that it leads me nowhere when these people claim it ... Why then argue and make such a great effort to discourage people?

, Piotr.

 

[ybjianada]

I have a regrettable observation to share with you, friends.

For those who still doubt the existence of systematic racism, of a certain latent xenophobia in Canadian society - Believe me, sincerely, I am sorry to share this with you, it saddens me at the highest level -, and also, case that interests us, for those which doubt the predominance of the ideological implicit character (Never confessed in a clear and direct way), here is a glaring comparative example:

1) The CBC article Kathleen Harris was kind enough to write about our topic of de facto blocking citizenship processes:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/covid19-pandemic-immigrants-citizenship-1.5720917

2) An article, more recent, dated Friday 23 October concerning spousal sponsors and the evolution of their case. On radio Canada (CBC in French).

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1743452/couples-separes-frontiere-pandemie-espoir-decouragement

Here is my remark: The first CBC article on citizenship tests and the current de facto blocking was perfect and beneficial in more than one respect for us, to make the situation known ... But one detail must have escaped redaction: The examples given in the article are a family of Filipinos + a single Syrian person.

Result: An unbearable wave of racist and xenophobic comments. At the time of writing, there are 1178 comments, almost the majority are hostile to immigrants '' go home if you are not happy, feel happy to be there, you should shut up and be grateful, canadians first! ... and other insults and criticisms of all kinds).

I don't know if it's a coincidence or special attention on their part, but Radio-Canada (as I explained, this is the same public media group. CBC is the national broadcaster in English, Radio- Canad in French, but it is the same structure) paid more attention in the second article on the spoual sponsor.

The article speaks in particular of the case of an Australian of Caucasian type who has found his Quebecoise wife of Caucasian type as well, but also of a Franco-Ontarian (still Caucasian), and of his expectation of Tim, a Texan.

Result: So far there have been a total of 2 comments. Not the slightest hint of racism or hatred in ...

Curious, right? ... Not really.


All this to say one thing: All the arguments that we can give you are not always honest. It is very likely that they are fueled by ideology. So we should not pay attention to it, and cling to the things that make this country a beautiful country: Freedom of speech, freedom to demonstrate, the rule of law, and freedom (and force) of the press.

Let them talk.

On the other hand, if we let passivity take over, these same people hostile to immigrants and their ideology and mentality will take over, and our wait will take years and years, and no one is going to care, if we don't do the right thing ourselves.

, Piotr.

Don't read the comment section of newspaper articles. It's usually a cesspool of racists, xenophobes, and red-neck nutters.

 

[andy10]

I contacted my MP..they sent me a form to fill...i filled it and sent it back to them...i got a response today and as expected it was useless:
With reference to your request for an update of your Citizenship application, IRCC has advised our office that your test has not been rescheduled yet and not sure how long it will be before it can be rescheduled. IRCC is looking into scheduling virtual tests.

 

[dpenabill]

How does it bother that people speak out, contact their local MP, contact the press, make demonstrations to make their voices heard?

If the manner in which they are doing so, or the content of what they express or argue, hurts the cause of getting citizenship application processing moving sooner, yeah that bothers those of us who are genuinely concerned and who sincerely advocate the government address the processing problems sooner rather than later.

Freedom of speech does not justify insults and diatribes. Freedom of speech may protect offensive speech from direct government restraint but it does not insulate it from being condemned or censored privately. Even the extent to which speech is free from government restraint, in Canada this is subject to limitations -- for good reasons, Canada does not enshrine free speech like the U.S. (where it is often abused and otherwise tends to let money talk more and more loudly).

There are some of us participating here who are very much in support of reasonable activism aimed at effectively persuading those in government to deal with the issues and take remedial measures to mitigate the delays the pandemic has caused. And some of us are indeed "bothered" by the extent to which more than a few here are undermining this effort, who are tainting the cause. (And this applies to much more than just citizenship application processing.)

As for the role of Code 699, the government website offers plenty of information about what this is, how it applies, who is affected, and related matters. Starting here: https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/covid-19/employee-illness-leave/other-leave-with-pay-699-usage-in-the-public-service.html and https://www.canada.ca/en/government/publicservice/covid-19/employee-illness-leave.html


Reminder: influencing government demands identifying the decision-makers who can actually implement changes, and those who can influence those decision-makers. Efforts to bring about changes generally should target both. With measures aimed at actually having a positive influence and arguments likely to be persuasive.

 

[piotrqc]

You still deviate the topic on very localized segments to continue to ignore the essential points, and unfortunately, you continue to despise the divergent opinions by calling them insults, instead of responding in a constructive way ... Really too bad .

Let me rephrase the question more specifically, @dpenabill :

What do you think of this precise announcement of the union?

http://psacunion.ca/psac-defends-699-leave-covid-related-child-care

And more precisely of this passage? ( Underlined and bold )

PSAC has filed a policy grievance after the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) changed the guidelines to restrict how public service workers can use “Other Leave With Pay” (699) to fulfill child care needs related to COVID-19.

Last month, TBS issued a “policy statement” that changed the eligibility criteria to use 699 leave as various jurisdictions across the country begin to announce plans to relax physical isolation measures and reopen businesses, schools and daycares.

Under the new policy federal government employees would be restricted in their use of 699 leave for child care-related reasons when and where schools and child care centres re-open.

The new policy does not recognize that some parents may have to keep their children at home for legitimate reasons despite the availability of schools or child care. Examples include:

• Some parents may determine that their child’s school or daycare is not yet a safe environment and/or has not implemented appropriate risk mitigation measures;

Do you find these requests and the reasons given reasonable?

This same question leads me to ask you again the questions you are avoiding. I will quote myself, previous message:

...

Can he give us his opinion on this conflict? ... And also, will they be able to tell us if according to him the federal employees have more values than the employees of the private sector, or self-employed workers?

If his answer is no, will he be able to explain to us what his logic is to defend the extended vacations of these people there, at the expense of the taxpayer ... But not to worry about workers in the private sector or the self-employed?

In other words, more clearly: If private sector employees and self-employed workers can resume their work following the indications of the health authorities, why federal employees cannot? ... Would they be more sensitive to the virus than the average person? ... I do not understand. Really not. Explain the logic to me?


...

Can you answer directly, without deviating or directing the subject to these few questions?

We have the, I think, the most important issues to move forward.

Most people who wish to express their dissatisfaction have already answered these questions ... And any opinions expressed in all possible legal ways certainly cannot be considered "BS" words, insults, or the like.

It is truly, with respect, contemptuous to insult the ideas of others.

The difference of opinion does not justify such contempt. You can express your disagreement, it is your right. Don't ridicule dissenting opinions.

, Piotr.

 

[dpenabill]

Can you answer directly, without deviating or directing the subject to these few questions?

Sorry, I do not follow what the question or point is. So no, I cannot directly answer whatever these questions are supposedly asking.

Moreover, I am not closely following all the nuances in the interpretation and application of measures intended to protect civil servants and workers during this pandemic. While those are probably related to how the government is approaching matters involving citizenship application processing, so are scores and scores of other factors and circumstances. I do not have the background or knowledge-base necessary to second-guess the logistical decision-making at that level within the hierarchy of government administration.

In general my interaction and transactions with Canadian government personnel have been very positive experiences. I am highly skeptical of many accusations so casually made here. Those accusations are simply inconsistent with what I have observed.

That noted, I recognize that bureaucracies do not adapt well to change and are particularly cumbersome when dealing with fluid, on-going change. And there is of course a significant measure of bureaucratic inertia ever-present in a bureaucracy as big as IRCC. So I am cognizant of the need to put some pressure on those who can influence the operational side of IRCC, to push for the government to take steps toward adapting to existing conditions in order to get processing moving again. It is time for them to get moving.

But again, the problem is rooted in logistics not policy. What is at stake are very lengthy delays versus the delays already wired into the situation.

I disagree with those here who claim everything else, everyone else, has managed to resume near-normal activities. I am not seeing that here. I still cannot get my expired drivers license renewed. I still cannot get my expired vehicle registration renewed. It has been very difficult to get the bloodwork done I need relative to ongoing medical issues (although as with many things these days, in the time of covid-19, being patiently politely persistent, and flexible, generally works well enough to get what is needed even if short of what is wanted). Shopping still tends to be hazardous and subject to vagaries. Just about everyone I know is very much in favour in keeping the border with the U.S. closed for non-essential travel (albeit, I admit some bias relative to that blankety-blank S* hole country, and my sentiments in that regard tend to be significantly more mild than those of many around me).

But all that is increasingly an aside. The situation now is for-sure long term, so it is time for the government to adapt to it and proceed to do what the law mandates. The Charter does dictate that fair procedure is a protected fundamental right here. Timely processing applications for privileges provided by law, like naturalized citizenship, is an inherent and necessary part of fair procedure. Time for the government to get going.

As for the characterization of some comments as insults and ad hominem, there is no need to belabor that. It would please me to see those sorts of comments cease and the discussion focus on ways to have a positive influence toward persuading the government to get processing back on track. After all, the point I was making was that such behavior tends to be counter-productive, tends to hurt the cause. All I am pushing for is to redirect efforts toward effective activism, toward taking actions which will HELP NOT HURT the effort to influence the government to be more proactive in adapting to this difficult situation.

 

[piotrqc]

Sorry, I do not follow what the question or point is. So no, I cannot directly answer whatever these questions are supposedly asking.

Wow, that's unbelievable ... You still found a way to deflect the main question, after pretending not to understand ... And you also found a way to defend the federal employees in their willful inaction. (You have to call things by their names), and their immoral and unjustified attachment to the 699 code.

There is a difference between not understanding a point ... or not wanting to understand it.

Have you even taken the effort to read the contents of the link I shared with you?

http://psacunion.ca/psac-defends-699-leave-covid-related-child-care


Yet it is simple as a question (And I am convinced that you have more than you need intellectual faculties to understand ...).

You just refuse to understand, in my opinion, because an honest answer will demolish your theses and your discouragement, and make them "obsolete". ('' Caduque '', if you know that term).

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), noting an abuse of the use of code 699 by federal employees. (and therefore, by extension, an abuse of public money, the money of honest taxpayers) introduced changes to the 699 procedure to limit abuse.

The union initially challenged them, with sometimes unreasonable arguments. Like the one who implies that they want to evade the judgment of the health authorities. In addition, they themselves want to judge the suitability of sending their children to open schools or not. As if they were apart, or had more value than other people ... Or that they were more sensitive to the virus than the average person ... It's borderline insulting, especially when it's done with the money of taxpayers. Whether they are citizens or not from elsewhere. Why don't you denounce this?

...
Under the new policy federal government employees would be restricted in their use of 699 leave for child care-related reasons when and where schools and child care centres re-open.

The new policy does not recognize that some parents may have to keep their children at home for legitimate reasons despite the availability of schools or child care. Examples include:

• Some parents may determine that their child’s school or daycare is not yet a safe environment and/or has not implemented appropriate risk mitigation measures;

Then, more recently, on October 16, the same union returned to the charge with a more virulent press release. This time they are really talking about "Legal Battle".

I invite you to read it too .. I hope you will take the effort to open this link too:

http://psacunion.ca/legal-battle-begins-protect-use-699-leave-during

Again, they have the right to even claim the moon if they want to, we can claim whatever we want. Even the most superfluous demands are allowed in democracies ... But in the end justice decides, and they will lose.

With all due respect to them, they are no more susceptible to the virus than honest employees in the private sector, or self-employed workers. This kind of mentality is insulting to all taxpayers. Taxpayers have rights too (whether they are citizens, residents, or even simple temporary workers)

Politicians have a duty to protect public money. It is an obligation that we often tend to forget ... The Scandinavian countries for example are far ahead on this point ... A former Danish minister, if I remember correctly, had to resign for having passed a taxi bill in her ministry fees, it had caused a scandal and the pressures had forced her to resign ... Because public opinion felt that she could just as well have taken the bus! ... This is an example to illustrate how public money should be sacred.

In general my interaction and transactions with Canadian government personnel have been very positive experiences. I am highly skeptical of many accusations so casually made here. Those accusations are simply inconsistent with what I have observed.

With all due respect, @dpenabill , the fact that you have had satisfactory experiences in the past with federal employees is not a criteria.

Your intuitions and personal feelings are not objective criteria for judging a present situation.

It is a way of thinking emotionally. Non-rational.

But all that is increasingly an aside. The situation now is for-sure long term, so it is time for the government to adapt to it and proceed to do what the law mandates. The Charter does dictate that fair procedure is a protected fundamental right here. Timely processing applications for privileges provided by law, like naturalized citizenship, is an inherent and necessary part of fair procedure. Time for the government to get going.

Of course, for once I agree with you! ... This point could be raised during the next stage, the judicial stage of the complaint to the federal court, if the lobbying by the massive contact of the deputies, the pressure of the press, and especially the demonstrations (very soon) don't give satisfactory results ... But let's not discourage people for nothing. I remain optimistic for the stages of protests and making some legitimate noise that will come early next month.

The example of spousal sponsors has shown us that activism and lobbying can work. Let's give people hope rather than discouragement, don't you agree, @dpenabill ?

... You know just as much as I do how heavy and complicated legal challenges can be ... Even more when there is a powerful union opposite, which is also lobbying on its side ...

I disagree with those here who claim everything else, everyone else, has managed to resume near-normal activities. I am not seeing that here. I still cannot get my expired drivers license renewed. I still cannot get my expired vehicle registration renewed. It has been very difficult to get the bloodwork done I need relative to ongoing medical issues (although as with many things these days, in the time of covid-19, being patiently politely persistent, and flexible, generally works well enough to get what is needed even if short of what is wanted). Shopping still tends to be hazardous and subject to vagaries. Just about everyone I know is very much in favour in keeping the border with the U.S. closed for non-essential travel (albeit, I admit some bias relative to that blankety-blank S* hole country, and my sentiments in that regard tend to be significantly more mild than those of many around me).

Covid is in the rise and not going away in years. we need to adapt to the new normal and put everything back to work with safety measures. In private sector, i cannot just disappear for 8 months without work because of covid. We need solutions to the extensive delays.

 

[deadbird]

Hey @dpenabill and @piotrqc , I'm going to go out on a limb and intervene here. You guys are model Canadians, you really care about our country and how to make it better. But let's not bicker. We are better united.

@dpenabill : I quite enjoy your long form arguments and elegant elocution. Also, you seem to be for the cause of preventing citizenship delays. I appreciate this. Thanks for your support. You may not agree on the method but you are certainly for the same goal.

@piotrqc: t'as raison. The government is taking too long to take effective action. En fait, it's unclear why schools are being forced to open while citizenships tests are shut. Why? C'est bizarre!

So let's work together to exercise our democratic and very Canadian rights to help our government take the right decision. They just need some encouragement from concerned but active Canadians. It could be gentle or forceful. But it's necessary. There's just no excuse left.

 

[canuck78]

Got your point and I prefer not to start arguing with you on this. If granted citizenship is not urgent right now then stop taking people's applications and stop collecting fees until they are able to restart everything.When you take someone's money for a service and you aren't able to provide that service, it's called fraud period.

Would ask for a refund and withdraw your application if you want your money back.

 

[canuck78]

You dont know that. For some people ‘like us’ it impact our day to day lives. I have lost 2 jobs interviews because of my current citizenship, employer cannot get you in writing that you are not accepted because they want canadian citizens. So justifying urgency is impossible.

As part of the employment screening survey they ask a question: are you a citizen of one of the following countries: .... and yes unfortunately iam ... hence im living hell in my current job trying to get better opportunity to my family.

everything need to adapt to the new normal. We cant classify what should adapt and what should not... workers are asked to work from home indefinitely! So? Put everything else on the hook?

If you had actually read what K wrote and quoted the relevant parts of what I said you would have seen that I actually suggested that PRs who need citizenship to be approved for certain jobs would be the one category of people that warrant the potential expense and risk of exposure of doing in person testing at the moment.

. "There would need to be an assessment as to whether such a high cost and small number of applicants processed would make oral tests a good option. Perhaps this may be an option for situations where urgent processing is needed. For example in situations where citizenship is needed for a person to get a certain job in Canada this might be a good option. If a person wants citizenship as soon as possible to qualify for a visa to work in the US the potential risk of exposure to covid would likely not be worth it. As I have mentioned before having citizenship will not make a large difference in people’s everyday lives for most so determining the urgency of restarting testing will need to be considered. If it won’t impact most people’s everyday lives is it worth the expense of setting up a new system or the risk of exposure of employees or test takers. I understand that people are anxious to receive their "

 

[canuck78]

We are in exceptional times which require a bit of initiative and forward thinking to do things differently. Excuses can always be made on why something cannot be done and why things are difficult. Things have been difficult for a lot of professions and people but things are being changed to deal with this. I am sorry but I cannot buy the excuse here by others that this is not important and it is difficult to manage e.tc and not a priority for the government. If it is not a priority, has IRCC staff and the minister stopped taking their salary as they can't do anything? Have IRCC released a statement that they will not do anything in this service line until COVID passess? This is going to stick around for atleast 2 more years if not longer. Any vaccine if and when comes out is not going to be 100% effective. Government needs to adapt their service offerings accordingly.

Let's review some facts here:

- Schools are open now
- All childcare and related activities are open now with effective social distancing

If these locations are open why can't government go ahead and implement testing effectively. It is because of the following reasons:
- Most of IRCC staff are on 699 leave. Which means that they are taking full salary without doing anything. Delays in AORs is a great example of this. There is no social distancing required to open, review and input applications but that did not happen for a long time and it is still very slow
-They have a strong union which is using COVID to justify reduced work. Aren't we entitled to some accountability from government officials being paid from our taxes?
- Why hasn't there been any communication with us the impacted stakeholders? If there are problems why doesn't IRCC and the government publicly communicate those?

The significant delay now does not pass the smell test. I urge anyone reading to decide for themselves what is going on here, what is appropriate and if there should be any accountability from IRCC.

Do yoy have proof that most of IRCC staff are of leave? There are lots of other applications being processed so being redistributed to work in other departements or working on online hearings is much more likely.

 

[canuck78]

shoot,
that is really aggravating. I thought that all the delays are only in the face to face steps....
clearly they have not mastered remote desktop at immigration canada just yet...

Most are getting their GCMS notes with no pro

Without citizenship, you can't vote; without the vote, you can't have your voice heard in this country. So what is a real priority here? Perhaps, for some officials, they prefer fewer new citizenships, cuz they get those people's tax and fees pmt anyway, but without the need to hear those ppl's voices? Hence, our voice is useless basically, it will only be ignored, no matter what we do.

People keep talking about fees but the fees don't even cover the processing costs. Canada isn't getting rich on immigration feea. They have purposefully been kept low so it doesn't prevent most people from applying for various immigration programs. Your theory of preventing new citizens makes no sense. This delay is related to covid. There are large numbers of citizenship applications being approved every year.

 

[canuck78]

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/10/22/its-a-racist-system-some-couples-say-canadas-visa-system-is-cruelly-extending-their-covid-19-separations.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMedia&utm_campaign=National&utm_content=crulracistsystem&fbclid=IwAR23FUUFj441fTHlw0blB1x1kDsvHXLiGQM0Rh0Y6YthkRLhiDeE2svs7qE

Just because people get denied a visitor visa it doesn't mean it is due to racism. Most spouses do not come to Canada for a temporary visit they intend to move to Canada so they don't qualify for the same visas as a visitor coming for a 2 week holiday. The people being rejected are from various ethnicities, religions, countries, etc. so not sure how that makes Canadian policies racist. If you couldn't sponsor a spouse from abroad that would be racism. If these couples had read the applications or done some research they would have realized that they should be expecting the sponsorship application to take approximately a year although some applications take longer especially if an interview is needed or if Canada doesn't have a good information sharing relationship with their home country which can delay security and criminality screenings. If you get pregnant on your honeymoon and know that the sponsorship process will take at least a year then it is unfortunately likely that couples will be separated during birth. Other couples use birth control because they want to be together during the pregnancy and birth. It is very hard and expensive to deport someone so Canada wants to make sure that they are approving real marriages and relationships because there is unfortunately immigration fraud.